Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 71

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 65

←

Archive 69

→

νοητικός

Latest comment: 10 years ago19 comments2 people in discussion

There appear to be varying translations of νοητικός, the Noetics : The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church Oxford Reference eISBN: 9780199566716 shows (from Gk. νοητικός, ‘pertaining to the mind or intellect’).A term applied to an early 19th-cent. group of thinkers, ... and pay up for more detail. Wikt:noetic gives the English adjective as Of or pertaining to the mind or intellect or Originating in or apprehended by reason. Other online sources vary. . . dave souza, talk 06:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

What is your background thinking to posting this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

My thought was that words can be notoriously difficult to translate into a modern definition, even in the same language. For example, in the early 19th century, materialism could refer to deism. . dave souza, talk 09:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Valid general point but are we using any source which causes such a concern?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll slip in a quick remark in case your post is just about word meaning. Nous, intellect and intelligence are all the same word at least in philosophical discussions. They are just Greek-based, Latin-based and French-based versions. (I'd be open to discussion about whether they have acquired new additional meanings in some modern types of jargons, which would be normal. Mind is also sometimes used in modern translations of classical texts, probably in order to avoid confusion with the way that words like intellect and intelligence may be used by psychologists or the media or whatever. But I recently read Hans-Georg Gadamer calling it's original meaning the highest form of awareness. Aristotle, who is maybe not in agreement with Plato on this, insists it is not reason itself, but it gives the capability to reason (NE book 6). His definition is of course one that lasted a long time. In the 1600s people like Hobbes pushed for simplification of terms and concepts and he simply translated it as Understanding.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The obvious point is that our articles are for general readers, not specialists in philosophy. The definition above shows that, in theology, νοητικός has other definitions. My conclusion is that intelligent design is one possible translation of the term, but is not a necessary translation, nor is it the most explanatory to a lay audience. My guess is that Plato would not have had the concept of an intelligence test. . dave souza, talk 09:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

One term can have several aspects to its meaning, but generally there will be a common thread. If there is not a common thread then we have a problem on WP and often end up creating dab pages. You might want to look at the intellect article and its history on the talk page. I do not really see these observations adding up to any practical suggestion though. Just to take one link in the chain, "intelligence test" obviously deserves its own article and will presumably have one. Intelligence is (even today) just part of the compound term, and so there is an obvious solution there. I would say we have the same thing with "intelligent design movement". The word movement is not always stated but everyone can understand that "intelligent" and "design" are being used as short for a compound concept whenever someone says something like "according to intelligent design", and they'll need to listen to the context and pick it up. But this in no way proves that the term "intelligent design" has now got a new "basic" meaning.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Noting your similar remark on teleological argument I have given an answer there relevant to that article, but maybe it is useful to give more detailed citations here also, for the sake of editors not watching that discussion, and who did not look up the ones I posted above.

A History of Greek Philosophy, Volume 5, The Later Plato and the Academy {{citation}}: |first= missing |last= (help); Missing pipe in: |first= (help). If dispute (unfortunately) cause any need to load this article with footnotes we can add that Guthrie calls the argument of Plato "intelligent design" on page 363. I will not add cites to other uses of the words intelligent and design, but as you know, the two words are consistently used together in MOST sources about arguments from design, irrespective of period.
Sedley, David (2007), Creationism and Its Critics in Antiquity, University of California Press. As discussed already, the whole book, which is only about classical writers, is categorized by the library of congress as being about "intelligent design" (which it equates with teleology, as a secondary term in parentheses). Sedley uses the exact term on pages 60 and 122. On neither of these occasions is he talking about the modern movement. Once again he uses the two terms apart on other occasions.
Ahbel-Rappe, Sara, Socrates: A Guide for the Perplexed, p. 27. Nice direct quote: "In one passage, Socrates appears to give the very first argument from intelligent design to demonstrate the existence of an intelligent creator god". Note also here the use of the term "argument from intelligent design".
McPherran, Mark (1996), The Religion of Socrates, The Pennsylvania State University Press. "Intelligent design" is used 5 times on pages 273-274. In this case several of the mentions are being said by this expert to be actually in the Greek text. In other words he says he is translating from Xenophon. This is referred to as a "teleological argument" on both those pages, and also pages 278, and 294. On 288 it is a "design argument". And so on.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a side remark: these are definitely NOT cherry picked as sources which luckily happened to use these types of words. (If I wanted to do that I could swamp this page, which is not a good way of working.) These are selected as what seem to be pretty much the strongest recent sources on the subject of the apparent beginning of the teleological argument with Socrates. They are published by strong publishers, and widely cited and in the cases of McPherran there are several versions of the same basic text that have been re-published in various authoritative editions about classical matters.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe of interest here:

Gordon, Jill, Plato's Erotic World: From Cosmic Origins to Human Death, p. 8. It says that Plato's Timaeus, "indicates that eros is an original part of the disembodied soul as created by the demiurge and, as such, is part of the noetic or intelligent design of the cosmos". --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

And I'd mentioned seeing a journal article version of this before, but the book is easier to cite:

Runia, David, Philo of Alexandria and The "Timaeus" of Plato, Brill. This gives many terms in a discussion once again purely about details of classical design arguments: "noetic design" is on page 161. We should keep this one handy for discussion of Hellenistic philosophy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for choosing what seem to you to be the strongest recent sources on this subject. As indicated in earlier discussions, I'm rather time limited, and it takes a lot of time to analyse and comment on each source. As an example of the sources shown in earlier discussion, Ayala, clearly uses argument from design as the generic term and uses "intelligent design" to refer to modern ID'. I'll respond to each in turn as time permits, starting with the first couple. . dave souza, talk 09:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to get one thing out of the way (again) no one seems to disagree with your remarks that "argument from design" is probably the most common term used in various respectable sources, both for the IDM and other versions. Teleological argument is also pretty common. And furthermore I agree that "argument from intelligent design", while certainly not just something that comes up by chance, is not the most common term. (It would be surprising if it were, because clearly all these terms are short forms for something that is hard to even fit in one sentence. They are all, to keep it still in an abbreviated form, arguments for the existence of God, or an intelligent designer in any case. So we also see sources saying things like "argument from design" but then immediately "for an intelligent creator" and so on.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Beat me to it! We seem to be in agreement here that argument from design is probably the most common term, can we agree that it is a more appropriate article title than intelligent design for the topic of what could be called "wider intelligent design"? . . dave souza, talk 10:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Currently the article for arguments from design is teleological argument, which is also not really a big problem as long as redirects for argument from design go to it. But what happens when someone searches for "intelligent design"? That seems to be the question for this talkpage.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Those searching for "intelligent design" come to a dab header For the philosophical "argument from design", see Teleological argument, and an opening sentence "Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism based on the argument from design". The first two sections of the article also discuss this connection. I'm minded to make some improvements to the Terms section, when time permits. . dave souza, talk 14:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok, have now made the link with design argument "intelligent design" explicit in the "term" section. .. dave souza, talk 17:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds logical. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

BTW, worth remarking that there are other common variations of terminology which seem kind of "standard". Do not forget "intelligent design argument". Reasonably common I think, and applied to both IDM and non-IDM.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The Scope of Intelligent Design and the Discovery institute in this Article

Latest comment: 10 years ago34 comments12 people in discussion

It looks like the article makes a necessary connection between the Discovery Institute and Intelligent Design. However, based on my reading, it seems as though the Discovery Institute doesn't have a copyright or any other kind of monopoly on ID. While many ID proponents may have a relationship with Discovery Institute, it seems the relation is one of voluntary ideological or sociopolitical affiliation rather than a necessary one, or one by definition. Given that the relationship is voluntary, it seems more than likely that among the hordes of ID supporters, there are many who have no connection to the Discovery Institute. If this is the case (it seems to be the case according to an exchange between philosopher of biology Michael Ruse and Christian philosophy Alvin Plantinga (http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/alvin-plantinga-and-intelligent-design/42185). Do we have any reason to say all ID advocates are DI affiliates? If Jerry Coyne wakes up tomorrow and decides ID must be more plausible, is he required to register with DI? What if someone believes, for instance that their tribal deity intervened in some kind of creation process, are they now de facto Discovery Institute members? I wouldn't think so. The association between the ideological position and the activist group needs to be more closely delineated. BabyJonas (talk) 04:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with this article? You seem to be confusing "leading proponents" with "supporters" and "advocates". Also, you seem to be thinking of ID as some sort of "phlosophy". It is not. It is a legal, political and PR ploy to circumvent US court rulings forbidding the teaching of religion in public schools. The dilineation you seek already exists in the hatnote at the very top of the article. Other versions of the argument from design that are treated in the article on the Teleological argument. The scope of the article has been discussed ad nauseum here already, as has the fact that all of the leading proponents are associated with the DI. See the archives. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It could be worded better. For one, the relationship is not a necessary one. In other words, members of Association of African Historians would necessarily have to be qualified or work in history or related fields. But leading proponents of ID do not necessarily have to be from the Discovery Institute, so this absolute statement will need to be very carefully verified. Instead, if the goal is not to make an arbitrary absolute statement but to expound on the campaign by the Discovery Institute to promote ID, then there are better ways to convey this information. In addition, could you point me to any source that is relatively recent, say within the last 12-18 months that says that all proponents of ID are members of Discovery? The reason I'm particular about this is because of the recent story of Ball State University Professor Eric Hedin. I'm looking for any clue that he's a member of Discovery and I can't find any. That, and Plantinga, certainly a leading proponent of ID in analytical philosophy has no apparent link to the Discovery Institute. BabyJonas (talk) 06:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Neither comes close to being a leading proponent by a long shot. And no, we don't need a source from the last 12-18 months absent any evidence that the situation has changed. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dominus, it appears that you deleted someone else's comment on this page. Did you do that intentionally? Also, can you explain how you come to the conclusion that they are not leading proponents? BabyJonas (talk) 06:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did remove it intentially, as it violated WP:TPG and WP:NPA, and amounted to nothing more that trolling and vandalism. I came to that conclusion by reading the reliable sources quoted in the article, which identify the leading proponents. You seem to be confusing "proponent" with merely "supporter" or "advocate" again. This has been discussed many times on this talk page before. Search for "leading proponents". Also, see Intelligent design movement. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, your edits do not conform with what the reliable sources say. ID is very much the DI's baby. If you have any evidence that there are leading proponents not associted with the DI, please produce them. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the wording you revert to is that it is in principle unverifiable. It's impossible to verify that all leading proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, and thus cannot be an encyclopedic claim. Citing court testimony from 2005 is certainly not representative of current state of affairs, and while citing court testimony certainly appears to lend prima facie credibility, this credibility is not due to the source, but due to the fact that the individual testified in court. Testifying in court on it's own doesn't make for a credible source, especially for a claim like this. It's certainly not a legal finding and a record of court proceedings. We need to work with current sources, verifiable claims, and credible sources. The problem with the claim is that of it's two citations, the second doesn't actually support the claim ("Intelligent Design and Peer Review"), and the first is, as you know, personal testimony in court. Altogether, this is insufficient evidence to support the starkly absolute claim in question. For a start, can you look at source #4, "Intelligent Design and Peer Review" and find where it supports the claim that "Leading proponents of intelligent design are associated with the Discovery Institute"? I'm trying to find the quote in the source and could use your help. Thanks. BabyJonas (talk) 07:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The testimony is expert opinion, not "personal testimony", and stands. There's been a lot of checking over time, and all of the proponents shown to be leading have been directly associated with the DI. You seem to be making a supposition based on your own opinion, a published reliable source is needed. dave souza, talk 07:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Being called to give expert opinion in one court case does not make her an expert by Wikipedia standards. Neither does having an expert opinion make consensus on Wikipedia. Given that the second source actually fails to support the claim, and the claim is strong, this one citation is simply not enough to justify the strength of the claim. But that's not even the fatal problem with the source. The fatal problem is, if you actually read the testimony of this expert, her claim is not about the leading proponents of intelligent design as a position or theory, but on the leading proponents of intelligent design movement. The source doesn't even say what you claim it says. Look for the question Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement? on Day 6 of the transcript. In the end, the single source you are citing doesn't even say what you think she says. BabyJonas (talk) 08:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Intelligent design is not a theory, nor does it exist independent of the DI. It is an collection of ad hoc ploys to evade court decisions by removing overt references to God from its predecessor, Creation Science. All of these ploys were formulated and promulgated by persons associated with the DI, without exception. There is no evidence whatsoever that there have been any significant contributions to ID from outside the DI. All unaffiliated supporters and advocates of ID merely regurgitate the concepts developed by the DI. Unless you have sources that directly state that there exist leading proponents that are not affiliated with the DI, there is no reason to change the text. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Baby Jonas, I'll answer your main query: The reason I'm particular about this is because of the recent story of Ball State University Professor Eric Hedin. I'm looking for any clue that he's a member of Discovery and I can't find any. No, he is not a member, AFAIK, but the DI fought (and lost) this battle for him.

"Hedin was not without his supporters, as the Seattle-based intelligent design group, The Discovery Institute, argued in favor of Hedin's course in the name of academic freedom." Christian Post.
The DI created, promoted, and delivered a petition in his favor. Yahoo News.

Here's the petition, and here's proof it's a DI project.

Have you found any other group unaffiliated with or not under the sway of the DI that supported Hedin? Yopienso (talk) 10:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Yopienso, that's useful background for a topic that should be discussed somewhere: possibly in Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns. . dave souza, talk 15:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the eternal problem here. A group here has gone through an immense range of things to have the article ignore/exclude the reality that ID is broader than the DI version. There was longstanding sourced coverage in the article of historical ID that immensely predates the the DI; they removed it. Their premise/argument is that all ID that is not the DI version is not ID, it is "teleological argument". It's going to take a broader effort with more external eyes to get this fixed. North8000 (talk) 11:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The historical design argument is covered in an appropriate article, this article is about ID which is shown by reliable sources to be a specific adaptation of that argument. It's going to take very good sources to change it in the way you suggest, and your suggestion that you want to "get it fixed" indicates an uncollegiate way of thinking. Please make properly sourced proposals for improvement of the article, and desist from vague allegations about other editors. . dave souza, talk 14:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Yopienso, DI creating petitions in support of Hedin is not indicative of affiliation. One can start a petition to support anything, regardless of affiliation. To summarize the overall situation here:

Hedin and DI are not known to be affiliated. DI's circulating of a petition in support of Hedin does not entail affiliation.
DI has no known copyright, ownership or any formal control of any Intelligent Design theory or pseudo-theory.
We have only one source cited in support of the claim.
The cited source's statements do not amount to support of the claim that DI has any kind of exclusive relationship with ID. The citation has the witness Barbara Forrest affirm that the Discovery Institute is "...a leader in the intelligent design movement." and that "All of the leaders are..." associated with the Discovery Institute.

The intelligent design movement is not the same thing as Intelligent Design.
If the witness' statement is true, that all of the leaders were associated with the DI in 2005 (when the statement was made), this still does not confer any exclusive relationship between the Discovery Institute and ID.
The cited statement was made in 2005.
The source is an expert witness called up by the prosecution in a case about Intelligent Design, thus representing a biased or opinionated source, and makes it necessary, at minimum, to use in-text attribution as per WP:RS.
According to the same source, going over the court testimony about the nature of Forrest's qualifications relevant to her role as an expert witness in the case demonstrates that she falls into the class of Self-Published Source, which according to WP:SOURCES may only be used as sources of information on themselves.

Given these issues, do we actually have any reasons to keep the text as is?

EDIT- Also, Yopienso, your question, referring to groups "under the sway of" DI doesn't sound like objective wording to me. I don't know how one can objectively measure which group is "under the sway of" which other group. What we can do, instead is go by available sources. Available sources don't show any connection between Ball State professor Eric Hedin, a proponent of ID in the department of physics at a state university, and the Discovery Institute. This, combined with all the above make for compelling reason to revisit the depiction of the relationship between the Discovery Institute and Intelligent Design in this article. BabyJonas (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Baby Jonas, how does this affect the statement that leading proponents are all associated with the DI? Is Hedin a leading proponent of ID? In other words, has he contributed anything significant to the theory/movement? Also, I don't think there is anything in the article that attempts to create an exclusive relationship between ID and the DI. The verb promulgate means to make popular, and the DI certainly popularized this form of creationism. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Rather than that particular statement, what it affects more is the endemic-in-the article assertion that intelligent design is exclusively the Discovery Institute version. North8000 (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

@BabyJonas: You have produced exactly zero evidence to the contrary. Hedin is certainly not a leading proponent of ID by any stretch of the imagination. Nor can I find any evidence that he is a proponent at all. Nor that he has published anything on the topic at all, or contributed to ID in any way. As far as I can tell, he merely recommended materials written by the DI and the leading proponents associated with it. At this point, we actually don't know anything concrete, as he isn't talking and neither is the university. We can't tell from reliable sources that he even believes in ID.

Now Gonzales, on the other hand, is a leading proponent, and is associated with the DI. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

So the unsourced assertion endemic in the current article is that intelligent design is exclusively the Discovery Institute version. Historical sourced ID info that was in the article (which by example,. shows that the assertion is not only unsourced but false) was removed. A good starting point (and specific proposal) would be to restore that sourced historical ID material North8000 (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

North8000, there was never any "historical sourced ID info" that wasn't affiliated with the DI; ID is not the same thing as the teleological argument. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Yest there was, see below for an example. North8000 (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

MisterDub and Dominus- two individuals were presented as leading proponents of ID, Alvin Plantinga, based on his prominence as a philosopher and open advocacy of ID, and Eric Hedin, who taught Intelligent Design at a class in Ball State University. In addition, another group called Foundation for Thought and Ethics, a group that filed an Amicus Curiae in the Dover vs Kitzmiller trial is an advocate of ID, according to their website, and are not a part of the Discovery Institute. If you do not consider these groups "leading proponents", then it is contingent upon you to provide an explanation why and a coherent, testable definition of what "leading proponent" entails, rather than merely declaring who is or isn't a leading proponent. In fact, barring any clear definition of this term, I'd like to use a clearer phrase for important advocates of ID. BabyJonas (talk) 23:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

A proponent is a person who has made an original contribution to the concept, someone who has actually proposed something. In this case, people like Thaxton, Johnson, Behe, Dembski and Meyer are leading proponents. They came up with the idea. Other supporters and advocates are merely regurgitating what they proposed. Precious little of the content of ID comes from individuals not associated with the DI. Plantinga has not contributed much content to the concept (it's not even clear if he even agrees with ID; he claims not to), and Hedin has contributed nothing (and again, we don't know for sure whether he even agrees with ID). Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment Wikipedia articles are about concepts and topics, not about words, which is something that seems to escape people on a regular basis. For instance, while cocaine is sometimes called coke, we don't have a cocaine section in the Coca cola article nor a cola section in the Cocaine article. To use an example I've explained to North before, the homophobia article is about the concept of homophobia, not the word homophobia. This article is about the concept of intelligent design, not the phrase "intelligent design." The concept of intelligent design contemporaneously is limited to the context surrounding the DI. The *wording" "intelligent design" as used historically referred to the teleological argument and this is why at the top of the page it very clearly states "This article is about the form of creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute. For the philosophical "argument from design", see Teleological argument. For other uses of the phrase, see Intelligent design (disambiguation)." To cover other contexts of ID in this article would be redundant to the TA article and would not fit within the topic at hand. N^oformation ^Talk 22:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This has been explained to him countless times before. WP:IDHT applies in spades, so don't waste your breath (or electrons). Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Noformation, that is not correct. Please see "When word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject" in wp:NotADictionary. So Noformation's post is merely in error, whereas Dominus Vobisdu's post is a erroneous insult and personal attack built upon an error. North8000 (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I think BabyJonas has made a valid point about a significant problem with this article and its sourcing. Is it true that a history of ID that predates DI involvement was removed from this article? Cla68 (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm very short on time but will explain that what I meant by "under the sway" of was "influenced by" or "supported by". For example, the Foundation for Thought and Ethics offers "our books," most of which are written by DI fellows. (Oddly , it doesn't tout Of Pandas . . . ) Bill Dembski is part of their leadership.

It's silly or dishonest to disregard the DI's support of Hedin. Yopienso (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

A group's book recommendations don't necessarily suggest they are "under the sway" of another group, nor do shared memberships. Let's keep in mind the issue here- the page's conflation of Intelligent Design and the Discovery Institute. There is no problem with saying the Discovery Institute plays a vital role in research, promotion and discussion of Intelligent Design. Maybe ID even originated with them (as some might believe). But we simply don't have sufficient evidence for the claim that Intelligent Design is being promoted (singlehandedly, the text implies) by one group. Having a Google exec on an Apple board doesn't mean Google and Apple are the same company, or that one is "under the sway" of the other. Do you have any stronger evidence that Discovery Institute is the only group advocating Intelligent Design? BabyJonas (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how to say this differently than others have... We are discussing two concepts. One is an "argument from design", which is an argument for the existence of a god. The other is a political movement created by a select group of people to further a specific educational agenda. These two topics are distinct. They belong in distinct articles. A consensus of editors has decided that the argument from design is most commonly referred to as the "teleological argument". A different consensus of editors has determined the political movement is most commonly referred to as "intelligent design". That's why they are so named. Merging the articles because they sometimes share a common phrase would be appropriate for a dictionary, but not an encyclopedia. A political movement is not even in the same conceptual ballpark as an argument for the existence of god, and as long as they are separate ideas, they should be handled separately.

Here's what we would need to make a change.

A consensus that the common name for the "argument from design" was "intelligent design"; we could then rename that article "Intelligent design (argument)"
A consensus that the phrase "intelligent design" referred to the "argument from design" approximately as frequently as the political movement; we could then make Intelligent design a disambiguation page, and name the two articles "Intelligent design (argument)" and "Intelligent design (movement)".
New sources which showed that a significant portion of promotion and popularity for the political movement has come from outside the discovery institute. Such sources would need to be very strong, because we currently have very strong sources which say it is exclusively from the DI. We could then change the article to reflect influences from organizations other than the DI.

Arguing any of these points isn't going to get us anywhere. We've done that for years already. What we need are sources fitting in one of the above 3 categories. — Jess· Δ ♥ 03:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

@North8000-I'm not part of any "group" here. I knew nothing about this subject at all before conducting my totally independently initiated and conducted library research to lend help in ongoing disputes at Creation Science. I've since collected scores, literally, of impeccable references focusing on this very subject. Not a single one of them - literally - not a one of them is as fixated on diminishing DI's dominance than the most diehard "devil's advocate" editors who won't let go of it on this space. Think about this, and what it must mean in terms of why there's so much push back against these "devil's advocates" with their fringy complaints over the DI association. The commensurate attention devoted to the antecedents or cousins of ID, such as teleological argument or theistic evolution--these sources deal with them and as we should. Theistic evolution might need a bit more development or explication here, but ..... it's still demonstrably separable from ID and isn't in the same universe of complaints you're still stuck in. I do not understand why you keep returning to this as if it were some scratched thread in the vinyl on the WP turntable or something with the "group" business. This is what you don't seem to get: you think you're fighting "the WP in-group" but you're really swimming upstream against "the finest RL sources". Professor marginalia (talk) 04:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

BabyJonas, the whole question of how ID and the DI correlate and interrelate has been discussed at length here. The key point isn't that the DI "owns" ID in any shape or form; rather, it has drawn ID proponents into its fold (necessarily, since ID predates DI). A good example is Casey Luskin, who apparnetly started out as a proponent of ID, who only later moved into the fold of the DI. Plantinga's relationship with ID has always been a bit of a special case - rather than being a proponent of ID, Plantinga's work has been an inspiration for it (or, less charitably, provided intellectual cover). And Plantinga is connected with the DI, having participated in their fora and written for their publications (here, to pick one of the first things that pops up on a Google search).

Why do we mention this link? Because notable sources make the connection. And why do they find it worth mentioning? Because ID was promoted as a legitimate scientific discipline. And it's very unusual to find a scientific discipline that finds its centre not in academe, not in professional societies, but in a think-tank. Contrast this with, say, plant ecology (to pick a field whose origins I know something about). If you look at the field of plant ecology in the early 20th century you could call it a field whose intellectual roots lay in the work of Eugenius Warming. But you could not say that all the major proponents of the field were linked to any one institution, professional society, or school of thought. Rather, 26 years after the publication of Warming's Plantesamfund both the British Ecological Society and the Ecological Society of America existed, as did many other professional bodies in other countries. If two and a half decades after the publication of Plantesamfund, the intellectual core of plant ecology had not moved beyond a group of colleagues of Warming's, supported primarily by a single wealthy benefactor, it would have been seen as an oddity, as an idea on life support which had failed to develop a research agenda of its own. Even Behe saw the risk that ID faced if it failed to develop its own corpus of empirical research, and 20 years after the publication of DBB, his concerns have come to pass. Guettarda (talk) 06:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Peace, peace. I'm thinking this whole section is basically a debate of whether Wikipedia should show the English language meaning or the entirety of something or focus to just the most common current usage. There can for example be a 'teleological argument' that is not the unstated '(for the existence of god)', but the common usage is a shorthand version that unfortunately in proper English phrasing is meaning only an argument style or method of rhetoric. There are teleologically stated arguments in biology or in psychology or in espionage, and one could put an argument *against* the existence of god into teleological form. Similarly the phrase 'Intelligent Design' with capitals is obviously intended as a specific topic label and the concept is most commonly associated with what DI says but equally well has wider current applications or earlier existences and other meanings in the course of English writing. I'll suggest wiki try to keep a role of being simple WP:SIZE articles that speaks to the preponderance and is obvious about it, and that other items go to disambiguation. After all, it's not like there are not philosophy sites or encyclopedia sites or dictionaries with more direct authority and greater extent on a topic than Wikipedia, that's who we look to for cites. Markbassett (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Concrete proposal discussion

Latest comment: 10 years ago25 comments3 people in discussion

In the discussion above I think we've lost track of my proposal and its reasoning. I wrote:

I see two extreme options: turn this article into a dab, or try to create a unified discussion of intelligent design here. But this would create a somewhat redundant article. But probably the most practical idea is something like what we have at intellect (a related term with a related problem), which is like a "long dab". Then the material in this article just needs a new home with a name more suiting its boundaries.

Apparently North missed that I was actually proposing the third option. And Dave Souza has said "If I read this correctly, you seem to be proposing that this article should be moved to what could be called intelligent design creationism, and a tighter version shown here." This is not really what the intellect article is. It is basically just a long dab. Let me go through some other alternatives:

Just tighten this article so that it is only about the "theory" of the IDM. But

This does not even attempt to solve the biggest concern people have about this article. (See my analogy of naming a Human race article being about one race.)
This would mean creating what is effectively an article section that should be more or less then same as a section of the teleological argument article and possibly also the intelligent design movement article. Editors should be able to put their best efforts into ONE article. (POV fork problem.)

Finally allow some additional information about other usages of the term. But then we really would have a pure POV fork of teleological argument.
Delete teleological argument and move all main discussion of that subject here. I personally would find this acceptable, but it is not needed and then we would have the reverse problem of what we have today, with people interested in the culture wars directed to read more general material. And the material in this article will still need a new home anyway.

Basically, everything in this current article is either about the movement or about intelligent design arguments, or both, and we already have articles for BOTH those themes. So if there is no agreement about granting one of these two directions full control of this term "intelligent design" then we should use the existing articles with their more specific names. And our mission on this article, which has a title that is an important search term, should be making sure different types of readers can find what they need, without censorship.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Overwhelmingly, the search term leads to the creationist label. To a philosopher, all intelligent design might look like the teleological argument, but we cater for those searchers in the dab at the top of the page, in the first sentence of the article, and in the first two sections of the article. Without censorship does not mean giving undue weight to minority views. . dave souza, talk 09:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I have given sourcing evidence based on WP:RS, looking at sources which have clearly been subject to review and clearly have the highest reputations for expertise in this area. What you are reporting here is the results of your personal research using the internet, which by the way is clearly very much swayed by Wikipedia itself. See WP:CIRCULAR. Furthermore you still have never given any sourcing for the basic assumptions you insist on in your OR, especially the one that creationism intelligent design is a new thing which just shares the same name as other forms of intelligent design argument. We have various sources which say the opposite. And please note that the story about the inspiration of Thaxton is not relevant. He can be ignorant, but so what?

In summary we are currently clearly giving undue weight to minority views, yours (you are very influential if google is going to be the reference point, because you have played a big role in the shape of all the WP articles), and the header is not enough because it is clearly giving a very misleading impression. Again consider my Human race analogy. Just have a note to same other races can be read about at other articles is not enough. Our type of header is implying that the other ones are not normally referred to as being in the Human race, and it is wrongly implying a major difference between races in reality, under the cover of misapplied WP policies, not based on sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

BTW just to not let it pass by everyone too easily, I feel there is now a very unjustified effort to claim extremism against me, on the good old-fashioned logic of the proposed change being big. So I want to point out that (a) no one is arguing against removing material in this article from WP or treating it as low notability in any of the articles under discussion (b) if it becomes a short dab like article it will continue to contain reference to the IDM movement and (c) the general use of the term ID would not be taking this article, which I think there are very good reasons for saying it should. But OTOH there is something I feel quite uncomfortable with in the defense of the status quo, which I do see as censored. It is this defense of the status quo which is taking the extreme position of putting a firewall between two subjects and effectively banning any strong mention of one of them on the main article. Under proposals for change, our readers will see different leads and can better understand the different subjects they might want to read more about. Under the proposals for no change, our readers are not allowed to know about this. This is by no means demanded by WP policy, nor even consistent with WP policy. I can not help but remark that many of the arguments being used are just like the ones creationists use on WP - especially the claims of unfairness about anyone trying to say that some sources have a higher value than others. Citations of COMMONNAME and counting of google hits. Treating the philosophers who actually study this subject and are forced to write carefully about it as just a minority view that WP readers do not need to worry about. And so on.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Table of Contents (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Summer 2013 Edition) " • intelligent design, theory of — see creationism" . . dave souza, talk 11:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

A cryptic reference to a table of contents on a tertiary internet source. Point being what Dave? I am, surprised that so many of your posts on this subject are so indirect. Is the source saying Xa and Xb are not X? Is the source saying there are two types of intelligent design which only share the same name by coincidence?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

In response to your cryptic answer, this fully supports our current lead which opens with "Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism". Not all teleological arguments are forms of creationism in its modern sense, as clearly defined by Ruse at the linked article which confirms that ID is creation science. . . dave souza, talk 19:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Please give a direct quote or at least enough information to trace what you are talking about. Until now you have read evidence for your opinion in every source, but when examined it never seems to be there. And anyway we know that ID is strongly associated with creationism, and that the movement's particular brand is very creationist indeed. That is not controversial, but it does not amount to saying that intelligent design came into being in the 1980s. Your source for that is a blog which made some throw away remarks, and the NASA story, which does not prove anything either way. (Who says that the NASA engineer was not a theologian, or that Thaxton knew about this common term before he met the engineer?) Effectively you and MisterDub are claiming a miracle.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Above, you were arguing that "our mission on this article, which has a title that is an important search term, should be making sure different types of readers can find what they need, without censorship." We don't censor the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, they choose to direct searchers looking for "intelligent design" to creationism, an article by Michael Ruse as a philosopher of science. So, we have an expert opinion from a philosopher who agrees that this is a sub-topic of creationism, and a link which supports my finding that overwhelmingly, the search term leads to the creationist label. As for timing, not sure why you're asking about it, but for a source on that, see this: "The concept of intelligent design (hereinafter “ID”), in its current form, came into existence after the Edwards case was decided in 1987." The argument for ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. Further details include compelling evidence that ID is creationism re-labeled. It's not one or the other, all these points apply. The argument is ancient, the reformulation as ID dates from 1987. . dave souza, talk 22:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, I was actually looking forward to a real proposal here, but it seems you continue to misrepresent the subjects, despite constant correction from dave and I. Please... if you want to move this article, start a request. If that is not the course of action you wish to take, please propose something else. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Does the first post of this section not contain a proposal? I think you are only reading the replies to replies? BTW if you want to ever actually name a "misrepresentation" that would give a lot better impression than what you do here and in other places which is effectively just changing subjects to a vague and undefined accusation. It kind of does look deliberate, and yes I dare not assume faith of the purest sort on all occasions. Stick to the point. It will best for you, best for me and best for WP. There is a proposal above. There are sourcing questions above. There are many many things above which are un-answered.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. A proposal would have the text of an addition or a rewrite, or it might be in the form of a move request. None of that was present. And the misrepresentations, which I'd feel blue in the face from repeating were we actually speaking, are that ID refers to a pseudoscientific theory, not a movement and the argument from design is not commonly known as ID. Despite your protestations to the contrary, the sources do not support your assertions. But I'm tired of explaining this, so please just propose something. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

And since you casually dismiss the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, with its index linking to a very respectable article by Ruse, once again the answer appears in several of the sources you've put forward: for example, Ayala pp. 62–63 states that Behe has reformulated Paley's argument-from-design with the claims that intelligent design is a scientific hypothesis, and that postulating an "Intelligent Designer" does not implicate any supernatural causes such as God, in contrast to Paley and Aquinas. That's what Kizmiler highlighted as a central difference. . dave souza, talk 19:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

@Dave. I was not casual. I use that source for some types of claims, but it is not gold standard. And I've spent some time on this discussion, which deserves not to be dismissed by you as casual. What you report now from the Stanford online source is that Xa and Xb have differences, not that Xa and Xb are only called X by coincidence, which is what you want WP to say and imply. That's what I thought. Can we stop posting more examples of such cases? They are not relevant to any point I am making.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, you're failing to make or explain your point. The source clearly shows that someone searching for "intelligent design" in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is pointed to an article by Ruse on creationism, which in turn describes how ID is a development of creation science. Both use the design argument, both claim to be science rather than a theological argument. . dave souza, talk 20:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

My point is that using a table of contents to come to a non self-evident conclusion like this is essentially SYNTH. Effectively it seems this source only implies that the intelligent design movement's "theory" is sometimes referred to simply as "intelligent design" which no one debates. So how is this relevant? To make it relevant you have to add several more steps before you get to the online Wikipedia version of reality. And secondly this is not a source of the highest standard, so if it disagrees with stronger sources we should not use it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

MisterDub:-

Quote: ID refers to a pseudoscientific theory, not a movement. Well I agree, and Dave has admitted at least that this theory is commonly described by experts as a variant of the "argument by design". Xa and Xb are two types of X, which are described this way not by accident. The differences between movement's version and other types can be discussed in an article - as long as editors are allowed to do this. Currently they are being blocked, ie censored, for political reasons.

Quote: The argument from design is not commonly known as ID. The sources tell us otherwise, don't they? But the first sentence you wrote already points to the problem: you and Dave insist ID is a theory, but all sources, even culture-war sources, describe the theory itself of the IDM as an "argument from design" within the set of all arguments of design, not a new type of thing, which is what you want WP and the internet to say. Sources describe tweaks, but say that Xb is a type of X, and that the two are not only called the same thing by accident, as you would have WP say. (Per my discussion above.) Compared to Aristotle the IMD version is not especially unusual. What makes the IDM new and novel is the politics, the orientation against Darwin specifically, and such, i.e. the movement is something new, not the core of its "theory". I've asked many times now for any source saying otherwise and received no true response. The best Dave can find is apparently things which say that Xa and Xb show differences.

My advice. You'll need to read some sources, and show some understanding of them, if you want to be taken seriously. Same rules apply to you and Dave as to all the creationists. Above really is a concrete proposal. I could make the edit pretty quickly, but it was good practice to try to make sure all parties have their chance to express concerns, talk about the practical details etc. If however counter-parties refuse to give straight rational answers over an extended period, then at a certain point it is certainly not unusual to just go ahead and do such an edit. At a certain point, just playing the system by citing AGF, or CONSENSUS, or whatever, has to be ignored, for the same reason that this happens to creationists who try this type of thing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, as you've been told above this is a controversial proposal, and it's POLICY to follow the formal procedure at Wikipedia:Requested moves. If you just go ahead, this will be seen as disruptive editing and treated accordingly. As for admitting that ID is a variant of the "argument by design", the first paragraph of the lead says "It is a contemporary adaptation of the traditional theological argument from design for the existence of God," so I hardly need to admit it. The adaptation is the important distinction, it ain't the same. . . dave souza, talk 20:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

p.s. how can you allege we want to say the two are only called the same thing by accident, when the article explicitly states "the concept of "intelligent design" in nature has been taken to affirm the the existence of God. Although ID proponents chose this provocative label for their proposed alternative to evolutionary explanations, they have minimised this earlier connection and denied that ID is natural theology," More sources please, if you have them. . dave souza, talk 20:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Dave, I have not edited much at all, let alone started making any major changes. This and other related articles are being "protected" by people who name you as an authority rather than engage in discussion. (For example User:Myrvin over on Teleological argument which is where I had hoped editors would be allowed to edit about the history of this term.) My point above is nevertheless logically valid and intended to draw your attention to something so please do me the decency of considering it. If a team of creationists starts using policy to try to block people from editing articles about evolution at a certain point they will be ignored because they have to show that they have a substantive case and that they can respond to reasonable concerns. You and especially the team of people who defer to you, are not doing this. In other words, it is not enough for a group of people citing websites to say that "evolution is controversial". In the same way, it is not enough for a group of people citing websites to say that intelligent design as a general term is "controversial". Do you see the parallel?
Coming back to this thread of discussion, if you now state clearly that you do not claim that the two usages of "intelligent design" (the argument and the design) only share the same name by accident, then that is a step forward in real discussion. (It is certainly not clear that MisterDub thinks this way, and he has carried the defense ball here.) So now how do we justify the fact that WP does what I described by analogy above, having an article called "Human race" which is only about one race? Is it the fact that the movement sometimes understates its pedigree (for legal reasons)? And yet we have lots of strong sourcing to help us see past such claims don't we, and we should prefer to use those surely?
But there is something else to consider which is that apparently you claim that this article is about intelligent design "theory", which is presumably then about its argument from design, along with some of the details of its way of "proving" there is evidence of intelligent design, and the conclusions it draws etc. Is that your claim? Because if that is your claim then this article still needs major changes doesn't it? It is about book publishing, and legal cases and school policies etc. Furthermore, if this article is supposedly about the theory, then why is the politics handled so extensively, at the same time as the background history of the theory is being deliberately minimized in the article? This should surely be what it should be focusing upon? But it is not. So the arguments presented on this talk page are misleading when compared to the article reality being defended.
And if it was focusing on theory, then what? Then this article would essentially be covering the same subject as teleological argument, which (if it may ever be improved) should eventually have a discussion of the background of the theory of intelligent design and of course a strong focus on the version which is most notable theory of intelligent design today. Such an article should have no problem keeping within a reasonable size range. As I have said above, this logically means that the other logical proposal to make is that we redirect teleological argument to here and move the excess material about the movement's political and legal history to the movement article (if it is not already there).
I would finally be interested to know if you can accept that there is any rationality in the concerns being expressed by editors who do not think this article's subject matter matches its title? Or do you think it is all nonsense? Because if you can see any merit at all to the concerns, then instead of digging your heels in the sand telling me to make a proposal for voting on etc, shouldn't you be also thinking of ideas to resolve the concerns?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Assigning numbers to your bullet points; • no. 1 – no one defers to me, others know more about aspects of this than I do, though of course I'm familiar with this as a creationist topic. User:Myrvin appears more informed than me about the philosophical teleological argument aspect. You seem to be denigrating the the existing consensus as a "team", in a past dispute that sort of thinking has been seen as a low-level personal attack.
Your discussions here have led to an improvement, previously we might have suspected that the label "intelligent design" was chosen as a reference to the religious argument, but proponents in several places claimed it was a term from a NASA scientist, or a good engineering term, or just came up. I was able to find Haught commenting on the choice of the term, if you've found other sources expressing views on the choice of the term for Pandas please put them forward.
The word "theory" is deliberately chosen to claim "intelligent design is not a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins-one that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution."[1] The claim to be modern science is also put forward by creation science, is it made in any other fields using the teleological argument?
You've been asking for good quality sources: #Proposal and question included such sources, which I've divided into a new #Subsection for sources: the teleological argument presented as science. These explicitly show that this is a separate topic from the overall teleological argument, ID is creationism relabelled to pass legal barriers to teaching religion in public school science classes. The label was chosen as a PR term, giving plausible deniability while alluding to the older theological argument. At #νοητικός above you put forward sources, and we seemed to reach agreement that argument from design is probably the most common term, and a more appropriate article title than intelligent design for the topic of what could be called "wider intelligent design", while this article on creationist intelligent design appropriately directs the reader to the wider teleological or design argument.
It's entirely understandable that some readers feel that it is unfair that creationists have appropriated as a label a phrase with an older history, or that creationist readers might support the claims of ID proponents that the wider context supports their views, but in practical terms this term has become the common name for a specific variation on creationism, one which employs the design argument as well as some other arguments. Trying to merge it into the wider context goes agains title policy, but with appropriate sources we can improve this article to make the relationship more explicit. . . dave souza, talk 09:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for calling me "low level" Dave, now we can both feel insulted, LOL. But back to reality of course there is a very heavy atmosphere of there being a team here who are on a desperate defensive that is now becoming more offensive. No one could look at these articles and miss it. I came to this article because I saw it on a list of philosophy articles with a high quality rating and immediately saw things to be concerned about. I did not use the word "team" because I do not want to say that this is consciously being organized or something like that. I do not make that accusation. But there are far too many posters here who effectively and sometimes literally say "I do not understand but I am going to see what Dave says". It is not helping. And there is far too much "cheap" and wrong usage of WP tags such as AGF, CONSENSUS, and so on as a diversion from discussion. Note: You can go to any of those policy pages and see guidelines on how NOT to use them which match how they are being used here.
You are not addressing my point, and you are not explaining the point you want to make about Haught. Do I have to go buy the book and read it cover to cover?
I do not have a problem with the word "theory" taken in context here. (A theory can be any speculation and does not have to be scientific.) And to repeat, no one is denying that there are differences between the IDM theory and other arguments from design. But how do we justify this article being about "book publishing, and legal cases and school policies etc." Do these also come under the category of theory? Are these not about the movement?
Dave if teleological argument is ever allowed to be improved to the level where it covers the field properly, it will have to discuss the "theory" of the IDM. That article should not exist without such a section. And if this particular article gets purged of non-theory, and if it is allowed to admit a bit more context and history, as I believe it logically must even if you just look at the present sources, then the difference between the two articles will become hard to define surely? You can say that they'll have a slightly different emphasis, but that is definitely not the normal way of splitting articles and it sounds like a POV fork.
I do not care if creationists have appropriated as a label a phrase with an older history. I think this is not the concern people are trying to explain to you. Creationists are using the label for the most part in a correct way anyway. Concerning what is incorrect, their obfuscations, we have secondary sources to explain the potential confusions and we need to do that better than we currently do in this article. But what we do not have is sourcing to say that these ID creationists have invented a new term or new meaning of an old term. What keeps getting cited instead are sources saying that these ID creationists are different from other types of ID proponents both now and in the past. These are two different things. Again: Xa does not equal Xb, does not prove that, Xa and Xb do not have X in common. You have sources for the first, but not for the second. It is clear that your citation of "policy" is inadequate. See my Human race analogy to see how logical that looks to me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

To help make sure that no one forgets these questions are open I shall now give a short form for each bullet. In business we might call these action points.

The first bullet was just a response to a silly accusation. Please quit with the silly diversions and smokescreens. It is ridiculous to nag an editor with repeated accusations of "disruptive editing", veiled threats of WP:wikilawyering, and alphabet soup, when that editor has tried to make one edit, and is making efforts to reason on the talk page that are both clearly widely agreed with, and clearly not being responded to in good faith.
The question is what is your point about Haught, and in particular here the question is "how do we justify the fact that WP does what I described by analogy above, having an article called "Human race" which is only about one race?"
Do all the sections about films, education policy in Australia, legal cases, etc all REALLY come under the category of theory or are these not about the movement as such? Aren't these for an article about the movement according to your definition?
In terms of WP policy about splitting articles and avoiding POV forks, how do we clearly distinguish the subject matter of this article (in a good version) with that of the teleological argument article? (Please do not answer with another proposal for more POV forks.)
Given that I responded by basically saying that "no this is not what people are concerned about", have you been able to reconsider and see anything other way of understanding the concerned editors other than as just confused fools? Put it this way: the bit of your response which comes close to showing understanding of the main concerns with this article is where you mentioned that we can improve the article by making "the relationship" more explicit. But OTOH, the way I read it, such an attempt to improve the article is exactly what you are arguing against? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The central answer to all these points is that intelligent design is presented as a scientific theory, not a religious argument. The general Argument from Design is theology, not science. That point is shown in this article, we can improve how we show it without trying to merge this article into teleological argument. dave souza, talk 07:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Dave but I can not see this as any kind of good faith attempt to answer these clear questions (2-4). As you have in any case made the same point elsewhere I will discuss your point elsewhere, but I beg you to respect my efforts and try to respond reasonably to 2-4.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

the sourcing for our lead

Latest comment: 10 years ago15 comments3 people in discussion

I shall be going through the article, if I can find the time, looking at the sources and changing our article to remove synth. In the context of the discussion above, I believe this does not confront the real problems of this article, because this attempt is bound to be blocked by defenders of the status quo, and if not, then we will come to a point where this article is effectively covering the same subject as teleological argument. First comments:

Our opening line (now changed by me) said that "intelligent design" is a form of creationism. It cites a decent source, Padian and Matzke which does indeed use such words, however there is a very clear problem. Our article is an encyclopedic article named "intelligent design" whereas the Padian and Matzke article is clearly written about a more focused subject area (title: Darwin, Dover, ‘Intelligent Design’ and textbooks and it is by the way in the Biochemical Journal, not a journal specialized in theology, the definition of science, the history of ideas, etc. The two authors are biologists who are most well known precisely only for their involvement in arguing against the ID movement.). So we are effectively saying that there is no other meaning, whereas our source does not say this.

Added: The source says "ID (‘intelligent design’) is not science, but a form of creationism; both are very different from the simple theological proposition that a divine Creator is responsible for the natural patterns and processes of the Universe." I note this sentence has been stretched by editors here and possibly misunderstood. I've also been comparing this to other sources more specialised than these authors in "theological propositions" to see if it is consistent with experts. So please note:

It is correct that creationism and the "proposition that a divine Creator is responsible for the natural patterns and processes of the Universe" are different, but they are two things which are strongly associated. It is difficult to develop any logical proposal for an "intelligent agent" of nature's order, where that intelligent agent is not a creator or something very similar. The only clear exception I can think of is Aristotle.
Please also note that the "proposition that a divine Creator is responsible for the natural patterns and processes of the Universe" is also not exactly an argument from design. Otherwise we would say that Anaxagoras had an argument from design but this is not how the terms are generally used. So neither of the terms in this first sentence of Padian and Matzke are a definition of an argument from design.
But just to explore the overlaps a bit more, we also know that experts in this field do now and always consistently refer to the doctrine of Socrates explained in Xenophon's Memorabilia as a doctrine distinct from Anaxagoras' because it is an "intelligent design" explanation, an "argument from design", a teleological argument, and even (less commonly) "creationist".

In summary there are three categories here which are not equal, but which have substantial overlap: creationism, arguments from intelligent design, and the more agnostic "proposition that a divine Creator is responsible for the natural patterns and processes of the Universe". Undoubtedly there are also sub-categories of all three terms, and one obvious type of sun-category is the type which is most notable in recent times.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, in our next lines we show a source which says the opposite to WP's first sentence in good clear words that require no SYNTH. It says "ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God." We have in this case NOT been using the article to say this in a clear way, but rather WP has been saying something else. Please note that for the reasons noted above (the context) this statement does not disagree with Padian and Matzke. So this source can be easily moved to the new first sentence. This source is better because it is clearly taking a bigger context into mind concerning what the term really means, not ignoring the movement, but also not only talking about the movement.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE. That took 38 minutes to be reverted. Nothing here on the talkpage except my explanation, which points to the fact that we are not using our sources properly.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Patience. I was writing while you were. I accidentally posted it in the section above this one and am moving it now.

Andrew, I agree that this article is not objective enough and tends toward a dismissive rather than explanatory tone, but your edit, imo, was not an improvement. I don't see justification for calling it a traditional theological argument for the existence of God, despite the Kitzmiller ruling. This just seems to muddy the waters. I would agree with you about the attempt to divest ID of that pedigree, but the present argument is not identical to its ~~sires~~ antecedents. A pertinent question is where the anonymous NASA engineer got the term from. WP may not speculate about that, but neither can we conclude that the engineer invented the term.

Your arguments here have become too wordy and difficult for me to follow. Yopienso (talk) 08:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a stretch to call the traditional arguments "sires" to ID. They're related, but not that closely. ID is a spawn of the late 20th-century culture wars. Yopienso (talk) 08:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Patience? You could have posted here first. Yopienso I disagree with the relevance of your remarks. There are many "present" arguments that do go by the same name and share the basic core. The fact that they show differences does not make them different concerning that which they share. There is furthermore a very simple problem with what you are saying: WP has to use verifiable information coming from reliable sources. I simply moved some sentences around and made sure we reported the pre-existing sources properly without taking them beyond their own words. (Better sources do exist and do say the same thing.) Speculation about NASA engineers would be WP:original research and not relevant. I sympathize that it is difficult to follow, but also here we have a clear responsibility not to dumb down subjects just to make it easy to edit. See WP:COMPETENCE.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the comment I thought I had moved but apparently only copied and pasted.

I see nothing irrelevant about any of my remarks. I cannot understand anything else you wrote except the last sentence where you imply you will make no effort at conciseness. Yopienso (talk) 09:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, you're looking increasingly disruptive, trying to change the article to match your preconception that creationist ID is the same as the theological argument from design. It's not, as shown at #Subsection for sources: the teleological argument presented as science above. Please desist, and put your points concisely and clearly on the talk page. . dave souza, talk 09:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Dave this talk page section was created specifically to explain the edits. The edits are based purely on removing synth and looking at the sources that are already in the article. I have explained it above. It seems very odd that you would write an attack post rather than simply responding to my points. Who is being disruptive? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, while I answered your lengthy list of points above, you edited the article in ways that are clearly disputed, and are now complaining that I've not yet answered this new wall of text. As it says on the notice at the top of this talk page, this article is subject to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions which apply to all editors. Great care is needed if you're trying to radically redefine the article.
So far I've only had time to glance over your text in this section, it appears rather incoherent, and misses the essential point that ID is anti-evolution creationism relabelled to try to overcome court rulings about science education in the US. Though the teleological argument is central to this form of creationism, and its predecessor creation science, it differs from the broader design argument in the essential respect that it is presented as modern science, as well as in other lesser aspects. The phrase was used earlier in discussing the broader argument-from-design, but that doesn't mean that the modern meaning is identical to that argument-from-design which is not inherently anti-evolution. . dave souza, talk 09:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Dave you are mixing subjects here. Please cite from the sources in our lead to show how I misunderstood them.

The judge we cite specifically says, in the context of talking about the movement and its theory that "ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God." Is that source being questioned? Am I reading it wrong? But what does our article say instead? "It is a contemporary adaptation of the traditional theological argument from design for the existence of God." [ADDED: Not really wrong, but very much watered down, especially when taken in context, because our preceding sentences imply that what the judge is talking about is possibly not the term "Intelligent Design" itself but maybe just something to do with their beliefs and claims, specifically "creationism". The term does not mean the same as creationism, even in the mouths of the IDM or its critics.]
The anti IDM biologists we cite start their abstract, which is specifically about the movement, saying that (a) it is not science and (b) it is not the same as "the simple theological proposition that a divine Creator is responsible for the natural patterns and processes of the Universe". They do not say that it is not the same as other arguments from design. And yet this is our one and only source for our opening statement that (taken in context) states boldly that "intelligent design" is a term which only refers to "a form of creationism based on the argument from design and promulgated by the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States". I think the stretching of sources is self-evident!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, you're stretching and misrepresenting what the article says: please put forward proposals to clarify the point if you think it necessary: see my example below. In point of fact, intelligent design as a term almost always refers to the modern creationist ID, but as a phrase intelligent design is one of a number of synonyms or alternative phrasings used in the design argument, along with "intelligent creator", "designing intelligence" and others.. dave souza, talk 11:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Dave what am getting wrong? This is not an answer. Here is what our current most relevant source (certainly not one I picked) says:

"ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God."

Here is what we say:

Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism based on the argument from design and promulgated by the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States.

Is this too subtle?

I shall indeed try redrafting in your new section but I am disappointed at the responses here to say the least. I think I can effectively say I received no relevant answers at all in the above discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, by your words "our current most relevant source" you're excluding the source which covers the points which you're disputing. Your whole argument appears to be based on the presupposition that ID is the same as the argument-from-design, it uses that argument but reframes it with the claim that it is science rather than theology. You've provided sources showing that the phrase intelligent design appears in books describing what these books most commonly term the Argument from Design, you've not shown that these books use the phrase as a term or label in the same way as ID does. Unfortunately your wall of text is confusing, but I think I've given relevant answers to the above. . dave souza, talk 08:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I find your accusations tendentious as per WP:TEND. You ask for more and more information and then complain about the wall of text! Not nice Dave.

My reason for focusing upon that sentence from the ruling is simply that it is about exactly what we are discussing. We have no other sentence like this that I have seen. It is definitely and clearly talking about the argument of ID and not the movement.
You point about "intelligent design" being a "term or label" is not clear and does not appear relevant.

Clarity. We've seen that before the movement "intelligent design" was referred to as a known "theory" and "argument". So what makes something a "term"? I can see already you might say that the movement has undoubtedly made this term much more popular in discussions of "arguments from design". But, so what? To explain...
Relevance. This is the real problem (and I am tempted to blame you for the wall of words this subject is causing, LOL). For example we can say that Aquinas had an "argument from design" even though he had it before anyone had used that term. We do not lock him off in a separated article. What matters is how the term is used now by the best secondary sources, and it is clear that (a) the best secondary sources say that the IDM version is like past versions (which were also creationist and religious) and (b) the best secondary sources also continue to use, or perhaps increasingly use the term "intelligent design" when talking about people like Socrates, Kant, Aquinas, Paley, and so on. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Origin of the concept

Latest comment: 10 years ago16 comments3 people in discussion

I propose the "Origin of the concept" section also mention Aquinas. Haught, in his opinion, states on p. 4, point b.: "The contemporary notion of ID is historically unintelligible apart from the religious agendas of Paley and Aquinas." Yopienso (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to fully agree with everyone who disagrees with the current first sentence. It implies some type of continuity between Aquinas and Paley on the one hand, and the latest form of ID on the other. Is that how you see it also?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think the continuity is obvious, and it's right there in Haught and the Kitzmiller record. (Also in the record is the dissimulation by ID proponents.)

I think the first paragraph of the lede is fine, except for the last sentence, which belongs in the third paragraph. Yopienso (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence is currently saying that the term intelligent design as it is currently used only started with the intelligent design movement in the 1980s. So do you have a source for that? I have sources which show otherwise.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Kitzmiller p. 26: "The concept of intelligent design (hereinafter “ID”), in its current form, came into existence after the Edwards case was decided in 1987." Yopienso (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, I can't find where I wrote this: Yes; see pp. 18, 31-35 of Kitzmiller "Although contrary to Fuller, defense experts Professors Behe and Minnich testified that ID is not creationism, their testimony was 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." Yopienso (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you connect the dots for me Yopienso? I do not see how these quotes prove anything. (Don't worry I shall not first ask you to explain and then blame you for a wall of words, as one sometimes sees happen. LOL) I've actually discussed that first quote below, and your second post does not guide us. It tells us someone lied about ID, meaning in that context the ID movement's ID argument, which is indeed creationist (as are most forms of argument from design).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for once again posting in the wrong place. I will strike the misplaced comment and put it under "Possible change to lead sentence" where it belongs. Yopienso (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree that we can mention Aquinas, any proposals for the wording? . . dave souza, talk 08:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the idea to have an origin of concept section in this article:

I think there were such sections previously removed from this article and of course the teleological argument article already has such material (but it is in a very incomplete state concerning this matter also, partly because of the situation on this article, as explained on the talk page by User:Myrvin as a justification for reverting edits).
We can also look at the draft proposal Atethnekos started which was intended to discuss intelligent design without censoring the background to the concept (and the talkpage to that draft).

NOTE: I would really like to spend time on such work! I have been spending time on the material since noticing the dispute here. But I have more or less given up trying until we get some of reasoned consensus about the first sentence and the definition of the difference between this article and teleological argument. Once you allow history of concept discussion here, the two articles will be more obviously convergent, and any attempt to go that way is going to be attacked. All in all I fear that any efforts made now are likely to be deleted within hours? Or not?

If we are talking about working on drafts off this article then maybe we should not use this talkpage given how full it is. If Atethnekos's user space is not the right place, we can make a draft space under this article? (And maybe we should create a collection of sources making various statements by the way.) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Atethnekos's user space may work.

I suggest using the "Origin of the concept" section from this old revision, inserting the first paragraph (only the first) from "Origin of the concept" in the present article between the third and fourth paragraphs of the old revision. Some editing for style would be necessary. I find the last paragraph awkward.

Then I would proceed with the next section, "Origin of the term," from the old revision, adding the fact that the ID of which the present article treats is a new formulation that reaches back to those instances rather than descending directly from them. Other tweaking might also be required. Yopienso (talk) 10:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Yopienso, that version has considerable original research and gives undue weight to primary sources with no known connection to modern ID. There was a lot of discussion about it in the talk pages, and the basic revisions were made to overcome these issues. . dave souza, talk 18:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Will you work directly into this article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

These are my suggestions for how to proceed, but I'm not planning on doing the actual work. ;) For one thing, you wrote in bold that you'd like to, and for another, time does not permit me to. Yopienso (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

LOL. I think editing right now has no point, so if you want to maybe you can add comments at teleological argument or Atethnekos's draft page? At least in those places editing is possible.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Does LOL mean lots of love? Yours, D. Cameron. When there's a lot of argument about I've found it best to put proposed wording on the article talk page as a basis for discussion, so that other editors can propose amendments, accept or reject the wording. Best done with a new section as a clean sheet. . . dave souza, talk 18:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

comment

this article really encapsulates all the strength and weakness of wikipedia, and, why, I think ultimately wiki is an experiment doomed to failure. I last saw this article about a year ago, and it was MUCH better - shorter and better written. How can anyone rely on a source which is constatnly changing ? on the other hand, the editors have done an unbelievably heroic job of maintaining this article in the face of an onslaught by people who don't seem to understand that neutral canbe critical (to take an example purely for argument sake, an article on Stalin or Hitler or Pol Pot is going to be mostly negative). I look at all the work the editors have done, for free - unpaid and unsung, and that they can't keep an article with revisions once every few years is astonishing. my heart goes out to them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.195.10.169 (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2013‎

So where are we at?

Latest comment: 10 years ago26 comments6 people in discussion

I think the discussion has gone around a few times and the following is my understanding:

"Intelligent design" is a term used both in a general sense to a type of argument for the existence of god (or an intelligent creative agent); and in a specific hyphenated sense to refer to a well-known movement, sometimes also without the word movement, (and of course the same goes for that that movement's T-shirts, its "theory", its membership and its whatever).
The specific movement derives its name from the type of argument it uses, and hence through some debateable number of historical steps, steeped in spin and mystery, and possibly involving NASA, derives from the general term. So the experts for the meaning of this term are in both the general and specific cases, experts in philosophy, theology, and the history of ideas. And in that field the general term is dominant.
No one can find a source which shows that the movement has given the old term a new meaning (except in the hyphenated sense I mention above, such as when someone says "intelligent design" to mean a group of people). Note: that there are differences between different intelligent design arguments does not mean there are different things with the same name by accident. I shall address the logic of this below.
The general sense of the term is the older and the dominant and the logically controlling meaning, but it has also not diminished in use with the notability of the recent movement. (In fact the use of the term may have increased in general application, for example when talking about Greek philosophers, and partly replaced competing terms like "teleological argument" simply because the movement has made one term more well known.

The policy implications in my mind:

The current state of this article is wrong. It has clearly been deliberately edited in order to exclude thematic discussion of the main meaning on the basis of poor sources, and poor interpretation of sources. AGF and all that, but it would be naive not to admit that anyone can see from reading the archives that one reason for this is political. At least some editors want to avoid WP giving the ID movement a noble pedigree. Whatever sympathy I have for that politically, this does not seem acceptable to me.
I see two extreme options: turn this article into a dab, or try to create a unified discussion of intelligent design here. But this would create a somewhat redundant article. But probably the most practical idea is something like what we have at intellect (a related term with a related problem), which is like a "long dab". Then the material in this article just needs a new home with a name more suiting its boundaries.

Section 3. Some of the arguments being presented, and why they make no sense. I am going to deliberately pick a striking example, so please do not blame me for this. I need to make it striking so that the logical problem becomes clear. Sometimes humour works, but if it doesn't, please forgive me.

Imagine you find a WP article titled "Human race" and you are surprised to find it is all about one race or ethnic group.
You look at the talk page and you find, unsurprisingly, that the article gets constant visitors expressing surprise and concern.
However, the editors of the Human race article point out that this is just how Wikipedia works. The article would be too big if all races were discussed, so for practical reasons it needs to be split.
But how can we justify giving such a broad name to something WP editors have decided to define so strangely narrow? Well they say, we are just following policy on this also. We have done some googling and read some blogs, and this race is the one most people talk about. They direct you to read WP:COMMONNAME.
You read WP:COMMONNAME and point out that it does not really demand this at all. Surely the term human race has a logical and even scientific meaning and you start to remind them of what the word means. Oh that argument again they say! They direct you to WP:NOTDICT. And they tell you WP is for general readers, and not people interested in philosophy or medieval science.
You read NOTDICT and again, you can find no justification for this way of working.
But look they say, we even have found scientists and so on who talk about differences between races. So there. Just because two races are both by coincidence referred to as human races, or maybe it is even because of a common history, these are really distinct things that need distinct articles. At some point, our source clearly says, a new type of human race came into being.
You struggle with the logic of this. If you have two types of X, Xa and Xb, and you find a source which confirms there is this difference, your source still can not be used to say that Xa and Xb are not both X.
People start citing WP:BURDEN, of course, and accuse you of WP:OR.
You start doing the homework of finding really strong sources such as scientists, experts in the history of the concept and the difficulties of even defining race and so on. You bring these to the discussion and make your case.
No problem, they say, I won't bother reading it but it all looks very interesting. However, let's make it simple: we already mention in the footnotes and a few asides in the article that other races exist. So just put all this stuff you found in a new article and leave us with our article. Maybe you can call yours "Human race (other types)".

That's how I see it so far.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not accept the proposition that intelligent design refers to proponents: it clearly refers to the group of arguments, the "theory", put forward by proponents. These arguments include, but are not limited to, the teleological argument. As your various examples show, the phrase intelligent design has also been used in discussing the teleological argument; in some cases I think it has also been used as a term. That point is covered briefly in this article. Thanks to Markbassett, we now have intelligent design (historical) as a detailed article on the topic, which is shared with the teleological argument topic and should be linked from both articles. You've put together a lot of sources which are relevant to improving the intelligent design (historical) article, some will have wider use. Hope this begins to resolve the various difficulties, . dave souza, talk 17:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I am quite concerned by these splitting ideas which keep coming up INSTEAD of dealing with the real questions about what EXISTING articles should cover what. I think we have enough articles and they are really not good quality. Splitting for the wrong reasons is not a good thing. See my point above about this. I think the history of the term intelligent design can be focused on the teleological argument article surely?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

And please give a source which names an "intelligent design" argument (known by that name) that is specifically not "the teleological argument", and is not simple an argument of the intelligent design movement. I am really surprised at this sudden revelation and I doubt it very much. There is one central "intelligent design argument" and all other terms derive from it. That usage is still current, and no one has found any evidence of a source which gives a new definition. See my point about Xa and Xb.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with dave souza that you have mischaracterized this subject: the article is not about a movement, but a purportedly scientific theory that the vast majority of scientists, as well as US law, consider to be veiled creationism; the movement is so named because of the theory it promotes; the name intelligent design was not chosen because it was the dominant meaning for any concept, but because a member of the creation science movement heard it somewhere, thought it sounded good, and later found it used occasionally in a scientific journal; nor does the dominant meaning of intelligent design today refer to teleological arguments in general, but the specific one that is frequently--nigh completely--associated with the Discovery Institute.

But seriously, what are you proposing here? Do you want this article to cover the general argument from design, including the specific one presented as science by creationists? Or should its primary focus be the latter, with information detailing its relation to the general argument? I think I'm struggling to understand your suggestions because I think we already have both of these articles: the general argument is covered in Teleological argument, and the scientific theory is here, at Intelligent design. It also seems to me that your complaint is that the general argument ought to be named intelligent design. If that's the case, that's fine... but I think you're going about correcting this the wrong way. Instead of editing this article and making it the same subject already covered under Teleological argument, you should move the article about the general argument to its common name, intelligent design, which will require this article be moved to a disambiguated name (Intelligent design creationism?). If, however, I have inaccuratey described the your proposal, please correct me. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 05:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

MisterDub, did Dave actually make the argument you say he did? I do not see it. I find it a continual problem on this subject that there is a team of editors who post without reading the sources or detailed arguments but make confident assertions deferring to what they presume Dave will think. Dave seems to have accepted that the real sources in the real world give a very different picture than what WP is currently telling. What I propose (which I think might be similar to what North has in mind although this is not confirm):

Keep discussion of arguments from design (intelligent design in the general sense) at teleological argument for now. But let people edit it, and do not to start creating POV forks.
Currently anyone searching for the term "intelligent design" is going to come here and receive a very one-sided explanation about the term. That is important to fix (consider my Human race imaginary example), and the most obvious way to do it is to move this present article to intelligent design movement or intelligent design creationism or something similar. (According to Dave, above, this article here is presently the main article for the movement subject, and the material in the movement article is a more detailed "sub article".)
Turn this article into a short one which effectively works like a dab, similar to our intellect article. It should point to teleological argument and to intelligent design movement (or whatever the names will be for the main articles for those two subjects).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

If I read this correctly, you seem to be proposing that this article should be moved to what could be called intelligent design creationism, and a tighter version shown here. As with this article at present, it would note the earlier use of the phrase, present evidence (if any) that the phrase was used as a term, and of course show concise but sufficient information about the creationist "theory". This strikes me as giving undue weight to a not very common use of the phrase, and a view which is currently lacking in secondary sources showing that this phrase is notable in itself. At the least it would require a formal move request and discussion. . dave souza, talk 07:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm fairly certain that was what dave said: "I do not accept the proposition that intelligent design refers to proponents: it clearly refers to the group of arguments, the 'theory', put forward by proponents." And I have read the sources, so I'd appreciate it if you stopped falsely accusing me of that. I merely think that, because these articles are already associated with their common names, there is no issue that needs correction. That said, if this article having the name it does is such a problem, I don't mind moving this article so long as its integrity remains intact (i.e. that its content focus is the scientific theory and recounts an accurate history). As for your suggestions, I'm open to a proposal along those lines, but would again stress that the scientific theory's history be true to the sources. Like dave said, I think this starts with an official move request on the talk page; if consensus decides to move this article, we can start drafting the new DAB. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 07:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Dave it is clear that the present situation is unacceptable. To help people who've spent too much time on this article, I wrote my hypothetical example above of making all searches for Human race go to a discussion exclusively about one race because it gets most google hits. I do not see any type of response by you or anyone else to this basic problem and so presumably you understand it. So then why would you want to insist on lengthy formal procedures? The discussion above has already gone in circles many times with you each time hitting a wall and giving up because the sources consistently show your position to be wrong, and your reasoning to have holes in it.

You now know very well that the term "intelligent design" applied outside of the movement is not just common, but still happening and maybe even commoner now than it ever was.
Concerning which term is MOST common in a simple numeric way, who cares? Whatever the original research in low quality sources says, the evidence is clear enough that we have one common term that is effectively being given not just a lower weight, but is basically being censored out of existence on WP for political reasons. Indeed WP is currently telling lies about it.
You've been asked to show any source which explains how the meaning of the term has changed and you can not give any. (Pointing to differences between different intelligent design arguments is not enough. See my Xa and Xb remarks above, and again consider whether we could make the Human race search term always deflect to one race.) WP therefore must stop making this claim.
I've pointed out that deflecting this into discussion of original research into earliest uses of the term, which has not gone well for you anyway, is not really relevant. The expert secondary sources of today use the term to mean one thing, and Wikipedia is taking an opposed position to them based on poorly interpreted blogs and the like. We should follow the best sources (and not just the numerically most common).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, I don't mean to be rude, but I think your race analogy was absurd; I wouldn't have said so, but apparently you take my silence as acceptance of it. As for formal procedures, I think they are called for by policy:

“

In several cases, you should list pages that you want to have renamed/moved at Wikipedia:Requested moves, especially:

[...]

If you believe the move might be controversial then you should follow the advice in the section "Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves" in Wikipedia:Requested moves
If you are unsure about the best page name, despite reading Wikipedia: Article naming guidelines

”

-- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 08:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes but concerning both subjects, where are your reasons? Citing policies and calling things absurd without being able to give a reason is not conducive to finding solutions and it does not show good faith. What is wrong with the analogy? I have based the arguments used on the ones used here and just changed the article title names. I did this because I believe that there is a really big tunnel vision problem here where some editors really can not see how it looks to someone who comes in from outside.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that Andrew Lancaster's summary is accurate and excellent. If I had any small quibble, (with taking it literally) is it that i made it sound as if there are only those two possibilities. North8000 (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that there are a few brilliant and valuable-to-this effort people who have gotten a bit too caught up with defending the status quo here. I think that it is clear that the status quo will not stay. One possible route to that is the complex route of RFC's, BRD etc. But I think that far better than that I respectfully request that those expert, valuable folks abandon the status quo, and become a part of of a group effort to start with a blank sheet of paper and decide on the best way to handle this overall, including/especially a roadmap for the 4-7 articles closely related to this topic oe replacements for them. What are folks thoughts on this idea? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I basically agree with Andrew's perspective, particularly "[The article] has clearly been deliberately edited in order to exclude thematic discussion of the main meaning . . . At least some editors want to avoid WP giving the ID movement a noble pedigree."

I applaud you, Andrew, for your broad knowledge and considerable tact in addressing this issue. I tried several years ago and failed to accomplish what you have, eventually concluding that since the article aligns with the mainstream thought on the subject, it was best not to stir controversy. My sticking point is that while most mainstream thought is expressed by scientists and/or philosophers who express their opinions sharply and in a deliberate effort to denigrate ID, imo WP should be more objective than they. Nevertheless, my own delving into the issue has confirmed to me that ID is a spurious attempt to reconcile religion with science. Again, however, I still think this article should be encyclopedic rather than critical. Long ago I suggested an approach more like that of HowStuffWorks, which matter-of-factly presents ID's arguments and the responses from scientists. It offers no apology whatsoever for ID, but neither does it rant against it or suppress information about it.

Thanks once again to Dave, the unfailing gentleman in the discussion whose kindness won my respect--and helped open my eyes to the facts--without bending from his critical perspective, which I do not fully share. Here again you have engaged with Andrew in a productive manner.

Wrt improving the article, I have always felt this one should be merged into Intelligent design movement since it's actually about the present-day DI movement. Yopienso (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Yopienso I agree, but the argument against this is that it might make that article too big. I have real doubts about that problem because I think a lot of things are doubled up and not efficiently written, but anyway articles can always be split different ways. I hope that we do not get bogged down here with that question. The question here is what we do with THIS article. I do not see any responses apart from my proposal. North thinks there are more than two possibilities (actually I mentioned three, and I prefer the third). But anyway, what do we do? Leisurely discussion seems to be out the door now because the defenders of this situation have now gone and opened a new diversionary front by creating a redundant POV fork. I find this really amazing given the context. This kind of deflection has been a constant unfortunately since I came to this article recently. See my point above about Human race (other types).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

MisterDub has answered this cogently in his comment above at 05:32, 1 September 2013. As shown in a huge number of sources, including HowStuffWorks, the "theory" is one thing, the movement is another. I"m somewhat surprised by your amazement about Intelligent design (historical) having been created by Markbassett (talk · contribs),[2] you'll have to ask him about his intentions, but calling it a "new diversionary front" doesn't seem to assume good faith. Perhaps some indication is given by his wording that "Intelligent Design (historical) refers to the historical 19th century positions regarding evolution by this topical label and use of these positions, differing from current usage in being explicitly deism, and not connected to the later Discovery Institute or phrasings of Irreducible Complexity and Specified Complexity." Both MisterDub and myself made some obvious corrections, and it did look like a way of giving the increased coverage of pre-ID use of the term demanded by North and suggested by yourself, but I see someone has made it a redirect to teleological argument. Do you think the information that was in it should be added to the TA article? . . dave souza, talk 07:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Dave, in your own post above you wrote (19:13, 22 August 2013 UTC): "This article is the main article about the topic generally known as intelligent design" and of course you are arguing that this topic equates to a specific and distinct theory of the intelligent design MOVEMENT, to the exclusion of what is covered by the "teleological argument" article. But this is a real logical mess. The teleological argument article would logically thereby be the article where all of the present material in this article should go, because you can find no source to prove that there are different meanings for the term "intelligent design", only different variations. And yet this would plainly be crazy. Examination of this article shows no definition of anything call an "intelligent design theory" except a small part which can clearly be divided into things which are typical of any "argument from design" and things which are able to be referred to as "intelligent design" only because of association with this movement. For example deism and creationism on their own are never called "intelligent design" are they? They are only called that if they are associated with something else with that name. Whereas things like complexity have always been part of such arguments, and do not constitute a new meaning to the well-known term. This article is currently mainly about people, organizations, legal cases, books, etc, so it is mainly about the movement. To insist that this is not so seems to be quite unreasonable because it is plain to see. Concerning the history article, as I posted there before it was redirected, obviously I think that if there was any material there worth saving it is for discussion at the existing article about the same subject. But I saw nothing worth saving. It was a stub with the same old OR and blog citations which are very over-promoted by WP already (which of course leads to their information becoming "common").--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The widespread modern use of the term is for the creationist argument, that includes many of the proposed sources you've shown. The very occasional modern use in describing older versions doesn't justify the drastic changes you're proposing. As for a source on different meanings of the term, see Haught for a start. . dave souza, talk 09:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The creationist argument is not a different usage, as we've shown many times, except in cases where the term is being used via association with the movement recently well-known for using the argument, or the argument itself. We have also shown that your argument about what is common is essentially based on googling OR, and blogs and other culture wars-related sources, which essentially form a wp:walled garden of low quality sources along with these Wikipedia articles, all trying to make each other look right and to swamp out the academic sources that should be taking priority. Please explain what Haught is and why it is relevant. Does he say that Xa and Xb are not both X and only have the same name by coincidence? (That is still your argument I think?) Or does he say that Xa and Xb are simply different in some ways, like two human races might be?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Shown many times? Lost in your wall of text, and inaccurate. Both CS and ID have aspects and arguments not intrinsic to the generic design argument, such as insistence on repeated miraculous events, the "two model" approach, and negative arguments against modern science. Haught is cited in the article, go read it as you've evidently misunderstood. . . dave souza, talk 21:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

But Dave what am I even looking for here? It sounds like it is just another source pointing to the fact the there are differences between different intelligent design arguments, and that the latest type has some specific oddities. But no one is disputing this? We have to try to get some of your positions more clear or else you are making discussion impossible. Do you argue that the IDM ID is only called ID by accident and is not known primarily after its type of argument from design? If you do not argue this then we have something we can build from maybe. But then I do not understand why you keep finding citations which simply note that there are differences. Obviously in such a situation the only alternative to a wall of words is that I give up. But of course you are not trying to push me to give up in exhaustion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, you certainly seem inexhaustible! Haught is clear that earlier uses of the phrase "intelligent design" (you've not shown it was previously a term as a label) are theological, inherently religious. ID differs with the claim that it is not religious, but science. If there are other different arguments-from-design which are distinct, perhaps they should have their own sub-articles. . dave souza, talk 09:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes LOL, I do tend to have persistence. If I understand correctly, you are going way past what Haught says? Doesn't he say that the ID M are also clearly religious? Don't we have lots of sources saying the same thing? Furthermore, to state the logical problem once more, finding sources who can name differences is not enough. For example if we find a source saying that the IDM movement is the first version of ID made up completely of people taller than 6 foot, or entirely Lutheran, or held to by people believing in UFOs, does this then make the IDM type of ID "new" and requiring isolation in a walled off article? How is pretending to be scientific an essential characteristic of the movements argument?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

In the Talk about whether to include historical material and that DI did not originate from it, for the discussions about historical material not belonging in ID(DI), I just read the Wiki start "This article is about the form of creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute. For the philosophical "argument from design", see Teleological argument. For other uses of the phrase, see Intelligent design (disambiguation)." A separate article for the 19th-century debates seemed appropriate and better than sticking it into candidates Reaction to On the Origin of Species or History of the creation–evolution controversy. Anyone previously frustrated with historical content can now please have a spot it goes. Markbassett (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Creating "content forks" does not help this problem at all. Perhaps certain comments here have encouraged you to do this, but unfortunately I think it has sent you in a direction that is not going to come to much. (I guess it will be deleted.) I have sympathy for your efforts, but for myself I am avoiding most normal types of editing on related articles until there is a basic agreed outline of what all the articles about.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Markbassett I applaud your efforts to solve the problem that the historical ID material has been (IMHO improperly) removed from and kept out of this article. But I'm thinking that in the long run a separate article isn't a good way to fix the problem. North8000 (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Returning to what is now the "Subsection for sources"

Latest comment: 10 years ago25 comments5 people in discussion

I have decided after some efforts to give up for now on any attempt to draft a new first paragraph. It is clear anything I propose is not only going to be rejected, but also just contribute more words and a downward spiraling of the discussion. There is a basic sourcing problem that needs discussion first.

According to me, the only sourcing for the controversial aspect within the first sentence is the Matzke blog, the context of which made it clear that it was not carefully written. (It was part of some back and forth silly argument with creationists.) I am talking about the implication that the term "intelligent design" was only ever heard by chance before the 1980s, and that the ID movement's use of the term is only coincidental.

Far above there is are some sub-section headings that have been created to preserve what Dave apparently now sees as the answer to this challenge. (He recently posted as such here. I have been running over these discussions.) So now I shall comment on each bullet, originally given by MisterDub.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. "Context". p. 24: "The concept of intelligent design (hereinafter “ID”), in its current form, came into existence after the Edwards case was decided in 1987. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child."
Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross. pp. 5-6: "This book is about the newest form of creationism, named by its proponents 'intelligent design' (ID); but it is, especially, about the organization of the system of public and political relations that drives the movement."
Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design is Wrong for Our Schools. Eugenie Carol Scott. p. 13: "But as early as the defeat of creation science in McLean, a group of conservative Christians had begun searching for an alternative antievolution view that would not only be legally viable but would also appeal to a broader range of Christians. Creation science, with its stress on biblical literalism and the young Earth, attracts conservative Christians but to most mainstream Christians it appears to be marginal theology and odd science. This alternative became the intelligent design movement."
Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism. Robert T. Pennock. p. 6: "Entering the last decade of the millennium, a new generation of creationists began to reevaluate the old approach and to recast themselves in order to try new avenues of attack upon evolution. The textbook Of Pandas and People, for example, looks as though it was hand-tailored to try to slip between the lines of the law as drawn in the cases mentioned above. Also, at this time, some creationists began to avoid using the term "creation science" altogether in favor of one or another euphemism, such as "abrupt appearance theory" or "initial complexity theory." The Pandas textbook was put together by the most significant group of new creationists, and the term that they use is "intelligent-design theory," or sometimes "theistic science."

-- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I've replaced bullets with numbers, to help discussion.

The first citation clearly refers only to the "current form" of ID having started in 1987. This clearly implies there were older forms. Which is the opposite of what MisterDub and Dave apparently think this quotation proves?
The second citation clearly refers only to the "newest form" of creationism and what its proponents name it. This tells us nothing about whether the term was used before, or what the connection is between this name and anything else in the world? Being creationist is not opposed to being a proponent of arguments from design, and the two overlap very much of course.
The third citation clearly only refers to the "intelligent design movement" which as Dave is clear on, has another article here on WP. So not relevant here.
The fourth citation mentions that some creationists began to use the term "intelligent-design theory" instead of "creation science". It expresses nothing about where this term came from, and whether it had any precedents in using this term. It does specify that this type of creation science was a recasting of an old approach. I guess this agrees with what we know from many sources and is not specifically connected to the point under debate here, about this article.

Am I missing anything?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point that this is a form of creationism, relabelled, and in that differs from the classical argument from design. Do you disagree? . . dave souza, talk 23:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

That does not address the question. And it is an important question. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Please state the question clearly for us simpletons. Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Yopienso the question above is what the source is for the controversial aspect of the first sentence of article. By the controversial aspect I mean the fact that it is carefully written in order to imply that "intelligent design theory" (not the movement, which has another article) started in the 1980s. I say the only source is a blog written by Matzke which was part of some witty but (understandably) sloppy repartee online. (This was what was cited more openly as the source of the idea when I first came to this article. And at that time, not long ago, it was still being openly stated that yes, our article is saying, on the basis of that source, that any usage of the term "intelligent design" before then was just an accidental coming together of words. Which Dave now knows this is nonsense. But the article still says the same thing.) Matzke's obviously offhand remarks are now, via WP itself, a very successful meme and maybe one of the most successful cases of wikitruth I have ever seen!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, the article doesn't now say the same thing: it clearly shows that the concept "intelligent design" is older, and ID proponents adopted this provocative label. It cites Haught, John (2005-04-01). "Report of John F. Haught, Ph. D". Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (NCSE). If you've found a better source specifically referring to ID proponents adopting this label for creation science, please cite it. . dave souza, talk 08:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

No. The first sentence still reflects the situation when I arrived at this article. Indeed the article now contains parts which do not seem to agree with the first sentence, but the first sentence is apparently very critical to you and MisterDub. It is for example the basis of arguments at Intelligent design (disambiguation) and the whole way these articles are divided. Where is the sourcing for that first sentence?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Eh? Andrew, you arrived at this talk page on 20 August, at that time the article began with what looks like the same sentence, sourced as at present to Padian & Matzke (2009). . dave souza, talk 17:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

And I am saying that after looking I can not see that the first sentence has a valid source suitable for the claim it is making (and the weight it is given). And as far I can see you can't either. You may have noticed I have given some pointers about this elsewhere? So I will keep it "concise" so as to avoid being threatened by you.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

@Dave, of course it is a form of creationism, as are all the classical cases of argument from design (at least arguably; that's how Sedley defines it), but which source do we have to say that their argument from design, the "intelligent design theory" is different from the classical argument from design? In fact, we have numerous sources including the ruling, the movement itself's definition, philosophers, theologians etc saying that their argument from design is the normal one that existed in the past. We are ignoring those sources. We also know that the term "intelligent design" has been used to mean exactly this, since these things started making into books written in English. (That it was not the most common term is neither here nor there. The term "argument from design" seems to start with Paley, but no on is arguing that before him there was no argument from design!) I know of no dissenting sources to what I say, only sources which say that there are differences and that the movement is "new" and so on. But are they new in their "intelligent design" argument? No, they clearly are not. We have no sources for that except an off-hand remark in an online slag-off.

Trying to understand you, you appear to have a rather special definition of "creationism" as something recent and American, and you seem to read everyone as using the word this way? Otherwise I find it very hard to understand how you can not be seeing the problem with your own postings.

POLICY CONSIDERATION. WP:COMMONNAME and similar concepts about splitting up subjects are normally concerning situations where you have two subjects which are different things, with only the same name. In this case, such a logic does apply to "intelligent design" and the "intelligent design movement", which therefore has its own article. But I can for the life of me not see how we can say that we have this type of situation when we compare "intelligent design (argument)" and "intelligent design theory". These are not two things which just just happen to share one name. Our sources tell us that they are one thing, or more specifically, I would say the second is the most notable sub-set of the first.

PROBLEM: We can not properly write about intelligent design theory without mentioning its historical context and we can not write about "teleological arguments" without making that article substantially about the most notable form. And hence this is a classic case where we should NOT split discussion into two articles. It can only lead to POV forking and wikitruth. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, you seem to be starting from the misunderstanding that Padian, K.; Matzke, N. (2009). "Darwin, Dover, 'Intelligent Design' and textbooks". Biochemical Journal. 417 (1). London: 29–42. doi:10.1042/bj20081534. PMID 19061485. is a blog: you're mistaken. Also, how do you define creationism? It's commonly used to refer to anti-evolution creationism, though in a broad sense it can have a wider meaning, but all meanings are religious, not scientific. ID is both a sub-set of creationism, and a modified rebranding of creation science. We have many articles about sub-sets of broad topics, that is essential to show topics clearly. . dave souza, talk 08:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

No Dave, when I say the Matzke blog article I mean the Matzke blog article. This is what was initially explained to me as the justification. The Padian and Matzke article does not seem relevant to this discussion, mainly because I know of no clear quote from it about this specific matter, but also because it is by biologists and we are not discussing biology. But Dave, is this your total answer to all my attempts to reason above?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Responding to your question which is an answer to my question: Creationism is defined in different ways, and has different notable manifestations. But relevant to this discussion I was wondering if you are assuming that all our sources mean recent American Christian culture-war mass media creationism? I can see we are talking past each other on this term because you keep talking as if it is obvious that creationism and the argument from design and being religious are clearly and un-controversially separable? The argument from design itself does not ever actually say anything about "god" except that there is an intelligent agent causing the order of nature. But as so many sources keep pointing out, it is dishonest to say that proposing this argument is scientific and not necessarily religious, in the normal modern senses of those two words. But this applies to pre IDM folk equally. Sedley's book for example equates classical "creationism" with being religious and with the argument from design.
Dave wrote: We have many articles about sub-sets of broad topics, that is essential to show topics clearly. Sure, but that does not mean anything goes. See my analogy of the hypothetical human race article. (a) Articles need to be split in a way that we do not create redundant POV forks, and (b) the kind of firewall this article has around itself, which is also being maintained from the other side at teleological argument is quite stunning and unusual. Both articles are being kept from being properly written because of the facts that may not be mentioned (censorship).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

ADDED: I should also mention that you have repeatedly refused to answer questions about your repeated insinuations that this article and teleological argument are covering very "broad" subjects and need to be split for size reasons. This article is currently pumped full of information about book publishing, films, education debates, legal cases and generally things which should be in the movement article, not the article which (you say) is about the theory in intelligent design. (And repeatedly refusing to answer questions is what causes walls of words.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

To quote Alice's Restaurant, once more, with feeling. There is a broad topic, commonly called "the argument from design", which is covered by teleological argument. That broad topic has a section on Creation Science and intelligent design, summarising points significant to the TA in these two topics. Both are also sub-topics of creationism. To the extent that this overview article about ID has excessive detail, we can work on trimming that, making sure that the details are covered in the sub-articles and leaving a concise summary on this article. This article is the main article on the topic, so mentions the sub-topics per summary style. It's a different article from teleological argument because it's a distinct topic, as shown by numerous sources. There are points that might be related by don't get mentioned if they're not significant to this specific topic, especially if that significance is not shown by any reliable secondary sources. Article size is always a constraint and we can't cover everything, but that's not the reason. . dave souza, talk 18:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Dave, surely you can not expect anyone to accept "the article is too big" until you do the trimming which you admit is needed. Can we agree on that trimming then? I think we should, because the idea that this article is supposed to be about theory/argument seems to be agreed now by both you and MisterDub. Secondly your response, while helpful, clearly does not explain the first sentence and the barbed wire fences. Just to remind: we have no source to justify that first crucial sentence.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

As stated above, if you want to make changes you'll do best to set out detailed proposals on this talk page first so we can reach consensus. What "crucial first sentence"? The first sentence in the article is supported by a good source. If you've any complained about that, please set it out explicitly instead of just complaining. . dave souza, talk 20:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Dave what? How many first sentences can one article have? Are you saying you've seen nothing from me about the details of the case? This is just a big change of subject post again. Do you think I'm stupid? WP:TEND You know the problem with the first sentence and you know you have no source to say that there nothing was referred to as Intelligent design before the 1980s.

BACK TO SUBJECT: I asked you whether you agreed that the material in this article which is not about any theory or argument ever referred to can be removed. This request is based on the logic of your own posts which have explained that this article is about theory/argument and not the movement as a movement. Can you ever answer a straight question on this article talkpage? I am stunned.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Eh? I don't know that there's any problem with the first sentence, neither I nor the first sentence says "that there nothing was referred to as Intelligent design before the 1980s". On the second point, as discussed in another section [hard to keep track!] the creationist "field of enquiry" inevitably involves its proponents and purposes. As the main article on the topic, it discusses these linked topics in summary style. . dave souza, talk 10:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the first sentence, you know very well that it has been designed to be read as saying that "intelligent design" did not exist before the Discovery Institute starting using it. Concerning the real subject here, you have said that this article is the main article for discussion of the argument or theory of the intelligent design movement. We have another article for the movement, and if necessary that can be split. In articles about theories we do not normally spend lots of time talking about (to be more specific) gallup polls, documentaries, a survey of international education systems, and so on. All this is far more relevant to the movement rather than the theory, and as we have an article called movement I wonder why you need to reproduce the same material in so many forks? That is not good policy. We should be allowed to discuss it. I can not help but noting in this context that you have now several times used the size of this present article as an excuse for attacking the idea of trying to improve it by re-considering the present boundaries between this article and teleological argument. But you've refused to answer questions like this one until now, as if that was something you found awkward to discuss. Sorry to say, but it kind of looks like you are trying lots of things to block discussion of improving the article. The war is over Dave. I see no creationists here, just people with rational concerns and sources and proposals.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Your attempt at ascribing motives is incorrect, no personal attacks please. It does not say that there were no uses of the phrase "intelligent design" before Pandas, and as you've been told before that came about five years before the DI got involved. We are discussing it, below. . dave souza, talk 05:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Certainly several native speakers of English including me seem to read it that way and that should in itself be something you are concerned about, if it is correct that you believe we are misunderstanding it. Odd that you do not seem at all concerned about that. Even more remarkable: attempts to try to clarify the sentence have been reverted by you in a way which does seem to indicate that the intention of the English is as described, surely?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Now back to my question which you once again did not answer: why does this article have so much information which is clearly and blatantly only about "intelligent design" the movement, which has another article. Until now you've been telling me this article is about the theory of the movement. The movement itself arguably has a whole heap of articles and there seems to be large amounts of redundancy and overlap. Surely this should be tidied up so that article quality can be maintained better? I think no two article should ever overlap by more than 50% in their subject matter, and ideally a lot less. Do you agree?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a request

Latest comment: 10 years ago48 comments6 people in discussion

Just a request, could you please stop using the race analogy? It's ridiculous. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. And that is what this article looks like to at least some experienced wikipedians who come to this page and see the lead and the footnotes and the apparent bullying here on the talkpage. Now, they may be wrong, but they do not see it yet. So if you can give some reasoning about differences between the analogy and this case, that would be appreciated. .--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) :Not that there's a need to keep using it, but I think that it's a useful analogy....an article that folks are arguing should be narrower than the common meaning of its title. Second there are a lot of substantive things being discussed here and IMHO it is off topic to launch on the analogy like that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks North. Please note I can adapt the analogy if anyone points to problems with it concerning the parallels of the logic. Analogies are very useful in situations where people have been looking at a subject so long that they can no longer understand how someone else would see it. There is a possibility that we have such a situation here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

For starters, it's hard to assume that you weren't accusing your fellow editors of irrationality by comparing them to racists. Maybe, by some grand coincidence, you didn't intend this, but you are hopefully aware of the connotation. Second, there is no such thing as the human race; we're a species. Third, race isn't a real thing... at least, not biologically; it's a social construct. Fourth, even if we ignored all the obvious problems with the analogy, you still got it wrong: the Human (race) article, as the superset, would be a parent article to those that cover particular races (e.g. Asian (race)). OMG! Look! Asian (race) has its own article!

And in case it's not blatantly obvious, Intelligent design is the Asian (race) article, and Teleological argument is the Human (race) article... just as expected. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, guys--this is just wrong. You're attacking Andrew as a diversionary tactic over a quibble about an illustration he perhaps ill-advisedly used. His point is well taken: let's say, instead of race, that an article on automobiles deals only with Chevrolets, and for every other make, see "Other automobiles." Yopienso (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

North8000 and Yopienso, I am not "attacking Andrew as a diversionary tactic." It appears he is likening editors here to racists, and that is just not acceptable! Another analogy, though still logically incorrect, is immensely preferable. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

(added later) Where did you receive that impression from? I didn't see even one hint of that in Andrew's use of the analogy. North8000 (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) MisterDub. If you combine Andrew's research with what you just said, would that not mean that the current TA article is actually the ID article, and the current ID article is actually the ID(Discovery Institute) article, or a duplication of the ID Movement article? North8000 (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

North8000, I think you generally have the organization correct, but you're using the wrong terminology. ID is the common name for a creationist pseudoscience, not the teleological argument, hence the subject of this article is, as you call it, "ID (Discovery Institute)." Teleological argument is the common name for the subject you refer to as "ID," and it therefore enjoys its appropriate namespace. The ID Movement article is an extension of the ID article due to WP:SIZE, not the main article for the subject of ID. Hopefully this helps explain the problem. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Some quite clear problems here:

No one has demonstrated that "intelligent design" is a less common name for the teleological argument than "teleological argument". It is becoming quite popular. It is probably a close race if we only look at secondary sources expert in theology and philosophy.
If the problem is size why are we not removing all the material in this article which is about Australian education systems, legal cases, book publishing, films, etc etc which all have no connection to the "theory" or "argument" of the movement? If no such attempt is made then obviously claiming that the article needs to be this big seems hard to take seriously?
That first sentence and that barbed wire fence are still hard to justify. Wolf and dog are different articles, but I presume there are not patrols of editors attacking anyone who mentions that wolves are dogs and dogs are wolves, giving vague justifications about how it is important that people do not get confused? Both articles clearly explain the connection. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

(ec) MisterDub, obviously rational folk like yourself realize that an analogy is not a simile, so don't make yourself look irrational by crying that you've been accused of racism. Why did I pick an emotive comparison? Precisely because no one will be able to fail to imagine the reaction of people to seeing such a Wikipedia article. I mentioned from the start that I picked an extreme example on purpose, which is not such an unknown technique. Again the aim is to help a discussion.

Anyway, your remark seems to indicate that the intelligent design article (this one) is a sub-category under teleological argument? (like North seems to see also) But then:

Why is most of this article not about any teleological argument? I think it is clear that if I start editing the article to make it focus on teleological argument I am going to see a shit storm right?
We also know that attempts to insert material in this article are vetted fiercely to avoid anyone drawing close links between teleological argument and this article. It's like an armed border right?
Is it possible to rationally discuss why teleological argument needs to be split in the way you now describe the status quo? (Surely without discussion of the intelligent design movement on that article it will be a crippled stub, and without all its information about education systems and films and stuff, this article will also be a crippled stub.) But I've noticed here that even raising the question gets aggressive reactions.
How must we understand the first sentence of this article? It does not give the impression that this article is a sub-article about a teleological argument? (And we still do not have a source for what it says.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, here are my responses (your questions in bold):

Why is most of this article not about any teleological argument? Because the teleological argument already has an article. It is appropriate to WP:SUMMARIZE it here, as is the case, but we shouldn't be making this a copy of that article.
We also know that attempts to insert material in this article are vetted fiercely to avoid anyone drawing close links between teleological argument and this article. It's like an armed border right? No. This is a very contentious article and changes are likely to be reverted unless discussed on the Talk page first; it has nothing to do with associating ID with the teleological argument (especially since the relationship is explicitly stated at least a few times in the article).
Is it possible to rationally discuss why teleological argument needs to be split in the way you now describe the status quo? Yes... we can start anytime.
How must we understand the first sentence of this article? It does not give the impression that this article is a sub-article about a teleological argument? It does, actually: "Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism based on the argument from design..." -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

No I said not about ANY teleological argument. Please re-consider. I think you have completely talked past the point.
There seems to be a very big misunderstanding then. Some explaining could maybe help. BTW I see nary a creationist around here. Maybe the code red can be dropped down a notch?
Good. Is already being put to the test.
The words you chopped off are the ones relevant to my point don't you think?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, I don't know what you're looking for in your first point, and I absolutely think I captured the relevant part of the last one well. What are you wanting me to say here? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

First point: this article is mainly composed of material which has nothing to do with any intelligent design argument or theory. Not even the one of the movement. You said that this is what this article is about remember?
Fourth point: the words you chopped were "and promulgated by the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States". That means there is no other type of intelligent design. We have no suitable source for such a strong statement. In case you missed that, this is a major concern to a lot of experienced editors here because it a major violation of core WP policy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

You mean the "Origin of the concept," "Concepts," and "Criticism" sections aren't in the article??? And there is no other "intelligent design" aside from the topic of this article and that of the argument from design, which appeared in my quote. Hence, I included the relevant part. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Just checking but maybe you posted this in the wrong place? It does not seem to connect to what it is posted under. If this is not just an error I'm afraid that you need to be a bit less pythean.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, let's switch to the "that an article on automobiles deals only with Chevrolets, and for every other make, see "Other automobiles" . And then double the problem (as this article has) by, in the text, making statements like "an automobile is a 4 wheeled vehicle manufactured by General Motors". North8000 (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

{{e/c}MisterDub, it seems to me that you are the one who turned Andrew's illustration into a racist statement. (OMG! Asian!) He clearly said when he first introduced his analogy, "I am going to deliberately pick a striking example, so please do not blame me for this. I need to make it striking so that the logical problem becomes clear. Sometimes humour works, but if it doesn't, please forgive me." Please forgive him if you feel he has been offensive and let's move on.

Reading the literature, it seems Forrest, et al., often use ID and IDM interchangeably. I suggest WP do the same. Yopienso (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Yopienso, I agree, let's move on. As to your mention of ID and IDM, I don't know why we would make the IDM article the main one if they get their name from the "theory" (assuming this is what you are proposing). Perhaps you can elaborate? Also, I have previously suggested Intelligent design creationism (IDC), which is also used by sources and, I think, would be a more appropriate, natural disambiguation than IDM. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

My preference would be to merge the IDM article into this one on the grounds that they are so closely related. I see the IDM as a subset of ID and think it would be handy to have it all on one page. Lots of trimming would improve the merged article. Naturally, I wasn't thinking of doing all that work myself. ;) Yopienso (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a fair proposal. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree. I agree with Dave (I think) that splitting articles between a movement and a theory/argument is not controversial. Why debate that if no one is concerned about it? The term "intelligent design is at least "often" used as a term for any argument from design (or sometimes, more specifically, for just the first step in the argument). That WP says it is only used concerning one Institute in the USA is simply false. Please let's stick to that big controversy instead of going off to handle things that no one is concerned about?

I think one real question with a higher priority is whether the material in this article which is NOT about ANY theory/argument can be given a new home (or is it perhaps already reproduced elsewhere?). When we can work on that then we can better judge what is left over.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you think, then, that it is appropriate in this article to cite to sources that are specifically about the movement? Yopienso (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Yopienso, I think you made a good point in that this article on the overall topic of 'intelligent design" covers "intelligent design" creationism, the movement's "Wedge Strategy," and "intelligent design theory", as mentioned in the summary of Forrest's Trojan Horse. Books and articles on the topic consistently refer to "intelligent design" as the main topic, they don't refer to "intelligent design movement theory" so we'd have to have unnecessary piping if we went down that route, as has been suggested. Obviously the point of having a sub-article about the movement is so that we can concisely summarise it in this main article. I look forward to seeing detailed suggestions so we can reach consensus on changes. . . dave souza, talk 19:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

(ec)I can not see how we can write any articles about teleological arguments s a subject which do not explain the arguing of the movement. But we do not need to have information in those particular articles about their membership, their T shirts, their star signs and so on. I'm slightly exaggerating maybe, but in any case I agreed with Dave when he said this article should not be about the movement except where it pertains to the "theory" which is referred to as intelligent design, and that is only the argument from design. Dave has no source to call any other theory or argument "intelligent design". --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

A secondary remark, just to show I am following the point of MisterDub. I do agree that if IDM-ID justified a separate article then this present title is the wrong one for it.

Ideas for name of (IMHO un-needed DI-ID article): "intelligent design theory", "intelligent design creationism". Both names have problems with overlap to other subjects.
For the general subject, currently teleological argument there are three obvious titles, teleological argument, argument from design, and intelligent design argument.

For those who really want to know what intelligent design means, it is a type of cause. Saying something is caused by intelligent design is a common way (in philosophy and theology, but it spreads wider) to say it can not have come about by accident (or more generally any form of causation which is un-caring). It is therefore theoretically only the first step in an argument from intelligent design, and of course this was the trick the DI thought they could play. But, as our sources all rightly point out, the second step, drawing a conclusion that if you seen intelligent design you see evidence of intelligence agency, is pretty hard to pry apart form the first step. Conclusion: "intelligent design" is in practice more or less "argument from design" (if we are not, nota bene, referring to the movement.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

A false conclusion, based on no more than finding some examples of the phrase in literature without any evidence that it's as notable a term as intelligent design in the evolution-creationism dispute. Got any secondary sources supporting your original research? . . dave souza, talk 20:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Just please clarify which comment you want sourced and I'll do my best.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

What I want is a secondary source showing that the phrase "intelligent design" is a prominent term for the argument-from-design, not the primary source examples of usage you've been putting forward, and another secondary source beside Haught showing that "this was the trick the DI thought they could play". . dave souza, talk 10:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

For your first demand, see below: the ruling and Ayala. For the second one I am not sure what you want because when I wrote about "this trick" I was talking about something I think our article already says and no one is disputing, i.e. that "Behe is evasive" as you recently wrote below. Specifically he is evasive about the fact that his argument from design, like any intelligent design argument, implies a designer and is basically a religious and not a scientific argument. You can not split the assertion of intelligent design from the conclusion. (I think Plantinga breaks it up neatly somewhere, or a source commenting on Plantinga. I also think McPherran has a similar break down of the syllogism.) So can you please clarify?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a summary and on a talk page. wp:ver/wp:nor is a rule for insertion of content in article space. On a talk page, it's just called normal valid talk page conversation. North8000 (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure North but it is just normal that Dave should make it clear what he is saying. Is it ""intelligent design" is in practice more or less "argument from design"". How about I just use a source already in the article, hidden in a footnote that totally agrees with the first sentence:

ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God ... traced ... back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century ... advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley" (the teleological argument) "The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID's 'official position' does not acknowledge that the designer is God."

I think it is then fair that Dave give even just one source which says the opposite in a clear way. Because right now our article says the opposite to this footnote.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

How about Ayala in 2006 saying "The argument from design to demonstrate God's existence, now called the 'Intelligent Design' argument (ID) is a two-tined argument". Can you bring us two good sources now Dave which say the opposite and back up the strong position of our first sentence? I think not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be misreading the first sentence, but from your first source, "ID is not a new scientific argument": other versions are openly presented as theological arguments. Above you gave a link to Francisco J. Ayala 2004, and on p. 62 he writes "Behe, who has totally reformulated Paley's argument-from-design…. Behe's account is not only evasive, but it totally destroys his claim that intelligent design is a scientific hypothesis." . . dave souza, talk 10:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Behe is evasive and so what Dave? A proponent being evasive about a theory has no effect on what that theory says!? The ruling refers to that aspect being part of the official explanation or some such. This is all irrelevant. The ruling says ID as a argument is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God ... traced ... back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century ... advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley. Ayala, Plantinga, classicists, people writing about Kant, whatever you want. Every source worth considering says the same thing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Just about every secondary source says it is a form of creationism, relabelled. It's not either/or, which is why this is a separate article from teleological argument. . dave souza, talk 04:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Because you will not discuss your sources clearly, or give real citations, it is hard to resolve anything. I guess if you were confronted with such an editor on this talkpage you might accuse him of disruptive editing and tell him to be careful. Clearly by now there is clear evidence for the fact that Wikipedia has developed its own perspective based on synthesis of editors using culture war sources, blogs, etc, many of which use terms in a messy way. Just the fact that you say "creationism" normally means "anti-evolutionism" seems to suggest which kind of sources you use. So just for example: wouldn't be an obvious interpretation of all such sources, if they exist, that they are referring purely to the movement? Certainly I've seen no source at all from you which refers to anything other than the movement or their argument from design clearly as "intelligent design". (And the movement has another article.) Where can we handle the topic that our best and clearest sources give us: intelligent design is just argument from design.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I really don't like the way that this talkpage requires one to cite policy constantly, but I would like to make it clearly I am invoking WP:BURDEN concerning the aspect of the first sentence whereby it is clearly intended to mean that there is nothing called "intelligent design" outside of the Discovery Institute's creationism. That is a very strong claim to make and needs very strong sourcing. I have asked repeatedly for sourcing and received nothing which justifies that claim. (If OTOH this claim is not intended, then the wording should be softened to avoid making this implication. That would be a no brainer in most rational WP talkpage discussions.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

You're misreading the sentence, it says "Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism", it says nothing about [previous] use of the phrase in discussing the TA, or indeed use of the phrase as a name for well designed products such as the computer product [mouse] I linked earlier. Do please set out proposals on this talk page for revising the sentence if you think that is necessary. dave souza, talk 10:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

You are playing the troll game of ignoring half the sentence Dave? Amazing to see you do this. Please let's get back to reality? The sentence has been saying that it is a form of creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute. As an opening line it's intention is clear, and indeed you and your junta here have admitted as much and consistently acted on it by aggressively and tendentiously blocking any tweak to wording, or even any rational discussion of tweaking that wording, which might soften the obviously un-encyclopedic absolutism of that sentence.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Policy: WP:NPA. Please desist from this rubbish about "junta" and "tendentiously blocking any tweak" – the latter is blatantly false, since changes have been made to meet your concerns. It remains a form of creationism promulgated by the DI, it is also a specific variation of the design argument. The obvious intention is to make that clear from the outset.. . dave souza, talk 04:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Dave. Of course I'd love to avoid any discussions about individual editors. But having spent some weeks looking at this now, there do seem to be some real questions to be answered about the sourcing for this article, and you do appear to me to have shown no problem with making things personal in what do appear to me to be aggressive attempts to stop discussion and block editing. Your role here is unusual, and you are constantly being mentioned by other editors for example. Having to talk about specific editors is definitely not my style but I do think you need to play a role in allowing a healthier discussion to exist. If you continue to post false accusations, between the lines threats, and diversionary posts which never answer questions in a straight way, then how can anyone avoid addressing you as an individual editor? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Now, to repeat my question: "I would like to make it clearly I am invoking WP:BURDEN concerning the aspect of the first sentence whereby it is clearly intended to mean that there is nothing called "intelligent design" outside of the Discovery Institute's creationism." If this is not the intention of that sentence, then your recent reverting of edits to try to clarify the point are difficult to understand! So the question is as relevant as ever.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Still invoking.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I have placed a cn template on this sentence, which is clearly justified, and should not be deleted unless a source is demonstrated. It seems clear (see various attempts below) Dave is not willing to actually pull out the exact text and reasoning he is using, and from all I can see including the discussion with Atethnekos, the first sentence's source is apparently Dave's SYNTH. Of course if he can bring the material out, we can discuss it, and potentially take it to RSN. I've tried hard.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Core concerns

Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

I think that working on side issues can also be a good thing. But we need to keep in mind the core concern(s) which I think distill to this:

Number 1 The article titled "ID" should not be limited to the DI version.
Number 2 Number 1 almost inevitably leads to statements akin to "an automobile is something made by General Motors" and "ID (with no qualifier and thus ID overall) is (just) a political maneuver by the DI.

The foundation is #1, but I believe #2 is what actually fans the flames. North8000 (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

This is what the abstract from Padian and Matzke says:

ID (‘intelligent design’) is not science, but a form of creationism; both are very different from the simple theological proposition that a divine Creator is responsible for the natural patterns and processes of the Universe. Its current version maintains that a ‘Designer’ must intervene miraculously to accomplish certain natural scientific events. The verdict in the 2005 case Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover School District, et al. (in Harrisburg, PA, U.S.A.) was a landmark of American jurisprudence that prohibited the teaching of ID as science, identified it as religiously based, and forbade long-refuted ‘criticisms of evolution’ from introduction into public school classes. Much of the science of the trial was based on biochemistry; biochemists and other scientists have several important opportunities to improve scientific literacy and science education in American public schools (‘state schools’) by working with teachers, curriculum developers and textbook writers.

Please note:

It is a form of creationism.
It is different from the TA.
In mentioning Kitzmiller and the forbidding of teaching it as science in schools, includes the movement, not just the argument.

This is what our lede says, does it not? Yopienso (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a second. That second bullet point? I do not see the words "teleological argument" in the abstract. Am I missing them? I believe you are making an assumption. I'd be interested to read the body. That first sentence is either making a quite subtle point or it is totally mixed up. But to be honest it is not likely to help because these are biologist-activists writing outside their field, but in their area of activism, so not strong sources. Haught is a theologian though?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

"simple theological proposition that a divine Creator is responsible for the natural patterns and processes of the Universe" = TA Yopienso (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I can see that is your assumption of course, but that is not what they say. They may be using the term to refer to positions like that of Anaxagoras of Clazomenae which are more consistent with modern science. Their wording and context in any case implies that they are referring to something relevant to education policy. Anyway, you are guessing and you are giving undue weight to an abstract which is clearly written by non-specialists in this field, which was clearly written on a theme of education policy, and therefore is not focused upon the bigger point we are discussing. (Maybe there should be an article about Intelligent Design (education).) This little abstract can not be read as saying that "all intelligent design" is anything which is how our encyclopedia's first line is currently intended to be read. Note my remarks below about how WP normally avoids making terms about "all" things or always or never or any absolute terms unless we have exceptionally good sourcing, or there is a very good clear consensus of editors. We clearly do not have that. This talkpage has been receiving concerned remarks for some time. This first sentence is therefore in my opinion not up to WP standards for any article, let alone an FA article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

For your information, the paper goes into discussion of Paley's "argument from design", which s the wording used in the article to refer to the TA. As discussed earlier, it notes that "The ‘ID’ purveyed by the DI takes some elements from ‘Paleyism’, but is much more ambitious than Paley’s deist-friendly argument.". . dave souza, talk 06:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

And BTW just as a house-keeping remark, clearly if this article remains controversial for a significant number of experienced good faith editors with no creationist axe to grind, the FA status of this article should be reviewed. So it is relevant to keep the question in mind of when do we define the talk page discussions as locked up in a circle and unlikely to come out any time soon? Maybe we are there already?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of editors who would happily argue forever about some point. That does not indicate that an article is "controversial". Johnuniq (talk) 11:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, many of the problems that Andrew is pointing out were introduced AFTER it achieved FA. I had proposed reverting the article to how it was when it achieved FA as a significant fix. North8000 (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Johnuniq, undoubtedly you are right that such editors exist. But this article has serious problems. You only have to look at the text of the article to guess what the talk page looks like. It is a long term war zone. When I arrived here to look on the 20th August I fully expected to see lots of arguments with teams of creationists, but instead I find experienced editors with good reputations who are being treated like creationists even though they are talking terms of sources and policies and reasoning.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

What this is actually about

Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Whoa, I was slow to catch on to Andrew's view. He is objecting to isolating the DI's argument as what is commonly called ID. I--and I believe the consensus here--going by common name, see ID as the specific argument(s) and/or thrust(s) (movement) of the DI.

While the DI's ID does hark back to the TA, and the term "ID" has been occasionally used for generations, the person who consults WP will be expecting to read about the new-fangled creationist argument, not the TA. I strongly support including background info/history of the the TA as well as the usage of the term "ID," both to give the present model a basis (or pedigree, if you will) and to differentiate it from its antecedents and variations. Yopienso (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, consensus here can be wrong. There are very good reasons, reliable sources, to think that has happened here concerning some issues. But maybe you do not fully understand me. I say any article about the "argument from design" should to a large extent be about the argument and "theory" of the intellectual design movement because I agree it is a very notable part of the subject. Does that agree with you? I am saying that splitting this article from the other article is very problematic and so we should try to make one focused article. I think this solution gets us around the whole problem of having to defend original research. And indeed it is our aim, or it should be, to report sources neutrally giving due weight to their expertise. It is a standard thing in WP that we are very cautious of making very strong remarks in the name of wikipedia such as "no one has ever said X" and generally it is easy to avoid such controversy. The first sentence of this article is quite remarkable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Yopienso... that is exactly the case. I should say that there have been proposals to remove the "Origin of the concept" section completely, and I have opposed these. I think a summary of the TA and its relation to ID is appropriate in this article, and would love to hear some proposals for changes to this section. Also, it may be worthy to note the abbreviation ID is never used in the case of the argument from design. One source--can't recall which at the moment--even differentiates the two subjects by labeling one "I.D.," and the other "i.d."

Also, Andrew... Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. For now, I think you will have to let consensus work. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

LOL MisterDub. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and trying to bully me away with talk of past conquests is not going to work. Please also note that this article is not named "ID" but "Intelligent design". (Maybe it should be moved to ID.) Please note my remarks to Yopienso to see if they help. Certainly I think we should avoid trying to discuss "never" and "always" claims when we can not even source the first and most critical sentence in the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

MisterDub, I think that your RGW assertion is unfair and mis-portrays what Andrew had just said. Andrew just said that it is wrong by Wikipedia standards which is the exact opposite of the behavior discussed right great wrongs. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Not bullying. It's called policy. You might try to read it sometime. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, I'm sorry, Andrew, I disagree. My main objection to this article is that it has been largely sneering at ID instead of matter-of-factly telling what it is and what the mainstream scientific community thinks about it. Also, I think the movement should be included in this article about the argument.

You are correct that consensus--and Yopienso--could be wrong. But this is where we are today.

Added: Thanks, MisterDub. Such changes would take far more time than I am able to give. :-(

Added: I don't see any bullying.

Wow! Third e/c trying to post one comment! Yopienso (talk) 21:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

MisterDub, indeed you and Dave should begin to use policy (the real policies) as a reference point in discussion, rather than trying to push people off this talkpage. That would be good.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

a sentence which does not fit

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I removed this, which was the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead.

"Scientific acceptance of intelligent design would require redefining science to allow supernatural explanations of observed phenomena, an approach its proponents describe as theistic realism or theistic science."

Can we discuss whether it needs to be adapted and/or fitted somewhere else? It does not fit in the position where it was and it really looks more like a conclusion that a starting point, so something more for the body of the article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

As stated above, please discuss proposals before editing: I've reverted your series of changes which drastically altered the article in ways that other editors have already rejected. . dave souza, talk 09:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Dave, I am allowed to edit this article without your personal permission and I have gone to enormous trouble to give people every opportunity to object with reasoning or sources to anything which affected the way we present reality in the article. (But many of the changes were also just to try to get "normal editing" done to make the writing less obviously awful and wounded looking. Apparently a lack of normal copyediting is the result of the war you are waging. Your post above would certainly indicate that.) For goodness sake. You apparently believe that this page is under martial law?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that Andrew's reasoning is solid, their sourcing is solid, that their sourcing shows that some of what is in the article is on weak or non-existent sourcing grounds and needs changes and that their edits are good. Further, even though they have take the most source-based neutral high road as I've ever seen any editor do, folks have still managed to falsely accuse him of things (e.g. disruption, RGW ) which is very telling of the situation here. North8000 (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to add another post but it is an attempt to get things back on track. I want to request Dave to back up his statement that the changes I made were already rejected by everyone. Would you do that please Dave? I honestly feel this not to be the case. The main categories of changes were:

Trying to expand the section on origins, which is something that has actually been promoted here on the talkpage (with me expressing skepticism to Dave that he would let it happen). I think I used about 4 or 5 new strong sources? I believe all use the term "intelligent design".
Trying to at least make the English of the lead less obviously tortured. As part of that I took Dave's lead and added the word "theory". Dave has insisted that this is what this article is about, not the movement.
Only one controversial thing: trying to remove the un-wikipedian absolutism of the first sentence. But ironically, in Dave's latest postings above he seems to be claiming that it was never the intention to be so absolute about there being no intelligent design outside the Discovery Institute and before the 1980s. So then why was the edit a problem?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion to Andrew

Latest comment: 10 years ago19 comments5 people in discussion

Andrew, Dave does not respond to multi-part questions. If you want a response, ask one simple, direct question at a time.

Wrt the first sentence, I see it as now restored preferable to your most recent version. It is concise, clear, and well sourced.

Concise

Present version: Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism based on the argument from design and promulgated by the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States.

Your version: Intelligent design theory (ID) is a creationist argument from design, but specifically the term normally refers to forms of this argument promoted by the Discovery Institute, which is a politically conservative think tank based in the United States.

Clear--specifically the term normally isn't cogent
Well sourced--Kevin Padian is a biologist writing in a biology journal. Yopienso (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

If editors want me to respond to every point in a multi-part question individually, it greatly facilitates this when each point is signed by the originator so the response can then appear next to the point, and threaded discussion on that specific point can take place. If they're all lumped together, I reserve the option of giving a concise blanket response. . dave souza, talk 06:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Yopienso, if Dave would refuse to reply that's up to him, but eventually it means his posts can be ignored or even deleted. Just like if he were a creationist coming here to troll, if we give no reasoning then none of us have a right to make any demands which stop good faith editors who give reasoning from editing, nor to try to impede discussion aimed at improving the article. Surely Dave will make an effort to justify his reverts? the burden of explanation is on him, not me, because I have made the effort. Concerning your comments about the edit I made, please look in more detail at my comments above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, are you trying to elicit a response? See Dale Carnegie.

I don't understand your dissatisfaction with "Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism based on the argument from design and promulgated by the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States."

You are right that it is hard to distinguish between ID and IDM, which is why I think they should be merged. Why does this article have a large section on the movement? The sources equate them; why should WP separate them? Because it makes too long an article? Prune! Yopienso (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Yopienso, I'd love Dave to respond and I believe I've done all I can to make it easy for him to give clear answers if he wants to. Concerning your various article related opinions:

Number of words is not always the only thing to look at. I edited the second and first sentence together. But also, obviously I've expressed other concerns such as (a) making pronouns clear, (b) making it clear where the movement is intended and where the theory is intended and (c) the "controversial point" (perhaps) about whether ALL intelligent design argument ever has been since the 1980s and promulgated by the Discovery Insitute. Please respect the fact that I've posted carefully and in detail above about this issue, as have others.
The word normally: any better ideas? I am not married to this word but I included it to be careful to try to cover all positions I can understand reasoning for on this talk page.
Sourcing. I've discussed Padian and Matzke above. Not their field; not neutral for this point; not clear they say what you think they say; and they would be disagreeing with clear statements from stronger sources.
Actually I think there really is a fairly wide consensus that our sources do see a different between the argument/theory and the movement, even if they are referred to with the same name sometimes. We just have to be careful not to mix them up!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

How can you say Padian and Matzke were writing outside their field? Please follow the links and then answer this one specific question directly without referring to prior posts. Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Can do! :) The field of this discussion is basically theology or philosophy, or some sort of specialization involving the history of ideas. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC) BTW, good sourcing means looking at the author, but also who checked the author. This was published in a biological journal under a title which reflects an interest in education policy and so on. If they made errors in details of theology such a journal is not going to pick it up. You can post at WP:RSN and expect good opinions if your post is clear about the true context. BTW do you have a copy of Padian and Matzke? :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Once again, Andrew, you're basing your arguments on the false premise that this article is primarily about theology and philosophy, this time adding in history of ideas. Incorrect. The topic is science, creationism, education and constitutional law, as well as theological ideas. Padian and Matzke are well able to write on the topic, and this is fully a reliable source in Wikipedia terms. As for your own ideas, you're consistently synthesising claims from primary sources: you can of course put forward further sources that discuss the points in this first sentence, and we can review what they say. It will be helpful if you were clearer about exactly which part of the sentence you're talking about in relation to the source. Yes I've got a copy of their paper. . dave souza, talk 21:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

99% of what is on talk pages (including everything that you and I just wrote) does not meet wp:ver nor wp:nor, nor does it need to. Would you quit claiming that such invalidates a talk page point made (e.g. "synthesis") ? There is no basis in policy for such a claim. North8000 (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

In what way is a biologist specialised in the differences between fundamentalism and other apparently good old fashioned forms of christianity? And how is such a contrast even relevant to this article, at least in the lead? Dave, are you willing to explain how you derive all this from Padian and Matzke openly or not? Please put your cards on the table. You do of course know I have no need to synthesize. The ruling you have cited many times to me, and which is in the footnotes as a main source, say ID is just argument from design, as per Paley and Aquinas. This is one of the only sources that says anything that clear either way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC) A new source above, Ayala in 2006. Very clear about exactly this point and also answers another call for sources I think you wanted. Just in case it is not clear Ayala certainly has to trump biologists on this. In fact I would suppose these biologists probably might even cite people like Ayala and Haught, if anyone? BTW of course the IDM's own definition of IDT agrees also, and we source it and quote it, as discussed above, which creates a jarring sensation for any sensitive reader moving from the first to second sentence.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

If one is justifying an edit with original research without providing a justification from sources it can not be claimed that the content in the article is not based off the original research. Personally I don't see much difference between the two examples given, "Present version" appears to be the better one because it's more concise, but there may be some nuance I'm missing. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The wording is supported by a reliable source, despite Andrew's personal opinion that for some aspects a more specialised source is needed. Biologists who have examined and debated creationism are well able to discuss these points, and as the topic is presented by proponents as science, it's centrally a question of science. There is of course a jarring discontinuity between the DI's claim that ID is science, and the reality that it is a revamped form of a theological argument. . dave souza, talk 06:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

First, concerning sourcing strength, we can go to WP:RSN to discuss this if necessary but here is what you will be told:

These biologists were called in as experts (if I understand correctly) about what is normal science. For that they'd be interesting, but we are apparently talking about "what is normal Christianity".
You have yourself consistently said that this is a "religious" or "theological" subject (above you say "theological argument"). Indeed the point you are making now is apparently how radically new that the CHRISTIANITY of the IDM is so they are making assertions about christian doctrine and even its history: theologists and philosophers are the experts, and these guys are way out of their field and (for the point you want to use them) going way past what they specialize in concerning culture war debates.
The specific biologists you mention are involved parties in a legal dispute etc and clearly represent people whose main name in public is for taking a position on these very matters. That does not stop us from using them in all cases, but it stops us from using them as a source for "Wikipedia's voice" on a subject where they represent one side in a debate. [ADDED: I understanding the idea that concerning science, Wikipedia sometimes "takes a side" with experts - this is really just an extension of the normal WP:OR reasoning - but as discussed above, this is not about science.]
We also have to consider that we can sometimes use weak sources but what we have here is within WP:REDFLAG. You may not ignore the fact that these guys are apparently disagreeing with every really clear and/or authoritative source we have (if they say what you say). This fact would mean we can not use this source.

Secondly, you appear to have synthesized your own position beyond anything these authors even said anyway. I wish you would prove otherwise, but until now I can only see the discussions above, including the one with Atethnikos.

Thirdly: I really do think that the core of your position here is your personal subjective judgement of what is "jarring". Like the biologists perhaps, you seem to under-rate how jarring the differences are between non DI proponents of ID. You find their fundamentalist Christianity jarring, but so what if you do? Maybe their hair cuts are jarring also, but it has no effect on whether they are (a) considered to be associated with intelligent design as a anti-evolution creationist movement or (b) using the ancient and well-known argument from intelligent design. (Those are the two meanings of the term I can see we have sourcing for so far.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, please cite your source for "the ancient and well-known argument from intelligent design". If you think it's best covered by a source or sources you've linked previously, please identify exactly which one or ones you wish to cite in this article. . dave souza, talk 12:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Obviously that particular accumulation of words was mine here on this talkpage Dave. No one is claiming that "ancient and well-known argument from intelligent design" is a standard term? Or do I misunderstand your request? Please advise what you need sourced. Hope you'll be responding to some of my requests also soon! :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

You've put forward the view that there is such a thing, for it to appear in this article we need to cite a source or sources. Many of your requests seem to hinge on this point. Can you start with "argument from intelligent design", please. . dave souza, talk 13:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

As per discussion on Teleological Argument (and indeed past discussions on this talk page and that one) here is a quick bit of talkpage counter OR to answer the more policy-relevant OR you have inserted into that article again:

Here it is used to discuss Giambattista Vico (18th century). (It is an interesting case!)
Here it is used to refer to Socrates (quite some time back). BTW this one is already used in our teleological argument article. (You of course did a mass deletion of such material from this article which you have by my count still not explained!)
[3] Ayala talking about William Paley (1802), saying "the argument from intelligent design" has never been made so forcefully and extensively.
[4] Apeiron: A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science, Volume 28, Issue 2, talking about Plato

By the way your edit on the other article implies that you believe that the term is used. Strange. Anyway, hoping to see your explanation of the sourcing for the first sentence soon?? (Direct quotes and reasoning.) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

That's better, thanks. Ayala provides a secondary source for modern (post Pandas) use of the phrase "argument from intelligent design" on p. 6 to describe Paley's theology, and on p. 138 describes the [DI] version as revived in the 1990s. The other (similarly modern) sources are examples of usage without reference to the DI's ID, and so are primary sources which would have problems of synthesis if used in this article, but I think Ayala suffices. Glad to have a source meeting my request, I'll suggest a way forward in a new section. . . dave souza, talk 17:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Glad I could help although I can not for the life of me understand why you talk about synthesis. That would entirely depend what we use them for. The context of the sources is your question and they all answer your question. Anyway, I am now hoping you'll explaining your sourcing for the first sentence in a suitably concrete way as per WP:BURDEN?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)