Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 23

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed.
For older candidates, please check the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

Intelligent design/Archive 23 received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Please read before starting
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 NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, and NPOV: Giving "equal validity" and the contributors to the article have done their best to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the POV fork 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).

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

Intro

I've replaced the majority viewpoint deleted from the intro on 13 November by Djewett [1], and I've shortened it a bit. FeloniousMonk 02:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Good work! I like this shortened version much better. The previous version, with the paragraph explaining the scientific method, seemed out of place to me. The specific critisms belonged (and were also found) other places in the article. This version is short and sweet, giving just a short summary of the minority and majority view, and I don't think anyone on either side of the issue would claim it is POV. -Paralle or Together?

04:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. It's an improvement, and neatly balanced at exactly two sentences for each side. FeloniousMonk

05:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Very good ant 00:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I concur with ant. The introduction fairly and accurately represents the intelligent design viewpoint while maintaining NPOV. Wade A. Tisthammer

01:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. by "intro" I was referring to "Intelligent Design in summary", I forgot about the section preceding this. Wade A. Tisthammer

15:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

RE archived material

This was in response to (and in support of) a comment by FM, now archived

Though nothing in WP policy excludes single-issue editors, it is considered desirable for contributors to gain experience editing articles over a wide range of areas. This experience, for instance, is useful in appreciating how to interpret NPOV as it applies to pseudoscience or minority views. This is particularly applicable if an editor has particularly strong views which he/she thinks are misrepresented. There are remedies, but gratuitously wasting other editor's time is not one of the remedies. From the contributions list, one cannot fail to notice that neither User:Tisthammerw nor User:SanchoPanza has this desirable experience.--CSTAR

05:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Experience is not a license to disregard Wikipedia policy whenever one deems it convenient. On the article was the claim "by Intelligent Design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex". I have never seen this argument before. My request was simple and (I believe) reasonable: in accordance with Wikipedia policy provide a citation of a leading ID opponent who claimed that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning. The purpose of this request was to ensure that this argument was not original research. FeloniousMonk failed to provide such a citation, as did you CSTAR. Pray tell, why do you think this request was a waste of time? Wade A. Tisthammer

00:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Your objection is specious on the face of it. If the sentence in question read "Leading ID proponents state that a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex" you would be correct in asking for a cite or rephrase. However, that is not the sentence in the article. I will bring back my murder analogy - if John Doe is heard yelling at his wife, telling her he hates her, then murders her, an accurate description of what happens is "John Doe murdered his wife in a fit of rage or anger." It is patently not necessary to have John Doe on record as saying "I murdered my wife in a fit of rage or anger." In fact, its unlikely. KillerChihuahua

12:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Please read what I said above. I did not say we had to quote an ID adherent making this argument, I asked for a citation of a leading ID opponent making the argument that “by Intelligent Design's own reasoning, designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex.” (Though to be sure, giving some evidence from ID literature to show that this was indeed from intelligent design's own reasoning wouldn't hurt.) And yet, FeloniousMonk has refused to cite a source of a prominent ID opponent claiming that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning (the purpose of the citation would be to show that this argument is not original research). I don't think this request was unreasonable. Wade A. Tisthammer

15:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, I want to be sure I understand you. Applying your logic to my imaginary murderer, if witnesses saw him screaming insults, and saw his face distorted by rage, and he hacked his wife to death with a cleaver, etc... you would still want a cite from someone stating "he killed his wife in anger" or you don't think it should be in an article about the murder. And that's not unreasonable to you. Is that correct? KillerChihuahua

16:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

That is not correct. Using your murder analogy, I would want confirmed existence of the witness who saw the events. If we had such a witness that source should be used ("cited" if you will). One cannot, for instance, simply pretend that such a witness exists. If the prosecutor at a trial claimed there was a witness but does not provide one on the stand, this would hardly be considered acceptable. Similarly, if this argument is not original research, I would prefer a citation of a prominent ID opponent claiming that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning. Given the dispute of this edit, I do not think my request of a citation is unreasonable in light of Wikipedia policy. Wade A. Tisthammer

16:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Come now people, calm. Wade is not being unreasonable, since we shouldn't just be stating things like this. Whether we consider it correct or incorrect, if we are presenting two sides we need to cite sources for every argument on every side. If we say something like 'it is clear, from such and such and such, that such is the case' that is original research. If we say, 'Blah argues that such and such and such shows such.' that is a cited argument. It can be frustrating, but it stops strawmen being raised later. And for the record (lest you think I'm trying to destroy your argument) I think Intelligent Design is stupid and ignorant. However, let's not let that get in the way of policy. 57.66.51.165 17:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC) Skittle

We're both calm, Skittle (at least I am, and I don't see anything in Wade's post to indicate he is not) - I asked Wade to clarify and he did.

KillerChihuahua

17:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Wade's definately been unreasonable here, as a quick review of /Archive 19 and /Archive 20 will show. He's refused to accept any supporting supporting citation ever given him here. That's by definition unreasonable. FeloniousMonk

17:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Except that none of those citations consisted of a leading ID opponent claiming the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning. Felonious, many of those "supporting citations" you gave did not even mention irreducible complexity. Wade A. Tisthammer

18:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

One can be both unreasonable and calm.

More relevent: The Storyteller and the Scientist "unevolved Designer who is presumably more complex than the things he designs"

Add this to the cites from Archives 19 and 20. KillerChihuahua

18:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Which I predict will also promptly be dismissed by Wade out of hand as irrelvant, not talking about the same thing, etc. See above, or archive's 19 and 20. FeloniousMonk

18:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

First, let's take that quote into context.

The point of evolutionary science, he says, is to explain how complex things get made from a simple start. An unevolved Designer who is presumably more complex than the things he designs just doesn't fit into that picture.

Now if the phrase was "Critics argue that the designer itself must be complex" I would have no objection, for clearly there are citations to support this. But this is not quite so for what FeloniousMonk has argued. FeloniousMonk's argument that appeals to a very specific type of complexity, irreducible complexity, and FeloniousMonk claims that the designer must have irreducible complexity by intelligent design's own reasoning. I suspect this particular argument to be original research. Despite my requests, Felonious has not provided me with a citation of a leading ID opponent who claims that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning. The web page does not count as such a citation for it does not even mention FeloniousMonk's argument. Wade A. Tisthammer

18:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

If humans are irreducibly complex, and ID argues that they are, and ID is criticised by Dawkins that the designer is more complex than the designed, then the designer must be irreducibly complex. By ID's own reasoning not Dawkins', because Dawkins only points this out. He doesn't argue for irreducible complexity. KillerChihuahua

18:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

But is he arguing against it using FeloniousMonk's argument? Dawkins doesn't claim that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own arguments. If he did, please provide the quote here. (Incidentally, I don't know that Behe argues that humans as a whole are irreducibly complex, though he does argue that certain features [as blood-clotting] in humans are; for instance I doubt Behe would deny the ability of a human to survive when the appendix is removed.) Wade A. Tisthammer

18:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Behe himself said humans are irreducibly complex, unless you think we need a citation for how people can not survive without blood. More complex than irreducibly is by definition irreducible. KillerChihuahua

19:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

QED [2] FeloniousMonk

19:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

You are forgetting something. Something is irreducibly complex only if the system ceases to function if any of the various components are removed. Humans cannot survive without blood, true. But humans can survive without an appendix. This is one component that can be removed and yet the human still survives. Therefore, if we are to use Behe's term accurately, humans are not irreducibly complex. Wade A. Tisthammer

19:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. It is noteworthy that although Dawkins claims that the designer must be complex, he doesn't claim that the designer must be complex by intelligent design's own reasoning (at least, not in the quote that was provided). Wade A. Tisthammer

19:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Humans was my word. We'll use blood. Neither is used in the sentence in question in the article, that was just my example. Heck, use anything descibed by Behe as irreducibly complex, the point is Dawkin's argument was that the designer is more complex than the designed. So I'll do it again, with blood.

If blood clotting agents are irreducibly complex, and ID argues that they are, and ID is criticised by Dawkins that the designer is more complex than the designed, then the designer must be irreducibly complex. By ID's own reasoning not Dawkins', because Dawkins only points this out. He doesn't argue for irreducible complexity. KillerChihuahua

18:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Dawkins does not say that the designer must be irreducibly complex, you did. Dawkins did not even mention irreducible complexity. And you have not shown that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning (more importantly, you did not cite a leading ID opponent who claimed this). What is the basis for that claim?

Note also that something doesn't need to be irreducibly complex to be more complex than an IC entity. Humans for instance are not irreducibly complex, and as a whole they are more complex than the blood-clotting cascade. Wade A. Tisthammer

19:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

You're mistaken about the whole blodd clotting vs appendix thing. If an irreducibly complex system were to exist, it would almost certain have to consist of IC and non-IC components. Guettarda

19:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Even if true, it is clearly the case that humans are not irreducibly complex if we are going with Behe’s definition of the term. Humans can survive without an appendix. Do you dispute this? Wade A. Tisthammer

19:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Obviously you are trolling - you can't actually be as dumb as you are pretending to be. Guettarda

19:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I don’t see any reason to be rude here. If you think there’s something wrong with my reasoning (regarding humans not being irreducibly complex), you are free to explain why. Insinuated insults are unnecessary. Wade A. Tisthammer

01:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't being rude. You really need to start reading comments, rather than just repeating your previous argument as if the person replying to you had said nothing. You obviously still haven't read my reply. Guettarda

02:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Which reply? The one where you said, "you can't actually be as dumb as you are pretending to be"? Yes I have read that, and such a personal attack does seem to be a bit rude. If you think there’s something wrong with my reasoning (regarding humans not being irreducibly complex), you are free to explain why. When you insinuated that I have not really read people's comments, perhaps you are referring to this one:

You're mistaken about the whole blodd [sic] clotting vs appendix thing. If an irreducibly complex system were to exist, it would almost certain have to consist of IC and non-IC components.

I have read it and responded to it. Perhaps you did not understand my response (as might be gathered from your earlier remark), so let me try to explain this again. First, let's recap what irreducible complexity is. Something is irreducibly complex only if the system ceases to function if any of the various components are removed. A human is not irreducibly complex, because a component (e.g. the appendix) can be removed and yet the human can survive easily and live a normal life. Suppose an IC system might have components that are themselves not irreducibly complex. But even if true, this does not change the fact that humans are not irreducibly complex, because a component can be removed and yet the human organism can still function.

For my second reply, can a system composed of non-IC components be coherently called IC? I suppose it depends on how you define “component.” Let’s examine this a bit further. That is, imagine a system S composed of A, B, C, and D. The removal of any of these components causes the system to cease functioning. Suppose that component A is composed of A1 and A2, and removal of A1 does not cause component A to cease functioning. But if this were the case, can system S be said to be irreducibly complex? If we can remove A1 and yet the system will still function, perhaps it can no longer be considered irreducibly complex. But again, this depends on how you define “component.”

Are you saying that the appendix does not qualify as a “component” in the human body? If the appendix does qualify as a component, then my counterexample still stands: here we have an example of a component that can be removed and yet the human organism still functions. Wade A. Tisthammer

02:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Wade, I didn't say "irreducibly complex", Behe did. KillerChihuahua

20:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

True, Behe does discuss irreducible complexity. How does that help your position? You still have not provided a citation of a leading ID opponent who claims that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning. Wade A. Tisthammer

20:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Another cite: *Guardian "Similarly, the claim that something - say the bacterial flagellum - is too complex to have evolved by natural selection is alleged, by a lamentably common but false syllogism, to support the "rival" intelligent design theory by default. This kind of default reasoning leaves completely open the possibility that, if the bacterial flagellum is too complex to have evolved, it might also be too complex to have been created. And indeed, a moment's thought shows that any God capable of creating a bacterial flagellum (to say nothing of a universe) would have to be a far more complex, and therefore statistically improbable, entity than the bacterial flagellum (or universe) itself - even more in need of an explanation than the object he is alleged to have created." KillerChihuahua 19:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice quote, but once again notice that he never even mentioned irreducible complexity here, nor did he say that the designer had to be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning, nor did he even say that the designer had to be irreducibly complex, nor did even he say that the designer had any kind of complexity by intelligent design's own reasoning. Again, if you want to put "Critics argue that the designer itself must be complex" I would have no objection. But the argument FeloniousMonk put forth has yet to contain an authoritative citation to show that it is not original research. Wade A. Tisthammer

19:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, you've made your point, many, many times here, and consensus is that it doesn't need a cite, that your objections are specious and that you've been disruptive. You've been warned several times now. You need to accept consensus here and move on. FeloniousMonk

19:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Concur with FM. This is taking up lots of time and space, and you have no consensus or even much support, Wade. Continuting this is disruptive.KillerChihuahua

19:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk, please provide evidence of a consensus that it is acceptable not to provide citations in matters like these. BTW, if nobody wants to discuss my points, they are free not to bring them up again (recall that I did not start this section). Wade A. Tisthammer

20:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Wade, no offense intended, but you seem to have a hyper-preoccupation with the concept of "irreducibility" (as well as a need for a citation of what is essentially a paraphrase). The concept is in and of itself ridiculous. At what point does one stop on this happy little hunt for the irreducible? The quark, the muon, the lepton, the sub-particles, as yet undiscovered, that make up these items? The whole search is like a quest for a holy grail that no one will ever find.

It's time to move on to a new aspect of the subject at hand.

Jim62sch 22:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

A citation for what paraphrase? Paraphrase of what? I am not preoccupied with "irreducibility" as such, I simply wanted an authoritative citation to show that an argument ("by Intelligent Design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex") was not original research. That's it. I'm not sure why your belief that I have a preoccupation of "irreducibility" comes from. In any case, I do not require a citation that gives that argument verbatim; a leading ID opponent who makes a paraphrased form the argument would do. Alas, not even that has been provided. There have been no citations of a leading ID opponent who has made the argument, thus it seems to be original research. All my requests for such citations have been denied. Perhaps original research does get into Wikipedia articles after all via mob rule (when it is against a theory they don’t like). Wade A. Tisthammer

22:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Reading through your posts, I simply cannot imagine how I, or anyone else, might think you were preoccupied with irreducibility. Anyway, peruse the following and you might see where the paraphrase (the item you keep putting in quotes) is drawn from: http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/actualism.html

Additionally, please define "leading ID opponent". What bona fides will raise a person in your eyes to the lofty status of "leading" ID opponent?

Finally, I note that you ignored my point re the folly of the quest for irreducibility. Why was that?

Jim62sch 23:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

You said, "Reading through your posts, I simply cannot imagine how I, or anyone else, might think you were preoccupied with irreducibility." Then why did you say

Wade, no offense intended, but you seem to have a hyper-preoccupation with the concept of "irreducibility"

Regarding your link, next time I would appreciate a cited quote. Giving me the entire web page and saying something along the lines of "It's in there somewhere" is a little annoying (though I know you were not trying to be that way). In the article the individual cites Miller (an example of a prominent ID opponent) who attempts an explanation for the blood-cascade. His explanation ignores critical details, but that's beside the point. Neither Miller nor anyone else there seem to make the argument that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning. If I have missed this claim, I apologize and ask that you point it out to me (with a quote). Until such an authoritative citation is given, I am inclined to believe that the argument is original research.

Regarding a "leading" ID opponent, I don't know a set of rigorous criteria, but basically any chief author on Talk.origins would qualify methinks, as would Dawkins, Eugene Scott, and any other evolution scientist who has published extensively on the issue.

Why did I ignore the folly for the quest of irreducibility? Well for one, I am not making that folly, and I don't know of anyone else who is either. (And this hunt for the irreducible seems to be a misunderstanding of Behe's concept of irreducible complexity.) Wade A. Tisthammer

00:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding 'You said, "Reading through your posts, I simply cannot imagine how I, or anyone else, might think you were preoccupied with irreducibility." Then why did you say'

Wade, no offense intended, but you seem to have a hyper-preoccupation with the concept of "irreducibility"

"Reading through your posts..." was ironical.

As for the rest, I doubt that there is any way I can explain that from a logic standpoint irreducible complexity is an irreducible absurdity. Additionally, since you take exception to the claim that "the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning" let us then pose the question another way: can a "being" that is not irreducibly complex, i.e., a being that is (irreducibly) simple create something that is irreducibly complex? (And please, don't state that the designer is outside the bounds of normal physical law, because once such a statement is introduced into the argument, the claim that ID is science flies out the window.)

Jim62sch 09:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Irreducible complexity is just a description of certain systems: systems such that if any of the various components were removed the system ceases functioning. There doesn't appear to be anything in that concept that is inherently absurd.

Regarding your question, a being that is not irreducibly complex can indeed create something that is irreducibly complex. An example would be a human creating a mousetrap. A human is not irreducibly complex (a component can be removed and yet the human organism still functions; e.g. removing the appendix) but the mousetrap is (remove any of the components, and the trap doesn't work).

Although I believe the argument “by intelligent design’s own reasoning…” is non sequitur, the more applicable reason I’m objecting to it is that it appears to be original research. Despite my challenge of this, my requests for a citation of a leading ID opponent making the argument have been denied. Wade A. Tisthammer

22:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Wade,

The absurdity arises from the use of the word "irreducible" to imply a designer. As we have seen from the mutations of various viruses and bacteria, those systems do not necessarily collapse when a given component is "reshuffled", it is merely a matter of chance as to whether the mutation is successful. In addition, you must keep in mind that during this reshuffling there is a period of instability wherein the virus or bacterium is, in essence, without an original component. For more info, I refer you to the following: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10181563/

Second, the mousetrap argument is old, has been proven a fallacy nine ways to Sunday, and is in serious need of a replacement argument.

Third, if I read your statement regarding the non-irreducible complexity of humans correctly, you are essentially limiting the work of "the designer" only to those things that are irreducibly complex. This leads to and interesting conclusion: since ID states that anything of irreducible complexity requires a designer, and since humans are not irreducibly complex, then the origin of humans can be ascribed to the random agglomeration of irreducibly complex components. Somehow, I doubt that this is what you meant, but it is the only logical conclusion to be drawn.

Fourth, your usage of "non sequitur" is incorrect. Perhaps you merely missed an indefinite article, but I think you need to clarify why you stated that it was a "non sequitur". Simply saying that it is so does not make it so. Also, “by intelligent design’s own reasoning…” is an allowable statement logically so long as ID had been analyzed and the reasoning of same can be either extrapolated or inferred with reasonable surety.

Finally, your insistence on a citation, and the attendant enuretic whining, is becoming tiresome. Following the law of logic I explained above (actually paraphrased -- need a cite?) there is no need for an exact quotation just to satisfy someone else's hesitancy at accepting inferred conclusions. If I say that a Roman general went to France, surveyed the lay of its lands and then conquered them, do I really need to cite Caesar's "veni, vidi, vici" to prove the point? Thus, in keeping with the Latin theme, "De cruce descende! Nam lignum desideramus."

Jim62sch 13:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Relevant reading

Blinded By Science: How ‘Balanced’ Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality - Chris Mooney, Columbia Journalism Review. A valuable warning to Wikipedians about how attempts to balance the coverage can lead to biased, inaccurate and misleading reporting. FeloniousMonk 05:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Note that Mooney has recently gained visibility as a strident critic of ID, and is currently promoting a book with major sections devoted to rehashing the standard objections. It would seem that concern for giving balanced time to minority scientific viewpoints coincides with strongly held personal objections to ID, at least in the case of Mooney and Felonius. SanchoPanza

03:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

So...what's your point here? Other than the ad hominem attack on Mooney and FM, that is. Guettarda

03:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I think SanchoPanza's point may have been that the writer of this article himself seems a bit too biased to accurately remark on "balanced" coverage. Wade A. Tisthammer

18:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

University of Kansas strikes back:

See the following article --

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/11/22/intelligent.design.course.ap/index.html

Jim62sch 09:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Soundness of the design?

As I recall, there was something in ID about the "well-formedness" of biological structures, e.g., how the eye is so well designed to do exactly what it does. That point is refuted by pointing out all the awukward designs that result in suboptimal performance. The best examples is perhaps standing humans. Because we stand, we get low back pain, varicose veins, and hemorrhoids. Not such an intelligent design! Anyway, if that is a part of ID, then perhaps it ought to be in the article. Would anyone more knowledgeable than I care to give it a shot? -- Squidley, who forgot to sign in.

Is the eye the way it is so it can do what it does, or can it do what it does because of the way it is?

Jim62sch 22:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

of interest

For some nice writing, interested parties should take a look at Charles Krauthammer's column on ID. Some of which I'd disagree with, but I loved "Intelligent design ... is a self-enclosed, tautological "theory" ... that admits that evolution and natural selection explain such things as the development of drug resistance in bacteria and other such evolutionary changes within species but also says that every once in a while God steps into this world of constant and accumulating change and says, "I think I'll make me a lemur today." ". - Nunh-huh 02:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Note also the article by George Will. It seems that there may be a growing divide between the intellectual right and the evangelical right. About time. Bill Jefferys 04:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I should like to point out that Krauthammer's statements regarding Newton and Einstein and God are somewhat misleading. Newton's belief system was traditionalist only to an extent: he also believed in alchemy and a variety of paranormal pursuits that were outside the mainstream traditional religion of his day. Einstein, as a young man, had jettisoned all of the traditional beliefs of a "God of Miracles" in favor of a "God of Order". This God of Order he never truly defined, and it could have ranged from a true deity in a modified sense to the laws of physics or of math.

For more information on this subject, you may wish to see various books written by Michio Kaku, Stephen Hawking or Brian Greene, as well as several Einstein biographies.

Jim62sch 20:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Kansas, the supernatural and astrology

User:KillerChihuahua removed the following from the Portraying Intelligent Design as science section, referring to the talk page but without any obvious reference on this page.

While modern science looks for natural explanations of phenonema, without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural, Intelligent Design proponents contend that science must allow for both natural and supernatural explanations. In Kansas, the board of education has voted to redefine science to include supernatural explanations of natural phenomena[3]. In court, Behe indicated that his definition would include astrology as a science, but under subsequent questioning said that this was a historical reference[4].

At the least these seem to be noteworthy points, and the second link to the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Trial transcript (on talkorigins) leads to a wealth of information on ID proponents responses to questioning. ...dave souza 17:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The introduction of the article has to be very tight and it is the currently the resolution of much discussion. I think what KC meant was that it is desirable to propose this addition in the talk page first, such as where to place it. As far as the content goes, I don't see anything incorrect with what you wrote. Although I always hesitate to make any generalizations about what ID is, since what its proponents claim it is seems to automagically mutate depending on circumstances.--CSTAR

18:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

What my summary said was "Rv edits... Pls see talk page for major edits" and it was a revert of a fairly sizeable addition. I had intended to post immediately following, but was called away from the computer. However, CSTAR's assement of my meaning is accurate. Considering that every change here is usually followed by a 3 week debate about the entry, the phrasing, and whether the addition has somehow undone a precarious "balance" it may be desirable to gain concensus prior to a major addition to the article.

Now my two cents on the addition: might it not be better suited to add to ID Movment rather than ID? The events in Kansas, while noteable from a movement perspective, add nothing to our understanding of ID nor of the rebuttal of ID from a scientific perspective. One puppy's opinion. OTOH, it may be that something(s) may be clarified by Behe's statements, and/or other points of the paragraph. KillerChihuahua

20:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, and indeed Behe's testimony seems to suggest ideas of ID which differ considerably from the party line, as well as his disowning the bits of Panda he didn't write. I'll stand back and let wiser heads think about where best to put these points, will be grateful if someone can add them as appropriate ....dave souza 00:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Let'd not let this drop - does anyone have an objection to this being placed in the ID Movement article? Either as is, or might some fine-tuning be appropriate?

I am not active on the ID Movement article, I think all I've done is revert vandalism there. I cannot guess whether there will be any issue with adding this paragraph there. I've already stated my opinion: this is worthy, this is well written, and this belongs in the ID Movement article. Anyone agree or disagree? KillerChihuahua

12:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Or is there any bit that should be in this article? KillerChihuahua

12:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The “fundamental assumption” of ID

The Wikipedia article has claimed, "the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design [is] that a designer is needed for every complex object." I suspect this is original research of the straw man kind. I have never seen this assumption in any ID literature, and the article provides no citations. I have however seen ID statements that seem to point in the opposite direction.

Dembski himself claims that not every complex entity is designed; the added criterion of specification must be used before a design inference can be rationally made; hence the term complex specified information. See this web page where he admits that chance can generate complex (albeit unspecified) information.

I have found a creationist source that comes at least close to contradicting claim. Gary Parker's section in What is Creation Science? describes creation science applied to biology--which is apparently just intelligent design theory (as he describes it). In it he notes that creation does not argue from design per se, but the kind of design we observe. He notes that some things (e.g. a snowflake) can be brought about naturally (page 46), but other things (as airplanes) cannot. Snowflakes have some complexity, so this seems to be a counterexample this alleged ID claim. Another one might be this web page which also cites snowflakes for an example. So it seems, according to ID, that some kinds of complexity can be made naturally but others cannot. If so, the claim that the fundamental assumption of ID is that “every complex object requires a designer” is false.

This “fundamental assumption” appears to be original research of the straw man kind. I request an authoritative citation of this alleged assumption be given. If none can be provided, it seems prudent to remove it from the Wikipedia entry. Wade A. Tisthammer 01:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

A more accurate statement is "the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design [is] that a designer is needed for every irreducibly complex object." Thanks for catching that. FeloniousMonk

01:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Although it is perhaps very easy to assume that this is "the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design" this does not appear to be the case. In many articles, Dembski argues for design using e.g. complex specified information and the explanatory filter--all without even mentioning irreducible complexity. Whatever the fundamental assumption of intelligent design might be, it does not appear to necessarily involve irreducible complexity. Perhaps you meant it is Michael Behe's (the leading ID proponent of irreducible complexity) fundamental assumption when it comes to intelligent design theory. Again, that does not appear to be the case. Chapter 7 of Darwin's Black Box appeals to design when it comes to the origin of life without appealing to irreducible complexity.

Perhaps, however, it is at least Behe's belief that intelligent design is needed for every irreducibly complex object? After all, Behe often cites certain irreducibly complex biochemical systems as evidence for design. However, even this alleged belief does not appear to be quite true. This web article (albeit one that is extravagantly titled) quotes a trial transcript where Behe mentions an example of something irreducibly complex that need not be designed. So it seems that not every irreducibly complex object must be designed, even if ID claims that irreducible complexity often points to design. Wade A. Tisthammer

15:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure Behe will be surprised to here that. Um, sorry, but no, I don't think you understand what you're talking about. Demsbki's SC being valid is wholly contingent on Behe's IC being valid, something Dembski acknowledges.

I'm going to put it to you plainly Wade about your repeated ignoring of WP:CON by once again objecting to this section of the article. I'll borrow one of your stock phrases: "Your objection appears to be original research of the straw man kind."

Viewing your edit history for this page [5], your earliest contributions were objections on this exact same issue, starting 7 Nov. You've been ignoring consensus ever since. You're obviously ideologically opposed to the "Who Designed the Designer?" section and obsessed with removing or gutting it despite it being well-supported. First you tried to claim the "who designed the designer" argument was entirely original research. Failing there you moved on to an individual sentences that comprise the crux of the section, failing again. Now this objection. This is clearly a pattern, and one that needs to stop.

You've been warned about being disruptive by raising bad faith objections here already once or twice, and yet you fail to take heed, instead choosing the path of the bad faith malcontent. You've been carrying on at this since 7 November [6]. There's a definite limit to how long responsible editors should have to respond to you, and you've reached it. It's time for to prove that you respect the project by 1) abiding by consensus here, 2) contributing to the project constructively. FeloniousMonk

16:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Why would Behe be surprised to learn what his own views are? FeloniousMonk, you claim that Dembski acknowledges that his idea of "specified complexity" is wholly contingent on Behe's "irreducible complexity" being valid. I would like to see a citation supporting that claim.

Why have you chosen the route of personal attacks instead of addressing what Behe has said? It's true I have been accused of being "disruptive" -- by yourself, apparently by requesting citations for disputed claims (e.g. when I asked for a citation of a leading ID opponent making the claim that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own argument). Contrary to your insinuations, my earliest contributions are not on this issue regarding the "fundamental assumption" of intelligent design. Previously I had made contributions resolving a dispute regarding the size of the Death Star. This was before I registered with Wikipedia so perhaps you simply assumed this was my first contribution (the first time I registered was when I received messages at a public computer, at which point it seemed prudent to finally register since the message was addressed to a specific IP address that I did not commonly use). Additionally, on what grounds do have that this objection is in bad faith? And on what grounds do you claim my objection "appears to be original research of the straw man kind"? I am, after all, the one who has provided citations here. You have not.

If anyone has been disruptive here it is you by e.g. misrepresenting my position. For instance, you said

First you tried to claim the "who designed the designer" argument was entirely original research.

I did no such thing. I did however claim that "the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design [is] that a designer is needed for every complex object" (which was in the "who designed the designer" section) seemed to be original research of the straw man kind in light of the consistent refusal to cite sources regarding this alleged fundamental assumption, and the ID statements seeming to contradict this claim. For the most part you have ignored this objection. However, you have now at least modified the alleged assumption, which I suppose is progress. How about we now deal with the issue at hand instead of resorting to personal attacks? Can you at least address what Behe said regarding not all irreducibly complex entities requiring a designer? Wade A. Tisthammer

16:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Before I indulge any more of your calls for citations, the response to each of which you've promptly dismissed out of hand, I want to see something. Can you name the book which was Dembski's thesis for specified complexity? FeloniousMonk

18:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I don’t recall you ever giving a citation regarding the “fundamental assumption” of ID. In any case, there were a number of books and articles where he presented his argument regarding specified complexity. Are you referring to The Design Inference? And what about what Behe said regarding not all irreducibly complex entities requiring a designer? Doesn’t this seem to disprove the existence of “the fundamental assumption” you referred to? Wade A. Tisthammer

18:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

So you're not certain. Why should we indulge your incessant objections if you don't even know a central, necessary and simple point like which book Dembski introduced specified complexity? I don't think you're well-suited to be dismissing supporting evidence here willy-nilly as you've been. FeloniousMonk

18:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

You can indulge in my objections because I have provided a relevant citation. Suppose for instance I am wrong about The Design Inference. Does that change what Behe said about not all irreducibly complex entities requiring design? No it does not. So why don't you address the matter at hand? Wade A. Tisthammer

19:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Felonious, I see that you have not responded, even though you have clearly been watching this section (due to your reversions of my formats here). If you cannot come up with a good reason to disregard Behe's own words that flatly contradict this alleged "fundamental assumption" of intelligent design regarding irreducible complexity, I will proceed with the edit. (Of course, if neither you nor anyone else gives any reason at all, I will definitely proceed with the edit in deleting this alleged fundamental assumption.) Wade A. Tisthammer

20:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Wade, why are you addressing yourself to FM, not the editors of this page at large, and threatening to make an edit which is against consensus? This is very disruptive and rude. Please stop. KillerChihuahua

20:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I shouldn't have addressed Felonious alone (though I did implicitly include everyone else in my parenthetical note above) and for that I apologize. Nonetheless, he is really the only person who has addressed the issue here. And how can you tell me that this change is against consensus when (at least at the time) only one person has responded to the issue here? And after I provided the citation of Behe, Felonious has subsequently stopped addressing that issue, and so there is no clear evidence of a consensus not to remove the alleged fundamental assumption of ID.

Anyway, I'd like to here your (or anyone else's) input. It has been claimed that "the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design [is] that a designer is needed for every irreducibly complex object". I have never seen this alleged fundamental assumption, and the Wikipedia article provides no references. I have requested an authoritative citation to show that this is not original research of the straw man kind. Furthermore, I have found a statement by Behe (the leading ID proponent of irreducible complexity) who has flatly contradicted this alleged assumption. This web article (albeit one that is extravagantly titled) quotes a trial transcript where Behe mentions an example of something irreducibly complex that need not be designed. So it seems that not every irreducibly complex object must be designed, even if ID claims that irreducible complexity often points to design. In light of this pretty strong evidence, I suggest this "fundamental assumption" be removed from the article. If you (or anyone else) cannot come up with any reason to disregard Behe's own words that flatly contradict this alleged "fundamental assumption" of intelligent design regarding irreducible complexity, I will proceed with the edit. Wade A. Tisthammer

20:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your withdrawing of addressing FM alone; this is very unsettling. It really is beginning to look like you are trying to start a fight with one edior rather than trying to improve the article.

Several cites have been given; you have rejected them all. Several editors have responded, stating they feel this is an accurate statement, supported by the cites. Your referral to Behe as the leader of ID is manifestly inaccurate. The Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture is headed by Dr. Stephen Meyer. The head of the Discover Institute is Bruce Chapman. Both William A. Dembski and Michael J. Behe have written extensively. While Behe is indeed the originator of the term "irreducible complexity" to somehow make of this that he is the sole source of the assumptions of ID is misleading at best. Further, Behe has contradicted Dembski, and doubtless there have been other differences of opinions, both major and minor, in the ranks of ID. To offer a cite of one proponent of ID and try to use that to completely change a statment about ID as a whole is utilizing "pick and choose", especially given that you have rejected out of hand the cites you have been offered supporting the statement as it is written. In short, you have no consensus here on your proposed change. You have utilized questionable methods to support your proposed change, you have rejected the other editor's cites and quotes and references in a high-handed and dismissive fashion, and you have on multiple occasions addressed your comments to FeloniousMonk, not the editors at large, which bears a strong resemblence to trying to make this a battle between you and FM. I for one am tired of your incessent disruptive behavior. You have no consensus. Yet when after 3 pages or so of archives, people tire of answering your points again and again, you post a threat that if you do not get specific response from people, you will post a change for which you do not have concensus and replace that which has been the careful work of a number of people. I reverted a large change by TonySidaway this morning; I referred him to the talk page and advised him to gain consensus prior to making changes. He wanted to change the intro - you can see for yourself that it would have been enormously more hostile to ID - but it is inappropriate to do so without consensus.

Let me make this clear, because you seem to be missing this point: Gaining consensus means just that. It doesn't mean beating people over the head with WP:this and WP:that to make them jump through hoops to satisfy you. It doesn't mean posting the same tired objection for the nth time, repeating like a cranky child that you are not satisfied. If no one replies to your suggestion with "hey, you have a point there, what can we do to make this better?" then it means that not only do you not have consensus, you don't even have a point which is considered particularly valid.

I should probably read this over before saving, but I keep losing connection on preview so if any of my wording is questionable or my sentences run-on, please bear with me - I will tweak this if I can (its been an hour since I could get through, my router is dying.) KillerChihuahua

21:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about "Several cites have been given"? None have been given yet regarding the "fundamental assumption" ID allegedly has (note: you may be thinking of another, different issue I raised; and even then none of those citations contained the argument I suspected was original research—but for now let’s ignore that and get to the matter at hand). If you have citations, please provide me with one. Behe is the leading ID proponent of irreducible complexity (confer Darwin's Black Box). I didn't say he was the leader of everything regarding ID. Nonetheless he is a very prominent proponent of ID in general, and even more so when it comes to irreducible complexity. You said

To offer a cite of one proponent of ID and try to use that to completely change a statment about ID as a whole is utilizing "pick and choose" especially given that you have rejected out of hand the cites you have been offered supporting the statement as it is written

As opposed to not citing any proponents of ID at all? This proponent of ID, as I said, happens to be the leading proponent of ID when it comes to irreducible complexity (which is what the alleged ID assumption is about). With all due respect, what more do you want? Can you at least give me some citations before claiming I have "rejected out of hand the cites you have been offered supporting the statement as it is written"? Your criticism appears premature, to say the least.

I am not trying to start a "fight". On what grounds do you believe this? How does asking for a citation (in accordance with Wikipedia policy) constitute starting a fight? When I addressed FeloniousMonk it was because that was who I was responding to (e.g. in cases where he was the only editor contributing to the matter at hand), so it wasn't clear to me at the time that I was supposed to the "editors at large". (Come to think of it, I didn't see you complaining when FeloniousMonk only addressed me rather than the editors of large, and come to think of it you yourself are addressing me now instead of the editors at large; particularly when you claim the existence of citations.)

You have appealed to consensus where none apparently exists in this section. Additionally, regarding consensus, let me point out:

Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy)

So you can't just refuse to provide citations and ignore Wikipedia policy by mere consensus, especially if one doesn't exist. If you have citations regarding this alleged fundamental assumption of ID, please provide them. After all, merely claiming they exist won't do anyone any good. Wade A. Tisthammer

22:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

as far as addressing yourself to one person or to the editors at large: When stating you have the firm intention of making a major change to a page, editors at large is appropriate. When asking for clarity, or discussing a comment someone made, addressing the person who made the post in question is appropriate. Surely that is obvious.

I already provided cites: you rejected them out of hand, stating the precise terminology was different. KillerChihuahua

15:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

From my perspective it's quite simple and does not require a WP:CITE; but is rather a necessary part of intelligent design. If a Designer is not irreducibly complex – then even assuming life on Earth was indeed designed by said Designer – it allows for the possibility the Designer developed naturally. I think allowing for that contradicts intelligent designs premise that design is required for the origins of life; as the origin of the Designer could be natural. Wow... clearly I need more sleep since that doesn't address the point above, but ah well... I'll keep it here for kicks. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰

04:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Granted, you didn't address the point above, but I'll allow your comment. I'll just move this part into a subsection under "other remarks" so we can have the above half focus on the matter at hand. Wade A. Tisthammer

21:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, apparently Felonious is rather insistent about not having this off-topic segment put into a subsection. Although I find Felonious’s actions a bit disruptive here, I’ll relent. Wade A. Tisthammer

22:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

You did nothing of the sort. A number of added lines of white still clearly suggests a distinction between what went before and what followed. Do you even realise this qualifies as a revert war? -- Ec5618

22:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I did exactly what I said. I relented the matter I described: making it a subsection. A few lines of white space seemed the least I can do given Royboy's own admission "Wow... clearly I need more sleep since that doesn't address the point above". Why do you and Felonious feel the need to merge this off-topic section with the real issue? Can any good come of reducing clarity here? Wade A. Tisthammer

22:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

What is with this obsession to describe the designer. There's no point in that. ID simply says some things in nature are simply unexplainable by any of the criteria provided by evolution. No evolutionist can deny that. It goes no further. (unsigned comment left by User:ChadThomson 22:44, 20 November 2005)

Well, in the words of Ian Pitchford: Claiming that X explains everything and that X requires no explanation is not a contribution to knowledge, it's a rhetorical device used as a thought-terminating cliché. FeloniousMonk

07:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I believe the whole argument is based on semantics. You have the majority of scientists defining "science" as exclusive of design. According to this definition, there can be no argument, ID is not science. Give whatever definition you like. Imagine people saying that dogs are any animals that are unfriendly to humans, do not bark, are tailless, have anything but four legs and so forth, and all of humanity must agree that dogs are the animals described by the majority. But that avoids the point. The dogs still exist, they're just called something different. "Cats" for instance. The debate cannot be won be ID supporters, because despite the fact that scientists cannot deny that they really cannot conclusively say where the universe and all its components and laws (including those of biology on earth) came from, "science" must retain its dogmatic definition. The definition blinds real people to the fact that it is impossible to explain many things with the visible evidence available. But most scientists have descended into blind deductions and assumptions and speculation all because they have tied their own hands behind their backs with their definition of science which can allow for nothing else. --ChadThomson

05:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Chad: arguments are based on semantics; They would be meaningless otherwise. I don't think the reason the vast majority of scientists say ID is not science is based on diverging opinions about the meaning of science. In fact, there are specific reasons in each one of the purported areas of investigation of ID for rejecting the title "science": Take for example, the theory of specified complexity. Dembski claims this is a theory of information and he claims to have derived theorems about his concepts; the vast majority of mathematicians reject his work as nonsense. In mathematics there is precious little argument about this: you have a theorem which or a definition within a formal theory and either it makes sense or it doesn't; or a proof which is valid or not; in mathematics (among trained mathematicians) there is very little divergence of opinion on this. Also, what do you mean when you say scientists have descended into "blind deductions"?

If you see the archives of this article I'm sure you'll find others who expressed sentiments similar to yours. These points have been argued endlessly and in the end, the article's contents are determined by consensus.--CSTAR

06:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Scientists "descending" into speculation is essential to the creative process (based on hard evidence) needed for scientific discovery; and actual contradicts your contention they have their hands tied because of the definition of a word. Just because science is rigorously defined; does not remove other non-material elements from the scientific process (such as philosophy/religion). As such scientists do not have "tied hands" and can consider all of ~~existance~~ possibilities in their pursuit of the truth. However, in order to demonstrate something as true, it needs to stand scrutiny of others... and in order for others to be able to actually scrutinize/verify something, it needs to exist. There is no way around that. Complaining about the definition of science is indeed semantics, and has no true bearing on the reality of the scientific process. If people are blinded to the limitations of science... its people, not science, which is at fault. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰

06:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

"ID simply says some things in nature are simply unexplainable by any of the criteria provided by evolution. No evolutionist can deny that." User:ChadThomson

Is that saying "no evolutionist can deny that ID says..." or is it saying that "evolutists cannot deny that some things in nature are simply unexplainable by evolution"? If the former, that's possibly true. If the later then, it's a case of asking the wrong question to try to get the answer you want. There may be things that evolution does not currently have an explanation for. But that is different to saying that these things that contradict evolution. Saying that "we don't know how to reduce something" is a long way short of saying "it is irreducible". Regards, Ben Aveling

08:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The issue here is that ID does not "simply says some things in nature are simply unexplainable by any of the criteria provided by evolution". ID goes on to say - hence, design. The first part is reasonable. The second is a logical flaw. While you should say "If not A then Ā", ID says "if not A then B". Pennock puts it nicely: ID proponents try to portray the options as E vs. D (E = evolution, D = design), when in reality it is E₁ or E₂ or E₃ or... E_n or D₁ or D₂ or D₃ or... D_n or X₁ or X₂ or... X_n. Guettarda

12:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Re Chad's statements "The debate cannot be won be ID supporters, because despite the fact that scientists cannot deny that they really cannot conclusively say where the universe and all its components and laws (including those of biology on earth) came from, "science" must retain its dogmatic definition. The definition blinds real people to the fact that it is impossible to explain many things with the visible evidence available. But most scientists have descended into blind deductions and assumptions and speculation all because they have tied their own hands behind their backs with their definition of science which can allow for nothing else. "

The debate cannot be won? Which debate? There seem to be two: one, an invention of the ID strategy, and the second, whether pseudoscience and superstition has equal validity with science.
"scientists cannot deny" They don't. They don't even try to. Your phrasing makes it sound like scientists were "caught" and had to "admit". This is a highly inaccurate view. Scientists cheerfully examine, pursue, and hypothesise about many things for which there is, as yet, no really good scientific explanation. That's what all those research scientists do - they're researching things we don't yet understand. If science had already explained everything they'd be out of a job.
"impossible to explain" This is a flawed position. Because an explanation has not been posited or proven does not mean it is "impossible" to ever "explain" the many things which are still question marks.
"blind deductions" This is unclear. What do you mean by "blind deductions"?
"definition of science which can allow for nothing else" Inaccurate. Science is indeed defined. It is not that scientists cannot allow for anything else; it is that they object, and rightly so, to pseudoscience and nonsense being called science. This is completely different.

KillerChihuahua

13:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

There is also a very good reason to exclude the supernatural from science - if you allow supernatural explanations, you cannot exclude supernatural explanations. So, if you do not exclude the supernatural, science ceases to exist (which is why Behe et al. may be arguing for non-naturalistic explanations, but are not incorporating them in their science. I propose that X is an act of God, where X = "every observable phenomenon". I have thus proposed a Theory of Everything which, in Kansas, is scientifically valid. Silly old Einstein. Guettarda 17:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Can I humbly suggest that Wade A. Tisthammer has a bit of a point about the "the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design [is] that a designer is needed for every complex object." argument, and that it could well be replaced by the following:

In Reply to My Critics Behe argues that human "intelligence depends critically on physical structures in the brain which are irreducibly complex.. [so similarly] it may be that all possible natural designers require irreducibly complex structures which themselves were designed. If so, then at some point a supernatural designer must get into the picture." On this basis he finds it implausible "that the original intelligent agent is a natural entity", but refuses to rule it out to preserve the claims of ID to be based on science rather than religion. However, he also testifies that "arguing from scientific data only takes you so far. It takes you to the point of the fact that we do not have an explanation for this event right now. But to go beyond that requires a reasoning beyond just scientific reasoning."[7]

Hope y'all find this a constructive suggestion, ...dave souza

01:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

First, let me thank you for attempting to provide something constructive here. I find it refreshing. Regarding your quote Behe says it "may be that all possible natural designers require irreducibly complex structures which themselves were designed. [my emphasis]" Behe doesn't say that this is a certainty, he just mentions it as a possibility. Notably, he also mentions the possibility of the reverse: that the designer may not require irreducibly complex structures to sustain itself (page 249 of Darwin's Black Box). In any case, it seems that it is not a fundamental assumption of ID that all irreducibly complex objects require a designer, particularly in light of my citation of Behe where he mentions an irreducibly complex entity that does not require design. I suspect the best thing to do would be to remove the "fundamental assumption" altogether. ID may have a fundamental assumption, but a citation should be provided to verify that this assumption actually exists (and so far that has not been done). Wade A. Tisthammer

02:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Behe may have said that, but I saw something where Dembski said that Humans could be called an i.c. construct (I am rephrasing I don't recall his precise phrase) because some of their components are i.c. and those components are necessary to human life. I've been looking, and it seems there are at least 4 variations on the definition of i.c. just between Behe and Dempski. Should I find that again - would it help? KillerChihuahua

11:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Possibly. I doubt it will help since--at this point--it does not seem to confirm the alleged fundamental assumption ("IC construct" seems different than irreducible complexity) but it's difficult to tell for certain without seeing the original text. By all means, provide it and I'll be able to give my thoughts on the matter. Wade A. Tisthammer

05:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Ben Aveling said:

Saying that "we don't know how to reduce something" is a long way short of saying "it is irreducible".

So now ID supporters are supposed to say, "okay, you've won"? But actually, "we don't know how to reduce something" proves my point further. Darwinism "does not know" how to reduce certain things without involving intelligence. The dogmatic reaction is to continue searching for the solution of "complexity that can not be reduced to the best of darwinists' knowledge" in the framework of darwinism, which continues to show, time and time again, that it is inadequate. In my opinion, the "fundamental assumption" of "non-intelligent design" can be summed up in the words "we don't know". "We don't know" how multi-cellular life formed. "We don't know" how to reduce certain biological structures so they can be explained in terms of small, incredibly rare, non-lethal mutations. "We don't know" how the first cell came into existence, and when it did, why it lived and reproduced. But somehow, we do know the following: complex biological structures can be reduced to minute mutations (or to near-impossible mutations resulting in huge, ridiculously complex changes), multi-cellular life did form spontaneously from single-celled organisms, and the first cell was formed of its own accord from the materials available and it did reproduce. Anything else is quickly labelled as pseudoscience or superstition. So be it.

KillerChihuahua said:

The debate cannot be won? Which debate? There seem to be two: one, an invention of the ID strategy, and the second, whether pseudoscience and superstition has equal validity with science.

So do you really believe that ID is thinly veiled Biblical young-earth creationism: that there's a covert "strategy" to suck people into believing God created the Earth in 6 24-hour days? Why would they invent the term "Intelligent Design" and claim that the whole argument is irreducible complexity, when really it's that the world was created in 6 days 6000 years ago. Have you read "Darwin on Trial"? Read it. The author, Phillip E. Johnson is considered by many to be the father of ID. It says nothing about the Bible, nor does it attempt to prove the Biblical creation myth as true. There is no talk of the age of the Earth being any different than the fossil record shows. It simply says that the extremely complex changes occurred too quickly to be accounted for by rare mutations and that stasis in the fossil record has alway been the norm and not the exception. This article misrepresents ID, because it claims it finds its roots in creation-science. It finds it's roots in noticing that evolutionists can only say, for example, "we don't know how or why it happened. We have no idea how chromosome numbers changed all by themselves resulting in a viable, fertile, advantaged creature. The amazing thing is that it did happen. The very fact that camels have 5474 chromosomes and fruit flies have 8 shows that chromosome numbers changed by themselves." This kind of subjective representation of nature is what cheeses ID supporters off. Evolution has been crowned as "science" and yet it is incapable of explaining the very things that form the basis of biology and differentiation between species. People in ID seek to find an explanation (call it pseudoscientific or superstitious if it makes you feel better) that evolution cannot provide apart from smart-ass unscientific conclusions such as "the amazing thing is that things that can't be explained through evolution are explained by evolution!". My. Very profound indeed.

"Blind deductions"

As fellow human beings, I would ask you, do you really think it's appropriate or fair to pull people's words out of their context and then say the person wasn't making any sense? My actual words were "blind deductions and assumptions and speculation". The word "deduction" was inspired by an wiki-article on carnivorous plants which said that although there is no fossil record of the evolution of these plants "much can be deduced from the structure of current traps". The same can be said about the vast majority of species. Much has to be deduced, because evolution is the only explanation of biology that is accepted as science. Blind deductions, assumptions, and speculation are what leads to the dogmatism in the scientific community.

--ChadThomson 09:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Chad: I asked a simple question, to which 'debate' were you referring? Not only have you not answered that question and cleared up my confusion, there is a 324 word essay which begins by somehow 'deducing' from my question that I "really believe that ID is thinly veiled Biblical young-earth creationism: that there's a covert "strategy" to suck people into believing God created the Earth" and continues throuigh "smart-ass unscientific conclusions" to a highly sarcastic ending of "My. Very profound indeed." I am offended. I am hurt. I am appalled. How can you possibly justify that very hostile rant with no basis, which you directed at me??? This was an attack on my religion, about which you know nothing, my viewpoints, about which you cannot possibly know much, my intelligence... and "smart-ass"? Do you realize that you have thoroughly attacked me in every way when all I asked for is a simple clarification so I could understand your question? KillerChihuahua

KillerChihuahua: I'm sorry if I hurt you. I didn't say you were a "smart-ass" though, I said that this statement: "the amazing thing is that things that can't be explained through evolution are explained by evolution!" is a smart-ass statement, but it should be reworded, I suppose, replacing "evolution" with "darwinism".

This ties directly into your second version of the "debate" (whether pseudoscience and superstition has equal validity with science) in that it shows that the science of darwinism can be just as unreasonably dogmatic as pseudoscience and superstition.

As to the first version, the only so-called ID "strategy" I've heard darwinists talk about is one to somehow re-introduce creationism (from a literal reading of the Bible) into academia. The only other strategy (which can be deduced by reading the "ID Bible", Darwin on Trial, and which therefore seems more representative) is described in my "essay".

So to answer your question, the "debate" I was referring to is whether or not ID is science . I think it's pretty clear from my (second) post (I clearly said the debate cannot be won, because of the very definition of science.) The "essay" moreover, was more of an attempt to describe the misrepresentation of the (strategy-related) debate in the article than simply a reply to you. I used your question as a starting point to describe what I believe the debate is about (my opinion being based on Darwin on Trial.) Sorry again.

Also, I've changed the wording in my reply to Ben Aveling, replacing evolution with darwinism (ID does not inherently deny evolution, only evolution wholly by natural selection).

--ChadThomson 06:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

"Smart-ass" was a tiny fraction of what you wrote. I would appreciate a retraction of your presumptions, completely unfounded, attacking my religious beliefs, about which you know nothing; my personal feelings about ID, about which you know nothing, your implication that I have some kind of conspiracy complex, based on nothing; in short - what about the rest of that which was most assuredly directed at me?

Your (Chad's) statement about ID (ID does not inherently deny evolution, only evolution wholly by natural selection) - does ID therefore allow for evolution by unnatural selection? I think perhaps that statement needs rephrasing.

KillerChihuahua

14:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

See wedge strategy. Guettarda 07:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: "Why would they invent the term "Intelligent Design" and claim that the whole argument is irreducible complexity, when really it's that the world was created in 6 days 6000 years ago."

Why did the Nazis insist that the Jews were being relocated? Why did Reaganites insist on calling the MX missile the "Peacekeeper"? Why is the contruct of permitted speech called "political correctness" rather than "social engineering"? Why do various laws carry names that are the exact opposite of what they are actually intended to do? Why "ethnic cleansing" instead of "genocide"?

The basic point is that use of deception through the creation of new terminology is a time-tested method of either repackaging an old ideology or creating a new one that, if a spade were called a spade, would be seen as being unacceptable.

Jim62sch 13:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, we have the "Wedge Strategy". First of all, the wedge strategy contains no indication that the strategy has any goal to promote young earth creationism, and it's perfectly visible that anything related to science is left out of any stages but the first.

As to Jim's comment, first of all, it's hard to take you seriously, because you seem to be using a bunch of really negative examples of deception in wording there...secondly, saying that ID has an agenda of getting young-earth creationism back into schools is like (using your example), saying that the idea of improving a country leads to ethnic cleansing, and that the idea of "improving your country" is just a conspiracy whose goal is really to practice eugenics full-scale, killing any genetic undesireables.

This "pretend" strategy of ID stems from three assumptions (albeit incorrect ones). 1) ID is inherently connected to the wedge strategy 2) The wedge strategy has a goal to force academia into accepting young-earth creationism 3) In the end a 6-day creation by the Judaeo-Christian God is the only thing to be inferred from ID.

If anything, darwinists should be thankful to ID proponents. ID has given darwinists new vigour to dig deeper to really find out the "origin of species" down to the last flagellum. --ChadThomson

14:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

KillerCh. I think I've clearly explained that the "essay" used your comment as a starting point to discuss the invented strategy and was directed at anyone who adheres to belief in that strategy. (see my last post). And ID does allow for unnatural selection, or more specifically "supernatural selection" (i know the word supernatural is taboo but it simply refers to selection occuring from outside observable nature). I would also suggest people discussing ID read C.S. Lewis. It's his apologetic system that Discovery Institute is supposedly based on. Regards, --ChadThomson

15:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Then your attack was not a personal attack on me specifically, but a blanket condemnation of anyone who might be reading it? This makes no sense. Your post begain "So do you really believe that ID is thinly veiled Biblical young-earth creationism" and was posted as a response to my question. Either you were attacking me, in which case please retract, or you were attacking everyone reading who might believe there is a strategy, which includes me, so again, retract. Whether someone believes there is a strategy is no basis for making personal attacks and "mind-reading" about what other beliefs that person may or may not hold regarding the Bible, creationism, atheism, etc. KillerChihuahua

15:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

And don't forget, I'm the smart-ass around here. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰

17:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Chad,

re "first of all, it's hard to take you seriously, because you seem to be using a bunch of really negative examples of deception in wording there" Can you find me positive examples of deception? By definition, deception implies disingenuousness, which is considered morally and ethically negative.

re "secondly, saying that ID has an agenda of getting young-earth creationism back into schools is like (using your example), saying that the idea of improving a country leads to ethnic cleansing, and that the idea of "improving your country" is just a conspiracy whose goal is really to practice eugenics full-scale, killing any genetic undesireables." First, read what I wrote not what you think I wrote. Secondly, how in Plato's name did you manage the incredible leap in illogic that led you to infer any connection regarding the improvement of one's country and genocide?

Speaking of it being hard to take someone seriously: how in the world could anyone who basically said if "A = B, and thus B = A, then C must = A also" be taken seriously?

Jim62sch 23:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

ID in the news today involving a Catholic Cardinal

Vienna cardinal draws lines in Intelligent Design row

KAJ 02:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Excerpt from the article: "Common sense tells us that matter cannot organize itself," he said. "It needs information to do that, and information is a manifestation of intelligence."

Yikes. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰

05:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It's an interesting thought. It means that evolution creates 'intelligence'. That's a slight challenge to my understanding of intelligence, but it could be fun to play with. It implies that any viable lifeform contains embedded intelligence about what 'works' in any environment sufficienly close to the historical one. That's way cool. Ben Aveling

08:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

From the article: "He questioned neo-Darwinism, the scientifically updated version of Darwin's thesis first published in 1859, and its argument that natural selection -- the so-called "survival of the fittest" -- created life out of matter randomly." What the ..? Can't these people atleast bother to read our article on evolution? -- Ec5618

09:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

"Common sense tells us that matter cannot organize itself," he said. "It needs information to do that, and information is a manifestation of intelligence."

Schoenborn isn't a scientist and can't be expected to be knowledgeable about things outside his field of expertise, but this claim is factually wrong. Both theoretical and experimental results clearly show that matter can organize itself into complex entities. The late Ilya Prigogine was a pioneer on the theoretical side of this, and my colleague Harry Swinney at the University of Texas has performed numerous experiments that verify Prigogine's predictions. Bill Jefferys

14:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

My response had more pazazz. :"D Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰

16:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

On a completely pedestrian note, did he never make rock candy or see it made? Sugar is matter. KillerChihuahua

14:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

ID proponents dismiss the organization of crystals as being due to "law" (in Dembski's parlaince). The kind of organization predicted by Prigogine and experimentally confirmed in numerous experiments by Swinney (and many others) is of a different sort, much more like the organization that we see in living things. It is organization far from the regime of equilibrium organization seen in crystals. As Prigogine pointed out to me once, far from being prevented by the second law of thermodynamics, evolution and life are consequences of that law. Bill Jefferys

15:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing me back on subject, Bill. I probably should have either clarified that I was making a comment on the wording of the cardinal, as opposed to any position of ID proponents - or else refrained from posting my comment altogether. As the cardinal stated "matter" without modifiers, and "organize" without modifiers, rock candy would be covered. I don't think that's what he meant; I think he used a bad choice of phrasing. KillerChihuahua

16:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow that could really come in handy in the future, could you provide links to Swinney's/others research; perhaps an article by a science writer leading us through it would be ideal. And while I have your attention, what you are saying above is similar/same to me saying DNA is a low-energy state? - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰

16:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Harry Swinney's home page is here. It links to a large collection of papers by his group, including ones inspired by biology. I am not sure about popular expositions of Swinney's work. They must exist, but I haven't seen them. Prigogine wrote a popular book on his research, Order Out of Chaos.

To answer RoyBoy, it's not that it's in a low energy state, it is that it is in a state that is maintained by the creation of entropy as energy flows from high to low energy situations. This is the basis of the kind of order that characterizes living things. Basically, we exist because there is an energy source (the Sun) and sink (empty space), and a constant transfer of energy from the one to the other. Part of the process of energy transfer involves the spontaneous generation of ordered structures. Bill Jefferys 17:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Schönborn's remarks need to be analysed carefully. Talk of an "intelligent project that is the cosmos," is being interpreted as apparent backing for Intelligent Design, yet he and the pope still seem to be accepting the origin of species by natural selection while complaining about "materialist" extrapolation of this theory to contend that life began without divine intervention. His wish to see schools teach that the theory of evolution "has a lot going for it but has no answers for some questions" is nothing new if he means teaching that it doesn't cover the origin of life or of the "soul". The article reports him as saying "Can matter create intelligence? That is a question we can't answer scientifically, because the scientific method cannot grasp it.", then reports that "Schoenborn stressed his objections to neo-Darwinism were essentially philosophical.", and that "he is deeply concerned that materialism -- the science-based view that matter is the only reality -- is crowding out religious and spiritual thinking in modern man's perception of the world." Unsurprisingly he is talking about religious philosophy and not science, while wanting science to be kept within the bounds of not promoting atheist "materialism". The question is whether his statement "Common sense tells us that matter cannot organize itself... It needs information to do that, and information is a manifestation of intelligence." is about the origin of life, or about continuing organisation. Will the Vatican formally support ID? Will Catholic schools start putting stickers on their books?... dave souza

22:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, the Vatican's chief astronomer, Rev. George Coyne, issued a statement on 18 November 2005 saying that "Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be. If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science." (And there's Schönborn's own "The biblical teaching about creation is not a scientific theory" [8] - Nunh-huh

23:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Kansas University

KU has created a new class titled "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies." I just like the fact that they call ID a mythology. FuelWagon 16:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Ooop, forgot to provide a URL. FuelWagon 16:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Introduction

This article is frankly a bit of a mess. I've rewritten the introduction to make it seem like less of a propaganda piece, by stating the facts about the idea and its recent revival in the United States. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's go through the intro (which has been reverted) and see what the problems are:

Intelligent Design (ID) is the controversial assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from "an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection."^[9]

This is the first problem. Intelligent design arose from observation, and was really not a particularly controversial idea, but what emerged as a mainstream consensus. It was a reasonable inference drawn from the observation of complexity in nature. It's fundamental to an understanding of modern naturalism and evolution in particular, that we understand the ideas that it supplanted, chief among which was the notion of intelligent design.

Proponents claim that Intelligent Design stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the origin of life.^[10]

Who cares what current-day proponents think? We can show that it isn't science because it appeals to supernaturalism.

The scientific community largely views Intelligent Design not as valid scientific theory but as neocreationist pseudoscience or junk science.^[11] The US National Academy of Sciences has stated that Intelligent Design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because their claims cannot be tested by experiment and propose no new hypotheses of their own.^[12]

Far too wordy, and unnecessary in a factual piece. Of course it's junk. But since we can show why it's junk, why bother to report that views of various US scientific authorities? For every scientific authority we could cite, some ID proponent could cite some religious authority.

No, let's tell it like it is. Discovery Institute's famouse "Wedge document" demonstrates that the ID revival, which US readers may not appreciate is an almost exclusively US phenomenon, is part of a strategy to get creationist concepts into schools. This should be stated up front, and concisely enough that it has a strong impact.

My proposed alternative, in full, reads as follows:

Intelligent Design is a philosophical principle that complexity in nature, particularly life, can only be accounted for by a designer. Almost unchallenged until two centuries ago, the concept was discarded by science in the late nineteenth century in favor of Evolution and Scientific naturalism.

In the United States, some political interests have attempted to revive the concept, in a move to circumvent the constitutional limitations of teaching of religion in public schools which doomed earlier attempts to require teachers to give equal time to science and to creationism.

This is brief, so there's a chance that the reader will get to the end without losing track of the thing. It emphasizes continuity between modern ID and the older supernaturalism of pre-evolutionary thinking--they're really the same concepts dressed up in modern clothing, both are appeals to ignorance. And it also correctly attributes the modern revival to political motivations.

What it doesn't do is engage in a wordy jeremiad about pseudoscience. We can do without that stuff in an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The only two relevant facts are what ID proponents say ID is, which is attributed in the article, and what the scientific community says it is, which is attributed in the article. All other points are irrelevent when viewed in light of the policies that apply directly to this topic, NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, and NPOV: Giving "equal validity". Your intro recognized neither viewpoint. FeloniousMonk

17:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, not everyone agrees with your opinion that the article is a mess. On 2 November 2005 Jimbo Wales was on the National Public Radio show Talk of the Nation, where, out of all Wikipedia articles, this article was mentioned and described thus: "the Wikipedia entry for Intelligent Design... it is a good entry, perhaps even an excellent entry..." [13]. FeloniousMonk

18:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I think Tony is confusing arguments from design (see teleological argument) with ID the modern DI-sponsored idea. The connection to Paley is there, but I don't think it needs to be in the intro. The idea may be old, but I think the modern DI-sponsored principle is what belongs here. Guettarda

19:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway, how do you figure intelligent design was ever a reasonable inference? It seems no more than a God of the gaps argument.

Also, while it's true that in years past the notion that a deity spawned all things was pretty ingrained, and that even scientists carried this assumption into their fields of study, it was never scientific. And this was never the recently developed concept of Intelligent Design.

Everyone, is my understanding flawed?

As I see it, this article is about Intelligent Design (capitalised), not the notion of an intelligent designer. Most religions assume there was an intelligent designer (and suggest that their deity was this designer, and deserves our reverence because of it), but none have tried to prove such a designer exists. As an attempt to prove the existance of an intelligent designer through re-examination of scientific evidence, and arguably, through lies and deception, ID is a specifically recent development, which often tries to confuse the issue by suggesting the idea is as old as time.

For anything outside of this specific movement and concept, see teleology, which is described in our article as being the supposition that there is design, purpose, directive principle, or finality in the works and processes of nature, and the philosophical study of that purpose. Tony Sidaway, if anything, you seem to be writing an introduction for the teleology article. -- Ec5618

19:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, Tony's conflating the two. ID is distinctly unique from previous arguments from design. You and Guettarda are both right. FeloniousMonk

19:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Since everyone seems to have missed this (or maybe it wasn't worth reading, if so just ignore it) I'm moving it from "intro" to here:

Concerning massive rewrite by Tony Sidaway: This intro is a result of many editors' input and careful consideration. In addition, your assertion that ID was "Almost unchallenged until two centuries ago, " may be considered inaccurate. This would be more appropriately placed in Creationism, and even there it might be POV. ID is by its own definition a "new" concept - although creationism cast as science, it is a new approach not the version from two centuries ago, where no claim of science was made. KillerChihuahua 15:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Moved by KillerChihuahua 19:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

"Almost unchallenged until two centuries ago" is indeed inaccurate, since Hume's refutation of the argument from design was not its first challenge or refutation. FeloniousMonk

20:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent design is an old, old inference. That it's been resurrected in a political context was give a whole paragraph (out of two) in my rewrite of the introduction. The modern movement doesn't get to redefine the concept. That it's still the same old idea dressed in new clothes is an important point. Darwin's empirical demolition of the concept was decisive.

Felonious Monk makes a good point about Hume. However, powerful though Hume's refutation is, it did not provide a mechanism to supplant intelligent design. For that, one had to wait for the ideas of Erasmus Darwin, Lamarck, and their contemporaries, and later Charles Darwin who as a largely self-trained naturalist and geologist combined clear thought with masses of detailed observation.

But apart from the unnecessarily polemical, almost shrill, tone of the current introduction, my main point is that the introduction is leaden and unreadable. It needs to be light and make the two main points (supernaturalism and politics) with a minimum of clutter. All the rest is just so much unwanted baggage. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any compromise or modified ideas, besides that which you originally posted? IMHO the second sentence (In the United States, ...) is brief, readable and accurate. I would not object to trimming the current first sentence slightly (it is a bit unwieldy) and adding Tony's second sentence as a third sentence. In fact, if we ditch the second sentence of the current first para, the second sentence of the current second para, and add Tony's second sentence, we'd have a tidy three sentences, addressing The ID position, What science thinks of ID, and the religious-political aspects. Thoughts? KillerChihuahua

23:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Introduction II

I've had another go at the introduction.

Intelligent Design (ID) is the concept that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from "an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection."^[14] The term has in recent years become associated with the strategy followed by American creationists--the so-called "Wedge" strategy--to promote the concept of the creator within the public school system, after the Supreme Court ruled against statutes requiring teachers to give equal time to creationism and evolution in science teaching.

Firstly I got rid of all that rubbish about what proponents think about it and what scientists think about it. This is the introduction so we should convey as much factual information as possible, the opinions can wait until the main body. Secondly I added something about the wedge strategy. My version is far too wordy, it needs a severe trimming, but at least it hits the important facts--that this is a geographically localised (almost parochial) political movement, an ideological one, not a trend in thought, scientific or otherwise.

Thirdly I got rid of the awkward phrase "controversial assertion". I'm not sure that one can really term belief in a creator whose works are evident in nature as controversial--most people seem to readily apprehend the concept and it's certainly plausible (Einstein's der Älte, etc). I'm an atheist but I don't mistake my own thinking for the mainstream. I left it at "concept", which can certainly be improved. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The NPOV policy states explicitely: "to write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents. Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia." The article thus must cover both viewpoints. Since an intro summarizes a topic, it also need to cover both viewpoints.

You're ignoring everything that was said here previously about your first flawed attempt at bowlderizing the intro. Again, read the relevant policy, NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, and NPOV: Giving "equal validity", and explain how your intro, which completely ignore the majority viewpoint, that of the scientific community, conforms to that policy. Not to mention you're ignoring consensus. FeloniousMonk

00:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

No, we don't need to cover any viewpoints in an introduction. Indeed if we put viewpoints into an introduction we're probably wasting space that would be better spent elsewhere.

Please don't try to get me to read the policies again. It makes you look as if you're lecturing me. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Chill FM, Tony is okay in my books (doesn't mean I agree with his version, right now I'm on the fence as I honestly haven't given it much thought at all), but you can see he reads quality stuff. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰

03:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Introduction III

Here's another go at steering through the baggage.

Intelligent design is a US-based revival of older pre-evolutionary philosophical concepts, mainly associated with the reorganisation of the creationist movement in the aftermath of the United States Supreme Court's rejection of statutes requiring equal time to be given to creationism and evolution in the public school system. It is part of what has been dubbed the "Wedge" strategy.

The wording is close, but not quite right. I'd like the sentences shorter, but the "equal time" stuff makes it difficult. It doesn't go into detail on the idea, because it occurs to me that we can make the words do the work. Intelligent design--this intro says it's an idea promoted by creationists and consists of recycled pre-evolutionary concepts, so there's no need to spell it out. I think this is a good direction to move in because it helps to answer Tom Haws' objections by explaining precisely why ID is so popular with US creationists. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Please stop inserting your intro into the article, especially since you admit it is not complete. A few points: you use a lot of complex terms in single sentences, such as "older pre-evolutionary philosophical concepts". some of these terms, and the correlations between them in this context, should be explained. Yes, that will add bulk to your intro. Also, I suggest you add a reference to the teleology article, for people who are confused by the intro or title of the article. -- Ec5618

00:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I dunno, it seems to be getting murkier not clearer. Still, transitional editing is like that sometimes. KillerChihuahua

00:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Quite. Obviously the current appalling rubbish needs changing, I'm just trying to find something that's (a) readable and (b) still acceptable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Introduction IV

Here's another go.

Intelligent Design (ID) is an ideological tend in US education, part of the Wedge Strategy promoted by the Discovery Institute in the wake of the failure of earlier creationist-originated statutes requiring public educators to give equal time to evolution and creationism. Dropping the religious element, Intelligent Design revives the pre-evolutionary argument that the organisation of the universe, particularly the appearance of life, is strong evidence for the existence of a designer.

I like this one a lot because it's a little more readable than the earlier ones and gives some decent links. I don't like the "pre-evolutionary" thing, perhaps "pre-darwinian" is better.

I find the suggestion Please stop inserting your intro into the article, especially since you admit it is not complete somewhat amusing considering the venue. Inserting stuff is what we're supposed to do, it's a wiki!

I agree that some of the terms I'm using are still far too complex. Let's try to winnow this down. "pre-evolutionary concepts", well I've suggested "pre-darwinian". And now I do explain the concepts in the latest version: that the organisation of the universe, particularly the appearance of life, is strong evidence for the existence of a designer --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because the previous introduction was the work of many editors over a large period of time and we seemed to be finally reaching consensus that it was appropriate. I don't like this new perspective, because it doesn't at all fit with the rest of the article. It seems less NPOV, less factual, and finally it is too focused on the United States. --Brendanfox

02:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

When you know your edits will be reverted, you're not actually editing the article, uou're disrupting WP to make a point. Please use the Talk page to suggest a reworded intro, and replace the current one only when you have consensus (or atleast some support). -- Ec5618

06:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that intro makes me laugh. It substitutes the canonical definition of ID and the attributed viewpoints of both sides of the topic for a description of ID as a educational campaign and a very muddled definition of the teleological argument.

This is either the start of an attempt at a POV fork or Tony just really needs to read the primary writings on the topic from both sides, as well as what the NPOV says about handling controversial topics.

There's only three revelant points to be made in the intro: 1) The definition of ID ("Intelligent Design (ID) is the controversial assertion that certain features of the universe..."); 2) What its proponents say ID does ("Proponents claim that Intelligent Design stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific..."); 3) And the response of the scientific community ("The scientific community largely views Intelligent Design not as valid scientific theory but as..."). And there's a reason for this: Since ID proponents, who are a minority, insist ID is valid science and the scientific community, who is the majority, says ID is not science, but pseudoscience, the topic falls under the Pseudoscience, Undue Weight and Giving Equal Validity guidelines of the NPOV policy:

"the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly."
"Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them qua encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory."
"To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties."

FeloniousMonk

07:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, both Tony and FM: Tony, please stop calling this article "appalling rubbish" - if you want to see appalling rubbish, go see Ethnic_stereotypes_in_American_media - and IMHO calling the article that where the main contributor could read it would be rude at least. FM: Please stop saying things like "that intro makes me laugh" - if you see issues with it, state so, but there is no need to be insulting. Both of you might want to be a little more careful with how you word your criticisms. Be nice. That said, if someone has a valid criticism, please do not dismiss it because of rude descriptions like "appalling rubbish" and "laughable."

FM, you're right about the pseudoscience, but does all that have to be done in the intro? Also, ID as a religiously motivated wedge is not mentioned at all in the intro, so it may be that the intro could use a little trimming and/or rewording here and there.

KillerChihuahua

12:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right of course, I see how my aside would insult Tony, who now has my apologies.

As to whether the scientific community's viewpoint needs to be in the intro, the answer is it should be if we're going to have an accurate and complete representation of the community's response to ID. Describing how the scientific community views ID goes a long way to accounting for why ID is controversial, which is necessarily mentioned in the first sentence, (ID being controversial is perhaps the easiest declarative statement in the article to substantiate).

ID's religious underpinnings had been mentioned in previous intros. We'd moved the mentioning of its religious side out of the intro several weeks ago for two reasons: 1) concision, 2) many, many heated objections from ID proponents over months, that often resulting in fruitless edit wars. In other words, we caved. I don't disagree with Tony about the Wedge's role in ID or that it belongs in the intro. I only disagree that needs to be in the first sentences. ID's religious foundation should be mentioned in the intro, but I'd place it in a 3rd paragraph, after ID and the two major viewpoints are described. FeloniousMonk

16:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Which brings us back to the idea of 3 sentences or paragraphs: 1)ID, 2)what it isn't, 3) Religious aspect. If we move the second sentence of both the 1st and 2nd paragraph to elsewhere in the article (where those points are covered in more detail) and have a 3rd sentence with Tony's wedge input, that might work. KillerChihuahua

17:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Three paragraphs of two sentences each is perfectly reasonable as an intro. We should keep the first two paragraphs as they are though and just add a third addressing the religion and wedge, since it is a secondary issue that extends beyond what ID claims to be.

The first two paragraphs are accurate, concise, complete and necessary as they stand: ID is presented in its own terms with an attribution, and it's noted that it's controversial. Then what ID proponents say ID is (and by extension why they hold to it) is stated, with an attribution. This point is central central and necessary. Lastly the response to the scientific community to ID's claim of being valid science is stated, with an attribution, and thus both sides are presented, as required. This is as reduced as a fair summary description can get; I don't see how you can remove any one of the pieces without losing either completeness or accuracy. Now I agree a third paragraph of a sentence or two covering the religious background of ID should follow the first two paragraphs, and I'd draw that content from either the "Religion and leading Intelligent Design proponents" section or the ID movement article, both of which have well-cited supporting descriptions and quotes. FeloniousMonk

18:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about the "trend in US education". ID asserts that it is science, not just an educational plan. DI, on the other hand, is a social and political movement. While its main forum of activity has been in trying to change the educational curriculum, ID has not made an impact in schools of education or in teacher training, AFAIK. ID has been most active as philosophy (e.g., most of Dembski's pubs, also ID opponents like Pennock), in attempts to alter the school curriculum, and in IDEA groups and other such organisations which seek to equip students with tools to "rebut" the "indoctination" attempts of biologists (in tertiary education). When you get to the issue of where to draw the boundaries. Taken literally, the idea that there is design in nature cold be called intelligent design. But if you use the term broadly, the article would also have to include other theories, like Raelian ID. We can either define ID narrowly as the DI-associated movement, or we can define it broadly, in which case the article needs to given proportionate coverage to the Raelians, and to all other groups. In which case we need a new daughter-article for DI-ID. Guettarda 21:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Weaseling

Another serious problem with this article is the dreadful amount of weaseling going on. We've got critics "pointing out" stuff while ID proponents have "putative" main purposes, we've got a bare statement that ID fails to satisfy some criteria, and many more instances where opinions are intruded into what should be a factual presentation. This is appalling rubbish. I'll try to address this by selecting acceptable rewordings that stick to the facts. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

It's putative because ID proponents often say ID is solely concerned with detecting design, not the designer, ID is not creationism/religious/etc, then they say "ID is part of God's general revelation..." "Not only does Intelligent Design rid us of this ideology (materialism), which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ" etc. Thus describing ID's main purpose as putative is being generous, considering the more accurate alternative term - misleading. The other areas you hint at should be supported by cites except in cases of commonly recognized fact. It was through this manner that we created one of WP's most well-supported articles. FeloniousMonk

08:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Concur w/FM per reason, do you have a way to word it which is less "weasely" but still covers this? Its not very helpful to say "this is a weasel-word" if you don't suggest a replacement, or at least ask for people to brainstorm and toss out ideas. KillerChihuahua

12:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Felonious Monk's explanation of "putative" doesn't make any sense at all. It means "supposed". We have no reason to state that the purpose is supposed, putative, or reputed. "Its main purpose is to investigate whether or not the empirical evidence necessarily implies that life on Earth must have been designed by an intelligent agent or agents" is a perfectly good sentence, inserting "putative" into the sentence is unnecessary and weasely. So the alternative that I offer is to remove the word completely. I find no inconsistency between that declared purpose and the statements of ID proponents who believe that they have found such evidence. In any case it's a poor excuse to add weasel words to the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

We have lots of reason to say that is not their actual purpose, including their own words. It is their stated purpose elsewhere that the real purpose is to open the door to putting God back in the classroom - not a precise quote mind you! So saying "this is their main purpose" without a modifier is inaccurate. What would you suggest that covers both their stated "mission statement" and their statements elsewhere that there is another purpose? Keeping in mind that what they have done is not scientific investigation at all, but rather speculation and a lot of essays and books to support their speculation. KillerChihuahua

14:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The existence of possible ulterior motives for the ID movement in general is well-documented in other sections, and will be made clear to any careful reader of the article. But the "purpose" in question here applies specifically to Design Inferences themselves, the conclusion that a Design Inference aims to establish. "Putative" lends an uneccesary argumentative tone, and conveys no helpful information to the reader. It only puts a question mark in their mind, without providing justification for the question mark. If you're not going to follow up and demonstrate what the purpose of the logic of a Design Inference really is, (as opposed to its "putative" purpose) then you've left the reader unsatisfied and confused, and possibly distrustful of the article's POV. SanchoPanza

20:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

If I agreed with you, which I don't, it would be easy enough to follow up and demonstrate that ID proponents view the design inference as merely a useful adjunct for advancing a social and religious agenda they are pursuing. Very easy in fact; there are direct quotes that say exactly that. If "putative" puts a question mark in the reader's mind, it's well justified. FeloniousMonk

21:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The existence of the cultural agenda should not be used as a carte blanche justification for giving a generalized suscpicious tone to the whole article. It is simple enough to demonstrate both the existence of the Discovery Institute's cultural and religious goals and the goals of Intelligent Design proper, to distinguish between the two and also show objectively how they are related. Some parts of this article do that well enough, but the carefree use of "putative" here does not. It's like saying "The putative purpose of William Dembski's dissertation was to show that certain types of detachable patterns could be used to demonstrate the existence of intelligence, but he really just wants to convert lots of people to Jesus." It is simply true that William Dembski wants to convert people to Jesus, and he also believes that certain types of patterns demonstrate intelligence. There is no contradiction between the two, and this does not make either of his goals "putative." SanchoPanza

21:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

If there were any of what they say their aim is, happening, then "putative" might be a little strong. But there is no scientific investigation - so "putative" is exactly accurate. Let me try an analogy - I say, over and over, that all I want is to clean my room. But all I ever do is run around and party. So my "putative" goal is cleaning my room - but the evidence is clear that I am not doing anything towards cleaning my room. Now, Behe is currently saying he has plans for an actual scientific experiment for proofs of some kind, and if and when that ever happens we can revisit this. Until then, yes indeedy there should be a question mark. KillerChihuahua

22:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree with removing the word "putative" as unnecessary qualifier. Make the point that they are disingenuous more explicitly elsewhere. --JPotter

05:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Jason, you have found the perfect word for ID and it's disciples: disingenuous. Ecce veritas!

Jim62sch 14:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Pointing out

This section:

John Wilkins and Wesley Elsberry point out that Dembski's "explanatory filter" works in an eliminative fashion, by eliminating as explanations first regularity, then chance, finally defaulting to design. They show that this procedure is flawed as a model for scientific inference because it is prone to making false conclusions of design (because of the asymmetric way that it treats the different possible explanations.

Now I know John and Wesley quite well, as regulars on talk.origins and both very good chaps. Use of this example is reasonable (there's an unedited copy of the article here). However the language of our description is wrong. John and Wesley characterize the explanatory filter as eliminative, they argue that it's flawed. To say that they point out and show things that depend on chains of inference, interpretation and framing is not appropriate. It admits, for instance, of no possibility that John and Wesley mischaracterized Dembski, selectively quoted him, or misinterpreted him. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a fair point, and I have revised the language accordingly. Please take a look at it. Bill Jefferys

14:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

My opinion

[Ben's attacks on the religious beliefs of the editors of the article were removed - Guettarda]

You're adorable. Allright: I suggest you rewrite a single paragraph, outside of the intro, (on the Talk page, obviously). If you can show that the rewrite is more accurate, less confusing, and less POV you'll find plenty of support for your version. General complaints and changes that fundamentally change the perspective of this article will meet obvious resistance.

'Minor' edits such as that would help you build credibility, rants such as this do not. -- Ec5618

23:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok. --Ben

00:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Here is something fairly quick. If you could tell me if there are any problems it would be helpful. This would be the whole section. It would also be good to include a sentence like "While proponents steadfastly maintain that the basic concept does not attempt to explain any findings with respect to any design they observe, and that existential criticisms are irrelevant, these kinds of criticisms are common." earlier in the whole criticisms section.

Who Designed the Designer

One common criticism of Intelligent Design (and a common criticism of the teleological argument) is based on the cosmological argument, that any designer would itself need a designer. Concepts such as Aristotle's uncaused causer (or an undesigned designer) are often offered by proponents as a retort against the critique. However, critics further claim that an infinite regression of designers is an a priori necessity inherent in Intelligent Design arguments, thus showing the entire concept to be faulty.

--Ben

00:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

You may want to include the term 'infinite regression', or otherwise explain that Aristotle was thinking of a universe of infinite age.

And you'll need to rethink the last sentence. I wouldn't use the word 'faulty', and you'll need to explain why this is considered an a priori necessity. Do the critics assume this universe was created? That it had a beginning, making infinite regression impossible? Do they misunderstand/mischaracterise ID?

huh, This may already be the most productive discussion on this Talk page in the last two months. -- Ec5618

00:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Aristotle was not, however, thinking of an infinite chain of causality, which is the salient point here. The Unmoved Mover is in fact simple, unchanged and uncaused. It is pure thought thinking truth about itself. SanchoPanza

21:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

concur w/Ec.... KillerChihuahua

01:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes I should probably reword the first part to include infinite regression better. I just used faulty because I couldn't think of a better word. When it comes to it being a necessity, that's already mentioned in the article itself (Critics have argued that by Intelligent Design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex.), so I was just basing it on that. Someone has (or better have) an explanation of why it is considered a necessity. Footnotes 57 is the only basis, though it only provides a seemingly rhetorical justification based on the word "irreducible," and is from a short entry by user "Tucson" on a political blog. So, at least one guy has made the criticism, so that's somewhat ok, but his three paragraph blog entry isn't the best source as to why. As for "a priori" I just used it because it sounds right. It can be taken out since "inherent" conveys the meaning I wanted to express anyway.

I was thinking too, that the counter-argument is very poor. Obviously a television can be considered "intelligently designed." By the counter-argument, that means either humans are intelligently designed (the designer, a human, needs a designer) or that the television was not intelligently designed which is false. What a lot of people think is that humans were not designed, but can and do intelligently design things like televisions. So you take it up one level and you have the possibility of a naturally occurring God that designed humans. No contradictions. I mean, maybe, like some say, the concept of ID necessitates a designer needing a designer needing a designer needing a designer, etc. but I haven't seen anyone argue it coherently except to claim that that is true. Especially when this is exactly the same argument which supports Intelligent Design in the first place (i.e. human designs "irreducibly complex" mousetrap, therefore humans are also "irreducibly complex," therefore someone designed humans.) This makes me think this is just an attack on a strawman argument. Where do proponents say that a designer has to be as "irreducibly complex" as that which is designed? --Ben

01:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Or, of course, where is the authoritative critic which has explained in detail how and why this is inherent in the concept? --Ben

02:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Yet Ben has a point. It is quite easy to see this article's explanations of why ID is foolish. But it is difficult to find (I couldn't) this article's explanations of why ID is espoused. I expect more of Wikipedia. I expect to understand an issue from its several perspectives, but I feel I have just been dumped on after reading this article. I am afraid I can't sofixit here, because I don't know much about the issue. But I have been here long enough to know POV when I see it. You guys can do better. Here is a suggestion. Begin with the supposition that among the proponents of ID are extremely rational people whose point of view it might do you well to understand in order to more effectively address it. Covey's maxim: "If a person of your competence, commitment, and character has a point of view that I disagree with, then there must be something about your disagreement that I don't understand, and I need to understand it" vs. "You nincompoop! Why can't you understand?" Tom Haws

23:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

If anything, you may have a point, Tom Haws, and Ben still doesn't. Many, many people have claimed that this article is obviously POV, but as they fail to explain the problem, or fix it themselves, they are no help at all. The point you seem to be agreeing with is extremely general: the article is flawed. Your comment is more substatial, if still very vague.-- Ec5618

23:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

"I feel I have just been dumped on after reading this article." I'd say the cause of that is in your expectations and not in the article's content, which is extremely well-supported by significant citations of primary sources. You expected an article that presents one side, that of ID proponents. This article airs boths sides, ID and that of mainstream science, as is called for by the NPOV policy. In Jimbo's words the NPOV policy is "absolute and non-negotiable".

That Ben or anyone else thinks ID is philosophy and not a concept being presented by its proponents as an alternative to 1) evolutionary theory, 2) the scientific method, is irrelevant and original research. To make that argument stick Ben would have to explain away literally thousands of statements from the leading ID proponents claiming ID is science. And that Ben or anyone else here doesn't think that ID is pseudoscience is irrelevant, mainstream science resoundingly says it is. The NPOV policy says "write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents. Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia." This is what this article does. Discovery.org is where you'll find the definitive ID-only side of this topic, not Wikipedia. FeloniousMonk

23:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

"Next on Talking Points with FeloniousMonk, Strawmen against Ben's points." --Ben

00:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Covey's maxim... an excellent maxim. If you can convince us ID proponents are (scientifically) competent, and are of good character (honest in their rationale and aims) then you may have something there. As to their commitment – of that I have little doubt – so you have a ways to go on that. As to not finding "this article's explanations of why ID is espoused", you need to click on Wedge strategy which is linked in the article, for a detailed explanation. As to why proponents believe in it, that is provided by the headers alone with "Irreducible complexity", "Specified complexity" and "Fine-tuned universe". - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰

00:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure William Paley (b. 1743, d. 1805), who argued the universe was intelligent designed, doesn't work for the Discovery Institute. On the other hand, as I've said before, if this article is all about the Discovery Institute, it should say "This is about the Discovery Institute's concept of Intelligent Design." If this is all just a conspiracy to teach creationism in schools and to "affirm the reality of God," that should really be in the first paragraph, wouldn't you think?--Ben

00:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Uh, if you look at Origins of the concept you will find the article does go into other aspects of ID not related to the DI. However, since mainstream modern ID has originated from DI, it only makes sense to focus on... wait for it... DI! As to your points of putting creationism in the lead, you may have a point and that is in the cards with Tony's proposed revisions (the other stuff sounds more appropriate for the Wedge strategy), but I would argue ID can be broader than that (doesn't mean it is in common parlance, but hey if new-age groups want to stake a claim to their own versions of ID, we will change the article accordingly). We can, if consensus sees fit, give ID the benefit of the doubt by not labeling it creationism in the lead; while at the same time acknowledging it (as it is commonly known) is linked with creationism (hence the creationism template). Of course, in not taking that step in the lead, this does not detract from the prominent role DI and creationists proponents have had in modern ID. Furthermore, Ann Coulter and Richard Dawkins are controversial, but for different reasons; to compare them is crazy talk. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰

03:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The article focusing on the movement is Intelligent design movement. This article is focusing on the ideas, right? Motivations like the "Wedge Strategy" are trivial here. It doesn't matter if someone wants to get more people to "affirm their belief in God" are whatever. You're focusing on the politics, how about focusing on the ideas instead of the proponents of the idea? The "Wedge Strategy" didn't exist before the ideas existed. DI didn't make up ideas like teleology and fine-tuned universe and anthropic principle, and things. It's kind of like saying first thing in the Pythagorean theorem intro: "The Pythagorean theorem was invented by Pythagoras as part of a wedge strategy of the Pythagorean Society to promote mathematical realism and to influence the politicians of the day. Pythagoras' aim was to spread the realist doctrine and..." --Ben

23:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

While I cannot speak for every section of this article, the headers alone indicate to me this article does focus on ideas. The section about the ID movement in the article is short, to the point and strategically placed after defining it, but before the debate to provide the appropriate context. As to DI not creating ideas like fine-tuned universe; that's true... does the article say and/or imply they did; or does it imply DI promotes such ideas? I fail to see the point of your math analogy as the theorem stood on its own as valid; but moreover pythagoras theorem was broadly adopted by mathematicians and it wasn't created as a means to promotion, rather at worst it was attached to it after the fact. (granted ID was around a while back, but modern ID has indeed been used by a specific group to promote ideas they felt were being shoved aside, pythagoras's theorum is doing just fine... unless someone wants to use it, right now, for political purposes... then we might have to add that to the article, if its notable) ID has fell way out of favor in intellectual circles some time ago. If so, then why the revival? One must look elsewhere for answers to that understandable question. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰

05:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

OTOH, if you are speaking to my comments here... well yes I am focusing on the politics because the maxim talks about the "opponent", meaning the people who are behind ID. I find the maxim argument to be inapproriate given the politics and competance of those people. I was not talking about the article in that context; since the maxim wasn't either; even though it was used in a attempt to write a more sympathetic article. If the maxim were true, he might have a case to soften the article... demonstrating the maxim holds in this instance is his burden. As to the general concept of focusing on the ideas exclusively; for ideas... especially controversial ones, we must cite who they are from... and if notable who they are. To have an article without that context is to invite ridicule by other reference sources. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰

06:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Tom Haws. The article is a bit POV. So far, it seems that all attempts to make it NPOV have failed. The majority view should be accurately represented, but so should the minority view. I tried inserting two sentences describing the minority position (while still giving anti-ID the last word) in the multi-paragraph “who designed the designer” section. The two-sentence description of the minority view was promptly censored and removed. It doesn't look like we are going to see an NPOV Wikipedia article on intelligent design anytime soon. The topic is controversial, and avid anti-ID editors seem to be the majority here. Wade A. Tisthammer

03:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with Wade. Certainly there are editors who attempt to turn this article into a pro-ID or anti-ID manifesto, but for the most part I think that the article gives proportionate coverage to both points of view (both points of view meaning ID proponents and the scientific community, not "avid pro-ID editors" and "avid anti-ID editors"). Clearly there are areas in the article that still need work, but consensus requires compromises. I don't give much input on the talk page, as I am less familiar with the subject than most of the regular contributors, but from what I have read on the talk page and in the archives, it seems that most people are working to make this an accurate article. For example, I agree with Ben that some parts of this article are better suited to the intelligent design movement page, I agree with RoyBoy that ID is linked with Creationism but that it is POV to unequivocally define it as such in the intro, I agree with Tom when he evokes Covey's maxim, I agree with FM that the various NPOV policies (Pseudoscience, etc.) apply to this article and that the majority of his reverts and edits help enforce this policy, and I agree with you, Wade, that a source is needed when making a claim about the fundamental assumption of ID - which is not to say that I disagree with the current wording, or that I agree with you throwing out all of the citations given by FM and others, but I am willing to have faith that you believe you have good reason to do so. (Also, all these agreements shouldn't be read as the only things I agree with the various editors on, but rather just an example of how people on all sides of the debate are contributing valid points, at least in my mind). -Parallel or Together?

06:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, this discussion has certainly moved on while I worked up my helpful suggestion quoting Behe at the tail of "The “fundamental assumption” of ID". I like the short version by Ben. One thing Behe's words do bring out is that ID is religion desperately pretending to be science to get into the schools, at the same time as trying to redefine science to be compatible with their religion and hostile to atheism...dave souza 02:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

AfD of Unguided evolution

I have nominated Unguided evolution for deletion. Please add comments. Thanks Joshuaschroeder 05:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I have nominated Evolutionary materialism for deletion. Please add comments. Thanks --Joshuaschroeder 18:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

A reason for deletion would be most appreciated. As the "accuser" (i.e., as the who has indicated that faults lie within these two articles) you must explain why they need to be deleted. In other words, "he who asserts must prove".

Jim62sch 23:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Claim-mongery

I think this article uses the word claim in the wrong context. It said that proponents of ID claim that they look for signs of intelligence...I changed that to ID proponents say they look for signs, although we could say that they "look for signs" without saying they claim or say they look for them (whether they find them is a different issue). The article also says:

"The term intelligent design came up in 1988 at a conference in Tacoma, Wash., called Sources of Information Content in DNA," claims Stephen C. Meyer..."

What is the meaning of the word "claim". Does the author of that sentence seriously think that it is possible that Stephen C. Meyer is lying or misremembering, that the term maybe did not "come up" at the conference after all, and Mr. Meyer may be delusional. Even if he is, applying the word "claim" to what appears to be a direct quote seems to be an attempt at reducing the credibility of the quote. The person writing seems to have a serious POV problem. --ChadThomson 07:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

They seek and then claim to find. — Dunc|☺

12:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Archives

In these archives,

Intro

RE archived material

Relevant reading

Soundness of the design?

of interest

Kansas, the supernatural and astrology

The “fundamental assumption” of ID

ID in the news today involving a Catholic Cardinal

Kansas University

Introduction

Introduction II

Introduction III

Introduction IV

Weaseling

Pointing out

My opinion

AfD of Unguided evolution

Claim-mongery