Talk:Intelligent design movement/Archive 4

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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Argument from design not mentioned?

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have been in discussion over on Intelligent design and have a few questions/suggestions:

1. I am surprised that this article appears not to mention the "argument from design" or teleological argument in any place. According to sources cited on the other article this is what most commentators from outside the movement describe as the core of the movement's debating position? Several secondary sources describe "intelligent design" as actually being "argument from design" - specifically in the case of the movement, and also more generally.
2. Also, it seems odd to use the "fish with fins" cite from Pandas and People as the movement's own "definition" for "intelligent design" given that we know that this was a case where the editors simply jammed the term Intelligent design in to a textbook to replace the word "creationism". Normally we should not ignore special circumstances about a publication, if we know any, and we should aim to give their "considered" definition shouldn't we? (For example the one on their website which has been in many historical versions of the lead at Intelligent design.)

To avoid misunderstanding: I do see that the "engineering term" claim of Thaxton makes it complicated to report that somehow the term happens to be and was also before the movement a term used to mean "argument from design", which is exactly what most commentators say that the intelligent design movement's own definition of intelligent design is. But I also think we can report both sides of a complication. (Clearly one option is that Thaxton was covering the religious nature of his terminology, but we have no secondary source making that accusation. So I guess we have nothing to say on the matter, because sources don't. Miracle I guess.)

I also do not deny at all that "intelligent design" is a term made much more popular by the movement.

3. One thing I find confusing in many of our articles about this movement is that we seem to mix up things which they really said upon consideration along with things which are reconstructions, so to speak, of what they really think, coming from the claims of secondary sources. Point 2 is such a case, concerning the definition of intelligent design (the term) but another case is the movement. Who named the movement? I do not see this information in the article. Does the movement even refer to itself this way? It seems like something we should explain fairly early in the article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Bias

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Does anyone involved in this page care that the views of the supporters of this movement are nowhere represented, merely critiqued?

Is it unbiased for a group to have its goals and views defined by opponents?

Is it too much to ask for one measly paragraph in the lead, leaving the rest of the article to the detractor commentary?--SoSaysSunny (talk) 06:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Eh? The first paragraph sets out the definition and aims of the ID movement, quoting their own words. . . dave souza, talk 13:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me, it cites out of context and there's no citations of the ID proponents calling themselves a movement, nor all of them being creationists. I agree that it appears the definition and aims appear be biased by the opponents view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.69.211.150 (talk) 12:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Citation 3, for example Nancy Pearcey in discussion with her ID associate, "Phillip Johnson has developed what is called the 'Intelligent Design' movement". Cite 3 also discusses how they're creationists, others available. . . . dave souza, talk 18:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Macroevolution versus Evolution

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I propose that the clarification be made that the intelligent design movement doesn't oppose the theory of evolution as such, nor does it challenge the existence of the mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection. Rather, in challenging the sufficiency of these mechanisms, ID proponents reject neo-Darwinian macroevolution. Therefore, it seems the wording should be changed from 'evolution' to 'macroevolution'.

Please refer to this source for a clarification of the ID position: http://www.discovery.org/f/118 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacksfenton (talk • contribs) 20:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Not a valid distinction in science, and not what the reliable secondary sources say, as cited in the article. See macroevolution for some clarification of creationist misuse of the term. You're proposing the unduly self-serving primary source of what the discredited Disco Tute claims: a good secondary source is needed for any changes. . . dave souza, talk 20:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The current rendering would seem to suggest that ID proponents outright reject the existence of evolution and the mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection. That would be inaccurate. The distinction needs to be made that these mechanisms are not rejected by the ID movement, but are rather considered insufficient. The source is appropriate because the point was to clarify the distinction made by ID proponents themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacksfenton (talk • contribs) 21:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Amusing, but a fake teach the controversy argument: reliable sources show ID to be thinly disguised anti-evolution, and we don't give undue weight to the dissimulations of cdesign proponentsists. . .

"Kitzmiller in the York Daily Record". NCSE. 11 September 2015. Retrieved 22 October 2015.

dave souza, talk 04:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Intelligent design movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified 2

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Intelligent design movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Intelligent design is not based on religion or creationism

Latest comment: 10 months ago10 comments8 people in discussion

Intelligent design is not based on religion or creationism, see [[1]] . Thus it cannot be a religious campaign as it does not follow one religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.13.80.3 (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Stephen C. Meyer is hardly a reliable source, and see s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District et al.. ... dave souza, talk 13:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

One court case does not represent the whole movement. see [[2]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.13.80.3 (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The Center for Science and Culture is Meyer's organisation -- likewise about as trustworthy as a used-car salesman. Hrafn42 13:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If you don't want to believe a Federal Court judge, then there's academia: Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross' Creationism's Trojan Horse - The Wedge of Intelligent Design and Ronald Numbers' The Creationists, which contains a chapter on ID. Hrafn42 13:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"the ID movement uses the same arguments as the creationists" Just because they use the same 'arguments' doesn't mean that they're the exact same. I664k (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

If it is not, it is a bit curious that:

the ID movement uses the same arguments as the creationists
the leaders of the movement link the movement with religion when talking to their supporters and doing fund raising among their religious base
use the same textbooks as the creationists
starting making this claim after they lost a few court cases which made such a link a legal problem
is based on documents like the Wedge Document that make such a linkage

and so on. Does seem suspicious, does it not?--Filll 14:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah right. ID is completely scientific on its own. Which explains why only religious fanatics are supporting it. By the way, whoever decided to go through the article and enter the words "NOTE: THIS IS PROPAGANDA!" -- will you please stop? I just spent twenty minutes combing the article for instances buried in the text. It's tiring to clean up after your mess. Jparenti 10:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

So Mayers is not a RS to discuss ID? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hausa warrior (talk • contribs) 13:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

You probably mean Meyer. Correct, he is not, or rather, the link to an opinion article by him is not, except for the question of what Meyer believes. Please read WP:RSEDITORIAL. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Anti-evolution legislation

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article Anti-evolution legislation was titled Academic freedom bills until this past December. There is currently a discussion at Talk:Anti-evolution legislation about whether the article should be moved back. You are invited to participate. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Intelligent design which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Severely slanted, ill- informed article.

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Unilaterally declaring intelligent design "pseudoscience" and a religious movement? This is not a legitimate approach of a serious scientist. This is what a cultist does to protect his cult. Wiki should simply present the facts and let them lead wherever they may. Isn't that what real science does? (Try to remember...) 2600:1700:E151:75A0:F5B9:F9EF:346F:A290 (talk) 03:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

You appear to be ill informed, these statements are properly sourced, and see WP:NOTAFORUM. If you want to improve the article, provide sources and detailed proposals. . . dave souza, talk 07:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The gist is that the IP does not want to improve the article, they are here in order to troll. They are part of the alt-med and creationist trolls squad. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)