Talk:Intelligent design (disambiguation)

Untitled

What does MoSed mean? [1] --Ben 02:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe it's an abbreviation for Manual of Style'd -- in other words, a more fitting edit description would have been "modified to conform to Manual of Style guidelines" Slicing 23:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I answered five days ago on the User's Talk page (largely because I first saw his question on my Talk page). It's worth pointing out that "MoSed" is widely used on Wikipedia. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it is important. The definition is so ambiguous that these extra parts are warranted. See Google search for "definition of intelligent design is" which clearly shows just how ambiguous it is. --Ben 23:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Ben, the recent definition of ID ambiguous *ehm* by design. Since it's reinvention as a Code word, it's been in the political self interests of some people to makes the definition fuzzy. Let's make sure we're not feeding the fire.--ghost 15:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Ben's tried this before [2], and has been spoken to/warned against previously. I've removed it once again. FeloniousMonk 23:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Explicit link of primary topic to Discovery Institute

User Bkonrad has reverted a recent edit with the reason being that "while the discovery center may be a proponent, it is more that [sic] just that and teleological argument, while related, does not appear to be ambiguous." This is simply false and a quick trip to the Intelligent design page and its associated Talk:Intelligent design page will make this obvious. The primary topic on the disambiguation page is the Discovery Institute's intelligent design, as is made explicit by the hatnote on its article (This article is about intelligent design as promulgated by the Discovery Institute.). Furthermore, discussions on the Talk page often touch on the ambiguity of the phrase intelligent design (i.e. whether it relates to ID creationism or the teleological argument). In light of these facts, I've reverted the revert. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Bkonrad. ID certainly includes more that just the Discovery institute stuff. The contents of the article itself support what they say. The scope statement in the hatnote should also go. The fact that other ID may utilize an argument which there is an article on (and again, an article only on the argument) is not a basis for trying to change the definition and use of the term "intelligent design". North8000 (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

North8000, please, please, please, please, please, etc., read Wikipedia's policies on article names, especially WP:UCN. I'm not going to explain this all to you again. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You never did address the core issues raised. And mentioning an overall policy and inferring that it supports your point does not work. And what yo are arguing is contrary to standards. Excluding somethign that is clearly within the purview of the topic. What specifically in there are you saying supports your viewpoint? North8000 (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I and others certainly did address the core issue; it's not our fault you fail to understand it. I've explained, in very painful detail, how naming conventions work on WP. You are trying to redefine ID by claiming that its scope is beyond that which exists in the article, contrary to any and all WP:RSs. You have no sources or policy to backup your inane assertions, and that's why we stopped paying attention to you. Engage in constructive discussion or sod off. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted your revert as it seems rather baseless. The Wikipedia article on ID is not limited to the Discovery Center. The text on the disambiguation page typically follow the lead of the article. As for teleological argument, if that is also known as "Intelligent Design", please provide citations in that article. Otherwise, it is at most a related concept and is appropriately listed under see also. older ≠ wiser 18:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's remember the purpose of the disambiguation page is to help the user navigate the encyclopedia more easily, not to provide a place for editors to parse their varying points of view. For that reason, may I suggest:

• We define ID as "the proposition that. . ." since that is the clear definition of the subject and what appears first in the article. (The hatnote is not part of the article, but a further aid to orient the user.)
• We include the definition of "teleological argument" since many users will not be familiar with that term.

Yopienso (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yopienso, I was hoping other editors would get involved in the discussion before this change was made because I foresaw a revert of the new disambig on POV reasons. Unfortunately, no one chimed in and I assumed consent. The "clear definition" you've brought up is how the DI defines it; not how the rest of the world sees it. The original intent of changing the disambig page is to make explicit the connection between ID and the DI, which is not clear currently. I'm open to other ways of doing this, but it is also quite clear from the ID article that ID is creationism and my reverted change seems acceptable in this light (at least, assuming the definition is the determining factor). -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

(after ec) Yopienso, you are quite right. The hatnote is not part of the article. The text on the page should be based on the lead of the article. I've no problem with including a short gloss on teleological argument. older ≠ wiser 19:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

{ec}First off, it's the Discovery Institute, not Discovery Center. Second, I refer again to the hatnote on Intelligent design: This article is about intelligent design as promulgated by the Discovery Institute. The ID article is about the purportedly scientific theory of ID, which is promulgated by the DI, and therefore the hatnote accurately shows the scope of that article as indeed limited to the DI's ID creationism. To reiterate real quick-like, your claim that the ID article is not limited to the DI is patently false.

As for the term intelligent design being synonymous with the teleological argument, please read the Origin of the concept and Origin of the term sections on the ID page. I doubt there are many sources that say the phrase is synonymous with the teleological argument because intelligent design was never specifically associated with it. Rather, any argument that seeks to provide evidence for a god due to apparent design is a teleological argument by definition (see WP:MNA). The phrase intelligent design certainly shows up in literature before modern ID (see citations 30-35 for sources), and it wasn't until the Edwards v. Aguillard court case that creation scientists who could no longer use creationism or creation science adopted the terminology (see [3] and the famous cdesign proponentsists). Honestly, we just get so much confusion at the ID page regarding ID and the teleological argument that I and another editor thought it appropriate to add common synonyms such as intelligent design, argument from design, etc., to the disambiguation page here. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Patently false. The article is not solely concerned with the concept as promulgated by the Discovery Institute. At least not as I read it. If other less partisan editors have the conclusion, I'll defer to their judgement, but on the face of it, the article is about more than only the DI version of ID. DI may be the most notable purveyor of this flavor of BS, but the article appears to be about more. As for teleological argument, if as you acknowledge, I doubt there are many sources that say the phrase is synonymous with the teleological argument because intelligent design was never specifically associated with it, then it is not ambiguous with the term (despite obviously being a related concept). As such, if it is to be included on the disambiguation page, it is at most something for see also. older ≠ wiser 19:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Bkonrad, I agree about the relationship between the teleological argument and the phrase intelligent design. A See also is fine, I was just trying to help the reader and avoid some of the constant headache we get at the ID talk page. As for the ID article, I would like to know how you think its subject matter is anything beyond that of the DI's creationism: every single section therein is specific to it. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, to start with, the intelligent design material that is rightly in the article that predates the Discovery Institute. On another note, using a wrong hatnote as a basis to duplicate the hatnote's error here is not sound reasoning. North8000 (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Those would be the uses of intelligent design as a teleological argument, from which ID was derived. Hence why it's in the History section. (And hence why we wanted to make the connection between intelligent design and the teleological argument blatant.) -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Bkonrad, there is also the testimony of Barbara Forrest, who was a key expert witness in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial due to her published research on ID. When asked by the plaintiff's lawyer, "And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute?" She replied, "All of the leaders are, yes." ([4]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterDub (talk • contribs) 21:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

MisterDub, and what would the common name be for the school of thought of those, past and present, (outside of DI) who subscribe to the teleological argument? Would that be "intelligent design" as the sources say, or would that be "teleological argumentists" (or something like that) per the derivations of a few editors at the wikipedia article? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Believers, I'd assume. Please show me a source where it says that those "who subscribe to the teleological argument" are called anything at all, let alone intelligent design proponents. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, one source is you. You were essentially saying that anything that calls itself intelligent design that is not the DI version is under the teleological argument. Aside from that, the sources call a wide range of stuff that is not under the DI version as "intelligent design".....that is the important statement. In my "telelogical" question I was trying to use your construction, not that of the sources. North8000 (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that's just ridiculous. I have never claimed that people who agree with or otherwise support the teleological argument are called intelligent design proponents. ... I seriously cannot continue responding to you and your BS. Goodbye. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Swan song. MisterDub, I was going to suggest getting an involved third party to hear the arguments (here and at the ID article) and decide, and then I thought, hey that what I came in as. I am following what appears to me to be very obvious for proper coverage of ID. Being an atheist & dis-believer in ID, this position certainly doesn't come a pro-ID bias, it strictly from a sense of mission to have the article properly cover the topic and resolve the issues that visitors keep noting. To recap very briefly, the intelligent design article should cover the full scope of intelligent design. Sources and the article itself show that this is broader than the Discovery Institute creation. It's quite possible that the teleological argument is an argument used by most or all non-DI believers. IMHO such does not validate 1. Excluding intelligent design material from the intelligent design article 2. In essence saying that the rest of ID would get covered only at the "argument" article. I see structure and logic, and my arguments are based on that. Such arguments are sometime Greek to folks who look at things from a "general intent" framework or other frameworks. That may have happened here. I can see that the article has had many similar complaints, albeit most of the vaguer. I think that this could get fixed by leaving the disambig page as-is, and making just a few changes in the ID article. MisterDub, of those in opposition to my thoughts, you are the one who most clearly thinks they are doing the right thing (vs POV based) and has made the most detailed arguments in opposition to mine and so I've chosen to burden you with the decision. I'm going to stop watching and stop participating in the disambig page and the ID article. If YOU want me back to pursue the above debate, please ping me on my talk page. The best to everyone here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with MiserDub here. I could see using the DI's definition if that definition applied to anything but the DI. However, our sources just don't bear that out. I've seen a lot of editors claiming it does, saying that the literature supports a very broad definition, but despite repeated requests, I haven't yet seen a single source which does so. There's been a lot of IDHT behavior on the Talk:Intelligent Design page; North has been a part of some of it. I don't doubt that North is acting in good faith here, and I appreciate his efforts to contribute, but a fairly large consensus of editors disagrees with the yet unsourced assertion that ID extends beyond the DI. With that in mind, it seems important to make the link to the DI explicit in any overview of the topic, seeing as our sources almost universally make the link abundantly clear. I think this (reverted) proposal makes sense, and clears up some amount of ambiguity we see problematically hashed out on the ID talk page now and then. I'd be open to other suggestions, but using a specific definition promoted by an organization known for its unreliability, especially in such a way to make the topic appear broader than our sources show, seems to be introducing unnecessary problems. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It hasn't been very long, but the primary editor opposing the proposal appears to have left the discussion for good, and we have previously had consensus on Talk:Intelligent design for this basic formulation, so I'm going to boldly add it back in. If there are additional concerns, please address them specifically and I'd be happy to discuss them further. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of whatever Local consensus might have been reached, it has no bearing on disambiguation pages which are governed by WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB. The gloss for the disambiguation entries should be based on the lead of the linked article and a hatnote is not part of the article. Similarly, teleological argument, while a related concept, is not directly ambiguous with the term "Intelligent design". older ≠ wiser 17:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Bkonrad, the hatnote isn't important; I only mentioned it because it accurately reflects the scope of the article. The proposed revision is based on the lead (the very next sentence, no less): "It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God". The first sentence in the lead is the definition of ID from the DI, which is an unreliable source due to their proven track record of misinformation. Honestly, I think we've been so apprehensive about POV claims that we wanted to ensure the DI has the first word, regardless of their status as a QS and the accuracy of that definition. I agree wholeheartedly with Mann Jess: "using a specific definition promoted by an organization known for its unreliability, especially in such a way to make the topic appear broader than our sources show, seems to be introducing unnecessary problems." -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• The definition shown is the definition provided by the DI, and should be shown in that context. I've therefore modified the statement accordingly.[5] This matches the opening paragraph of the lead of the intelligent design article. As for the more general concept that appearance of design in nature shows an intelligent designer, that's the teleological argument, also known as the design argument, and the words "intelligent design" have commonly been used to refer to it. . . dave souza, talk 18:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Adding historical link

Per discussions on the main Intelligent Design article Talk page, making link for a historical articl on 19th-centruy use of the phrase. Partl as seperate topic since he main article defines itself as explicitly the DI flavor, partly for WP:SIZE including WP:SIZE notes about contentious parts split to their own article and this topic was strongly debated and edited in/out there so now it can be wrangled in it's own sub-topic sandbox. The Reaction to On the Origin of Species or History of the creation–evolution controversy seem closer to appropriate, but seems standalone article might be better sticking either of those with this contentious bit as a sub-section. Markbassett (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to say, I'm a little concerned about this phrasing: "the 19th century positions against evolution, differing from current usage in being explicitly deism". I understand this article is still a stub, but that seems like such an odd thing to say. Why does the historical usage of the phrase intelligent design refer only to 19th century positions? Were there really no earlier uses of the phrase? Or did earlier uses refer to something different? Did they all refer to deism explicitly, not theism in general? And, most importantly, do we have the sources to support this strong a claim? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, I edited the DAB page to point to the name the article should have (with a lowercase D in design), but that article does not exist yet. I've reverted until the newly created page is moved to its proper namespace (Intelligent design (historical)). -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that was even easier than I thought it was (I have never moved an article before). It's now moved and the DAB has been updated to reflect this. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for capitalization improvement. I'm generally noting 19th century to demark a historical limit on subject scope (i.e separation of topics from main article) to the era of Darwinian developments and early discussion. The ngram viewer shows it increasing around the time of Darwin then declining circa 1890, plus contemporary uses it as a label for particular debate approach, and people were offering at main article numerous and notable cites including letters of Darwin ut being rejected from scope of that article. How it came to be and any 18th century mentions of 'Design' becoming 'Intelligent design' might be reasonable sidenotes in here. I'd also say that the stub should be the later usage as a portion of all discussions -- except that (a) DI flavor seems factually to have independantly come to the same label with separate meaning of particular scientific phraseology so is an unconnected reuse of the label hence disambiguation and (b) the contemporary lookups are looking for the DI flavor or treating it as currently active, not yet ready to view it as just a brief section in some large history. Markbassett (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The only source for the demarcation sounds like it is your original research right?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Discuss changes on this article, not on the ID talk page

I've made edits to avoid linking to a redirect, and to bring the initial description into line with the lead of the ID article itself. North has been reverting with the summary "This is a statement of the scope of the intelligent design article which is under discussion there. If you do not acknowledge that linkage, then it is a contested change here which you should now take to talk here. Sincerely, North800". So here it is: as pointed out at talk:iD, discussions can always link to an older version, but that's no reason for reverting here. . dave souza, talk 22:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with the change, it is unsourced and unsourcable and conflicts with sources. This is a statement of what the article is about which is under discussion there. If you want to make a contentious change to a long standing version, please either get a consensus in talk here or wait for and follow the resolution of the question there.

And "take it to talk" means to discuss it and get consensus for the change, not to open a section in talk and simultaneously put your contested change back in.North8000 (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Gee Dave. Please consider:

• "claimed to be science disputing evolution" implies that there it might only be claiming to be disputing. Ambiguous wording. A good teacher would put a cross against it as poor wording.
• Argument from intelligent design should be the term we point to first in the other bullet you are edit warring over. See WP:DABREDIR "Linking to a redirect can also be helpful when both:

1. the redirect target article contains the disambiguated term; and
2. the redirect could serve as an alternative name for the target article, meaning an alternative term which is already in the article's lead section."

I suggest slowing down a bit.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

There is and has been for months a strong consensus that the current Intelligent design article scope is correct and that the lead accurately summarizes that scope. Just because you keep repeating that it's "unsourced" or "under dispute" doesn't make it so. Reverting based on that rationale is disruptive. You've been instructed by nearly every editor involved at talk:ID to start an RfC or drop the stick. It is absolutely pointless to drag this months-long IDHT charade over to this article too. Stop.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Mann jess I suppose you are addressing this to North, but (a) Dave started this edit war and (b) maybe all 3 of you see this as something to do with article scope, but from outside, it seems to be nothing of the sort. Here is a diff comparing the version of recent months with the version now, which is clearly meant to be a tweak on Dave's new version. In the cold light of day I think there are only two differences:

• One is a wording change which just looks like poor copy editing to me. It seems really odd to see such fierce defense of this very odd wording. Your new version still insists on making the English ambiguous about whether it is just a claim of proponents that they dispute evolution. We all write like this sometimes, but why would we get in an edit war defending such a thing?
• The other basically comes down to a question about which wikilink in preferable in a case like this. I think it is just an MOS style question. I've given a link above which seems relevant.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

dabs deleted

@Swpb: please explain your deletions and revert in more detail? I read the edsum and clicked on the links already. They do not give a clear explanation, because no one is asking for a special exemption as far as I can see. It might not be apparent but the terms you have deleted are controversially claimed to be either the same as intelligent design or very closely related, at least in the sense that some people coming to Wikipedia searching for the term intelligent design will be looking for them, and won't easily be led there any other way. In other words there is ambiguity. Furthermore there has been enormous difficulty and controversy about the linking between the articles, because the nature of these is also difficult to agree upon (and for some editors it seen as "pro creationist" to explain too clearly that certain modern creationist ideas come from respectable old Greek philosophers). Short version: from past discussions the solution you deleted was seen as justified. Why do you argue, as it seems, that there is no ambiguity? Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Dab pages are for unrelated topics that happen to be called the same thing. This page has the parenthetical "(disambiguation)" in the title, which means almost everyone arriving here was at intelligent design first, saw the hatnote there, and decided what they were looking for isn't part of that topic. That hatnote includes teleological argument and intelligent design movement, so there is no value to readers in repeating them here.

Now, ambiguity as meant by MOS:DAB means that each listed item must be known, at least some of the time, as simply the term that is the name of the dab page. But intelligent design in politics is simply a facet on the primary topic, and it would not be reasonable to call it "intelligent design" in and of itself. Same for the Intelligent Design Network. These are partial title matches. If these two are important aspects of the primary topic, then they should be prominently linked in that topic's article, or in an index outline of that topic (which could get its own hatnote), not the disambiguation page. If you know of prior discussion on these entries, please direct me to it. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 14:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I hear you. But there is no consensus on Wikipedia (by my reading) about how to handle the overlapping terminology, and for now the articles have been written in a way which is influenced by this. Instead there was a sort of compromise solution where the term "intelligent design" is strongly connected to the late 20th century creationist phenomenon, but not very clearly connected to related usages. There is a very strong position on WP (which I am not very comfortable with) which says, in effect that the connection between the old and new intelligent design should be minimalized (although obviously not completely hidden) because the recent creationist movement needs to be distinguished from respectable-seeming philosophy. I don't know where to start in terms of directing you to discussions. There was once a lot, on several of the articles, but not so much recently. Partly, dabs, hatnotes and faqs seem to hold the balancing act together. I am not sure the hatnotes are enough on their own if I try to imagine people coming here looking for various things.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Like I said, the place for these clearly-somewhat-related and not-really-ambiguously-titled topics is an index or outline article, and this topic seems ripe for one. That, and the primary article, would also be the place to talk about how different phases of the movement should be distinguished or not. If readers can follow a hatnote to here, then they can follow one to an index instead. Bottom line, local consensus is trumped by global consensus, so even if there was an agreement to put these topics on the dab page (and we haven't found one yet), WP:DAB and MOS:DAB take precedence, and by those guidelines, the entries don't belong here. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 15:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC) (Edit: On reviewing Wikipedia:Indexes and Wikipedia:Outlines, it seems to me the latter is most appropriate here.) —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 15:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I do not intend to work on it at this time. My question to you would be whether you think readers will now be better served by the new situation? You may have more experience on how to set this up better. Personally, as someone interesting in the history of ideas and philosophical topics, I am on the side that thinks this is a topic that needs to cater to a wide range of searchers, and not only a funnel which drags everyone into a discussion about a specific recent creationist movement.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, readers will be better served. I don't see the "funnel" you're talking about. Readers land at intelligent design and immediately face a choice: 1) read about that topic, 2) read about related topics on an outline, or 3) read about unrelated topics on a dab page. That's how this is supposed to be done, because that's what gets everyone to what they're looking for the quickest. Or are you questioning whether intelligent design should be the primary topic to begin with? My interest here is entirely from the perspective of dab page cleanup; I don't know or care much about intelligent design or whatever schisms may exist there. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 20:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)