Talk:Intelligent design

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Intelligent design. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Intelligent design at the Reference desk.

Intelligent design is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 12, 2007.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 2, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
January 21, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
October 16, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
January 9, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
February 23, 2007	Featured article candidate	Promoted
July 24, 2007	Featured article review	Kept
Current status: Featured article

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:TrollWarning

Creationism FA‑class Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please read before starting

First of all, welcome to Wikipedia's Intelligent Design article. This article represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic.

Newcomers to Wikipedia and this article may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid here.

A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents ID in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of ID is too extensive or violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are:

The contributors to the article continually strive to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the Content forking guidelines.

These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are No Original Research (WP:NOR) and Cite Your Sources (WP:CITE).

Some common points of argument are addressed at Wikipedia's Intelligent design FAQ.

Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Wikipedia's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON).

This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the article itself and not the inherent worth of Intelligent Design. See WP:NOT. If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of intelligent design or promote intelligent design please do so at talk.origins or other fora. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.

Notes to editors:

This article uses scientific terminology, and as such, the use of the word 'theory' to refer to anything outside of a recognised scientific theory is ambiguous. Please use words such as 'concept', 'notion', 'idea', 'assertion'; see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Theory.
Although at times heated, the debates contained here are meant to improve the Intelligent Design article. Reasoned, civil discourse is the best means to make an opinion heard. Rude behavior not only distracts from the subject(s) at hand, but tends to make people deride or ignore what was said.
Please use edit summaries.

References

Free image (PD)

I've added the image used by the CRSC to illustrate the Movement section.[1] This could brighten up the FA abstract. ..dave souza, talk 12:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the actual logo though. Couldn't it be a bit misleading. (Sorry, I don7t know what the original logo was).--ZayZayEM 11:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No but it's pretty close.[2] – ornis ⚙ 11:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's a better reference and calls it a banner rather than a logo, so I've modified the caption accordingly. It's obviously the image they used, cropped and with lettering added. If preferred, it would be easy to crop the image to match the section used for the CRSC's original banner, ,,, dave souza, talk 12:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. It's basically identical to the original banner, so yeah, no objections to using this image.--ZayZayEM 02:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK. Not great, but I can live with using that image in the main page blurb. It will probably make the DI go ballistic, but seeing as how they used it in their own literature, they can't really complain. 17:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raul654 (talk • contribs)

TIME cover image

I nominated the Time "evolution wars" cover image (August 15, 2005), which was long a part of this article in the "controversy" section, for deletion review. Basic rationale for this is given a the review page. That cover image was, in my opinion, extremely illustrative of the public dimension of the controversy in 2005 while the Kitzmiller trial was being conducted. For those that don't remember the image, it can be found here. ... Kenosis 17:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good nom, Kenosis. I've put in my 2 cents, as it should never have been deleted in the first place. R. Baley 05:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV closed as relist. Relisted discussion is at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 October 12#Image:Time evolution wars.jpg opining participants are strongly encouraged to do more than merely assert that the image fails/meets the criteria, they should also explain how & why it passes/fails them. GRBerry 02:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finklestein poll of Physicians.

...It's hard to see the relevance of a poll of a tiny subgroup. Should we cut it? Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. There should be a discussion about which details of the poll should be mentioned in the text, as a footnote, or just as a reference to an outside link. But the poll is notable. Also because it uniquely allows to correlate personal faith of polled physician to belief in evolution or ID. I agree that physicians are a subgroup of society. But one with expert insight into the functions of a human body, thus a notable subgroup. Northfox 06:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not that physicians are a tiny subgroup, but that the poll only looks at a tiny subgroup of physicians. I don't really know, it's interesting certainly, perhaps it might be better as a footnote. – ornis ⚙ 09:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, we probably have far too much detail on it now. Any objections to a trim down? Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems Ok, I've rolled some of the extra details into the footnote itself. – ornis ⚙ 11:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<undent>What I think is more interesting is how the Discovery Institute reported these results. They basically misrepresented the poll by doing some manipulation, and claimed that most physicians were in favor of intelligent design. See Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism.--Filll 13:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent Design? On my main page?

Well, at least it's not being vandalised by trolls. OH SHI— —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.67.144 (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on making the main page guys - took a lot of work, well worth it.203.189.134.3 00:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)(For some reason my sig dropped out: try again: PiCo 01:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe now those folks over at conservapedia will be happy? Ha! Yeah, right! ;-) Dr. Cash 00:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pass the popcorn.[3] Raymond Arritt 01:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beer allowed too? I think we might need it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So how long until our names find their way into the DI's blogs (again)? Raul654 01:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Count to five, and then check. Odds are it is. 130.126.67.144 03:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos, ladies and gentlemen. This is not what I expected to see on the Main and thus is a welcome surprise. A round of applause all around for tuning this beastie to the slick, coherent and (I hope) neutral article it is today. --Agamemnon2 05:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on the quality page... but man how annoying to see the subject on the main page.... Fifty7 05:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add my congratulations. Well done! Timb66 09:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

structure / unicorns

There is no such animal as a unicorn, right? There is lots of books, fairytales, films etc. abouts unicorns though. So, there is good reason to have a detailed article on unicorns - and there is. Fine. As intelligent design is an issue of sorts in the US there should be an article about it too (but maybe an article labled US (or something like that, something categorised like the article funny farm - as the issue in question is completely irrelevant to much of the rest of the English speaking world.) Still, of course, it's an issue worth an article, a more concise article though. But still it should be an article similar to the article on unicorns. People who disagree on certain basic principles of science & logic ... well, they exist, same as unicorns non-exist. But what do they have to do on the internet? I mean, there are monastries and there's no ban on spreading your message by copying texts by copying them in hand-writing. Go ahead and good luck to you. But once you embrace the digital world there are certain standards, you know. And everything that is outside of them - well - very cute indeed. But either you submit a report on your parallel universe - and just a report - or go illuminate books. 84.188.245.36 00:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I say, WTF???? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IP traces to Germany so that English may not be their native language. I gather the main point is that the article is too U.S.-centric, since ID is essentially unknown outside the U.S. Raymond Arritt 01:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the complaint is that the article is too US-centric - I think the complaint is that the article is too long and detailed for a phenomenon that is, for all intents and purposes, an American thing. He is, of course, totally wrong. Raul654 01:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation was that we were crazy to have such an article. That's why I thought he mentioned the funny farm (vernacular for the loony bin). OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the commenter was complaining about lack of "equal time", forgetting that there is an entry for God, which seems to be his point by bringing up unicorns Michael.Urban 12:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's some kind of Rorschach inkblot test. How one interprets it reveals fundamental neuroses, buried deep in the subconscious. – ornis ⚙ 12:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<undent>Actually, I think the post brings up a couple of good points. I agree with him that it could be more succinct for many people's purposes. That is why there is now a Simple Wikipedia article about intelligent design and maybe eventually we will have an article like Introduction to intelligent design which are shorter and easier to understand and more direct. There is still a call for a longer more detailed article like the present one, however.

On the issue of US-centric-ness, it is a bit like complaining that an article on the National Institutes of Health is US-centric. However, as we have often discussed here, eventually we might compile all our information about overseas creationist and intelligent design activity into a separate article so we have this repeated objection covered.--Filll 13:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand opinion poll

I'm not sure where this would go in the article, or if it is even relevant to the article, but UMR Research did a survey of New Zealander's opinions on morality, religion and evolution[4]. One of the questions asked

Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings?

which 40% choosing the statement:

Human beings have evolved over millions of years from other forms of life, but God guided this process

Evil Monkey - Hello 01:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's Theistic evolution, not ID. A similiar but different animal. Raul654 01:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh this guy needs to reread his source. 40% of the New Zealand people picked "human being have evolved over millions of years from other forms of life, but God had no part in this process". Its right on page 5 and 6. 128.227.249.197 01:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got the wrong one. It is 24% for the "God guided this process" and 40% for "God played no part". Evil Monkey - Hello 02:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor question

Why don't the External links and Further reading follow Notes, as suggested by the Guide to Layout? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments please

Please note that this substantial edit was made, but probably missed everyone's watchlists due to some poor reverting from myself. I read "can't be taken seriously", reverted, and then realised it was a logical bit of prose, so left it to those who are more active on this article in a content sense than I. Cheers, Daniel 01:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two changes

Given the contentiousness of this issue, and the fact that I will not be online in the next 24 hours due to travel, I am writing here the reason for my two minor edits:

It is quite correct to say, "The consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science," and to go on to give specific examples. Very good. But "unequivocal" is too strong; the percentage of professional scientists who agree with that statement is surely in the high 90s (and includes myself, btw), but it is not unanimous. "Unequivocal" seems like a dig too much at the PhD-holding professional scientists who do support ID.
The claim that "Intelligent design originated" with Edwards v. Aguillard is not actually supported by the Kitzmiller decision that is cited. I think it is better to simply state the proximity in time between the two events, and let the reader decide. That, in fact, is what Kitzmiller does.

--BlueMoonlet 02:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Here is my edit. --BlueMoonlet 02:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unequivocal doesn't mean universal. Although I understand your concern and it may make sense to remove the word. As to the second point, that's not what my memory about what Kitzmiller says. (If there is a problem here we could cite Forrest's work and her testimony that makes it explicit). Can someone who has more time on their hands track down the relevant section in the Kitzmiller decision? I need to head to bed now so cannot do so. JoshuaZ 02:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Unequivocal" doesn't mean "unanimous." It means "clear and unmistakable," which is the perfect word in this context. Raymond Arritt 03:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to the change of the third paragraph of the lead, it became redundant with the first paragraph of the overview, so I changed it back to the earlier form. And the citations do support the statement establishing causation, not just proximity. For example, there is discussion in Kitzmiller referring to conversations about Edwards v. Aguilard in proposals for the book. ... Kenosis 03:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"unequivocal: leaving no doubt: clear, unambiguous." It is not too strong, and is appropriate notwithstanding the existence of a small fringe of scientists, most of which have no expertise in evolutionary biology, and most of which disagree on religious rather than evidential reasons, who disagree. I am reinstating it.
"The weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates, as noted, that the systemic change from “creation” to “intelligent design” occurred sometime in 1987, after the Supreme Court’s important Edwards decision. This compelling evidence strongly supports Plaintiffs’ assertion that ID is creationism re-labeled." This clearly indicates that the court saw some connection between the two. "Response" may be too strong a word, but "in the aftermath of" (or similar) is clearly supported by the citation.

I am reverting the first, and reverting-with-modification the second. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The best citation for the second claim is appears to be on pages 32 and 33 of the decision. Someone should add them as a reference. Ok, now I'm really headed to bed. JoshuaZ 03:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that "unequivocal" doesn't mean "unanimous", but I still find it unnecessarily emphatic. How about "clear consensus"? I will concede the second point, and remark that the footnote should have directed me to pages 32 and 33, rather than page 21. --BlueMoonlet 03:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. "Unequivocal" is accurate. "Clear consensus" is watering it down, which is just plays into the PR strategy of those who try to market ID as science. Raul654 03:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoon is correct about the source needing to be changed. "Clear consensus" seems like a better phrasing to me than unequivocal (actually they seem like almost synonyms to me, and I favor smaller words so...). JoshuaZ 03:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From memory, the adjective "unequivocal" was chosen to balance the competing need not to give undue weight to the tiny fringe, but remain factually accurate. Can anybody point to evidence of equivocation in the scientific consensus (as opposed to insubstantial and unsubstantive dissent) to contradict it? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing that it is incorrect, given that the major professional societies speak for the scientific community. I still think it is unnecessarily emphatic, and that "clear" is just as accurate and better prose. I will confess that I haven't gone through the 44(!) archives of this talk page, and was unaware of any previous discussion of the topic. --BlueMoonlet 03:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of "unequivocal" was discussed back in July, only four months ago. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and the suggestion of "clear consensus" appears to have been made by Gnixon and subsequently ignored. No matter, it was a wide-ranging conversation then, and I'm done for now. --BlueMoonlet 03:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the situation, "clear consensus" is just so much weaselling. Unequivocal is perfect. – ornis ⚙ 10:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<undent>It seems unequivocal that unequivocal is the right word here. If one includes all scientists in the US, including those in fields that are irrelevant to biology and evolution, more than 95% reject the anti-evolution position of intelligent design. If one concentrates only on fields relevant to evolution, the figure is more like >99.9% of scientists in relevant fields. Seems pretty unequivocal to me.--Filll 13:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polytheistic (and non-Christian) points of view on intelligent design?

Has anyone given thought to polytheistic povs on intelligent design? And non-Abrahamic concepts of same? if so, that ought to go into the article. If not, say that and cite sources, and maybe look for a reason. Thank you. 204.52.215.13 03:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find some substantial interest in ID from anybody other than conservative (and mostly evangelical) Christians in ID and we'll look at it. Find WP:RSs of the same and we'll include them in the article. I have seen no sign of any interest at all in ID outside the Abrhamic religions, and nor any sing of interest in the ID movement outreaching outside them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, because I had a similar thought while reading the article. Not whether there is a polytheistic POV on ID, but that there is a logical question to pose to the assertion that the Christian God is the designer: Assume for the sake of discussion that the fundamental tenet of ID is true. What evidence or basis does the DI assert to support that the designer is that God, versus, say, the ancient Greek gods of Homer, the Roman gods, etc.? Those belief systems also offered explanations for natural phenomena (e. g., thunder.) This is not OR -- it is a logical point that it seems some of the authoritative parties in the controversy would have raised. Have they? If so, what was the response of DI? Looking forward to the answer from those knowledgeable on the article subject. If no RS in the controversy has raised this objection, then disregard (and delete this post). Thanks! Unimaginative Username 04:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's not so much an issue as to whether ID can be accommodated into polytheist beliefs as that neither polytheists nor ID advocates seem interested in doing so. And lacking any substantial interest from either side in articulating this accommodation, there's nothing really to report. The Designer=Christian God aspect can best be summarised by this from the Dover decision: "However, as Dr. Haught testified, anyone familiar with Western religious thought would immediately make the association that the tactically unnamed designer is God". It's not so much that somebody coming from some other tradition couldn't make an alternative conclusion, just that the "God-shaped-hole" has been designed such that Westerners (and ID has no profile outside the West) would draw this conclusion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL I was spelunking on uncyclopedia and came up with THIS.... but it's NOT serious... but lol anyway. 204.52.215.107 06:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design does not necessitate Creationism

In the Dzogchen Nyingma (& Bonpo) Vajrayana Buddhism of the Himalaya the Five Pure Lights (of which "Everything" and "Nothing" is constituted) are the Divine Intelligence, the Mysterium Magnum, of Dharma and the Dharmakaya. The Five Pure Lights, the subtle basis of the Mahabhuta, are uncreated and self-manifesting (refer Pratitya-samutpada): therefore, "Intelligent design" does not necessarily depend upon, necessitate, nor entertain, Creationism.
Thanking you in anticipation
B9 hummingbird hovering^{(talk • contribs)} 03:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this comment, but the existence of a religion that believes in a "divine intelligence" in no way disproves that the argument/hypothesis/movement named Intelligent design is a form of Neo-creationism and thus Creationism. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The argument you attribute was neither implied nor stated. This article is not just to do with the organised movement nominally identified as "Intelligent design" just as the argument from design is not Christianity dependent. Moreover, "intelligent design" and "creation" are not mutually dependent; where intelligence spontaneously manifests: refer nondualism. You mention "belief" and "religion" in your comment: no "belief", "religion" and/or "faith" is necessary or required in direct experience of Divine Intelligence. Dialogue does not entail "either" and "or", the operator "and" and the spirit of inclusion and unity is sadly missing in this article. The co-existence of truths within Truth is a fundamental teaching inherent in, and evident throughout, natural systems: refer Deep ecology.

Blessings in blood

B9 hummingbird hovering^{(talk • contribs)} 04:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOAP was employed as a reason to move this content-string from this page. There is no soap-box inherent here, just exposition and elucidation of difference views and identification of conceptual flaws, and assumptions implicit in, the current content of this article. Please do not remove this dialogue-string from this talk page as it contains significant content and directions for future inclusion and iteration of the article.

B9 hummingbird hovering^{(talk • contribs)} 05:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of this has any relevance to this article, nor does it cite any sources (making it likewise purely WP:OR), it is purely a soapbox rant about Eastern religion. It has no place here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rama Rama Ding Ding! 204.52.215.107 07:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC) his noodly appendages salute you 204.52.215.107 07:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poll

I changed

The Zogby poll of scientists at the Sandia National Laboratories, commissioned by the Discovery Institute, show a higher percentage of support."^[1] The Zogby polls, however, suffer from very considerable flaws, and serious concerns have been raised as to its validity, such as having a very low response rate (248 out of 16,000), being conducted on behalf of an organization with an expressed interest in the outcome of the poll, and containing leading questions.^[2]^[3]^[4] A May 2005 survey of nearly 1500 physicians in the US conducted by the Louis Finkelstein Institute and HCD Research showed that 63% of the physicians agreed more with evolution than with intelligent design."^[5]

to

A Zogby poll of scientists at the Sandia National Laboratories, commissioned by the Discovery Institute, show a higher percentage of support.^{[citation needed]} Sandia National Laboratories, however, denied that the survey took place, and serious concerns have been raised as to its validity, such as having a very low response rate (248 out of 16,000), being conducted on behalf of an organization with an expressed interest in the outcome of the poll, and containing leading questions.^[6]^[3]^[7] A May 2005 survey of nearly 1500 physicians in the US conducted by the Louis Finkelstein Institute and HCD Research showed that 63% of the physicians agreed more with evolution than with intelligent design."^[5]

Reasons for the change: 1) The link given for the poll is the wrong one, linking to an Ohio voter poll rather than a poll of scientists 2) There was a typo that needed to be fixed 3) It is important to note that in an open letter SAL denied that any survey of their institution took place ^[8]

My changes were reverted for some reason. Personally I think that the poll should just be deleted, a tiny piece of fraud taking up disproportionate space, but if it must stay the changes would make it more accurate.Sad mouse 04:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the polls are unnecessary to the article, which is the position I held in several discussions. The consensus has been to mention them at least briefly. ... Kenosis 04:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but why not just mention legitimate polls? Having a bad poll takes up more space because of all the lines that need to follow. Sad mouse 04:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some time ago I attempted to point out why none of them are useful -- mostly it has to do with the way the questions are framed. In the case of Sandia, it has to do with the brutally low response rate and the later misrepresentations of its significance by the Discovery Insitutue. And the HCD poll is a minor poll, conducted prior to the disclosures brought forward in the Kitzmiller trial, which failed to fully differentiate between theology and science in the most pertinent questions (though this wasn't part of the earlier discusison). ... Kenosis 04:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When describing polls on philosophical matters, I think it's crucial to include the full precise wording of the question. A person can readily believe that life evolved by natural selection, yet this was also planned by a deity, or that life evolves but the laws of physics follow from some mathematical idea, or... well, you get the idea. Really, this type of poll is like trying to count the number of spaces between grains of sand on a beach. And yet, since polls are an important aspect of the news and publicity surrounding the question, you can't just ignore them either. 70.15.116.59 05:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're right. Since ID is mainly a legal strategy seeking to affect public educational policy in the US, polls may be relevant. This is more-or-less how the consensus was arrived at despite my own protests that the polls available for us to cite in this Wikipedia article are, IMO, virtually useless. In the end, the scientific and educational community and the court system decided the issue, at least for the present. ... Kenosis 05:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<undent>I agree with his changes in general. If we have the wrong link we should fix it. If Sandia denied later that it took place, this should be mentioned. If the DI is using it as a promotional device, this should be mentioned too etc.--Filll 13:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply Untrue

"Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute".

The above statement is simply NOT TRUE. The associated citations do not establish that ALL ( every single one ) of the primary proponents ( however that may be defined ) are associated with a particular organization.

The statement should be edited to read ..., some of whom .... Eregli bob 03:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's simply true and attested by expert witness that all the leading proponents are associated with DI. Have you a reliable source giving a different view, preferably naming the mythical non-DI primary proponents? .. dave souza, talk 06:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed on this talk page over and over for months and even years. Nevertheless, we have been unable to find any evidence whatsoever for your position.--Filll 13:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page needs auto-archive bot (500+ kb)

Anyone have objections/suggestions about setting up a bot to take care of older threads? Anynobody 06:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that B9 hummingbird hovering keeps duplicating the page, which doubled its size temporarily. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot seems a good idea :) – I've just archived it in sections, and have left it where talk of some relevance to today begins, but in future automation sounds worthwhile. .. dave souza, talk 08:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We might also want to consider using a separate page for the archive list. It's getting pretty long and it will only get longer. -- Lilwik 08:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer it to stay on the main talkpage for ease of access -- but turning it into two (or more) columns might be a good idea to save whitespace. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a huge fan of autoarchiving. Apart for the flurry today, this page hasn't seen the kind of high traffic you get on pages like ANI, that necessitates autoarchiving. – ornis ⚙ 09:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is auto-archiving is best whatever the load. Auto archiving avoids the often messy arguments that can result when one user is accused of selectively archiving. The only issue with auto-archiving is it can result in posts being out of order which is IMHO usually a minor issue. I don't really see any other disadvantage any decent archiving bot can be adjusted to leave a certain number of messages and the timeframe can also be adjusted as necessary. Note that a fair number of article talk pages use auto-archiving bots, some of which probably have less traffic then this Nil Einne 10:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can sometimes be useful to keep threads around longer even if they aren't being updated. – ornis ⚙ 10:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When and why? The way I see it, if editors are for their own personal reasons deciding to keep threads around for longer that is precisely the kind of thing we want to avoid since it leads to claims of selective archiving. If you feel threads are being archiving too soon then adjust the time and/or make the bot keep a larger number of minimum threads. It's simply not necessary nor is it wise for an editor to choose what are threads that need to be archived and what aren't on some undefined subjective criteria. Nil Einne 10:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When a there are a lot of drivebys asking the same tired questions over and over again, after a matter has been settled. General practice has been to leave the thread around for a while, before archiving and indexing. And this" It's simply not necessary nor is it wise for an editor to choose what are threads that need to be archived and what aren't on some undefined subjective criteria I find frankly laughable. – ornis ⚙ 10:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Practical problems with the article?

Whenever one tries to edit, the browser gets stuck and the Wikipedia error message comes on after a few seconds. However, I've only noticed this with this article. What gives? 204.52.215.107 05:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume it's simply the size of the article, 161KB. Neobros 07:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Simply ridiculous"

~~Should "simply ridiculous" be there in the introduction? --wj32 ^{talk | contribs} 08:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)~~ Never mind, it has been deleted. --wj32 ^{talk | contribs} 08:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your original question, yes.

Congratulations

I've just read this as the article of the day. Having been involved in a number of other science articles, including passive smoking and global warming controversy, I'd like to congratulate the editors on producing a great article, which clearly states the scientific viewpoint, while giving the anti-science position a fair presentation. JQ 10:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. This is a monumental piece of work. Congratulations to all involved. JMcC 10:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the interest level of the article a few weeks back. I think its a good example of allowing alternative views whilst giving each view a good run for its money. I'd certainly use it as an exemplar for interest anyhow. Hal Cross 11:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"All"/"Many"

I noticed Wyorunner's change from "Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute" to "Its primary proponents, many of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute" being reverted by ConfuciusOrnis with the edit comment "Name ONE primary proponent not associated with DI just ONE"; so it became an intellectual challenge to find one :-)

Percival Davis seems an obvious contender. Is there any substantial link between him and the DI? Or would you argue that he isn't a primary proponent of ID? (I suppose 'primary' can potentially be defined however you like....) TSP 11:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has he done anything substantial for ID since co-authoring Of Pandas and People in the late 1980s? If not, it's hardly surprising that he isn't considered a "primary proponent". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Principally rewriting for the 1993 second edition, and the forthcoming third edition The Design of Life. I might normally agree that one book wouldn't make you a primary proponent, but this does seem to be a pretty defining book of the movement. TSP 12:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He appears not to be listed as a primary author of The Design of Life. Can you point to any information that he made a major new contribution to this or to the second edition under the original title? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear. The draft linked from the book's Wikipedia page, here, lists him among the five authors (in alphabetical order), and the preface says: "The Foundation for Thought and Ethics is therefore extremely fortunate to have Dembski, Behe, and Wells join the original authors, Percival Davis and Dean Kenyon, in this sequel to Of Pandas and People." To me that sounds like the five have worked together, though I suppose it could simply mean that the three new authors had worked with the old material produced by the two original authors. TSP 13:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that:

Behe disavowed involvement in this book at Dover (meaning that the preface is highly inaccurate, at best); &
the fact that the two remaining new authors are the primary authors of the new edition rather implies that it is the two of them are the ones doing the revising, not Davis or Kenyon.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) I didn't know about the disavowal - do you have a source for that? That should be mentioned on the book's page. I'm still vaguely trying to find out if Davis HAS been doing any more ID-related work. Here is a 2001 article from the Reports of the National Center for Science Education which lists Davis among 'other leaders of his [Behe's] movement'. TSP 14:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source for it is Behe's Dover testimony. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As stated with references in our overview, Behe added his argument (about blood clotting being too complex) to the chapter on intelligent design being demonstrated by microbiology (probably "information" in DNA in the first edition) to the 1993 second edition of Pandas. He coined the IC term and set out more examples in his Darwin's Black Box of 1996. At Dover he denied knowing anything about other chapters in Pandas, and presented no expertise to support its claims about archaeology, for example. ... dave souza, talk 14:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've found the relevant passage where he denies authorship of The Design of Life and added it to the book's article. TSP 14:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Unfortunately, proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) Creationism Stephen Meyer, David DeWolf, Percival Davis, Dean Kenyon, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Walter Bradley, Charles Thaxton, and Roger Olson refused, en masse, to grant me permission to reproduce their works. Through their representative at the Seattle-based ID think tank, the Discovery Institute, these authors refused permission to reprint readily available material."[5] Perhaps when time permits we can check if he's listed as an associate or whatever. .. dave souza, talk 12:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is only mentioned on www.discovery.org in relation to Pandas & his other book from the 80s, A Case for Creation -- which implies a fairly tenuous relationship at best. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<undent> A quick look reveals that Davis is not a current signatory of A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. Also Davis has a PhD in Instructional Design so this might not mean much, but his Bachelor's and Masters are in zoology, and the Discovery Institute has had no problem with people with dubious credentials signing the Dissent petition before. I also notice that on the Evolution News blog at the Discovery Institute, there have been some rumors spread previously that Davis had been removed from authorship of the text Of Pandas and People, although this was incorrect. I wonder how big a supporter of intelligent design Davis really is, and if Davis and the Discovery Institute had some sort of falling-out. I will keep my eye out for more information.--Filll 15:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Claim" (?)

Yeah, "Intelligent design" is certainly a "claim" composed of a logic and sub-claims, but can "Intelligent design" be classified as a philosophy, a subreligion, a religion, a theory or some such? Said: Rursus ☻ 12:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Theory. – ornis ⚙ 12:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, equally, Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Claim. TSP 12:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No comparison whatseoever. Theory is clearly false, and the guideline gives a specific definition, and when it should be applied. Claim on the other hand, is just a word that generally should be avoided as a verb. I wonder that you fail to see the difference. – ornis ⚙ 13:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WTA entry doesn't seem to explicitly only refer to verbs, though admittedly all the examples of dubious usage use it as a verb; but in any case, the lead uses 'claim' both as a noun and as a verb. TSP 13:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably "hoax" comes closest, but we've put a lot of thought into the current wording. .. dave souza, talk 12:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My personal favorite would be "stratagem" or "subterfuge" -- as the real point of ID is to make Creationism look more sciencey, not to actually state anything new. But I doubt if either would win consensus. :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was built by consensus in the truest fashion. My lead would have been, "This is a laughable idea conjured up by the Discovery Institute as a disingenuous method to force religion into the classroom. Fortunately, the legal system of the United States decided it was a religious idea without any scientific merit, and was blocked from being taught. It is a failed idea." But we had to be nice to the multiple Discovery Institute and creationist editors who are trying to protect their idea from being utterly destroyed. It must be sad to be so in love with an idea that utterly lacks any foundation. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 13:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"canard...", "tactic..", "variety of creationism..". – ornis ⚙ 13:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On this subject, I've never understood the need for "political correctness" on this matter. Evolution is right and anyone who says otherwise is wrong according to the scientific community (and the religious community is not really relevant in this debate, since it is science and not religion that is being discussed). Michael.A.Anthony 13:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not political correctness, but Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

The reader should indeed be left in no doubt as to the majority opinions on the issue; however, Wikipedia's core policies require us to present the minority views "fairly and without bias". TSP 14:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing most instances of "claim" to some other noun or verb, depending on the context. "Claim" is a loaded word that is often used as a way to denigrate whatever is being "claimed". Per WP:MOS, we avoid use of "claim" except in relation to legal proceedings, or within a direct quote. Johntex\^talk 16:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you better stop right now, you're at about 4 reverts by my count. – ornis ⚙ 16:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He appears to me to be making numerous different changes, not reverts at all. TSP 16:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piecemeal reverts are still reverts. Either way he is repeatedly making the same changes despite being reverted by several editors, and of course consensus, which I might remind john, is a policy, not a guideline like mos, or ata. – ornis ⚙ 16:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you refer us to which section of WP:MOS? I can't see 'claim' mentioned at all in there. It's in WP:WTA, but the description of the uses in there is a bit more nuanced. I'd agree with you over some of the uses; for others it's perhaps the best word. TSP 16:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If "Intelligent Design is a "Claim" why don't we list "Evolution" As a "Claim"? 71.210.185.119 16:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, I'm sorry my changes caused consternation. As TSP says, I was making unique changes, examining each usage one by one in order to check whether the word was being used in regards to a legal proceeding or in a direct quote. I didn't realize anyone was reverting me until someone left me a message at my Talk page.

Per WP:MOS, we are to avoid use of "claim" except in relation to legal proceedings, or within a direct quote. The reason for this is that the word "claim" is usually used to denigrate that statement that is being "claimed".

One of our five pillars is NPOV. We have no reason to use the word "claim" in an effort to make these assertions look bad.

Since I have been reverted, I have tagged the article with a NPOV tag. The tag should not be removed until we fix these wording issues. Johntex\^talk 16:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the tag. This issue has been discussed extensively here before, and the wording was carefully chosen. Claim is an accurate description. Raul654 16:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion, Raul, and inserting opinions of editors into the article is part of the problem. We may not believe in or support Intelligent Design, but we have to follow the five pillars, including NPOV. We are not suppose to use loaded language as a judgement of the assertions discussed in the article. Johntex\^talk 16:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And slapping a tag on the article because you do not get your way is awful childish, tex.

National vs American

The intro should make it clearer that intelligent design is a concept largely associated with the United States; it's jarring to read something like "National Science Teachers Association" without any clarification that this is an American organisation. You can bet that if it was a Chinese, Mexican or South African organisation, it'd be prefaced accordingly.--Nydas^(Talk) 14:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've added a note about NSTA. JoshuaZ 15:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wow

Congratulations to all who helped make this a featured article. I think it shows how wiki-collaboration can produced high quality, balanced articles on even the most controversial of topics. Amit@Talk 14:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]

Is ID an heretical view within Christianity?

If we accept intelligent design as a fact, meaning that some superior being had its part in the evolution and apparition of life, then the next thing we should ask is whether that design really is intelligent. We all should remember that living beings are full of inacceptable physiologycal and anatomical mistakes (such as the vermiform appendix,the coccyx, muscles in the ears, wings on flightless birds,...) that surely an all knowing, good, all powerful being such as god is said to be wouldn't have accepted. Then, the question is if either that is a proof against ID, or, accepting ID is a posture against what Christianity understand as God, and therefore unchristian, and so, when claimed as a fact inside Christianity, heresy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.85.133.39 (talk) 14:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been claimed that biblical literalism (which has close ties to Creationism and thus to ID) is heretical, so it's not too great a leap to conjecture that ID might likewise be considered heretical by some denominations of Christianity. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christians who accept intelligent design know that the world has been defiled by sin, and that in the Christian view, for the 6,000-10,000 years that we have existed, that sin causes mutations, which causes the things 85.85.133.39 talked about, those who think god "Wouldn't let things happen like this" don't really know what the Christian God's plan is. 71.210.185.119 16:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article?

Why is this a featured article? Making it the featured article is an invitation for constant edit war and dispute. It should be removed as featured article, since that only makes what is a controversial subject a bigger target for an edit war. Right now, thousands of people are trying to read an article that keeps changing every minute and is being vandalized. Fanra 14:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC) Let me rephrase that, it is a fine featured article, IF IT IS LOCKED. This should be locked so only Admins can edit it until a period of time has passed (like a month). Fanra 15:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happens with every featured article. If you think this is bad, you should have tried the Sony PS3 article! There's a faith that FA's should show our editable nature... dave souza, talk 15:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unlocking articles during the FA day allows unregistered intellectuals versed on the subject matter to contribute to the article, and as such may encourage them to edit frequently on other articles, thus increasing the richness of information displayed here. There may be a few morons seeking attention, vandalizing the article; however the positive result is worth the reversion time in such cases. Neobros 16:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it time for a lock?

I laughed hard when I was redirected from "Intelligent design" to "Bullshit", but that's probably not appropriate. And it seems like a safe bet that the religious crazies will be out in force, too. Maybe this article should be locked for a day or three? CSWarren 15:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was actually the 1114th Signal Battalion, and they won't be editing from that IP for a day! ;) .. dave souza, talk 15:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. This is often proposed for articles of the day, but:

The Article of the Day is often the first page that new users come to. If they find they cannot edit it, that gives a bad first impression of Wikipedia as the encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
Past experience has shown that articles generally end their day of being Article of the Day in a better state than they started it. The featured article, whether controversial or not, always attracts vandalism; but it also attracts new eyes from good editors, which can help to iron out remaining wrinkles.

TSP 15:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. My apologies for making a request that's well-trod ("well-trodden"?) ground. :) CSWarren 15:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's time for a lock. Readers shouldn't need to be subject to a crap-shoot about whether they'll get a vandalized version or a reasonable reflection of a consensus version. Can an admin please at least semi-protect this page? Perhaps even a full-protect for awhile, then move it back to "protect2"? ... Kenosis 15:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but some of the edit summaries are funny. I think I saw that Atheism and Charles Darwin were semi-protected by the next morning. Maybe it's time. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline says that 'Administrators only semi-protect the page as a response to extreme levels of vandalism', which in my view isn't what we have here (I remember keeping an eye on the Stanley Williams page when THAT was featured article - now that was vandalism!); but others' views may vary. TSP 16:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's only semi-protected for an hour at present -- time enough to run out for a sandwich and coffee. ... Kenosis 16:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Zogby Poll of Ohio Likely Voters How Should We Teach Evolution". Zogby Poll. John Zogby. 2006. Retrieved 2007-08-27.
^ "Sandia National Laboratories says that the Intelligent Design Network (IDNet-NM/Zogby) "Lab Poll" is BOGUS!". New Mexicans for Science and Reason. Retrieved 2007-07-13. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)
^ ^a ^b Mooney, Chris (September 11, 2003). "Polling for ID". Doubt and About. Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Retrieved 2007-02-16.
^ "'Intelligent Design'-ers launch new assault on curriculum using lies and deception". Salon.com. Retrieved 2007-07-13. {{cite web}}: Text "David Harris' Science & Literature. News and commentary on science, literature, journalism and their intersection" ignored (help)
^ ^a ^b According to the poll, 18% of the physicians believed that God created humans exactly as they appear today. An additional 42% believed that God initiated and guided an evolutionary process that has led to current human beings. The poll also found that "an overwhelming majority of Jewish doctors (83%) and half of Catholic doctors (51%) believe that intelligent design is simply “a religiously inspired pseudo- science rather than a legitimate scientific speculation.” The poll also found that ”more than half of Protestant doctors (63%) believe that intelligent design is a “legitimate scientific speculation.”
"Majority of Physicians Give the Nod to Evolution Over Intelligent Design". Retrieved 2007-10-08.
^ "Sandia National Laboratories says that the Intelligent Design Network (IDNet-NM/Zogby) "Lab Poll" is BOGUS!". New Mexicans for Science and Reason. Retrieved 2007-07-13. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)
^ "'Intelligent Design'-ers launch new assault on curriculum using lies and deception". Salon.com. Retrieved 2007-07-13. {{cite web}}: Text "David Harris' Science & Literature. News and commentary on science, literature, journalism and their intersection" ignored (help)
^ "Sandia National Laboratories says that the Intelligent Design Network (IDNet-NM/Zogby) "Lab Poll" is BOGUS!". New Mexicans for Science and Reason. Retrieved 2007-07-13. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)

[1] "Zogby Poll of Ohio Likely Voters How Should We Teach Evolution". Zogby Poll. John Zogby. 2006. Retrieved 2007-08-27.

[2] "Sandia National Laboratories says that the Intelligent Design Network (IDNet-NM/Zogby) "Lab Poll" is BOGUS!". New Mexicans for Science and Reason. Retrieved 2007-07-13. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)

[Polling_for_ID-3] Mooney, Chris (September 11, 2003). "Polling for ID". Doubt and About. Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Retrieved 2007-02-16.

[4] "'Intelligent Design'-ers launch new assault on curriculum using lies and deception". Salon.com. Retrieved 2007-07-13. {{cite web}}: Text "David Harris' Science & Literature. News and commentary on science, literature, journalism and their intersection" ignored (help)

[Findelsteinpollreport-5] According to the poll, 18% of the physicians believed that God created humans exactly as they appear today. An additional 42% believed that God initiated and guided an evolutionary process that has led to current human beings. The poll also found that "an overwhelming majority of Jewish doctors (83%) and half of Catholic doctors (51%) believe that intelligent design is simply “a religiously inspired pseudo- science rather than a legitimate scientific speculation.” The poll also found that ”more than half of Protestant doctors (63%) believe that intelligent design is a “legitimate scientific speculation.”
"Majority of Physicians Give the Nod to Evolution Over Intelligent Design". Retrieved 2007-10-08.

[6] "Sandia National Laboratories says that the Intelligent Design Network (IDNet-NM/Zogby) "Lab Poll" is BOGUS!". New Mexicans for Science and Reason. Retrieved 2007-07-13. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)

[7] "'Intelligent Design'-ers launch new assault on curriculum using lies and deception". Salon.com. Retrieved 2007-07-13. {{cite web}}: Text "David Harris' Science & Literature. News and commentary on science, literature, journalism and their intersection" ignored (help)

[8] "Sandia National Laboratories says that the Intelligent Design Network (IDNet-NM/Zogby) "Lab Poll" is BOGUS!". New Mexicans for Science and Reason. Retrieved 2007-07-13. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]