Talk:Intelligent design

Intelligent design has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}.

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

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

Please read before starting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

Notes to editors

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

Archived discussion

I didn't think the discussion was quite closed on "leading proponents" when it was archived. Admittedly there was some tendentious argumentation and some irrational candidates for "leading proponents not affiliated with the DI", but a few reasonable arguments were made as well. Among them were Alvin Plantinga (by merit of Simoes wanting to see evidence of the connection of the ISCID to the DI), and also the Australian Education Minister, along with mention of Ann Coulter and George Bush. This is, after all, a fairly complex topic and resonable questions do deserve reasonable discussion. Perhaps those discussions should remain active pending a more thorough closure to whatever extent might be possible?... Kenosis 18:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might not have been closed, but it was certainly fruitless and becoming disruptive. There still has not been any evidence given that there are leading ID proponents who are not affiliated with the Discovery Institute; Plantinga certainly isn't one, he's published no notable ID books, not one, and has never participated in ID court cases as an expert, and is cited in the mainstream press on ID far, far less than Behe, Dembski, Johnson, or Meyer. Plus as a member of ISCID he's affiliated with the DI. Any topic is always open for revisiting and discussion, but without any new evidence that a specific change is warranted, those proposing such changes cannot reasonably expect alterations to supported content that fly in the face of existing evidence and widely accepted facts. FeloniousMonk 19:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The previous discussion was essentially a long process of elimination. I'm sure if people still have concerns about the issues raised (of the people discussed I think only the Australian minister warrants serious further consideration) then I'm sure they can continue it here. --Davril2020 19:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can always be discussed when new evidence is available. But unless the Australian minister suddenly publishes 4 or 5 ID books that get the ink and response that Behe and Dembski's books get, he's not going to be considered a leading proponent by any meaningful definition of the term. FeloniousMonk 19:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at Brendon Nelson's website and I can't find any mention of intelligent design on it anywhere. His profile says nothing at all about intelligent design and his wikipedia page likewise does not mention the concept. That intelligent design seems absent (or at the very least, very very buried) would seem to strongly argue against any reasonable definition of leading. In addition, I can find no reference to him having 'introduced legislation' - he has said that he believes ID should be taught if the parents want it, but appears to have made no comments at all about the merits of the theory, still less described the theory or made contributions to it. All sources I can find refer to one specific mention of the concept. Having looked at this I can't imagine anyone would continue to suggest he is a 'leading' advocate. Is there anyone else left from the list? --Davril2020 20:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Moreover, Brendan Nelson, who got on board with ID several days after George Bush had his two cents on the issue in 2005, has since been replaced by Julie Bishop. She has firmly stated that ID will not be part of the Australian science curriculum (as reported here). So much for that, I should think. ... Kenosis 23:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The objections and related proposed changes were DOA at the outset. It's simply far too easy to determine who the leading proponents are in any national movement. Expert court testimony, published books, references in the media, all work together to make hiding the roots of a movement improbable. Behe, Dembski, Johnson, Meyer, by their own admission are the leaders of both the concept and the movement: [1] [2] Something like 95% of the author's names listed are also on the list of Fellows, [3], and the rest are affiliated through relationships of groups like ISCID and ARN in the movement. Looking at the list of fellows at each group, you see the same names again and again: CSC fellows, ARN (click (featured authors'), ISCID fellows. Those same names, again and again. They are the leading ID proponents. FeloniousMonk 20:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good place to note that in this just archived discussion Bagginator, Psychohistorian, ILovePlankton, AbstractClass, Simões,MattShepherd, i kan reed,Storkk editors indicated a change in one form or another while Kenosis, Jim62sch, ScienceApologist, Guettarda, Davril2020, Nnp, KillerChihuahua, FeloniousMonk editors indicated they either wanted further discussion or were against the change. Looks like deadlocked disagreement to me.Bagginator 00:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's called a tendentious dispute - continued arguing in pursuit of a certain point while failing to satisfy WP:V and WP:RS for an extended time while ignoring comments from other editors and calls for proof. There can be no legitimate dispute to be deadlocked over where no compelling evidence for a change has been presented. You've failed to make your case for the simple reason you've presented no evidence for the change you've proposed. Consensus never trumps NPOV or verifiable facts. FeloniousMonk 00:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FM beat me to the point. Everyone is free to have their opinions, but on wiki, absent verifiable and reliable spurcing, they are irrelevant. Seems to me the claims of alleged leading propents fail the WP:V and WP:RS tests. Jim62sch 00:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Bagginator's comment above: Just to clarify, Brendan Nelson turned out to be a red herring, as he's no longer the education minister. The other proposed candidates for "leading proponent not affiliated with the Discovery Institute" ranged from marginal commentators to completely absurd phantoms made up out of thin air. Lacking an alternative that's a clear improvement for the article, I support the existing language. ... Kenosis 00:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, for a hypothetical example, if Brendan Nelson in his new role as Minister of Defence were to somehow take over Australia in a military coup and impose intelligent design on Australian curricula, I would support a reconsideration of the existing phrase "It's leading proponents are all affiliated with the Discovery Insitute". Hope that helps to clarify my position. ... Kenosis 01:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, but what are the odds? We've already had one coup d'etat this year, could there be another? Jim62sch 01:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, how do Aussies pronounce junta? Jim62sch 01:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of the back and forth aside, this boils down to a discussion into what constitutes a "leading proponent of intelligent design". So, according to Bagginator's list, there are 8 people who support changing the definition from the definition used by Forrest to some new (unspecified) definition, and there are 8 people opposed to it. This cannot be considered consensus for change.

While Forrest's exact definition is unstated, she does name people she considers to be leading proponents - people who have really built the idea, published extensively on it, devoted considerable amounts of time to it. There are other sources which call other people "leading proponents". These sources cannot be considered "experts" on the matter - they are journalists (at best), and there is no real way to determine what their functional definitions may be, or how well-suited they are to judge what constitutes a "leading proponent". In addition, they list people who are otherwise not strongly associated with the idea. If you read the Umana article, for example, when the author calls him a proponent of ID it's in the context of calling him a little nutty. Not exactly the sort of source on which you want to build an encyclopaedia article.

It's possible for us to list every ID proponent, determine how much of an impact they have had on ID, and see how often they have been called a "leading proponent". Such a project would not be acceptable as content (it would clearly be OR), but it might give us a context in which to evaluate these sources and claims. Guettarda 19:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bagginator left this message on my talk page:

What do you think of the others ive offered as WP:V and WP:RS? Here is my total list that meets that specific criteria. The San Francisco Chronicle, August 28 2005 calls Norris Gravlox, "a leading proponent of the intelligent design theory" the Tribeca Film Festival calls Jack Cashill, "a leading proponent of intelligent design." The Orlando Weekly from September 1st 2005 calls Mat Staver, "leading proponent of teaching intelligent design in public schools" and on May 26, 2006, the Legal Times calls John Umana, "a leading proponent of intelligent design" establishing WP:V and WP:RS.Bagginator 05:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought it would be appropriate to post my response here since as others have pointed out, hopefully going through a list of names will mean that if the names are raised again we can link to this discussion rather than exhaustively review it. So, we have:

Norris Gravlox - this person does not exist. The article is a spoof by a humorist (note that the writer claims he works at the 'Evangelical School of Dentistry' which does not exist and more tellingly, claims the person works at 'Bald Knob'. In the same article the writer talks about 'intelligent design' proponents who believe that children are formed not by an egg and sperm, but by storks bringing the children to earth (link to original article)

Jack Cashill - Not exactly unassociated with the Discovery Institute

Mat Staver - A more complex case. Reading this suggests to me that he is a creationist and not a proponent of intelligent design. At the very least he seems to be proposing literal creationism which means you get into the conflict of whether intelligent design is a form of creationism or not. At any rate he has conducted no work on intelligent design at all - he is an advocate of teaching it, but has made no independent contributions to its theory in the way Wells, Behe et. al. have.

John Umana - This again is an issue of authoritative verifiable sources. I have not located a single article dealing with Umana as an ID proponent. There seems to be only a single article on him on this subject at all and it is entirely tangential to the topic. I think it would be wiser to seek out more verifiable information about him first. At any rate, I can find literally no information on his position of irreducible complexity or other important ID concepts, so figuring out what his perspective actually is is extremely difficult. Again, having a source isn't in itself sufficient - it must be authoritative. More substantial sources might convince me personally, but then there's the question of Umana's output, which at present seems extremely small and of limited circulation. I've also had a look at some details of his book. And note, it is indeed 'book' - he has published only one item and from the description it seems exceedingly short. It appears to be self-published. And, though this isn't directly relevent, you'll find that a good chunk of the google hits for the man are either (a) this very talk page or (b) blogs, where Umana (or someone with his name) has taken to posting chunks of the book and posting a backlink to its amazon webpage. Again, even aside from the need for a more substantial source we are truly reaching here if we describe this person as 'leading'.

William Harris - I'll go back over this if people want but as I understand it the 'Intelligent Design Network' is intimately associated at every level with the 'Discovery Institute' and as such Harris is associated with them since he was a co-founder of IDnet). He has also co-authored a number of works with the founders of the DI which to me makes him inextricably linked to their project. (I'd like comments on this one if people know any more about the relationship between DI and IDnet than I do)

Having looked at all the people you listed, two are clearly inappropriate, one would require drastically expanding the definition of 'leading proponent' and with the final one I'm having trouble assessing his beliefs and without a source specifically devoted to this person's belief in intelligent design I couldn't argue that he was significant. Certainly, it seems all the other individuals we've seen listed as leading proponents have independently reviewed media articles not simply on them, but their relationship to the ID movement. --Davril2020 22:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The inference that John Umana is a leading proponent makes a mockery of WP:VER and WP:RS. For convenience I'll simply reproduce my earlier comment about it, which was: "Legalitmes.com calls Umana a leading proponent of ID, and we get 70 hits on Google, virtually all of which are a result of legaltimes.com calling Umana a leading proponent and putting it on the web. And that's virtually all because of this story which is also cached here]. Now, what's wrong with this picture as it relates to WP:RS." ... Kenosis 22:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Davril2020, thanks for doing the heavy lifting on this one. I spend too much time researching and not enough time actually reading the context of these articles. As for Jack Cashill, the evidence you linked to is an article written for World Net Daily, not an article written for Discovery Institute. The fact that Discovery Institute reproduces articles by leading proponents on its website shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. As for the others that are called leading proponents. I think that is our problem here is that we can't agree on what a leading proponent would be but we believe it is up to us. Can someone point me to the Wikipedia guidelines that cover this? So far what ive found is that we need to establish WP:V and WP:RS and not truth. Several of those leading proponents are established via WP:V and WP:RS and it seems like some are saying, "Well, I disagree with that opinion and therefore it is wrong." Like what Guetarda writes above. Can an opinion ever be wrong? It can be verified though. Bagginator 00:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of 'leading proponent' might at some point become an issue, but what we're dealing with here is WP:V and WP:RS. Sources are not acceptable simply because they come from major media organisations. To give you an example, look at the fake intelligent design proponent above, Norris Gravlox. He doesn't exist, but the only way I know that is because of the writing style, the fact that the author is a humorist rather than a reporter, and that none of the places cited in the piece actually exist (nor do any of the organisations). Yet it is a source by a major media outlet suggesting that he is a leading proponent. There are absolutely no sources contradicting this view. There are no verifiable sources that point out that he does not, in fact, exist. Therefore if we used a minimalist approach to WP:V and WP:RS we could faithfully write him into the article and write a bio of him, with reference to this piece. This is absurd, but on the other hand, we have no verifiable sources saying he does not exist. Clearly, this would cripple Wikipedia if the standard for inclusion was so low since any satirical article without a warning label would be included as fact (since who are we to interpret what is and is not of humorous intent?). Therefore, although editors cannot use original research, it is inevitable that they act as mediators in determining what is and is not an acceptable source. In this case, for instance, Forrest was discussing intelligent design specifically when she referred to these people as leading lights of their cause and discussed the whole issue in depth illustrating her knowledge of the area. So, to contradict this, we would probably wish to look for an equally prominent source (i.e. someone who has been cited as an expert on the subject) discussing particular examples. In this context, tangential references to someone being a 'leading proponent' are inadequate. If more substantial sources are found we can reopen debate on what a 'leading proponent' is, if there's any need to. --Davril2020 03:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bagginator, in response to your subsequent comments on my talk page you are correct that to swing too far one way is as bad as to swing too far the other way. The point is that we cannot simply take sources and insert them into articles; there must be some form of analytical process by Wikipedia editors to determine what is and is not acceptable. As such we cannot just say 'it meets the criteria for WP:V' etc., since this is, in some measure, determined by the editors. In this instance, the bar has been set high - most people here seem to want specific articles on ID proponents emphasising their leadership of the movement. I am unclear as to why you feel reporters are better at judging who is and is not a leading proponent of intelligent design than philosophers who have devoted many years to studying the issue, particularly when the journalists are clearly not experts on the subject, have not been called as witnesses, and are only referring to the ID proponent tangentially in each instance. Bear in mind that if we accept what these reporters say then equally we must include references to ID being creationism, absurd, full of lies etc. simply because other reporters with equal experience have said so, even when the author is clearly misinformed about the subject. --Davril2020 13:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As to William Harris, Davril2020 is the second person to tell me something along the lines of...

the 'Intelligent Design Network' is intimately associated at every level with the 'Discovery Institute' and as such Harris is associated with them since he was a co-founder of IDnet

but as of yet no one has verified this claim through a reliable source. Not the claim that William Harris is a co-founder of IDnet, that is made obvious by looking at their webpage. The claim that IDnet is affiliated with the Discovery Institute. Can anyone provide a reliable source to back up this opinion?Bagginator 08:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"...the writer talks about 'intelligent design' proponents who believe that children are formed not by an egg and sperm, but by storks bringing the children to earth." It would actually be quite difficult to disprove this idea. You could watch every household in the US and see no storks, but that would merely amount to an absence of evidence. The idea that sexual congress is somehow connected with babies is, of course, the dominant paradigm, but the theory is controversial. I demand equal time for the stork hypothesis! PiCo

Definition yet again... very brief

The problem I had with the definition is because I didn't understand the term "intelligent cause", I read the responses again, and you are essentially right in the answers, but I would like to add that the definition becomes much clearer, if one reads the wikipedia entry on intelligent designer, which is wikilinked, but who clicks on links to crucial terms in a definition? Anyway, if one understands all the connotations of "intelligent cause", it is clear that it can not be interpreted as an innocent argument from design. I guess I have to admit that "this article is GOOOD"... Well, the editors are very paranoid here, but I guess they have reason to be. Good luck, to both sides!

(And just one more thing, what's with the "Counter-arguments against such criticisms are often proffered by intelligent design proponents, as are counter-counter-arguments by critics, etc." Sounds like an inside joke about the history of this article, otherwise it's just stating something very very obvious) --Vesal 13:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE "the editors are very paranoid here": Yes, we have bad dreams of nice men in clean white coats coming to take us away in straightjackets. This is a difficult and complex subject with its various overlaps of the philosophical, theological, scientific and socio-political ideology, not to mention the widely-encountered obfuscation of who the real players are and what are their agendas, and how the donors' money comes into play too. Vesal, if you felt caught in the middle of something, I can tell you I have been-there/done-that in this article. I'm sure you have everyone's apology, or at least mine if you felt I was being the least bit hasty about any opinions posted in that long debate.

Part of the problem, of course, is that the definition itself is a POV magnet, so for purposes of WP:VER, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV the Discovery Institute's definition is used in the introduction. But the more persistent problem has been that the verified fact of ID's origin and dissemination into contemporary culture is quite counterintuitive until one goes over the research thoroughly. It is a sufficiently unusual phenomenon that the first tendency is to say "how can all of the leading proponents of a concept like this be from one "place", part of one group of people. The well verified fact is that's just what happened here. One group, one organization of people (with several additional sattelite or shadow entities) manufactured and disseminated this packaging of "intelligent design" into contemporary culture. ... Kenosis 18:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize, as I now fully understand the situation, but thank you! Anyway, I don't know why I'm drawn to controversial pages when my contributions would be far more helpful on less developed articles. --Vesal 12:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overview

ID Overview Statement

Transferred the following introduction desciption of ID from the long discussion in the recently archived material to the article: Intelligent design examines evidence for intelligent causation in abiotic and biotic systems from the formation of the Universe to human beings. DLH 14:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. There is no 'evidence for intelligent causation'. There's nothing to examine. It would be more accurate to say that, "Proponents of intelligent design are searching for evidence of intelligent causation.."-Psychohistorian 18:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psychohistorian You make an interesting assertion that appears to require comprehensive knowledge of everything everywhere. Look forward to your evidence for that. Science can disprove a theory by finding contrary evidence. However proving a negative is rather on the impossible side. Absence of evidence is necessary but insufficient to prove your negative hypothesis. Thus you could argue that from Aristotle to Newton that there was an absence of evidence for the atom and thus it did not exist. Necessary - but insufficient. Rutherford's experiments dismissed that assertion. You have to look in the right place at the right time with a method that can detect the prediction of an hypothesis. DLH 19:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There may or not be evidence ID forms models to distinguish intelligent from natural causation. Here is a longer but more precise sentence.

Intelligent design tests models of abiotic and biotic systems against empirical data to identify evidence for intelligent causation versus natural forces, ranging from the formation of the Universe to human beings.

DLH 00:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And? Jim62sch 00:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And there's a difference between precision and accuracy. Model testing in ID? Please, some evidence of this. Guettarda 03:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Intelligent causation" is not a scientific concept. There is no accepted (or even seriously discussed) definition outside of creationist circles, which is necessary for falsifiable claims to be made about it. Therefore, evidence cannot be identified to support its existence from a particular experiment or model. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 04:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I then able to conclude then that the previous entry attributed to Simoes is an arbitrary sequence of random characters generated by a random signal generator? If so it is a remarkably improbable event with no apparent correlation to known testable methods of human interaction, language, communication, computer hardware and/or software design. Look forward to some serious arguments.DLH 20:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A concept cannot test a model. What intelligent design proponents purport to do is provide a better explanation for origins than the mainstrema explanations. This is already outlined in the intro. --ScienceApologist 10:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is anthropomorphic compaction frowned on here? Ok here is reworded version with "practioners". The focus of this line is to replace the present misleading first sentence to Overview.

Intelligent design practioners model empirical data of abiotic and biotic systems to identify evidence for intelligent causation versus natural forces, ranging from the formation of the Universe to human beings. DLH 20:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(NB: This is not an attempt at polemics; this is an honest question.)

This appears to have been separated from it's question. Could someone please claim it.DLH 20:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better in what way, exactly? The ID "hypothesis" (and I use that word lightly) is unfalsifiable and untestable. It explains nothing, because it is compatible with everything. It doesn't make any predicition; it doesn't give us any new venues to explore; it doesn't show us where to look for the next piece in the great puzzle that is science.

So what's left? How is it better? It makes a few christian fundamentalists feel intellectually fulfilled?

Really, in what particular way do ID proponents think it is better?

--Wasell 12:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A remarkable polemimc. See models of irreducible complexity by Michael Behe such as the clotting cascade, and conservation of information by William A. Dembski, Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force? by Jonathan Wells etc.DLH 20:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ID is not testing and modeling? This is ground breaking news and we should add this new development to the article in a big time way. The Discovery Institute and their supporters have been claiming for years that some of their "scientists" are conducting tests and research yet they have never made any of this public. The other day they were claiming they are keeping all their research a secret so no one makes fun of them or threatens their livelyhood/reputation. DLH, please by all means share your references and cites for this testing and modeling. This would be a big time score! This is the first I've heard of it and I'm surprised this is not on the front page of every newspaper in America. I'm going to go buy a newspaper and see how we'll it's being covered. FYI, who exactly is doing the modeling and testing and what have the findings been? Is anyone trying to replicate their results yet? Again, Nice_score, is there an online source for this? I can't find anything on Google yet. Mr Christopher 14:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proponents of intelligent design claim that they are searching for evidence of intelligent causation. We hve no way of knowing if they actually are searching for evidence of intelligent causation because there is no published research. JPotter 14:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you on that, JPotter. DLH had written Intelligent design tests models of abiotic and biotic systems against empirical data to identify evidence for intelligent causation versus natural forces, ranging from the formation of the Universe to human beings. so I naturally thought he must have uncovered where some ID proponent(s) is now actually doing something scientific (and not just pontificating and/or using little mouse trap analogies fit for pre-schoolers). I've searched Google and bought a few papers today in hopes of learning about this new development. So far I have not found anything to support DLH's claim(s) that there is some actual testing and modeling going on now in the ID realm. Hopefully he'll clue us in today on his discovery. Mr Christopher 17:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Cristopher & JPotter. Sorry to hear you have difficulty searching or that you have been listening to the naysayers too long. For starters see:

Michael Behe and David W. Snoke (2004). "Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues". Protein Science 13 (10): 2651-2664.
The Extended ID Bibliography
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)]
DLH 20:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guettarda reverted adding this sentence asserting "(rv - some of these changes are inaccurate, others misleading)" but without discussion or providing any evidence for that assertion. DLH 21:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feloniousmonk revered asserting "rv. Inaccurate and biased" without evidence or discussion. The two sentences are the result of mmonths of refinement. Replaced them.DLH 04:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Causation

See Intelligent Design Archive 32 Overview Natural Causation for extensive discussion. The following sentence is proposed to replace the second sentence under Overview for a more balanced contrast to ID overview.

By contrast, conventional biological science, relies exclusively on natural explanations for abiogenesis and macroevolution through processes such as mutation and natural selection, starting from the Big bang. DLH 20:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guettarda reverted adding this sentence asserting "(rv - some of these changes are inaccurate, others misleading)" but without discussion or providing any evidence for that assertion. DLH 21:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feloniousmonk reverted asserting "rv. Inaccurate and biased" without evidence or discussion. The two sentences are the result of mmonths of refinement. Replaced them.DLH 04:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Peer review (again)

Some anonymous user changed the peer review section pretty drastically, and FeloniusMonk rightly reverted it because these changes weren't discussed beforehand. Fine. However, after looking at this page from the Discovery Institute web site, I think that the peer review issue shouldn't be dismissed so easily as this article does. Some of the entries have been discussed in past peer review discussions, but not all. Clearly the DI is claiming their proponents are getting ID viewpoints published in peer-reviewed journals, a direct contradiction to this article. If even one peer-reviewed ID article exists, it at least deserves a mention. -Amatulic 21:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article already deals with the DI's claims about their list, please see:Intelligent_design#Peer_review

The DI's list has been shown to be an extravagant exaggeration many times in many places. Not least of which is the Dover trial ruling which very clearly stated ID has failed to produce any peer reviewed articles:

" The evidence presented in this case demonstrates that ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications" [4]
"In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing."[5]
"After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents, as elaborated upon in submissions to the Court, and as scrutinized over a six week trial, we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community."[6]

Then there's Behe's own testimony that there is no peer reviewed scientific publications that support ID:

"On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: 'There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.' "... "Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed."[7]

Contributors here should be knowledgeable and up to speed with the current state of the topic if they are going to make changes or objections, otherwise they are simply wasting their time. The Dover trial settled this issue in 12/05, and nothing has changed since. They should at least read the archives to see why things are the way they are. FeloniousMonk 22:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the archives and saw some titles on the DI's list mentioned, but not all; that's why I brought this up. Thanks for the very detailed explanation. Honestly, I missed or glossed over the mention of the DI's list in the peer review section. I must have been confused between the past and current edit. However, your claim that "nothing has changed since" the Dover trial, while true now, would still have to be re-examined each time the DI lists a new claim of peer-reviewed publication. -Amatulic 22:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Whenever new verifiable information comes to light the article has to change - but there doesn't seem to be much likelihood of any peer-reviewed ID work appearing in journals anytime soon. --Davril2020 22:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE Davril's "Whenever new verifiable information comes to light the article has to change": In keeping with WP:Reliable sources and WP:NPOV#Undue_weight or course. ... Kenosis 03:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Just like science, our conclusions are always tentative and based on the best evidence. Here's an interesting overview of the Meyer peer review controversy from Chris Mooney: [8] FeloniousMonk 23:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but IMO this analysis is flawed and demonstrates bias. A statement by a judge that there are no peer-reviewed ID papers in journals does not prove that there are no peer-reviewed ID papers in journals. And Behe's testimony wasn't that "there is no peer-reviewed scientific publications that support ID" - as is obvious in the quote of his that you use. He said that there are no articles ... supported by ... experiments or calculations ... which provide" etc. Those are NOT the same thing. And as a matter of fact, there are ID articles in peer-reviewed journals, and as for the extension to "no ... publications", that is just absurd. One of the challenges to ID by opponents is that they publish too many books (which are publications, right?) rather than peer-reviewed articles.Exiled from GROGGS 13:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Affirm Exiled from Groggs' argument. The article presently is unwarranted assertion by taking statements out of context.

This section is highly POV by almost exclusively criticizing ID. It should at least start with the ID position and then the critics. Propose starting this section with:

ID proponents list a number of peer-reviewed articles as supporting the concept of Intelligent Design. e.g, the Design Institute maintains an annotated list of peer-reviewed articles. William Dembski assembled a summary list of peer reviewed articles. with the pertinent references and links. DLH 04:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the same discussion fredged up for the __th time. Well, you asserted, prove. Jim62sch 14:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that there are no X's is a universal (and not always right) claim. If DLH or anyone else provides a cited source of a counterexample ("here's an X" where X = peer-reviewed article on intelligent design) it seems there should be some discussion on why the counterexample is not valid if the universal claim is to remain. Maybe it's not a valid counterexample, or maybe it is but the topic is about peer-reviewed articles of a specific type (e.g. in the "mainstream" scientific journals as opposed to the research done within ID groups). But I don't think we should just dismiss the proposed counterexample without reason. --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is already covered in the article: "In the Dover trial the judge found that intelligent design features no scientific research or testing..., ...the Discovery Institute continues to insist that a number of intelligent design articles have been published in peer reviewed journals, including in their list the two articles mentioned above. Critics, largely members of the scientific community, reject this claim, pointing out that no established scientific journal has yet published an intelligent design article. Instead, intelligent design proponents have set up their own journals with "peer review" which lack impartiality and rigor, consisting entirely of intelligent design supporters." FeloniousMonk 18:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But then it would be true that they have articles in peer-reviewed journals--just not in mainstream literature (like I said above, peer-reviewed in the ID movement). In any case, I'm glad to have seen you finally replied. In a number of cases I've seen you ignore relevant points entirely. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wade A. Tisthammer, the reasons have been given over and over and over and over. Every single article the DI claims is "peer reviewed" has been discussed over and over and over and over here. This is why people aren't leaping out of their seats over this "discovery' of "ID peer reviewed articles". No offense to you or others but it would help our efforts greatly if those who are trying to improve this article were actually familiar with the subject. There are numerous articles online about the so-called "peer reviewed ID articles" the DI and Dembski claim exist. These reportedly "peer reviewed" articles and such have been a major issue in within the scientific community, this subject has not flown under the radar. Please do not complain if folks here don't want to take time out of their day to give you or others personalized, indiviual lessons on the subject. You would do well to do some actual research on the subject and be familiar with the aspects you want to discuss here on the talk page. Thanks for your cooporatation and willingness to work together Mr Christopher 18:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But if this is so, someone should say "Already examined each of those proposed counterexamples, see this link" not simply ignore the proposed counterexamples altogether. Otherwise the dismissal seems arbitrary.

Also, the claim that a peer review article would recieve media attention is not, I think, completely right. What if the peer-reviewed article were within the ID community itself? Would it achieve vast media attention then? I doubt it. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"If DLH or anyone else provides a cited source of a counterexample ... it seems there should be some discussion on why the counterexample is not valid if the universal claim is to remain"

Has a counterexample been provided? The truth is, there's no need to dredge these things up - if such an article were to come to light, it would get a lot of media coverage - think about the Meyers paper. For that matter, Behe & Snoke, which was not about ID, but only loosely connected with it, received extensive discussion in the relevant journal, including response articles, and a response to the responses by Behe. If something on ID gets published it will be BIG news. We won't have to argue about it here, we'll just have to cite all the news stories. Guettarda 18:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that a peer review article would recieve media attention is not, I think, completely right. What if the peer-reviewed article were within the ID community itself? Would it achieve vast media attention then? I doubt it. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having like-minded cronies vet your work, as does ISCID [9], is not peer review, as the AAAS rightly points out Intelligent Design and Peer Review FeloniousMonk 19:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An ID adherent could also criticize evolution because "like-minded cronies" (evolution adherents) also peer-review their work.

Whether it constitutes peer-review depends on how you define the term. Merriam-Webster defines it as "a process by which something proposed (as for research or publication) is evaluated by a group of experts in the appropriate field." The ID adherents certainly do have experts in the appropriate fields they publish in, do they not? I think the statement just needs to be refined a little. The issue is not whether there are any ID articles have peer-review, it's that there are no ID articles that have peer-review in the mainstream scientific literature. This criticism may be perfectly legitimate, but it needs to be articulated more precisely than "ID has failed to produce any peer reviewed articles" (a claim which is technically incorrect). --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"In-house review" is not the same as "peer review". Have a look at the system within the USDA Forest Service, for example. Reports are usually internally reviewed (albeit by scientific peers), not subject to peer review in the normal sense. Consequently, they are considered part of the "grey literature", not peer-reviewed science. There has yet to be a single piece of science from the ID community, no takers for funding offered for research into ID, no mechanism for hypothesis testing, no testable hypotheses... Until (unless) that changes, this whole discussion is pointless. If that changes, it will attract press attention, no matter where it is published. Guettarda 20:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Technically they have peer review, just not peer review in mainstream scientific literature. Their heretic status (deserved or not) has forced them to do their peer-review in house--which still fits the definition peer review[10].

FYI, ID adherents do put forth testable and falsifiable hypothesis, else how is it that so many ID hypotheses (e.g. irreducible complexity of a certain system) have been failed such tests and been proven false? As always, we should be careful with what criticisms we make, as we may contradict them later on. --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No they do not have peer review. This is the problem with the ID crowd, they want to redefine what constitutes science and now redefine what constitutes peer review. Anyone remotely associated with the field of science knows what peer review means and they would also recognize what the ID folks are calling "peer review" to be a joke. We should not follow their lead by attempting to redefine peer review. And while we're chatting about it, their "heretic status" has not forced them underground, their lack of anything remotely scientific has lead them to create their own virtual "science playground" where they can dress up and play scientist. We should avoid redefining what comnstitutes peer review and we should avoid pretending they are heretics who've been forced to do their peer review in house. For a big laugh look at the documents Dembski wrote for the Kitzmiller case, specifically the 10 ID articles he claimed were peer reviewed are a laff riot. No, there is no need for us to join the "peer review" smoke and mirror charade. Mr Christopher 17:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said, the ID adherents "redefine what constitutes peer review" but did they? Unless they wrote the Merriam-Webster dictionary entry for the term, I'm inclined to think not. Do they "dress up and play scientist[s]"? Well, many prominent adherents are (heretics or not) in fact scientists. Technically, they have peer review (it fits the dictionary definition provided; I see no reason to ignore this), just not in mainstream scientific journals. Note I said, "Their heretic status (deserved or not) has forced them to do their peer-review in house [emphasis added]" which is true. You may think that intelligent design deserves to be a heresy (think it presents no falsifiable claims or whatever), but it doesn't change the fact that their articles will not be accepted by mainstream scientific journals (whether such journals are right in doing so) and so are nonetheless forced to do their peer-review in house if they wish to have any peer-review at all for their papers.

To say that there is no ID paper published in mainstream scientific journals is accurate methinks (excluding the one that was later renounced of course); to say that there are no such papers published in any peer-reviewed materials is not. A more informative statement would be "Though ID adherents have their own separate peer-reviewed journals in which they publish, they have failed to publish any articles in any mainstream scientific journals." Do I think this modified entry will be accepted? Not really. I suspect people will have the opinion "the reader doesn't really need to know that they conduct such peer-review processes" or some such thing. I thought I'd throw in my two cents anyway and point out that, technically, ID adherents do have their own sort of peer-review even if that sort of peer review is not enough to legitimize their theory. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a rest. What constitutes proper peer review is determined by the people practicing it, not a dictionary. And "Articles accepted to the journal must first be submitted to the ISCID archive. To be accepted into the archive, articles need to meet basic scholarly standards and be relevant to the study of complex systems. Once on the archive, articles passed on by at least one ISCID fellow will be accepted for publication."[11] is not how the scientific community conducts peer review. FeloniousMonk 20:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this will be my last comment on the subject. Within the Peer Review section the article states To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.[89][9] And also states ...intelligent design proponents have set up their own journals with "peer review" which lack impartiality and rigor,[98] consisting entirely of intelligent design supporters.[99] Both sentenced are factual, supported and let the reader know a) no ID articles have been published in scientific journals b) the ID proponents have set up their own "peer review" publishing. Wade, why are we even talking about this subject? The two points you want in the article are already there. Mr Christopher 21:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(ri) re "Wade, why are we even talking about this subject?" -- because Wade is here for no reason other than to waste people's time with points that have either been hashed, rehashed, all-bit-and-chewed, cudded-up and rechewed and rehashed again or that are completely lacking in validity. No Wade, this is not an ad hom (as you'll no doubt protest that it is), but it is a very sound observation based on your edit history here. If you are so interested in this article, why not become productive rather than obstructive. Jim62sch 23:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

Althought it was a little change you really made that "leading proponents" sentence a lot better. I would just like to say thank you for not because jerks, and for actually trying. ILovePlankton (I'm at a public place and I'm not conformtable signing in here.)

Propose changing "affiliated" to "associated"

I cannot imagine this change will cause much of an uproar but instead of simply editing the article I thought it best to get consensus here first. Here is the relevant text linked to as the cite for the current wording;

Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement?

A. Yes, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.

Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute?

A. All of the leaders are, yes.

And then if you read the following question/answer Forrest goes on to show how each is specifically associated with the Discovery Institute. It isn't until the next exchange that the word "affiliated" is used to describe Dembski.

Q. And one last individual, William Dembski. Is is he affiliated with the Discovery Institute?

A. Yes, he's one of the founding members of the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, one of the founders of the Wedge Strategy.

The word "affiliated" should be changed to "associated".Bagginator 08:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Affiliated' as a fairly clear meaning, but I think that 'associated' is perhaps too vague. To have an affiliation involves active contact, but this is not necessarily the case with 'associated'. One can be associated merely by shared belief. If the word is changed it would have to be something equally precise. 'Connected' might work by that is virtually synonymous with 'affiliated'. --Davril2020 11:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Affiliated is far more precise. It seems to me that Bagginator is incorrectly arguing that the imprecision of the interlocutor, and I presume the non-correction by the witness (correction being something the witness is not required to provide), is somehow cause for a change in verbiage. Sadly, such an argument is a nugation and thus fails to support the proposal.

Additionally, as we also have three cites supporting the usage of the word affiliation re the connexion of the leading proponents of ID and the DI, I think we'll likely stick with the current accurate word selection. Jim62sch 13:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Davril, everything you suggest is contained in WP:OR. Bagginator 14:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, you do not have a single citation using the word affiliation to describe all leading proponents of Intelligent Design.Bagginator 14:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[12], [13]. FeloniousMonk 15:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is your links to a thesaurus your joking around? My claim, and i'll repeat it here, is that there are zero sources that use the word affiliated to describe all of the leading proponent of intelligent design in connection with the Discovery Institute. Instead, they use the word associated. Since this is an encyclopedia, the words used by the sources should also be used by us. Otherwise, we are getting involved in POV pushing.Bagginator 05:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, and Dr. Poppicock is another leading proponent. Quit taking us all for idiots. Guettarda 06:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse Bagginator's change per his documentation. DLH 20:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As do I (for the reasons I state below). --Wade A. Tisthammer 15:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason I prefer "associated" is because it's truer to the cited source. The cited source says all leading ID proponents are associated with the Discovery Instituted, not "affiliated" with it. All else held constant, why not just choose the word that the cited source uses? --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why use the word associate instead of affiliate? For one thing, not all reputable dictionaries permit the usage we see in the current wording ("Its [intelligent design's] leading proponents are all affiliated with the Discovery Institute"). Check out this reputable dictionary source (the Merriam-Webster Dictionary):

transitive verb

1 a : to bring or receive into close connection as a member or branch b : to associate as a member <affiliates herself with the local club>

2 : to trace the origin of

intransitive verb : to connect or associate oneself : COMBINE

For those rusty on English grammar, a transitive verb is one that is requires a direct object. For instance, "I pet" is not complete without something like "I pet my cat" (the cat being the direct object). Similarly, "He is affiliated with the Discovery Institute" where affiliated is the verb and Discovery Institute is the direct object. As the example in 1 b of the Merriam-Webster dictionary indicates, being affiliated with a club or organization is using the word as a transitive verb.

The problem? Some prominent ID proponents such as Calvert (and we have a cited source, namely The Associated Press, that labels him as such [14]) are not members of the Discovery Institute, and Calvert’s organization (IDnet) is not a branch of the Discovery Institute. Thus, we have a counterexample of a prominent ID proponent who is not affiliated with the Discovery Institute, at least on the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of the term. Now it is true that some dictionaries have looser and less precise definitions of “affiliate,” but this makes the word too ambiguous and potentially misleading because it is too prone to misinterpretation (e.g. one could read “All leading ID proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute” as “All leading ID proponents are members of the Discovery Institute” based on the definition that the Merriam-Webster Dictionary provides). Utilizing a different word thus seems prudent here.

Incidentally, the citation never says that all leading ID proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute; rather it uses the word associated. Not only does "associate" solve the battle of the dictionaries and make things less prone to misinterpretation, we have the added bonus of staying truer to the cited source. So why not use the word "associate" instead? All else held constant, shouldn't we just use the wording that's closer to the cited source? --Wade A. Tisthammer 15:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum It has been brought to my attention that, unlike my electronic Merriam-Webster dictionary, the word "affiliated" is not in the same entry as the verb "affiliate" in the online dictionary and thus my argument based on the Merriam-Webster does not quite apply (though it applies in the electronic dictionary version). Still, we seem to have the question that, all else held constant, shouldn't we just use the wording that's closer to the cited source? --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Umana Again

Thus far no one has been able to establish any connection between John Umana and the Discovery Institute. The disagreement between editors here is whether John Umana is a "leading proponent". Fortunately for us our opinions on whether he is a leading proponent or not do not matter. What does matter is that we have a citation from a reliable source. Some disagree over whether or not we have a reliable source. In this case, the instruction from Wikipedia is

In some cases, there may be controversy or debate over what constitutes a legitimate or reputable authority or source. Where no agreement can be reached about this, the article should provide an account of the controversy and of the different authorities or sources.

We need to find a way to edit John Umana into the article in order to provide an account over this disagreement.Bagginator 14:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've offered nothing to establish why John Umana is a notable ID advocate or proponent. And there's plenty of evidence he's not: He's written no notable ID books or articles and he only gets 62 (!) hits in relation to design:[15] So why should we waste our time arguing he's not affiliated with the leaders of ID or inserting a non-notable view into the article? His most notable book is pointedly not notable [16], though it does "offer analysis of the evidence as to the crop circles and their origins and as to extraterrestrial intelligent life in the cosmos." FeloniousMonk 15:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OhhhKaaaayy. Thanks for that link. Jim62sch 17:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bagginator, we have already discussed this matter at some length. Recall that one of your proposed 'leading proponents' did not, in fact, exist and was the creation of a satirist. However, and please try to understand the significance of this, there is as much evidence suggesting the satirist's creation is a leading proponent as there is for Umana. That is, they have one source each to their name proposing them as leading proponents. Now, we all know that the satirist's creation does not exist yet this fact is original research. If we include all reliable sources regardless of authority then we must equally include the non-existent 'proponent' as well. The reason we will not do so is because we collectively must determine whether a source is authoritative or not. So the question you should really be asking is 'is the source I have proposed sufficiently authoritative or not to warrant changing the introduction'? The consensus, again, appears to be no. --Davril2020 01:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good choice of words, Felonious. You didn't say he didn't write any ID books, you said, "He's written no notable ID books" [emphasis mine]. I did some checking and found out he did in fact write an ID book.[17] --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a misunderstanding here. I'm not asking whether Umana should be put into the article, i'm asking for help on how he should be put into the article. Leaving him out is POV pushing. No one wants to help me edit Umana into the article? There is a verified source calling him a leading proponent of intelligent design and so far there is no evidence that links him to the Discovery Institute. Here is what i'm thinking;

John Umana is a leading proponent of Intelligent Design who is not affiliated with the Discovery Institute."[18].

This satisfies all of Wikipedia's criteria for entry. If we are not going to push our point of view into this article this entry or something similar to it needs to be edited in.Bagginator 05:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:RS: "Editors have to evaluate sources and decide which are the most reliable and authoritative." I think the unwillingness among the most editors here to cite law.com articles is that law.com does not appear to be a very established (read: reliable) source of information. That it is virtually alone in mentioning Umana as a proponent of intelligent design (as demonstrated by a Google test), much less a leading proponent (or any variant phrasing thereof), adds to the suspicion of its reliability. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 06:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lay off the nonsense. It's a throw-away comment at the end of an article which basically calls Umana a nut. Please supply some evidence to support that the author of the article can be considered an authoritative source on ID or the ID movement. Without any other evidence that Umana is a "leading proponent" other than this article, there is no reason to give this author any special weight. As you well know. Wikipedia is not a random, unfiltered collection of "facts". Do you propose we also list Umana as a nut? The source makes a far better case for that than it does the claim that he is a "leading proponent". Guettarda 06:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR says

In some cases, there may be controversy or debate over what constitutes a legitimate or reputable authority or source. Where no agreement can be reached about this, the article should provide an account of the controversy and of the different authorities or sources. Simoes, are you suggesting that i'm in agreement with your opinion about law.com? To be clear, i'm not in agreement. Therefore, the article should provide an account of the controversy.Bagginator 11:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guettarda, i'm happy that you are sharing your opinion. Please understand that my opinion of law.com differs from your opinion. In this regard, one of the three pillars of Wikipedia may be instructive. WP:OR Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. That is, we report what other reliable sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurateBagginator 11:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call this a controversy. You appear to be alone in your opinion that law.com is a reliable source. A single minority opinion does not a controversy make. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 16:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simoes, does it a debate make? "...controversy or debate...." of course it does.Bagginator 18:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your insistence ad nauseum that this law.com article is a reliable source in the face of my or someone else's pointing out that there is no reason (and/or reason not) to consider it reliable is not a debate. If you disagree with this assessment, I invite you to take it to a RfC. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 19:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well here is where Umana is coming from The australopithecine apemen were hairy creatures with far smaller cranial capacity than Homo sapiens. When God determined to create Man, He chose several healthy female hominids and endowed them with enhanced intelligence and understanding above that of ordinary hominids. These hominid mothers would be the first to give birth to human children. The Lord God set to work in forming the first human fetuses in several pre-human hominids of the species Homo heidelbergensis." That doesn't sound like Intelligent design to me, and if we add him as a leading proponent why would we not add the Raelians? For that matter, my aunt Gladys believes in ID. If I can get a few local newspapers to quote her and refer to her as a leading ID advocate can we include her in the article as well. She lives in a community of about 4,500 people so getting her in the local paper shouldn't be that difficult. Bless her heart she has some goofy beliefs so getting her in the paper shouldn't be that diffcult and it would really make her day. Mr Christopher 17:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now this source should meet WP:V and WP:RS. ROFL. Jim62sch 21:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a reliable source that can be verified calling the Raelians leading proponents of intelligent design I wouldn't object to adding them to the article. Your argument doesn't appear to be with me but with the rules of Wikipedia. You should argue that on the appropriate page, Mr Christopher.Bagginator 18:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, I could self publish a book or pamhplet full of idiotic notions, contact a few media sources, call myself a leading expert on intelligent design, they quote some of my nuttier ideas or activities and refer to me as a leading expert on intelligent design and that gets me space here on Wikipedia? Bagginator, my issue is not with Wiki rules or standards, it's with your judgement as an editor and contributor to this article.

I wish I could assume good faith on your part but if you look at this history of this subject, Umana, and all the opinions from seasoned editors you have ignored over and over and over and over, I'm afraid I cannot do that anymore. In fact I'm inclined to ask if you might be Umana's publicist or have some sort of financial ties to him. I don't wonder that because you suggested his inclusion, I wonder because you have ignored every bit of rational evidence that overwhelmingly proves he does not belong in this article. So naturally I wonder why you're here promoting him and ignoring everyone else in the process.

Obviously if someone can get their name in this article they will gain a huge amount of public exposure. If I had a book to sell and I needed cheap publicity and an easy means of gaining credibility (hey look at me on Wikipedia, thay say I'm a leading expert, by golly that proves I'm a leading expert!) I'd sure want my name in an article like this. I bet Umana would love to see his name here and for Wiki to mistakenly portray him a leading ID proponent. How much publiclty and "credibility" (money) could that generate for him?

Manipulating the media is easy, I could get most any newspaper to refer to me an a leading ID expert, that wouldn't take much effort at all. But that wouldn't make me an leading ID expert now would it? This is where I question your judgement. And I think you are beginning to realize that manipulating Wikipedia editors is not quite as simple as manipulating the media.

Your actions on this subject are wholly innapropriate in my view. I am astonished by the patience that has been shown to you. Please go solicite an RFC and stop wasting everyone's time here. We are not paid to do this, are you? :-) Mr Christopher 22:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take my response to your talk page, Mr. Christopher, as I find your personal assault on my character and your accusations wholly inappropriate for the Intelligent Design talk pages.Bagginator 22:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say you didn't have it coming, the way you've been wasting everyone's time here with tendentious objections and baseless proposals. Perhaps you should consider your own method here and it's role in Mr Christopher's reaction to you. FeloniousMonk 23:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baggy's response sounds like, "Adopt-high-dudgeon-if-caught, adopt-high-dudgeon-if-caught, adopt-high-dudgeon-if-caught, adopt-high-dudgeon-if-caught, rawk" to me. Of course, I could be wrong. ;) Jim62sch 23:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you found my comments so disagreeable, I've read my comments above now several times and other than a few typos and possibly being redundant, I stand by every word I typed which was all base upon my observations of your (Bagginator) behaviour on this talk page. While I agree with you that someone who promotes the idea that human beings are the result of God dilly dallying around with some female hominoids (impregnating them with some sort of higher intelligence?) belongs in the same company as Dembski, Behe, Wells, and the Discovery Institute, the evidence clearly demonstrates he has yet to establish such a relationship or earned notoriety and no informed person, except possibly you, considers him to be a leading authority or proponent of Intelligent Design. Again, that is not my personal bias, it is simply where all the available evidence leads. I accept the fact you think we are all wrong here so please pursue the RFC route. Thank you in advance for your cooporation on this matter. Mr Christopher 02:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bagginator is wrong and simply ignoring all evidence that proves this. Whether it is six or sixty pointing this out to him, an RFC is unlikely to change his mind. Using RFC to try force a point you've been overwhelmingly shown to be mistaken on is a misuse of the dispute resolution process and the community's time, meaning Bagginator is a better candidate for an RFC than the issue he raises here. FeloniousMonk 02:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading up on Umana and his is a fascinating story to be sure. Based upon the Amazon review of his self-published book, at least one person has bought a copy. Pretty much all that reviewer said was you should buy a copy for your friends. The book review (probably written by the "publisher" on Amazon does not even mention the term Intelligent Design. Odd indeed. Umana also has a blog [19] with one article (from February 2006 it appears) that has a single response. Well, Umana replied to the reply, so maybe that counts as two replies. I think we can conclude that other than me and Umana, at least one other person has read his blog. Odd that Umana does not list Intelligent Design as one of his interests on his blog. In fact there is only one mention of the term intelligent design. He does, though, mention Behe in a sentence. The picture of him suggests he is a jovial man and possibly a good cook and host. I'll admit I'm a sucker for a happy person who enjoys cooking and entertaining.

I note that no one has even seen fit to start a Wiki page on him. You'd think a leading ID proponent, not associated with the Disco, with a national following would stir some interest in a Wiki article. Of course the lack of anything about him on Wiki does not mean he is not noteable. His beliefs about crop circles and God dilly dallying with hominoid females should land him a spot on some Wiki list or something. Perhaps those who feel he should be included here might start a page on this fascinating man. Mr Christopher 17:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the deep thinker too. Must admit the plate of pasta looks good. I wonder what the wine was. Jim62sch 19:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Harris

Above William Harris is pointed to as a leading proponent of Intelligent Design.[20] On May 9th 2005, according to Station 7 WABC in New York, Station 7 WJLA in Washington D.C., Station 6 WJBF in Augusta, Station 28 WFTS in Tampa, Station 9 WFTV in Orlando, Station 10 WPLG in Miami, Station 6 WRTV in Indianapolis, and Station 13 KSFY in Sioux Falls, William Harris is a leading proponent of Intelligent Design. The assertion above is that he is affiliated in some way with the Discovery Institute. I asked for a verifiable source to support that opinion but have not received one yet. If no one has a verifiable source to support that opinion William Harris, along with John Umana, should be added into the article as leading proponents of intelligent design not affiliated with the discovery institute.Bagginator 05:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After a massive research effort and lengthy discussion with which Bagginator is already familiar by now, the consensus of editors involved in this article is that these "candidates" for "leading proponent" are not even worth consideration. Giving credit for some degree of rationality and perspective, the only discernable purpose to continue dwelling on these various relatively minor participants in the intelligent-design debate would be to attempt to create the illusion for the reader of the article that intelligent design is somehow not the product of a coordinated group. Unfortunately, in real life it is the product of a coordinated group, specifically the Discovery Institute affiliates, Behe, Dembski, Johnson, Meyer, maybe also Minnich, Weikart and a few others closely involved in that organized cell. These others mentioned just above are not the leaders, not even close; nor are they reasonably characterized as "it's leading proponents". ... Kenosis 06:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this your way of saying you do not have a reliable source to show that William Harris is affiliated with the Discovery Institute? It is your opinion and the opinion of other editors of who are and who are not the leaders. Fortunately, our opinions don't count in that regard. What does count is verifiable and reliable sources. I find it revealing that some editors here continue to make appeals to opinion and "common sense" rather than to the rules of Wikipedia.Bagginator 11:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Bullshit~~Horsefeathers. Editors need to make these kinds of decisions all the time, else the articles would be virtually unreadable and would force the reader to parse through all the available research themselves if it were all included in the article. Heck, if some theoretical maximization to the limits of WP:VER were the only standard, why not refer to each and every publication ever published referring to ID along with all secondary and tertiary arguments about its implications as argued by those secondary and tertiary commentators with respect to each and every mention of the words "intelligent design" on the web. Then, after a 20 megabyte-long article of this type, we could add additional arguments about what the limits of WP:RS are with respect to each and every tidbit referred to in such an article, easily another couple of megabytes of appendices. And I'm sure I'm being quite consevative about these estimates of the length of such an article (WP recommends 32kB, 0.032 of a megabyte, though it's permitted to flex within reason).

Finding, as Bagginator just did, a passage in a fancied-up blog called "legal times" that used the words "leading proponent" in a web article about a dispute over attorneys' fees, in a minor "tell-all-Washington-"insider"-sex-revelations" subject of largely prurient interest, is not even remotely close to notable in this context. Nor would it be notable in this context if it had received 100 times the amount of coverage that it did on the web (60-70 hits). And similarly, a fellow who's doing a whistlestop tour on the local radio circuit doesn't even come close to a rational dispute over who the leaders are with respect to a subject that has received the kind of widespread attention that intelligent design has received in the last decade. ... Kenosis 17:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like these? [21] [22] (PDF) Harris is affiliated with the Discovery Institute a number of ways; through his position and role at IDNet, which works closely with the DI, and his signing of the institutes' ID maninfesto, A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, and the DI's constant relying on Harris for quotable soundbites while touting his credentials.[23] Do I really need to go on? FeloniousMonk 19:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. You have no verifiable sources that actually say he is "affiliated" with Discovery Institute, just your own personal interpretation (just as he is using his own personal interpretation). I can understand the disagreement. Harris is not a member of Discovery Institute, nor is his organization a branch of the Discovery Institute. So saying he is "affiliated" with the Discovery Institute could come across as misleading, since Harris is not affiliated with the Discovery Institute in the strict sense of the word. On the other hand, there is some connection (however tenuous) to the Discovery Institute, but whether or this connection is "close" enough to call it "affiliation" in the looser sense of the term seems debatable. Felonious, you have shown that he is among numerous scientists who signed "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" which says

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

It is true that a number of Discovery Institute members signed this statement, but there are also scientists who are not a member of this organization who signed it. Does signing this statement imply one is "affiliated" with the Institute whether one is a member or not? I'm not sure the connection is close enough to make that claim. Have you shown that the Institute is "constant[ly] relying on Harris for quotable soundbites"? You have only given one proposed example, and that example is merely the Discovery Institute's copy of the Kansas City Star article that mentions him[24] (I didn't see it actually quoting him). Does IDnet work "closely" with the Discovery Institute? Well, it depends on how close is "close," and seems open to debate--particularly without any reputable and verifiable sources that say either way. --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wade. Seems this definition from the OED covers the issue: Relationship, esp. as perceived within a group of similar things thought to have derived from a common source;Jim62sch 00:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the definition my electronic dictionary gave? "To associate as a member or branch." That was the only definition my dictionary gave. Calvert is not a member of the Discovery Institute, nor is his organization a branch of the Discovery Institute. It doesn't match the primary meaning of "affiliate." Yes, the word "affiliate" also has looser definitions, making it too ambiguous which is why I suggest we use a term that is not so prone to misinterpretation. The verb word "associate" is one I suggested, largely because it's also the same word the cited source used (thus we have the added bonus of staying truer to the cited source). So why not use it? --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a gulf in legitimacy betwen your "electronic dictionary" and the OED -- the OED is the preeminent dictionary of the English language. Also, most English words have multiple definitions that are dependant on context. That you choose to rely on a dictionary that gives only one definition of affiliate is your problem -- however, don't try to inflict your problem on the rest of us. Jim62sch 22:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget that "He is affiliated with the organization" is using the word "affiliate" as a transitive verb. Let's also not forget that the Merriam-Webster Dictionary is indeed an extremely reputable dictionary. And when one looks up the word "affiliate" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary we see that it's use as a transitive verb matches precisely what I said. The Merriam Webster dictionary has a precise defition of the term "affiliate" such that the statement "Calvert is affiliated with the Discovery Institute" is not true, because Calvert is not a member of the Discovery Institute, nor is his organization a branch of the said Institute. Yes, some different dictionaries have looser and less precise defintions. But this is again the reason why the word is too amibiguous and too prone to misinterpretation. Also note that the cited source for the claim uses the word associate and not "affiliate." I suggest we stick closer to the wording of the source. Why shouldn't we? --Wade A. Tisthammer 14:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see the uninformed campaign to ambiguate who the actual leading proponents of ID are continues apace. William Harris and John Calvert are the co-founders of IDNet.[25] IDNet is a regional group formed to promote ID in education. [26] And IDNet is closely affiliated with the Discovery Institute, [27], having worked closely with the institute in the Mid West and New Mexico, esp. the recent Kansas evolution hearings.[28] [29] [30] [31] [32] During which Harris was a featured speaker in the DI-organized ID symposiums. [33] Please become more knowledgable on the topic before continually raising objections here. Until then, give this issue a rest. FeloniousMonk 19:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is to say, Harris and Calvert are both not-leading proponents, but instead regional operatives, and also are affiliated with the Discovery Institute? ... Kenosis 22:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. FeloniousMonk 17:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To say that Calvert is not a leading ID proponent seems questionable given the existence of a verifiable source to the contrary. We know that The Associated Press refers to John H. Calvert—a Managing Director of the Intelligent Design network—as a “prominent Kansas proponent of intelligent design.”[34] The word "affiliated," as at least one editor has mentioned previously, is a bit vague. What does the term mean? "Is a member of"? "Has hung out with"? My electronic dictionary defines the verb "affiliate" as "to associate as a member or branch." Calvert is not a member of the Discovery Institute, nor is his organization a branch of the Discovery Institute. I thus can see why saying he is "affiliated" with the Discovery Institute comes across as misleading to some, since in fact Calvert is not affiliated with the Discovery Institute in the strict sense of the term.

Also Felonious, the immediate citation you mentioned[35] to back up the claim, "IDNet is closely affiliated with the Discovery Institute" is suspect. Here's the only mention of the Institute I could find:

For a detailed list of books and other publications regarding Intelligent Design we recommend that you visit: the Access Research Network site and The Discovery Institute Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture.

It recommends visiting another website, and that implies the two groups are "closely affiliated"? Such a connection is tenuous, to say the least. As far as I know though, the Discover Institute and IDnet were both involved in the controversy in Kansas.

Still, the Discovery Institute gets involved in seemingly any major happening involving intelligent design in the U.S. It is perhaps not surprising that Calvert (or any other leading ID proponent of the U.S.) and the Discovery Institute meet up sooner or later. Does any such meeting qualify as being “affiliated” with the Institute? While it is verifiable that Calvert is a prominent ID proponent[36], it seems to be a matter of interpretation whether Calvert is "closely affiliated" with the Institute. One could use what seems to be the primary definition of the word "affiliate" (i.e. the only definition my electronic dictionary gave) but one could conceivably also use the word much more loosely. When it comes the question of whether or not a certain prominent ID proponent is in fact "affiliated" with a particular organization (whatever that ambiguous term means), I'd feel better if we had a verifiable reference either way. --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC) [Last Edited 18:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)][reply]

Oddly enough, the sentence reads, "Its leading proponents are all affiliated...". I note that "closely" is not used. Seems we have a strawman trying to scatter the crowing of reason here. Jim62sch 00:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was no straw man. If you paid more attention above, perhaps you'd see that I was quoting FeloniousMonk above when he said, "IDNet is closely affiliated with the Discovery Institute." That's what I was responding to. Please be more careful when you make such accusations against me. --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accusation? ROFL. Besides, I care more about what the article says in this case.

Also, one hopes you're not planning on picking up where you left off -- tendentious edits, refusal to accept legitimate cites, the raising of spurious arguments, etc. Jim62sch 22:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: my two cents The questionable claim that all leading ID adherents are "affiliated" with the Discovery Institute is, I suspect, false. Nonetheless, there is a verifiable source of an apparent expert making that claim in accordance with WP:V. Neither I nor anyone else can (or at least should) use one's own personal viewpoints to disregard Wikipedia policy.

What about the use of alleged sources to counteract that claim? There are indeed valid sources to point out the existence of a leading ID proponent (e.g. Calvert[[37]) who is neither a member of Discovery Institute nor belongs to an organization that is a branch of the Discovery Institute. Although it is easily demonstrated that the leading ID proponent(s) is not affiliated with the Discovery Institute in the strict sense of the word, one can always use the looser definition of "affiliate" (having a "close connection" with) and claim the individual is affiliated with the Institute in that sense. Unfortunately this rather loose definition of "affiliate" is so vague that one might argue (however incorrectly) that having lunch with Dembski or signing the same petition implies being "affiliated" with the Discovery Institute because that is "close" enough. It may be irrational, but it is in practice difficult to attack.

The only reason I think the cited (albeit fishy) claim (that all leading ID proponents are "affiliated" with Discovery Institute) should be allowed is because it has a cited source to support it. What is evidently needed to counter this cited claim is a valid source that says person X is a leading ID proponent and a valid source that says person X is not affiliated with Discovery Institute. The problem? Even if such a person does exist, it seems that finding such a valid source would be a difficult if not impossible task. Seldom do news articles make remarks as, "person X is a leading ID proponent, and by the way that person is not affiliated with so-and-so organization." In regards to Bagginator's claim--I fear I must side with his adversaries because of Wikipedia policy despite the fishiness and probable falsehood of the cited claim (unless of course Bagginator comes up with valid source that fully support his claim). As much as I would like my personal judgment to override Wikipeida policy, I cannot do so. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're ignoring: 1) Calvert's role and accomplishments in the movement are not close to being as significant and notable as the widely acknowledged leaders of the movement -Dembski, Behe, Johnson, Meyer, Wells. 2) Calvert and his group are closely affiliated with the DI, having worked closely together on the Kansas science standards and elsewhere. FeloniousMonk 21:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're ignoring (1)Whether you personally think Calvert's role may not be as significant as e.g. Behe is irrelevant, since we do have a verifiable and reputable source that Calvert is a prominent ID proponent.[38] Please do not allow your personal feelings to trump Wikipedia policy (again). And (2) how close is "close"? Exactly what actions constitute sufficient "closeness" to be "affiliated" with? It's vague, especially if you do not go into detail what exactly Calvert and the DI did that constitutes them working "closely" enough to constitute being "affiliated" with (same thing with Harris; perhaps especially so). I would prefer a different wording altogether (see below). --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post Script It seems that "associated with" should be used instead of "affiliated with" to avoid being misleading. The claim, "Its [intelligent design's] leading proponents are all associated with the Discovery Institute" is still unsatisfyingly vague (what precisely does it mean to "associate" with? Does having lunch with a member qualify, or signing the same petition?), but at least the statement would not be as misleading. Note also that two of the three citations, when actually looked up, do not actually contain the claim that all leading ID proponents are affiliated/associated with the Discovery Institute. (One does however.) --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Affiliated: "1. to bring into close association or connection: The research center is affiliated with the university. 6. to associate oneself; be intimately united in action or interest. 7. a branch organization. Affiliated is exactly the right word. There's nothing misleading about it. FeloniousMonk 21:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the definition my electronic dictionary gave? "To associate as a member or branch." That was the only definition my dictionary gave. Also check out this more reputable dictionary source than the one you provided (the Merriam-Webster Dictionary):

transitive verb

1 a : to bring or receive into close connection as a member or branch b : to associate as a member <affiliates herself with the local club>

2 : to trace the origin of

intransitive verb : to connect or associate oneself : COMBINE

For those rusty on English grammar, a transitive verb is one that is requires a direct object. For instance, "I pet" is not complete without something like "I pet my cat" (the cat being the direct object). Similarly, "He is affiliated with the Discovery Institute" where affiliated is the verb and Discovery Institute is the direct object. As the example in 1 b of the Merriam-Webster dictionary indicates, being affiliated with a club or organization is using the word as a transitive verb.

Neither Calvert nor Harris is a member of the Discovery Institute, nor is their IDnet organization a branch of the Discovery Institute. Thus, to claim "he is affiliated with" the Discovery Institute is at least potentially misleading. Yes, the word "affiliate" also has looser definitions on some dictionaries, making it too ambiguous which is why I suggest we use a term that is not so prone to misinterpretation. The verb word "associate" is one I suggested, largely because it's also the same word the cited source used (thus we have the added bonus of staying truer to the cited source). So why not use it? --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice grammar lesson, but rather pointless. Oh, are you aware that there is a reflexive use as well?

BTW: your version of Merriam-Webster is a bit deficient as there are at least six definitions for affiliate. Time to move up to a more complete dictionary, I think. Jim62sch 23:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary.com shows 'affiliated' is exactly the right word. And one that has enjoyed much consensus for a very long time, your transparent attempts at semantics and hair-splitting aside.

Calvert is affilated with Discovery Institute; no one has said he is a member. And being affiliated is sufficient to disqualify him here, were it not that he is already disqualifed because he's not even half as notable as the recognized leaders of ID, Behe, Dembsksi, Meyer, Johnson, Wells. Read the DI's Essential ID Reading List Behe, Dembsksi, Meyer, Johnson, Wells are all there, but Calvert is not. That's because the one ID book he cowrote is not definitive or notable enough. Calvert's affiliation with the institute is well established. Calvert and his Intelligent Design Network (IDnet) often acts on the Discovery Insitute's behalf. For example, the Intelligent Design Network of New Mexico (IDNet-NM) negotiated with PBS station KNME to provide a public discussion the station's refusal to show the Discovery Institute's Unlocking the Mystery of Life video (which feature genuine ID leaders Behe and Dembski) which was scheduled to air January 2005 before being cancelled due to concerns over the institute's religious connections. (FYI "IDnet-NM is a Division of Intelligent Design Network, Inc, (IDnet) of Kansas.") [39] In 2003 in Minnesota, IDnet was responsible for promoting pro-ID science education standards drafted by the Discovery Insitute. [40] Calvert's group performed the same role for the institute, promoting the institute's draft science standars and model lesson plans, in 1999 through 2006 in Kanasas [41] [42], Ohio [43], and New Mexico [44] And Calvert spoke repeatedly on the DI's behalf around the state in Kansas. [45] [46] [47] And Calvert appeared with DI Fellow Michael Behe in defense of ID on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer. [48] Calvert is affiliated with the institute, working with it and on its behalf. Based on our previous experiences with you no doubt you'll claim this is all just a coincidence. FeloniousMonk 17:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't claim it's a coincidence. The Discovery Institute is by far the most prominent ID group. It shouldn't be a surprise that any prominent ID adherent such as Calvert (and your personal opinions of his prominence make little difference, since recall we do have a reputable source claiming he is a prominent adherent[49]) would bump into them e.g. appearing with fellows of the Institute (such as Michael Behe). Calvert is a lawyer, and the Discovery Institute is seemingly involved in all major ID events, so it's no surprise that they were both involved in the infamous Kansas trial. IDnet and Discovery Institute both share the same ideals (i.e. promoting intelligent design). Given the near omnipresence of the Discovery Institute in all major ID events, can IDnet be truly said to have a “close” enough connection (to qualify as "affiliation") to the Institute simply because IDnet also attempts to become involved in major ID events? I’m not sure, but it seems a little shaky. In any case none of this is particularly relevant to my key point. And Felonious, you don't seem to be addressing the key point. Calvert is not a member of Discovery Institute, nor is his organization a branch of the said institute.

Addendum to this post [Edit made October 18, 2006] At least some of your cited sources don't quite check out. For instance you said, "And Calvert spoke repeatedly on the DI's behalf around the state in Kansas. [50] [51] [52]" On a hunch I decided to check the links; none of the citations provided say that Calvert ever spoke on the DI's behalf.[End edit]

Yes, dictionary.com has a definition that fits the bill, but a more reputable dictionary (i.e. Merriam-Webster Dictionary) has a more precise definition that does not allow the usage you ascribe to it (see my previous post where I explain this in more detail). I already said that the word "affiliate" also has looser definitions on some dictionaries, but this is precisely my point: the word is too ambiguous and at least potentially misleading (one could easily read "Calvert is affiliated with the Discovery Institute" as Calvert being a member of the institute because of the definition this reputable dictionary gives) which is why I suggest we use a term that is not so prone to misinterpretation. The verb word "associate" is one I suggested, largely because it's also the same word the cited source used (thus we have the added bonus of staying truer to the cited source). So again I ask, why not use it? --Wade A. Tisthammer 14:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, in other words, you are just claiming coincidence. Calvert and IDnet have worked closely with the Discovery Insitute on a number issues a number of times at a number of different places; they are affiliated with the institute, period.

"Yes, dictionary.com has a definition that fits the bill, but a more reputable dictionary (i.e. Merriam-Webster Dictionary)" Thanks for making it clear that you're not just wasting your time and ours with semantics, but with specious objections as well. Dictionary.com's defintion is drawn from the Random House Unabridged Dictionary: "Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary." Are you going to now argue that the Merriam-Webster Dictionary is more reliable than the Random House Unabridged Dictionary? The Random House Unabridged Dictionary says: affiliate, verb (used with object) 1. to bring into close association or connection: The research center is affiliated with the university. No different than "Its leading proponents are all affiliated with the Discovery Institute." Again, affiliated is exactly the right word, was settled upon here a long time ago ater much discussion and has enjoyed broad consensus from credible, long-term contributors here. You objections are noted but must be weighed against your singular history of partisan participation, baseless objections, and past rejecting of all evidence on this topic, and at this article in particular, Wade. As such, I don't find them compelling. FeloniousMonk 15:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"So, in other words, you are just claiming coincidence." No, I explicitly denied coincidence. You have misrepresented my position.

I was unaware it was based on the Random House dictionary. Such a claim was not there on its web page[53]. And again with the hypocritical personal attacks? This is not the first time you made them and where I pointed out your failure to cite specific examples of my alleged misdeeds whereas I pointed out specific examples of your disruptiveness and flagrant violations of Wikipedia policy [54].

OK, now I see what you're doing, what your game is, Wade. You cite the definition for "affiliate" using Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary as showing our use of the term "affiliated" is inaccurate. [55] But the entry for "affiliated", the term we actually use in the article, at Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary shows our use of the term: affiliated: closely associated with another typically in a dependent or subordinate position: the university and its affiliated medical school [56] (you have to click the word "affiliated" for its definition)

In other words, you've been building up a straw man and been furiously tearing him down. Sneaky, that. Please stop wasting your time and ours with specious objections; by your own source affiliated is accurate. FeloniousMonk 16:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware that the term "affiliated" was not simply the past tense form of verb "affiliate" (as opposed to the present tense; my Merriam-Webster electronic dictionary did not have a separate entry for the past tense but rather listed it in the same entry). I should've checked that on the online version however; and for that I apologize.

There is the American Heritage Dictionary (which does not have an additional, separate entry for "affiliated") [57] with a similar entry to the one in "Merriam-Webster," though you could argue that Calvert is a "subordinate associate" even if that's not the case (IDnet may have occasionally worked with Discovery Institute, but subordinate to it?). The Oxford English Dictionary says, "United in a dependent relation, as the branches of a society to the central organization." I'm not sure it can be called a dependent relation since IDnet can exist quite independently of the Discovery Institute (not being a branch of it). Of course, I suppose we could play the same definition game on how IDnet is "dependent" on the Discovery Institute.

Still, you haven't addressed my question. All else held constant, why not use the wording that’s truer to the source? If anyone's being sneaky here and wasting time, it's you for consistently avoiding this question. --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC) [Last edited: 18:19 17 October 2006 (UTC)][reply]

Oh come on, would it make sense as a past tense? Or even as a past participle? No. It's an adjective Wade, it makes no sense in any other context. Jim62sch 22:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems all three of us (you, Felonious, and myself) are all guilty of not being careful enough about checking our sources.

As for me, I failed to check to see if the past tense of the verb "affiliate" existed (assuming the past tense fit in the same entry as "affiliate" like in my Merriam-Webster electronic dictionary). This was indeed a blunder on my part and for that I once again apologize.

As for Felonious, he has continued his habit of providing citations that do not appear to contain the actual claim. As I mentioned earlier in this section,

Have you [FeloniousMonk] shown that the Institute is "constant[ly] relying on Harris for quotable soundbites"? You have only given one proposed example, and that example is merely the Discovery Institute's copy of the Kansas City Star article that mentions him[58] (I didn't see it actually quoting him).

Also in this section, Felonious misrepresented my position when he said, "So, in other words, you are just claiming coincidence" when in the post he responded to I explicitly denied coincidence (I said, "No, I don't claim it's a coincidence") and even offered an alternative non-coincidence explanation.

As for you in this case Jim, you should check the Merriam-Webster Dictionary entry I cited and see that its listing was a verb, not an adjective. So of course it makes sense in the past tense, which is why the electronic dictionary version included the past tense in the same entry.

I suggest we all become more diligent in the future with our sources. --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My sources were fine, as were FM's. But this electronic dictionary of yours is quite suspect. If it only had affiliate as a verb, it's a sad lexicographical source then, isn't it. Did you know that affiliate is also a noun? As for the rest, you give a lecture on transitive versus intransitive verbs, but don't recognise adjectival use of a word? Please.

Jim62sch 23:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By your own source affiliated is perfectly accurate and there is no provision in policy, guideline or convention at Wikipedia that requires articles to use the exact term verbatim found in sources. BTW, there's more than one source cited in the article, there is five. FeloniousMonk 18:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I admit my error in not checking the past tense for the verb "affiliate" but whether or not Calvert accurately fits the definition seems shaky to me, partly due to what I said earlier and that some of your citations you used to support the "affiliated" claim don't quite check out. For instance you said, "And Calvert spoke repeatedly on the DI's behalf around the state in Kansas. [59] [60] [61]" On a hunch I decided to check the links; none of the citations provided say that Calvert ever spoke on the DI's behalf.

Yes, there are five citations as you pointed out (previously there were only three). The problem is not all of them contain the claim that all leading ID proponents are associated/affiliated with the Discovery Institute (one of them says the institute boasts "a number of leading ID proponents"--not the same as all, another says the Institute is "the primary institutional advocate of ID" which I agree it is, but that does not imply that all leading ID proponents are affiliated with it etc.). I've found only one of them that contains the claim under discussion. Indeed, I am somewhat puzzled why all those extra sources were included at all with the sentence.

Also, I notice that you have continued to evade my question. You said, "there is no provision in policy, guideline or convention at Wikipedia that requires articles to use the exact term verbatim" which is true, but all else held constant, why not use the wording that’s truer to the source? --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that foul language is allowed in conversations like this on Wikipedia, i'm very surprised. While I still disagree with the opinion of FeloniousMonk and Kenosis and the conclusions they draw, I can see that neither of us our going to move our opinions and it is time to move on to the next step, instead of argue ad infinitum here on these talk pages.Bagginator 18:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell are you on about? Are you refering to the use of the word "bullshit"? Cut the crap. Jim62sch 21:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should cut the crap. Bagginator's surprise is not ill-founded. The use of profanity that Bagginator referred to contradicts the letter of (if not the spirit of) official Wikipedia on civility. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, read. The real world is ugly Wade, paradise exists only when you shut your eyes and ears. Jim62sch 00:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He'd worn the community's patience thin and showed no willingness to concede, such responses are not surprising either. While Bagginator's surprise may have justified, his wilfull ignoring of over a week's worth of evidence that he is mistaken is not, which is what has prompted the exasperation of some here. It's one thing to be shown to be wrong and move on, while it's quite another to repeatedly ignore the evidence that you are. FeloniousMonk 21:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the questioned word in my statement above to "Horsefeathers." The rest of my statement stands as written. and I've returned it to its original position directly below Bagginator's statement to which I was responding so it can be reviewed in its original flow. ... Kenosis 22:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, you said, "Alas, read. The real world is ugly Wade" and yes it is. But that's no excuse to make it uglier when it's not necessary. Note the link you referred to has to do with articles and not the type of discussion that happened in the talk pages (this talk page wasn't talking about articles on profanity; so it was unnecessary to use it here). Also, check out Wikipedia:Profanity

Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not [emphasis mine].

The use of cursing we saw clearly did not fit the bill here. Also, on WP:CIVIL#Examples we see that directing profanity at another contributor is a "serious example" of violating this official Wikipedia policy. --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wade, "offensive", "cursing" and "profanity" are subjective terms, yes? In my opinion (and I'm guessing Kenosis' as well) the words we used do not fit in any of those categories -- hell, they even appear on regular TV -- modern America's arbiter of taste. ;)

Also, lay off the little lectures -- while they are quaint, I was never a big fan of June and Ward Cleaver.

Oh, just out of curiousity: are you offended by Chaucer or Shakespeare? Jim62sch 22:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Wade, "offensive", "cursing" and "profanity" are subjective terms, yes?" Profanity is not quite relative. The "sh" word is profanity, and does not appear regularly on American TV (on the major networks; premium channels IIRC allow F-words and such). And if you don't like Wikpedia policy, you have the option of not participating. (P.S. No, I am not offended by Chaucer and Shakespeare--none which has to do with anything about Wikipedia policy.) --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OED: profanity, The quality or condition of being profane; profaneness; profane conduct or speech; in pl. profane words or acts. : profane, Characterized by disregard or contempt of sacred things, esp., in later use, by the taking of God's name in vain; irreverent, blasphemous, ribald; impious, irreligious, wicked. Nope. Wanna go for vulgar? Jim62sch 22:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and speaking of these little words of wisdom, "And if you don't like Wikpedia policy, you have the option of not participating" -- remember that the next time you decide to engage in WP:POINT, tendentious editing and overall disruption of articles and talk pages. Entiendes? Jim62sch 22:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that whether the "sh" word counts as a swear word is "relative" I think you are just plain mistaken. And again with the groundless accusations? I'm getting tired of them. Can you point to one specific example of me violating WP:POINT? I keep asking for specific examples on these matters, and the refusal to provide them is common. --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As to the brief use of the word "bullshit" in response to Bagginator's response to my response to his statement above in this section, coming as it did after an extremely long series of exchanges here and in the last archive about whether Frank Harris is a "leading proponent" such that the language of the article's introduction might properly be said to be inaccurate, note that it's since been stricken and changed to "horsefeathers", which more closely captures my original intent in characterizing his statement anyway. Also note that neither word attacks the person, but only the point (or lack thereof) to which the response was directed.

Perhaps the objector(s) to the use of the BS-word for emphasis about a point may have noticed that although the use of the word is still impermissible on network television and subject to big-time grief from the FCC, it's use has indeed become widespread in public discourse of late. (I do not know whether that is due to an increased proliferation of actual BS in the world, or to other factors.) Some examples follow: ... Kenosis 17:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'On Bullshit' (2005) by Harry G. Frankfurt listed #445 on Amazon.com

"One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit," Harry G. Frankfurt writes, in what must surely be the most eyebrow-raising opener in modern philosophical prose. "Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes his share. But we tend to take the situation for granted." This compact little book, as pungent as the phenomenon it explores, attempts to articulate a theory of this contemporary scourge--what it is, what it does, and why there's so much of it. The result is entertaining and enlightening in almost equal measure. It can't be denied; part of the book's charm is the puerile pleasure of reading classic academic discourse punctuated at regular intervals by the word "bullshit." More pertinent is Frankfurt's focus on intentions--the practice of bullshit, rather than its end result. Bullshitting, as he notes, is not exactly lying, and bullshit remains bullshit whether it's true or false. The difference lies in the bullshitter's complete disregard for whether what he's saying corresponds to facts in the physical world: he "does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are."

This may sound all too familiar to those of use who still live in the "reality-based community" and must deal with a world convulsed by those who do not. But Frankfurt leaves such political implications to his readers. Instead, he points to one source of bullshit's unprecedented expansion in recent years, the postmodern skepticism of objective truth in favor of sincerity, or as he defines it, staying true to subjective experience. But what makes us think that anything in our nature is more stable or inherent than what lies outside it? Thus, Frankfurt concludes, with an observation as tiny and perfect as the rest of this exquisite book, "sincerity itself is bullshit." --Mary Park

'Your Call Is Important to Us: The Truth About Bullshit' (2005) by Laura Penny.

From the review in Publishers Weekly: "The odious lies of advertising and PR; "morbidly obese CEO bonuses"; news networks that are "content providers" rather than sources of journalism; "nutraceuticals," "cosmeceuticals" and lifestyle drugs; overly powerful and financially motivated insurance companies and HMOs; and, of course, the reliably unreliable politicians—Penny's political and corporate targets in this everything-and-the-kitchen-sink sendup are largely American (although she reserves some ammunition for her homeland ..."

'The Dictionary of Corporate Bullshit: An A to Z Lexicon of Empty, Enraging, and Just Plain Stupid Office Talk' by Lois Beckwith (Paperback - Feb 14, 2006)

'Dictionary of Bullshit' by Nick Webb (April 30, 2006). Part I, for instance, is entitled "Corporate Bullshit".

'Bullshit and Philosophy (Popular Culture and Philosophy)' by Gary L. Hardcastle and George A. Reisch (Paperback - Nov 28, 2006)

From the Publisher's summary: "Popular interest in bullshit — and its near relative, truthiness — is at an all-time high, but the subject has a rich philosophical history, with Hobbes, Locke, Hume, and Kant all weighing in on the matter. Here, contemporary philosophers reflect on bullshit from epistemological, ethical, metaphysical, historical, and political points of view. Tackling questions including what is bullshit, what does it do, is it a passing fad, and can it ever be eliminated, the book is a guide and resource for the many who find bullshit worth pondering."

In light of this kind of proliferation of the word today, I find it somewhat ironic that the use of the word "bullshit" is considered so foul by some, but that spurious, tendentious argumentation involving absurd stretches of rationality is not. I stand by what I said, the sum of which is that the recent versions of the argument that the Discovery Institute is somehow not necessarily the nexus of the concept of "intelligent design" in the modern world, are false and that the only verified fact is that the Discovery Institute and its affiliates are the sole nexus of the concept of "intelligent design". That is to say, the leading proponents are all affiliated with the Discovery Institite. Everyone else who believes in it, follows from it, is a regional operative, a political backer, a financial backer, etc., is secondary to the plan of action of the wedge strategy formulated by the Discovery Institute affiliates. As to my use of the BS-word to characterize Bagginator's particular statement (1)I've already retracted it; (2)it characterized the point of argumentation, not the person; (3)"horsefeathers" is a bit closer to my intended characterization of the statement to which I was responding. But either way, y'all have my apology if anyone felt like it was directed at the person rather than against the [increasingly tendentious] point. ... Kenosis 17:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change proponents to theorists?

So nobody can decide what a leading proponent is. If we changed "leading proponents" to "leading theorists," would that help? (It would rule out Brendan Nelson for a start).PiCo 03:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in Talk:Intelligent design/Archive32, this has its own problem of suddenly rendering the sentence unsourced (the given source does not speak of leading theorists, only leading proponents). At any rate, Nelson has already been eliminated by virtue of no longer being the Education Minister (and therefore no longer leading on the issue even in Australia). Simões (^talk/_contribs) 03:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Theorists..." No doubt ID's proponents would prefer that, the problem is ID is not a proper theory, so theorist would be a misnomer and misleading. FeloniousMonk 03:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go postmodern, put "theorists" in inverted commas :). But I accept Simoes' point. PiCo 04:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Theory. --ScienceApologist 11:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"So nobody can decide what a leading proponent is" Actually there is a great deal of consensus here over what constitutes a leading proponent as well as what the evidence for such an individual is. The rare exception may be quite vocal and even disruptive but their notions do not negate the overwhelming editorial consensus on this matter. Mr Christopher 15:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's an application of the 'Teach the Controversy' method. Raise a specious objection, then point at the heated responses to it as evidence of lack of consensus, something in the article that needs to be fixed, controversy that needs to be included, etc. Of course a contrived, nonexistent controversy is not going to pass scrutiny of anyone looking at the issue objectively and critically, though. FeloniousMonk 17:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big difference in the English language between a "theorist" (someone who theorises) and a "proponent of a theory" (someone who believes and supports a theory). The people who invented/created/developed ID are "theorists". People who believe and support ID (eg George W. Bush?) are "proponents". In general, theorists and proponents are two overlapping groups (it is even possible to be a theorist without actually being a proponent of your own theories, eg the guy who invented Pastafarianism). Or am I barking mad? Leeborkman 10:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, all of the theorists are also proponents (i.e., they are actively engaged in the promotion of the theory, and the drafting and dissemination of various proposals that ID be taught in school). As for Bush, I doubt he even understands the concept (a man who used the word caliphate to describe the terrorists in Iraq probably has a few comprehension problems...but I digress), and it is likely that his answer was merely to assure he keeps the Christian Right affiliated with his party (throw'em a bone works well in American politics), thus calling him a proponent is quite a stretch. Jim62sch 13:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jim. I'm not particularly familiar with the gory details (that's why I put a question mark after George W., but surely the relevant members of the School Board that wanted ID on the curriculum were proponents without ever claiming to be theorists. Isn't that right? Anyway, I need to read up on all of this some more. So far, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the real highlight for me. See ya. Leeborkman 13:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the FSM, I can never look at a meatball without feeling that it's looking back at me. ;) Jim62sch 14:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need I point out? Intelligent design is only a theory in the minds of its advocates. --ScienceApologist 15:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And in the minds of its advocates, those who devised ID are "theorists". ;) In any case, SA raises a good point why "theorists" is semantically improper. Jim62sch 15:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't agree with you there. ID is certainly a "theory" in the common English usage of the word. The debate is whether ID is a scientifc "Theory" (with a capital T), and if it is a scientific Theory, then is it a good Theory or a bad Theory. (This is in fact much the same debate that has been argued about Darwinian Evolution for many many years, hinging around the notion of falsifiability or tautology). It's pretty clear that ID is non-falsifiable, and that makes it a poor Scientfic Theory, or if you are hard-line about these things, then it is not a Scientific Theory at all. But don't get all Science-chauvinist and say that the only kind of theory is a Scientific Theory. For example, I have a theory that Britney Spears' taste in clothing is the direct result of wearing Mickey Mouse ears as a child. It's not much of a theory, and it's sure not science, but it's my theory and I'm sticking to it. I am the world's leading Britney Spears Mouse Ears theorist. Leeborkman 22:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Intelligent_design#Notes_to_editors "This article uses scientific terminology, and as such, the use of the word 'theory' to refer to anything outside of a recognised scientific theory is ambiguous." FeloniousMonk 23:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, you are using Theory in the sense of "an hypothesis that has gained widespread acceptance by virtue of its demonstrated explanatory and predictive power". As ID has zero predictive power and dubious explanatory power (relying on something more complex than the phenomena that it seeks to explain), ID does not rate the title "Theory". Is that the sense of Theory that this article is using? NOTE: You have to be careful here, because Darwin's Theory is also susceptible to claims about predictive power. Anyway, I should point out that it is strange to use the word "theorist" to apply only to those people who put forward accepted, Scientific Theories with demonstrated explanatory and predictive power - even in strict scientfic terms, a "theorist" is surely someone who puts forward an hypothesis as a candidate for Theory-hood. Otherwise you have a big hole in your terminology -- if someone who creates an hypothesis isn't a "theorist" then what are they? Or are you saying that ID is not even an lowly hypothesis? Thanks. Leeborkman 00:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "strong form" of the anthropic principle is not a tautology.

The weak anthropic principle is a tautology (or it can plausibly be asserted that it is), but the strong anthropic principle actually makes a claim that is not true by definition. in fact, that claim is quite debatable and many people (including scientists) dispute it. There is no reason that "The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history." it just so happens that the universe did take on those properties (which is the WAP). to assert that the universe must have those properties, that it is impossible that the universe could have taken on different properties (that might not allow for life to develop) is not a tautology. it is actually a controversial statement that makes a claim that is not necessarily true by definition. r b-j 01:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All forms of the anthropic principle are in part truisms, since any valid cosmology arrived at by observation must be consistent with the existence of those making the observations. Do you have a specific point here in relation to the article? FeloniousMonk 02:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, I see you made an edit. At first I did not agree with you, as I've seldom read that distinction between SAP and WAP being made in regards to tautologies, but I've found some notable sources for the latter being more recognized as the tautology between the two, so I've reinserted your edit and added the sources. FeloniousMonk 03:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

just read the words, Felonious. while it might not be obvious that the WAP is a tautology (i think it is) but it cannot be disputed that the stronger forms of the anthropic principle simply are not tautologies. the SAP and FAP (and, to make a point, the CRAP) are statements that actually say something that is not the premise or definition. they, in fact, say something that is controversial and such cannot be a tautology. in fact, i cannot see how "some critics" see Intelligent Design as a tautology. it says that there is an Intelligent Designer (although they try not to admit they mean God) and that does not follow trivially from the observation of order in the universe and in biology. just because such order is accepted as a premise does not mean that an intelligent designer put it in place. but the WAP is a tautology for sure: "conditions that are observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist." it's true, but it doesn't say very much. r b-j 03:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Schonborn test

A lot has transpired here since | my previous post, and I'm hesitant to pop in again because it feels irresponsible to do so if I don't have time to make the commitment to follow and participate more responsibly.

After reviewing what's transpired here, however, I am all the more convinced that there's a problem that results from a conflation of a broadly believed concept of "Intelligent Design," on the one hand, and on the other hand the tenets advanced by a narrow movement with a handful of identifiable "leading proponents."

As I conceded in my earlier comment, Cardinal Schönborn is in fact an internationally leading proponent of the broad concept offered in the article as the definition of "Intelligent Design"; but he is not on record supporting what is actually meant by "Intelligent Design" in current usage, and it's likely that when the publications emerge from the recent confab with the Pope & other doctoral students of the Pope, Schönborn will emerge as a non-supporter of what "ID" actually stands for.

In actual current usage, "Intelligent Design" does not signify the broad concept that is believed in by just about everybody who believes in Divine Creation (including Schönborn). The DI folks might assert that's what it means, and that's an obviously useful claim for them to make, since it enables them to claim all kinds of people as believers in ID.

But that is not what "Intelligent Design" stands for. "Intelligent Design" is a label for the position that the kinds of "evidence," arguments, and conclusions advanced by ID advocates are scientific evidence, arguments, and conclusion--that the work they do should be recognized as part of the work of "science." The inventors of ID claim that it means something else (the more widely believed concept), and that's a strategically useful claim for them to make, but their making that claim does not make it so.

If the article were revised so that "Intelligent Design" is defined as what it is in fact -- a tendentious movement and the set of claims and arguments advanced by that movement -- instead of defining it as a "concept" that is believed by so many people who are actually opposed to ID, then it would be a lot less difficult to justify the identification of ID's "leading proponents" as persons who are affiliated with DI. jawhitzn 04:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I should offer a text for the kind of revision I'm proposing. Instead of just editing the article, however, let me offer this here for discussion first.

The revised article could begin like this:

Intelligent design (ID), according to its proponents, is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."^[1]The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."Questions About Intelligent Design*

However, the concept as defined in that way is one that would be embraced by many people who believe in Divine Creation, but who do not accept the positions being advocated in the name of "Intelligent Design." As used in the controversies described in this article (below), "Intelligent Design" denotes the positions advocated by a movement that promotes beliefs that are not shared by many who would accept the "concept" which the ID movement offers as its definition of ID, but who do not share the belief that the work espoused by the ID movement is truly scientific work, and must be recognized and treated as such. It is their positions on questions about science, and the place of their work and their beliefs in relation to science, that is the distinguishing feature of ID--not their espousal of the broad "concept" they offer concerning the "best explanation" for origins, which is believed by many people who do not accept, and often oppose, the distinctive tenets, doctrines, and agendas that make up what is actually referred to and understood as the theory of "Intelligent Design."

Leading proponents of the ID movement are all ... [end of proposed revisions] jawhitzn 14:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The relation between the teleological argument and ID is already covered in the Overview and in the Origins of the concept and Origins of the term sections. If any additional coverage is warranted it would need to go there since that's way too much detail and explanation for an intro. FeloniousMonk 15:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there's way too much verbiage, but it's not because there's too much detail. What I wrote is verbose because there's a whole lot of redundancy, which would be reduced before it ever became part of the article. I kept the redundancy in there because I thought it would help clarify the point. I'm not sure that was successful.

The point is not to call for "more coverage" of "the relation between the teleological argument and ID." The point is that the article is wrong in accepting the premise that ID is what the DI says it is. If in fact ID really was the "concept" as they define it, then it would be true that it's supported by the masses who believe in Divine Creation. But that's not really what ID is. What I am proposing as "the Schönborn test" is that the article fails the test of accuracy if it presents a definition of ID by which the ID movement could claim to be supported by people who in fact are not supporters of ID (people whose position is like what I'm ascribing here to Schönborn, whether that ascription is correct or not--I could offer other names.)

What is distinctively designated by the name "Intelligent Design" is not what they define as the "concept," but the distinctive constellation of beliefs and arguments espoused as "ID Theory" by the ID movement.

I can understand the thinking that an encyclopedia article should begin with the concept itself, before getting into the reality of how a concept is being used at a particular time by particular people or groups. That sounds fine as a general principle. It doesn't work in this case, however. First of all, the "concept" as they define it is not a concept at all, but a proposition or a thesis. If the article were revised to characterize this as a thesis rather than as a concept, it would still fail the "Schönborn test" that I'm proposing, since the thesis is still one that is accepted by many opponents of ID Theory.

Just changing from "concept" to "thesis" would already differentiate between the article's characterization of what ID is, and what its proponents claim that it is. As soon as that separation is made, however, the attempt to identify a coherent thesis would end up showing that there is none (for reasons I will not go into here).

Neither the "concept" nor the thesis has the kind of objective reality that would warrant treating them as the main subject of the article, as distinguished from the actual beliefs of an actual existing social historical political and cultural movement. It is the ID Movement, and their ID Theory, which are the objective realities that can be treated as the subject of an encyclopedia article. So, I'm coming to the conclusion that this article should be revised as one that treats those actual realities as the subject of the article.

What do other people think? jawhitzn 17:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do other people think? Without the Discovery Institute (aka Dembski, Behe, Wells, et al)and their supporters, no one in North America would be discussing Intelligent Design. Well except perhaps the Raelians but no one is listening to them. Intelligent Design is largely a construct/allied campaign lead by the DI. And it was the result of the failures of creationists to gain foothold in public science classes. The history of the book Of Pandas and People is an especially comical chapter in the history of creationist attempts to infiltrate our public science classes. They thought if they changed some of the wording they could pass the constitutional test for teaching this watered down version of creationism in public science class. They got busted and their scheme failed. Again, without the DI ID would be as relevant as Raelian origin stories or even space alien abduction stories. Anyhow, that's my informed take on it.Mr Christopher 22:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations Double Standard

Somebody removed the following saying that it "lacked citations". However, the argument that it counters ALSO lacks citations. Thus, keep it all or remove it all if you want to be fair.

However, it couldn't be ruled out that the designer shares some human-like qualities that would be recognizable to human analysts. Detecting every possible designer configuration is not a necessity for testing.

--4.231.163.25 05:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding bias in article

I feel after a brief read-over that the way this article is presented leans heavily towards one side of the argument. There is little "neutrality"- even the order of the arguments shows this (the intelligent design is presented, followed by a rebuttal). The intelligent design argument seems to be put constantly in the critical light. Compare this article to the one on evolution? Look, even, at the section of evolution related to controversies. From a relatively neutral perspective, it does not look at though this entry allows intelligent design very fair treatment for those who might be looking for a balanced review of it. Rather, this comes across like a page in a book intended to refute rather than explore the subject.

If that is the case, than name this article "Criticism of Intelligent Design" rather than "Intelligent Design".

-Patrick

If you have issues with the article, please address specific items, along with sources that meet WP:RS to illustrate why the current article is incorrect. Also take care to note WP:NPOV and in particular the clause on undue weight; there is not a requirement to give minority views as much space as majority views. --Davril2020 15:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Davril is correct. Like it says in the "Please read before starting" note at the top of this page: "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 shape this article are: NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions, NPOV: Giving "equal validity"." When read in light of the specific provisions of policy that apply to it, the article is well within the bounds called for by the NPOV policy. FeloniousMonk 15:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a more modest proposal

I don't know how people here will feel about the suggestions I proposed under "|the Schönborn test," but I wonder if the points I raised are not enough to warrant, if nothing more, at least this much of my proposed revision:

The revised article could begin like this:

Intelligent design (ID), according to proponents of the ID Movement (link here to pertinent section below), is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."^[2] Leading proponents of the ID Movement are all affiliated with ...

(with changes highlighted like this above, the rest reamianing as it is. I think just attributing the definition to its source would mitigate the accuracy issue that I've discussed before. jawhitzn 17:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before now, I didn't do any editing on the article (a) because I'm new to this and don't feel confident that I know the norms; and (b) I figured that in any case changes in an article as controversial & as thoroughly discussed as this should be made after some degree of consensus is achieved here on the Talk page.

However, when I looked again at the DI reference which has been cited as the justification for the opening definition as it was, I saw that the DI itself does not offer its thesis as the definition of a concept of ID. Instead, what they're talking about is ID Theory, as a theory which "holds" their thesis to be true. I went ahead and did the edit, which I think is warranted simply for fidelity to the source which is cited to authorize that point.

I also think it's better this way because, in my revision, Wikipedia says "ID Theory is a theory which holds this (citing DI)," instead of the previous version in which Wikipedia said "ID is this (citing DI)." In the revised version, the Wikipedia article reports an objective fact about what somebody's theory "holds"; in the previous version, it implicitly concurs in a tendentious proposition about the meaning of a "concept," (which, it turns out, is not even supported in that form by the cited source).

So I felt justified doing the edit without waiting for consensus here in Talk. I won't be bothered at all if somebody reverts the article; but I will be inteested in the explanation if somebody does that. jawhitzn 19:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The DI and their supporers make claim to ID being scientific and a legitimate scientific theory. Unless we redefine what constitutes science, they are mistaken on both counts. Even Dembski admits unless the definition of science is changed they do not "stand a chance in hades" For Wiki to portray ID as a scientific theory would be misleading our readership. Therefore we should take a neutral ground and call it a "concept" and avoid calling it a theory or even a thesis. And we should note the fact that ID proponents do in fact believe they have a real scientific theory on their hands, I believe the article covers that. But for us to call ID a theory or even a thesis would be an insult our readership's intelligence. Mr Christopher 22:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

small note of support for jawhitzn / change needed to opening

I've edited the opening in the past - because i thought it was a bit confusing, and could be improved. I still think that's true.

Many active editors here seem to believe that the seperation between the teleological argument and Discovery Institute ID is clear and distinct - I don't think it is.

The first sentence says ID is a concept - the Origins of the Concept section describes all kinds of historical luminaries, none of whom have anything to do with the DI. The opening sentence says all leading proponents are associated with the DI. I'm confused - I've said it before, but this article seems to be talking about different things at different times, and editors here often seem quite angry / agressive when someone points this out.

I think James' changes improved the article, and perhaps it's a bit of a shame that I don't think it's worth me putting them back..... cheers, Petesmiles 05:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pete

The article, as it now stands, is gravely flawed; and the flaws have seriously pernicious consequences.

Because I care not only about the ID controversy, but also about Wikipedia as an institution (and wikis as a medium), I also am going to just wait and see what happens with this article, and then after some time (months, probably) use this as an example.

I have removed the identifying information that is now replaced by this sentence (see Guettarda's post below). I listed my full name when I created my Wikipedia ID because I think it's important for people in this medium to be identifiable and accountable, unlike the self-appointed anonymous dictators who are so vigilantly protective of their little patches of Wikipedia space. Sooner or later, these things will be fixed. jawhitzn 13:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least this way you can be held accountable for your puerile ad homs. Unfortunately, wiki is a magnet for the conspiracy-minded of this world, as your example so aptly proves. Sooner or later, these things will be fixed. Jim62sch 21:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I can't figure out why I can't get links to work on this page without the vertical bar showing up; but that's not too much of a problem.)

Gee whiz! The use of characterizations such as "gravely flawed" and "pernicious consequences", when used with respect to the Wikipedia article on intelligent design, are interesting indeed, albeit a bit hyperbolic. Here's the way I read that, for whatever it's worth: NEWS FLASH! "Godless Liberals Have Taken Over Wickedpedia; Horses Already Out of Barn" Write your congressman before the world goes to hell. Somebody call a cop; it's suspicious, pernicious, neo-liberal, feminazi, radical deviation from the Official Party Line. This is not Turkmenistan , and the Discovery institute and affiliates are not Turkmenbashi. Nor are the editors of this article. ... Kenosis 20:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is flawed because it's factually wrong and logically incoherent. For example, it does not pass what I've called "the Schönborn test" for accuracy. The consequences are pernicious in the way they play into the DI agenda and strategy. I don't see how your FLASH is at all related to the issues. jawhitzn 22:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the article tells it like it is, in keeping with the three most basic WP principles of WP:NPOV, WP:VER and WP:NOR. WP:CON is the method used to arrive at the content; consensus being a method that is neither a vote nor a dependence on asserted professional qualifications or expertise of the partipants, although the participants' demonstration of familiarity with topics under discussion can be a signicant factor in the process of achieving consensus. Additionally, a number of additional guidelines come into play with respect to interpersonal dynamics, stylistic guidelines and other practical issues. The Wikipedia article on intelligent design is certainly among the most thorougly researched and intensively discussed topics in the entire Wiki.

This intelligent design article is not a theoretical exercise in discussing specifically theological vs. scientific applications for a term such as "intelligent design". The entire article on the teleological argument has gotten less traffic in its entire history than this article gets in a couple of weeks. The reason for that is this: ID is a synthetic term incorporating a set of particular concepts, made and disseminated into popular consciousness today, particularly in the US, by affiliates of the Discovery Institute. As said before in now-archived talk-page discussion, this term would be a minor theological curiosity were it not for the wedge strategy and the peculiar synthesis of ideas having been maneuvered into public view in the context of the culture wars in the US, an ideological, socio-political gambit for power, in part by attempting to shape the hearts and minds of the next generation so as not to produce future generations of godless "materialists", but instead to have them grow up knowing a "science consonant with theistic convictions". This is, in short, why Schonborn's view is only marginally relevant to the article, and why the only notable version of intelligent design is the one that was assembled and foisted upon the public consciousness by the Discovery Insitute affiliates. ... Kenosis 22:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kenosis, What you say here tells it like it is. I was only proposing that the article be revised to say just what you are saying here. As it now stands, it is not saying the same thing. Your comment here is accurate, coherent, succinct, and even eloquent. It also provides reasons for your position.

The article should begin just as you have said it here: "Intelligent Design (ID) is a synthetic term incorporating a set of particular concepts, made and disseminated into popular consciousness today, particularly in the US, by affiliates of the Discovery Institute." That would make it accurate. jawhitzn 23:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the insult, jawhitzn, and before you go further down that path, please consult the personal attacks policy. But, more to the point, when people call up your employers and try to get people fired, when people post pictures of Wikipedia admins' homes and children on attack websites, when well-known lawyers threaten to have you arrested by their friends...there are lots or reasons not to broadcast your real name on Wikipedia. Guettarda 20:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing personally directed at anyone. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't feel insulted--and anyone who claims the role should not feel insulted, either, if that's the role they're claiming for themselves.

Thank you, though, for informing me as to the dangers of the Wikipedia environment. I am new to this, and I had come in with the apparently mistaken idea that this was an intellectual community. On your advice, I will remove my identifying information. I don't know if I can remove my name from the User ID; but if I can't, then I will close it out or whatever it takes to become anonymous in the savage jungle you describe. jawhitzn 22:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for "the shoe fits" - either you made it with reference to your fellow editors here, in which case it's a violation of the policy on personal attacks, regardless of who you were out to insult. As for the other part - Wikipedia is high profile, and people are often offended that we don't let them alter articles to reflect The Truth. Most people aren't like that, but some are. You can usually avoid these issues as long as you are not an active admin, but even reverting vandalism can attract unwanted attention. Guettarda 04:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

getting closer.....

it seems that you guys have rubbed each other up the wrong way a little above - but it's pretty clear to me that all parties want a great article - james, I support you strongly, but as you've no doubt seen from the archives, many editors here have had to deal with an incredible amount of nonsense from various ID nuts over time, and perhaps we can understand why they're sensitive to change - I'd also expect those editors to recognise that behaviour in themselves.

The opening isn't good enough - it conflates the centuries old concept with the modern movement - these are not the same things - we need to fix this. cheers all, Petesmiles 23:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, "the centuries old concept" is called the teleological argument, not intelligent design. As the article already states "intelligent design" as a term/concept didn't evolve out of the teleological argument until fairly recently. The article is accurate as it stands and the teleological argument is dealt with at it's own article. FeloniousMonk 04:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this article is falling into a basic rhetorical faux pas, ie it is conflating critique of the ID concept with critique of the people who propose and support the concept. These distinct critiqes need to be clearly differentiated into separate paragraphs, separate section, or even separate articles. The "design" argument has a long history, and I would think that discussion of the ID concept itself rightly belongs with discussion of historical design arguments like Paley, and the manner in which Darwinian Theory actually addressed the design argument, demonstrating a process whereby apparent design could arise without the need for a designer. Separate this clearly from the recent ID movement, where you can rightly discuss political and religious motivation, organisational affiliations, etc. What do you think? Leeborkman 23:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was not just trying to sound diplomatic when I applauded Kenosis and proposed his sentence to start the article. I do think it is exactly right.

A separate article on the historical and philosophic design argument would probably make sense for the reason both of you suggest. However, I agree with what's said in Kenosis' comment that "Intelligent Design" is a synthetic term that is specific to the ID Movement and the current controversy in the US. That's why I've been arguing against the current intro which concurs (in the name of Wikipedia) with the DI contention that "Intelligent Design" is a more general "concept" -- one that they are quick to observe is something that the Pope the Cardinal, and all manner of other folks would all assent to (despite the fact that they do not support the constellation of ideas that is designated by the new synthetic term).

I'm surprised if there is not already an article on the design argument that extends back from Paley through Aquinas to the ancient Greeks. There should be one, if there's not, and I think that separate article would lift burdens from this one.

The DI folk make a big deal of the ancient Greek lineage, which they use to counter suggestions that this is a Christian idea from Aquinas, Paley, et al. In doing so, they are conflating the historical ideas with their own synthetic term. But what "Intelligent Design" stands for is that this is a discovery of science, and a new branch of science, a new kind of science, and ultimately a new paradigm to replace the old naturalistic paradigm, as the paradign for all of science. And, of course, the "wedge" only begins with science, and promises to take over all the world.

Aquinas held no such beliefs; nor did the ancient Greeks.

The Designer Whom Aquinas believed in was believed to be Omniscient, not "intelligent."

At some point in the future I will be publishing an argument that deconstructs the synthetic term. But that will be the kind of original theoretical analysis that does not belong in a Wikipedia article. It can be observed, however, that the synthetic term and what it means are a creation of the folks who have come together in the current ID movement. jawhitzn 00:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it Jawhitzn; I've advocated some things in this article that've been shot down too. A principal reason the article's introduction reads as it does is that in the Fall of 2005, after lengthy and intensive debate among proponents, opponents and apparently neutral participants, a strong and stable consensus was reached that the introduction would consist of three short paragraphs. The first would describe the concept of ID and who its leading proponents are; the second would synopsize the position of the scientific community; the third would summarize ID's current legal status. This is what the introduction in fact does, and I concur with the many long-term participants in the article who assert that it does so quite well, in keeping with that intensively discussed consensus and in keeping with all of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia.

Yes, arguably the language just proposed (in the talk section just above) might be a more informative way of expressing certain aspects of intelligent design, but would need to be reconsensused with an adequately strong mandate to override those earlier agreements with respect to the very first paragraph, perhaps even the whole introduction, which involved a great deal of work by the participants. This proposed new language for the lead of the article also runs into WP:WEASEL with the words "popular consciousness", "made and disseminated", "set of particular concepts", "particularly in the US", each of which begs for endless arguments about the precise wording of each little component of that statement. The sentence proposed here also is a conclusory summary based on the information that the article proceeds to present. It thus runs into problems with WP:VER in that, lacking broad uncontested agreement that those are the verified facts, there would be many more things to verify with citations within that one paragraph were it to be worded in this proposed way. Presently the language of the article avoids these difficulties by sticking with the agreed approach and limiting the paragraph to what was agreed. ... Kenosis 01:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate that the current version is a negotiated treaty that cannot be altered without reopening a lot of issues. But it seems like folks here are so invested in what's here that they can't see what's wrong with it. Presumably, the first sentence is a straightforward verifiable statement of fact. Unfortunately, it's still wrong in a number of ways. If "verification" consists of quoting a DI FAQ, then (1) that citation only verifies that this is what DI claims to be the meaning of ID; it does not verify that this is actually what ID is. This could be fixed just by adding "according to DI" in the intro sentence, so that the article is stating a straightforward fact about what it is that's being claimed, instead of a purported (and not really verifiable) fact about what ID is. Besides which, the thesis is a thesis (or, as you say, a synthesis), and not a "concept" at all. Besides which, the quoted DI FAQ even describes this as 'ID Theory (which) holds that ...' So the source cited for verification does not even verify what is being said in the article.

When Wikipedia repeats this as the "concept" of ID, it is presented as a concept that is embraced by many who don't support or even actually oppose ID. That's tiresome repetition on my part, I know, but I want to bring this back to the consequences which I do think are pernicious. I have been immersed in this stuff for about 18 months now, and every day there are letters to editors of newspapers around the country written by people who believe that ID is supported by significant numbers of scientists. Members of the old school board in Dover believed (and some of them still publicly argue) that ID has broad support. It's the trick of claiming support from the broad range of people who do believe in what's presented (not just in the Wikipedia article, but regrettably there also) as this concept of ID that allows people to be misled about this.

I can see, though, that this is not going to be corrected.

Thank you for your explanations, and for not simply acting in a way that preempts consideration of these problems without any reasons or discussion. jawhitzn 02:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course this raises the issue of, "what do you propose ID to mean". I too wish that this term had not been coopted by DI, but coopted it has been and thus, we are stuck with it. Also, the other potential meanings of ID are handled via the use of a disambig page, thus if one were to write a page on ID in another discipline -- assuming there is one to be written -- it would be rather easy to differentiate between the versions of ID. However, as you can see, this article is part of a series on ID as it is defined by DI, fought over in school boards across the country, written about in newspapers and litigated in the courts. Jim62sch 21:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've said my piece here for the moment, I think. Anyone else? There were at least a dozen editors involved in this particular discussion that still check in here with varying degrees of regularity, and a bunch more that don't appear to check in much anymore. And there have been at least a dozen others that have taken various critical slants ostensibly favoring the position of the DI, whose various arguments may be seen in long discussions visible in the last 15 or more archives relating to these basic issues. Yet further, many participants have stopped by to offer various criticisms of the content, logical structure or organization of the article.

Through all of these discussions, every time the evidence is reviewed or more research is conducted by the editors, the conclusion has remained the same. The only ID of any notability now or at any earlier stage of the history of the article or the history of the earth, is the product of the Discovery Institute affiliates. That's why the DI website is used as the citation in the first paragraph. If that is inadequate verification for the satisfaction of some participants in WP, we can certainly add 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40 citations or more for that one statement. I would hope that one or two citations more would be adequate for this particular point. ... Kenosis 04:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was done with this myself, but I'm afraid the point is being missed. It's not a matter of how many citations are need for verification. It's a matter of what is and is not verified by citations that are used. The single citation to the DI FAQ is by itself a perfectly fine and adequate verification of the fact that this is a thesis asserted by DI. If that were the fact related in the article, then it would be perfectly well verified by the single citation. The article begins by relating something else as a matter of fact, however, and you can probably find a zillion statements of support for that in DI literature. Their saying it's so does not make it so. Citing them as saying it's so does not verify that it is so.

You may or may not believe that the US military effort in Iraq is part of the war against "Islamic fascist terrorism." If you cite a speech where GWB says this, then you have verified that this is a claim asserted by GWB -- you have not verified that the Iraq war is a war against Islamic fascism, or even that "Islamic fascist terrorism" is a valid name for something real. It does not matter how many GWB speeches you cite in which he says the same thing, or whether you add citations to Cheney's speeches. An encyclopedia article could verifiably say "GWB claimed ..." The citation, or a zillion citations to GWB speeches, would not verify an encyclopedia statement that "The US military effort in Iraq was part of a war against Islamic fascist terrorism." jawhitzn 05:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the DI is wholly and solely responsible for ID as it is found in today's debates, the DI's definition is the only one that matters. Not to mention that almost all notable subordinate ID groups, IDEA, IDnet, ect. use the exact same definition: [62] [63] Furthermore, any definition of ID formulated through synthesis here will not fly due to our no original research policy, and any definition of ID from some other group will be by necessity less notable than the DI's, and thus challenged on the grounds of significance and notability per our neutral point of view policy. You need to take into account what our policies say how policy shapes this article's content if you hope to alter it. FeloniousMonk 04:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be fine if the article reported that this is how they define what it is that their theory holds. That would be an accurate statement of fact. That's not what the article says, though. The actual meaning of the "synthetic term" (as Kenosis accurately describes it) does not depend on what they claim it means in their strategic rhetoric. jawhitzn 05:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any significant substantive alteration of a definition or set of premises offered by the only proponents who've made the term an issue that merits this very discussion would be silly. The DI affiliates synthesized it and disseminated it, and thus the only notable definition is the one they invented and disseminated. ... Kenosis 06:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy has no provision for editors to determine the "truth" of a statement. In fact, just the opposite, it specifically calls for "article[s] should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each", see WP:NPOV. So, our policies require that all viewpoints be attributed, presented in the proportion to which they are held, and be supported by verifiable sources. Exactly who's definition of ID do you suggest is more notable than the Discovery Institute's? FeloniousMonk 05:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then.. why not begin by quoting the precise definition as given by these web-sites (in quotes to show that it is a direct quote)? Is this not a fair and reasonable description of the ID concept? According to the Intelligent Design and Awareness Center, "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution."^{[citation needed]} This idea harks back to the Design arguments of Wiiliam Paley and others, but differs significantly by postulating blah blah blah.^{[citation needed]} Intelligent Design was proposed by PersonX in 19XX in his book "XYZ".^{[citation needed]} Although the theory/concept has been overwhelmingly rejected by the scientifiic community as unscientific^{[citation needed]}, due to a lack of explanatory and predictive power^{[citation needed]}, Intelligent Design has gathered a great deal of support among such and such groups^{[citation needed]}. Some of these supporters continue to campaign for the teaching of Intelligent Design in school science courses as a viable alternative to Darwinian Evolution^{[citation needed]}. Opponents have suggested that the supporters of Intelligent Design dishonestly misrepresent both the concept itself and their own political/philosophical agenda.^{[citation needed]} Anyway, I'm just thinking out loud, without knowing the long history of this article. I'll keep on reading. Thanks. Leeborkman 05:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not appropriate for the intro, which is required to be brief only summarize the topic, but such background detail would be appropriate for the Origins of the concept section of the article, where much of it is already presented. FeloniousMonk 05:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed (after more than 6500 edits and growing, and well over 2mb of text posted on the talk page--that's a lot of text folks) the article patiently and diligently goes over the relevant details, with links and topic forks to the various related subjects and issues, all of which the reader may pursue as desired. ... Kenosis 05:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

or maybe faraway, so close !

wow - there's certainly strong feelings, and no shortage of words to express them... p'raps we'll try and keep this thread concise;

I think it would be fair to describe the defense of the status quo as vehement! Could we agree on the following? .....

the first sentence defines the concept
the origins of the concept are mentioned later
we agree that the guys mentioned in the origins section aren't affiliated with the DI
the opening says all proponents are affiliated with the DI

The origins sections is talking about the origins of Intelligent Design, but Kenosis says "The only ID of any notability now or at any earlier stage of the history of the article or the history of the earth, is the product of the Discovery Institute affiliates".

This is confusing. So is the article at the moment. James is right. cheers, Petesmiles 08:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If one looks at the article, there's a section on the history of the concept, which is the history of the teleological argument (the argument from design), the class of argument to which intelligent design belongs; and there's the history of the term, the combination of which did not achieve notability outside of theological and philosophical circles until the DI affiliates synthesized its version and labeled it "intelligent design" starting with the use of the term in the late 1980s. If one reads the article, it gets somewhat less confusing, even if more amazing as a unique phenomenon of modern socio-political dynamics. ... Kenosis 14:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An opening that for me goes some way to addressing these concerns, and which makes it alot clearer that we're talking about a very specific argument might be;

"Intelligent design is a teleological argument, defined as the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Its leading proponents are all affiliated with the Discovery Institute. They say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life."

Its a tiny change that for me helps.... Petesmiles 08:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a bad suggestion. We should consider this... FeloniousMonk 18:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is one bad thing about it; calling intelligent design "a teleological argument." The teleological argument is an argument for God's existence, whereas intelligent design has no mention of God, rather it leaves the designer unidentified. --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wade A. Tisthammer, I think I can speak for most everyone here when I say give me a break. This must be an entirely new subject for you, intelligent design, yes? Mr Christopher 18:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he's been around for about a year now [64] Guettarda 21:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has it really only been that long? Jim62sch 22:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, Wade A. Tisthammer, I didn't realize you were kidding. Yeah the intelligent designer is not god (wink wink) :-) Mr Christopher 22:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The small change to the opening

Can we reach consensus for the proposed opening above? - I think those few words help, and would like to put them in.... cheers, Petesmiles 01:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's this one btw - ""Intelligent design is a teleological argument, defined as the concept that......" - Petesmiles 01:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article already explains this. ... Kenosis 03:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But not until much later - it's so important that we state catagorically that ID is a very specific argument. I think the failure to do this is a large part of why every few weeks someone like me pops up and says it's not good enough... Also, could I take it that you don't see anything materially wrong with the addition, but just find it superfluous? - In which case, could I just beg indulgence for those few little words, which as I say, seem to me to improve things.... cheers, Petesmiles 04:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good to me. A possible refinement would be "Intelligent design is a variation on the teleological argument, presented as the concept that..." Either way it overcomes the perception that this article might be about the teleological argument in general. It might also help to put a Main article: Teleological argument link at the top of the Origins of the concept section. ...dave souza, talk 04:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the editors have dealt with this before. (Hint: It's somewhere in the archives, and has something to do with the wedge strategy and WP:VER). We're not talking about God here; we're merely talking about an intelligent design. ... Kenosis 04:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that's why dave put 'variation' in - do you think this change would be overly problematic with some parties then? - what you do you think of it personally? - I think it's clearer. Cheers, Petesmiles 05:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For sake of argument, how about "Intelligent is a wedge strategy to affect the hearts and minds of successive generations, and to directly affect the ultimate outcome of the culture wars, primarily in the United States." Quite arguably, with some relatively minor investment of time and effort among WP editors, this might be equally verifiable and much more to the point of what is the "nature" of ID. ... Kenosis 06:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^ Discovery Institute, Center for Science and Culture. Questions about Intelligent Design: What is the theory of intelligent design? "
^ Discovery Institute, Center for Science and Culture. Questions about Intelligent Design: What is the theory of intelligent design? "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."Questions About Intelligent Design

[1] Discovery Institute, Center for Science and Culture. Questions about Intelligent Design: What is the theory of intelligent design? "

[2] Discovery Institute, Center for Science and Culture. Questions about Intelligent Design: What is the theory of intelligent design? "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."Questions About Intelligent Design

[1]

[2]