Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 42

Ref for first sentence

I spotted this while getting the above Behe quote:

"Its principal argument is that certain features of the universe are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than undirected causes such as Darwin's theory of natural selection." - Pamphlet used by the Dover Area School District, agreed as accurate by Behe.

This might be worth adding, but it's a bit of an odd source, so I didn't want to just go ahead and do so. As an aside, I like "undirected causes" better than "undirected processes", but assembling our favourite parts of all the variants would become more awkward than just paraphrasing in the end, and "Darwin's theory of" is just awful. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Since it's completely consistent with the existing def as used by the 3 leading organizations, of which Behe is a Fellow of 2, I don't see to need to add it as a source or alter the def. FeloniousMonk 03:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh, evrything seems to need over-referenced of late. Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:A does not require, and never required, a direct citation for every statement in an article. Summaries and other descriptions of one or more aspects of a topic quite frequently involve a consensus process about how something will be expressed in "original language", which is quite different from "original research". The additional footnotes, as FeloniousMonk has previously observed and with which I agree at this stage of discussion, help to make clear, to persons whose wont is to make hasty conclusions or assert pre-conceived conclusions about some aspect of the content, that the article reflects a great deal of attention to sourcing. Occasionally, there is legiimate question about whether a particular footnote properly reflects the article-statement(s) to which it is appended, or vice-versa. In my personal opinion that's more than fair enough (assuming it's a rational question), and I believe there may still be some more work to be done on those 170-or-so footnotes. ... Kenosis 13:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ayemm true, but so many of the questions of late are completely irrational. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

But as you saw in the trolling questions in the recently archived discussion, no one reads the references. Well, we do. Speaking of references, is this article stable enough to begin cleaning up and formatting the inline cites?Orangemarlin 14:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, yes. It's not really undergoing major changes - the dispute I was part of blew over in the end, hopefully to everyone's reasonable satisfaction, and wthere's only stamndard editing of late. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I was referring above to the specific content of citations, for instance several of the footnotes in the "Defining intelligent design as science" section and perhaps a few others too. Please do not combine citations. Not only is it important to make clear that there are separate sources involved in supporting many of the statements in the article, a fair number of the citations in this article are derived from the same sources (especially but not limited to the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision), but they actually refer specifically to different places in those sources. Please keep'm separate. If one or more turns out to be erroneous or misplaced, it should be able to be dealt with by referring to a specific number (e.g. "currently footnote x" or "presently footnote y"). No objection to standardizing the format (though I personally dislike those forms that've been used by many on WP of late). The present method of presentation appears to be that quotations are put first in the footnote with the source placed after the quote, a method I'm willing to support-- any thoughts about this? ... Kenosis 21:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the "quotations-first" approach, particularly in cases where multiple parts of the same document may be referred to. It makes it much easier to see which part of the cited work is being used to justify the statement being made. SheffieldSteel 21:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. I like when the cite says "blah blah blah blah blah" in: Smith, M (2006), Intelligent design is controlled by Mickey Mouse. Journal of Uncovering BS 22 (1):100-105. And combining references suck. Orangemarlin 06:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

(ri). I agree with all three of Kenosis' points: combining footnotes creates problems in verification and tends to obscure the actual facts; the form used in many WP articles is abominable; and quoting first and adding a link to the source is fine. Above all, though, is your first point: do not combine. •Jim62sch• 21:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think combining is a good idea in non-cotroversial articles, but accept there's enough idiots tha t we can't do it for ID. Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh my Adam. Are you implying there are idiots out and about? Orangemarlin 01:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Now, do you mean IDiots? Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

As opposed to evilutionists. -PromX1 13:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, who made those up, anyway? Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw HELLiocentric once

OMG, that is almost as good as TFiaToS Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent vs Modern

In the first paragraph the adjective "modern" implies some positive judgment on this form of the argument, while "recent" would be a more neutral one.--BMF81 23:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I just changed it to recent. Feel free to do it yourself though: Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages. Cheers, Rothery 10:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC).

I suppose I can imagine how "recent" might be considered more "neutral" than "modern" to persons who regard "modern form" as somehow inherently preferable to "traditional ... argument...", or that "modern" is somehow either inherently preferable or inherently negative. Frankly, I don't see how "recent form of the traditional teleological argument..." is preferable or more neutral than "modern form of the traditional teleological argument...". ("Hey, what have you been doing recently?" "Well, for the past 20 years now I've been substituting the words "intelligent design" for the word "creationism". What have you been up to?") Any thoughts about this issue of "recent" as opposed to "modern" among those who are more familiar with the article? ... Kenosis 14:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"Modern" seems more accurate, in my opinion, and, in the context it's being used, seems to be judgement-neutral. "Recent" is a very inexact, questionable substitution. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"Recent" implies that there was no predecessor to ID, and if you bother to read the sources given in the article see that we have sources indicating there was indeed a predecessor: "ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century." Dover ruling, page 24. Clearly the use of "recent" is inaccurate here, and I have at least half a dozen other notable reliable sources that all support that ID is simply a restatement of a much older teleological argument, meaning "recent" is never going to fly. I will add them to the article if necessary. FeloniousMonk 15:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The sentence is:

It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer.

So straight after modern/recent it goes and explains that it is an old candy bar in a new wrapper. I still think 'modern' is a loaded word and would prefer something more neutral such as recent, or maybe even a year if it doesn't take up too much space. But if you guys think 'modern' will suffice, then it will. Cheers, Rothery 23:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC).

If one reads the article further, it turns out to be a fairly complex mix of ideological socio-political educational advocacy, a form of philosophy/religion/theology cast as science for the purpose of teaching creation-based views in the public school biology classes in the US. Yes, I'm sorry to say it turns out to be an old candy bar, with a modern sugar-coating, in a new wrapper. And yes, a lot of these points are debatable. .... Kenosis 01:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Modern and recent are not synonyous, no matter what Mr Roget has to say. •Jim62sch• 18:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Origins

The article currently states that the first written record of the idea of a designer came from Greek philosophers, but nearly every culture in the world has some type of creation story. I really only know about western traditions, but the old testament surely pre-dates the greek. Is it because these creation stories are considered religious writing and the Greeks are considered philosophical writings the reason the Greek are used here?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.70.121 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 29 May 2007

Hello!

First, if you "sign" your posts with four tilde symbols (~~~~) it will put your IP address or username after your post, so we know who we're talking to. Secondly, to try to answer your question, I think that there's a distinction to be made - between a creator and a designer - which is important but subtle (and one which many groups fail to make). Perhaps we should emphasise that contrast more in the article? Let's see what other editors have to say. SheffieldSteel 20:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There is definitely no singular creation myth. A solitary designer, however, is part-and-parcel to the philosophies of individualism which, though not entirely Western, are almost always viewed by scholars as originating with the Greeks and subsequently co-opted by the monotheism developing in the Roman world. A contrary case may be possible, but it isn't the place for Wikipedia to attack the view that individualism/monotheism originated with the West: that would be original research. --ScienceApologist 21:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

More to the point in this article, the Ancient Greeks were the first to record the teleological argument – ooh, that natural object looks complicated, it must have been designed, there, that proves God exists. See also the Babel fish. That's generally considered to be the concept or argument underlying ID, though perhaps the main concept is "if we call creation science ID, we can sell schoolbooks and get it taught in U.S. public schools". Anyway, if you find an example of the teleological argument in the Old Testament, please cite it chapter and verse....... dave souza, talk 21:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC) correkted 21:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Job 38-39, off the top of my head. Tevildo 06:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me: where's the teleological argument in that? Lot of boasting from someone claiming to run a flat earth cosmology, complete with corners to the earth and gates to stop water from popping up from underneath. Nowt about design, afaik. Do explain, and for the purposes of this article provide confirmation of the the dating of Job to see if it preceded Plato, as well as a source making this argument in relation to ID so it's not original research. Unless, of course, it's just off topic. ... dave souza, talk 08:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

According to our article, the book of Job dates from the 4th century BC, and so is more-or-less contemporary with Plato. I doubt if either author was familiar with the other's work, though. :) On the issue in question, I'm not aware of any arguments for the existence of God to be found in the Bible itself; to answer the original enquiry, there's a difference between professing a belief in God (or any other controversial subject), and providing an argument for this belief. The idea of a formal argument does originate with the Greek philosophers, specifically Parmenides, and the text reads: "The first recorded arguments for a designer..." (emphasis added). Hope this clarifies things a little. Tevildo 14:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

IMO, there's no need for the second sentence of that section. ("The first recorded arguments for a designer come from Greek philosophy.") It could just as easily and accurately read:

• Philosophers have long debated whether the complexity of nature indicates the existence of a purposeful natural or supernatural designer/creator. In the 4th century BC, Plato posited a "demiurge" of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the creator of the cosmos in his Timaeus. Aristotle also developed the idea of a creator-designer of the cosmos, often called the "Prime Mover," in his work Metaphysics. In De Natura Deorum, or "On the Nature of the Gods" (45 BC), Cicero stated that "the divine power is to be found in a principle of reason which pervades the whole of nature."[cite]

... Kenosis 15:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

<unindent>I think that would be OK, provided we change the section title to something like "History of the concept" (rather than "Origin"). If we're staying with "Origin", we need to make a definite statement about the first use of the concept (presumably by Plato). Tevildo 15:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, good point Tevildo. I've no objection to the removal of that unnecessary (and somewhat speculative) sentence and the retitling of the section as "History of the concept". I think it's fairly straightforward and ought be uncontroversial, though if I'm wrong about that I'm sure I'll be corrected quickly enough. Any objections? ... Kenosis 16:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Over all I think the article gives too much credence to :

the 'concept' of Intelligent design. The first sentence should state that it is a marketing ploy. Xavier cougat 17:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Tried that. Lead balloon :-( SheffieldSteel 17:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't fit WP:NPOV and is hard to reference. Readers should see for themselves that the evidence overwhelmingly points to the DI's mindset. Besides, I'm pretty sure that a lot of those less influenced by information truly believe that c#*p, so it'd be notable as a concept anyway. Malc82 19:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

objections

• 1. spontenious order - see snow flakes
• 2. artificial intelligence - though man made, shows that natural processes can be made to do just about any thing observable in the natural world.
• 3. comprehension seems the only unexplained characteristic of human cognition linked perhaps to sentient awareness, but not linked to actual functioning of the material world and thus not demonstratable as a necessity.
• 4. without specific goals or purpose the natural world cannot be demonstrated to be consciously directed or designed.
• 5. the universe in total seems very barren of life and just what one would expect from random forces and spontenious order rather than intelligent design.
• 6. If Intelligence is seen as a function of evolved systems, then an intelligent designer is no answer just a prior evolved system and only puts the mystery back one step rather than answering any questions.
• 7. the only apparent avoidance of infinite regression is to postulate that elementry particles moving according to their own nature evolving into complex systems can explain anything at all.

Jiohdi 17:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not get what you are saying here. Xavier cougat 19:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Such opinions have to be attributed to a reliable source which specifically relates the synthesis of facts to ID so that it doesn't breach WP:NOR, and have to be dealt with proportionately in what is already a long and complex article, while adhering scrupulously to WP:NPOV as is set out at the top of this talk page. This page is about suggesting improvements to the article – got any proposals which are fully backed up in accordance with these policies? .. dave souza, talk 19:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

ID is not internally consistent. It begins with the assertion that complex things can only exist if designed. So there must be a designer. But the designer was not designed by a designer. So, if the designer exists the original assertion is untrue. This takes us back into babel fish territory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.193.200.51 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC).

You are misunderstanding ID theory. No where does it say that everything that is complex is designed. And now where does it say the designer was designed. It is not that simplistic. 209.101.205.82 16:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

But if some structures are too complex to emerge without being designed, wouldn't a being, complex enough to create those structures also be too complex to emerge without design? If not why? Is the designer simpler than an eye, and if so how did it design one? ornis 01:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Cradle of Life AfD

Heads up on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradle of Humanity - Cradle of humanity is some sort of comparison of Evolutionary and Creationist views of the Out of Africa theory... Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Any descent from Lara Croft must be considered highly improbable ;) . . dave souza, talk 10:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion That Will Almost Certainly Be Shot Down

Hi! I think you guys are doing an excellent job keeping such a high quality on this controversial topic, but about the footnotes... Sadly, on many articles, these footnotes aren't so much helpful to rational readers, but are perhaps used to prove the point to POV-pushers. This is a pity. Here is the suggestion. Why not create a separate evidence page as a sub-page of this talk page, and keep all the refs there, normal readers would need one or two refs for many of these claims. Additionally, I'm sure there is some policy that forbids this, but what would be the harm in replacing a bunch of footnotes with a single footnote saying "Evidence for this claim is available here" or something like that? Many apologies if this has already been discussed, but I really felt like I wanted to say this. I'm not going to push this issue any further so thanks for considering it, Merzul 12:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, there is a technical reason, why this was a bad idea. Wikipedia mirrors don't carry talk pages and their sub-pages... I knew there had to be some problems, or something like this would probably already be in use. Ah well... --Merzul 12:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, it's perfectly possible to combine multiple footnotes into one. It's done on Evolution, for instance. But this page, sadly enough, is even more controversial than Evolution (!!), and, frankly, there's a lot of stupidity in the objectors: They kept talking about how only one reference said something, while clearly having never looked down to see that "one reference" was, in fact, 10 different articles.

Yeah, I know, it's stupid. But what can we do? Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way to differentiate (e.g. by bold vs non-bold, colour, whatever) between purely 'defensive' references and references that may provide valuable further reading? This would mean that we could have both, while ensuring that those non-nitpickers only interested in the latter would not have to plough through the former to find them. Hrafn42 13:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Further reading sections should be handled separately, in fact there is one in this article but it only consists of one book. If you count the external links as further reading (which I would), there already are enough reading suggestions in this article. Malc82 13:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Replying to Adam. I wish there was some neat solution to this though, because grouping refs has problems of its own, especially when one of the group is used elsewhere, and it doesn't really address the main concern, namely that we are catering to POV-pushers at the expense of reasonable readers. I feel it is an insult to my intellect to have all these refs about the same claim. The argument for keeping them is that when one of them is removed, then a POV-pusher is going to insist we use prose attribution, such as "According to the court ruling, its primary proponents are ..." Well, it is a sad fact that just because POV-pushers cause more trouble, contributors to these articles care more about their feelings than mine. Note, this melodramatic tone was just to make my point, I'm not actually sad, and fully understand that perhaps we just have to live with this. --Merzul 14:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Adam's assessment is correct. Repeatedly there have been objections to facts and issues that are stated in the article based on WP:A. Virtually every conceivable rational objection and countless irrational objections have been raised, despite clearcut evidence from a wide variety of reliable sources including legal and scientific sources. In numerous instances the person objecting quite plainly has not even looked at the relevant footnotes. Providing separate footnotes makes clear that there are multiple reliable sources for statements in the article which have been objected to in the past. Most of the participants in this process agree that it would be preferable if this were not the case, but given that it is the case, separate footnotes have been agreed to be presented. The only conspicuous exception to this practice is in what is presently footnote 20 in the second lead paragraph, which remains combined as before, but is supported by multiple footnotes later in the paragraph. ... Kenosis 14:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

overview edit

I added this to the overview section: "The Harris poll also showed that a majority of U.S. adults (54%) do not think human beings developed from earlier species." I thought to bring up a poll and only show one narrow aspect of it was slightly bias, what does everyone else think? (Dbcraft 18:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC))

This is a great argument for getting rid of all those poor quality polls. One problem with the above inclusion is that it shows 54% of US adults not believing in evolution. That's all very well, but this article is all about Intelligent design, so it's not really relevant. Or was your point that we could also quote, say, opinion polls showing how many US adults believe Elvis is alive? I might be down with that. It would certainly put things in context. SheffieldSteel 18:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That is a good point, I added "64% of respondents in the Harris poll believed human beings were created by God" as part of the Harris poll instead. I believe that is directly relevent to ID. Harris is a more reputable polling company than the one contracted by the Discovery Group, as was stated in the article. I think to show one question of the poll is misleading and bias, my addition will add to the neutrality of the article. (Dbcraft 18:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC))

The quality of the polls is already the matter being covered in that section, so the actual numbers are of secondary concern and need not be expanded on. Coverage of the polls is necessary because the DI often touts its Zogby poll results as evidence of support for what it seeks to do. Odd nature 19:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes the quality of the Zogby polls is being covered in that section but not the Harris poll. Not that I question the quality of the Harris poll, it just seems that one question of the poll was cherry picked, leaving the reader without an overall feel for the poll results. (Dbcraft 19:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC))

It is true that there is a wide difference between popular beliefs and scientific consensus. In the United States, roughly half reject evolution in favor of some form of the statement "created by God" when given the choice, and at least two-thirds believe God was involved in the process in some way. Then there's that roughly 10% who, given a mutually exclusive set of options such as was characteristic of the 2005 Harris Interactive poll, picked the option that humans are so complex that they required an intelligence of some kind to have been created. The scientific community, on the other hand, the particular community that is most involved when the issue is what is taught in science classes, asserts that intelligent design is not science (or worse), and should not be taught as biology. The scientific community overwhelmingly asserts this no matter what their faiths or personal beliefs are, consistent with that they're dealing in science, not personal beliefs.

Thus, although I see the relevance of the Zogby poll of the Los Alamos community, I do not see the relevance of the Harris Poll or any other. As for other polls of popular belief in the US, here are a couple more examples:

• A 2007 Newsweek poll found that 48% of respondents reject the theory of evolution [2].
• A 2007 CBS/New York Times poll found that "...51 percent of Americans say God created humans in their present form, and another three in 10 say that while humans evolved, God guided the process. Just 15 percent say humans evolved, and that God was not involved. These views are similar to what they were in November 2004" [3] The 2004 CBS/New York Times poll summary said "Americans do not believe that humans evolved, and the vast majority says that even if they evolved, God guided the process. Just 13 percent say that God was not involved. But most would not substitute the teaching of creationism for the teaching of evolution in public schools." [4]

... Kenosis 21:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Origins of the Term

Propose the following link to an extensive list of references on the origins and use of the term "Intelligent Design":

ResearchID maintains the Intelligent Design timetable summarizing origins and use of the term "Intelligent Design". DLH 19:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Kenosis Please show the policy denying reference to any wiki. Wikipedia itself provides for numerous internal links which are by definition to a wiki. Wikipedia provides anti-ID links. If you deny any references to wikis, then you must also delete

• The evo wiki article on intelligent designDLH 19:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This timeline, even if it is accurate, is more about the origins of the concept, not the term. I have to personally say, who cares? I mean really...--Filll 19:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There's two problems here with using researchintelligentdesign.org, one, it's partisan, two, its a wiki, and so fails to meet WP:RS. It's also terribly incomplete. At first glance it's clearly lacking any mention of the context Thaxton and Pandas, such as Edwards v. Aguillard, most likely a function of its partisanship. Odd nature 20:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikis fail WP:RS (not peer reviewed and lots of other stuff). Generally, encyclopedias are usually not allowed to be used as references. Also, since you yourself could edit the other article, using WP-articles as a reference violates WP:NOR. Malc82 20:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, well. He has edited the other article: [5] Some may view this as an attempt to sneak pov in through the backdoor. Odd nature 20:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact, that you are #2 on ResearchID's contributor Top 5 means there almost certainly is an OR conflict here. Malc82 20:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a nice timeline, relatively very thorough even if it has some noticeable gaps.

(1) It is not conventional practice in WP to refer folks in the fashion proposed above, even internally within WP to such subpages, unless its an article about the timeline.

(2) In the case of intelligent design, we have two timelines involved, one of which is the history of the teleological argument, and the other of which is the history of the use of the words "intelligent design". The words "intelligent design" didn't become a term intended to describe a field of study until Of Pandas and People, when they were used to replace the word "creation-" in response to the decision in Edwards v. Aguilard.

I notice, though, that Walter R. Thurston uses the words "intelligent design" and "intelligently designed" in a paper titled "Realism and Reverence" presented in 1985 at a conference on "Christian Faith and Science in Society", which was later published in June 1987, the same month of the Edwards v. Aguilard decision, in PSCF, "Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith". He uses the words in exactly the same way as James E. Horigan does in the 1979 philosophy book Chance or Design?. I think this usage should be mentioned in the WP article section on "Origins of the term". ... Kenosis 20:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

What about User_talk:Dave_souza/ID_timeline? It's heavily-referenced, non-partisian, and, frankly, could probably make WP:FL easily. I'm sure Dave would release it to article space if we asked. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As a separate article, perhaps. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> Methinks Adam's idea would be as a separate article: it could be stripped down to a more minimal timeline, or made into a brief historical outline. At present it's become more of a resource, with a lot of quotes etc. which could be paraphrased. On a point Kenosis makes, this is a third timeline, perhaps more about the ID movement though of course it and ID are inextricably connected. It currently seems to me that ID appeared fully formed between 1987 and 1989 with Pandas defining what it is and starting political lobbying, while in parallel Johnson's wedge ideas developed and didn't adopt the term until 1991 at the earliest. It would be helpful to know if Darwin on Trial uses the term "intelligent design" – all I've got at present is an unreliable source indicating a few mentions in the 1993 edition, but none of the reviews or Johnson's writings that I've seen mention ID. Certainly Behe contributed to Pandas rev. 2 in 1993, and by May 1995 Johnson is promoting the term. The DI takeover really seems to come with the CRSC in 1996. Perhaps this something y'all know about, but it's still a bit puzzling to me. Anyway, the ResearchID timeline is a useful guide to resources, though not a RS itself, but is largely focussed on giving a respectable pedigree to ID rather than finding out what's going on. In my opinion. ... dave souza, talk 21:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

So... that going to move into article space? If it does, we should link it in this article. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making the move, Intelligent design timeline is rather large and could do with more dates/events added, and a lot of the quotes removed or severely trimmed. Have made a start, Note the standard heading format would be Timeline of intelligent design – worth moving? .. dave souza, talk 20:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I added it to see also -- if you change the title, make sure you change the link and its ciolumn placement in this article. Either title is OK by me, although the latter might be more encyclopedic. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hard to say. In a paper encyclopaedia, they sometimes game the titles to group 'em, soght be used to put it next to Intelligent design. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The commonest format in Category:Timelines is "Timeline of ...", and the same applies to Category:Religion timelines where it seemed to belong.. dave souza, talk 21:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, so move it? Maybe? (You should see me trying to pick an entree from a menu ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 15:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Need some assistance at Talk:A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

This looks like a bit of controversy.--Filll 16:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Intro: ID as Creationism

Could Morphh & Pasado please stop edit-warring and discuss there differences here! Specifically, could Morphh please explain why they think calling ID creationism is POV in spite of noted historian of creationism Ronald Numbers including a whole chapter on ID in his latest edition of The Creationists and in spite of Judge Jones declaring "...and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." Would he also consider these to be "POV" sources? Hrafn42 14:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The lead sentence of an article should briefly describe what the article is about and define the lead term. Please have a look at fine-tuned universe, communism, Bible, dark matter, totalitarianism, which are although not completely random, but still assorted examples from various wikipedia aticles. What also could be added to the lead sentence is a description or definition by the proponents or inventors of the term. In this case, the standpoint of the Discovery Institute could be included. Especially since the DI claims that ID is different from Creationism. Criticism, including interpretations by others of the term should follow later. Northfox 14:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

A "brief description" of ID that does not provide the important information that ID is a variant of Creationism is arguably an inaccurate description. There is no necessity to include "a description or definition by the proponents or inventors of the term" -- an action that would often violate WP:Undue Weight. Given that, far from being a reliable source, it is not too unreasonable to describe the DI as "a bunch of professional liars," I consider their claims to be immaterial. Hrafn42 15:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The lead of this article has a very long and greatly debated history (the most I've seen of any article on Wikipedia). So please go back and take a look if you wish to torture yourself. Any such change to the lead should not be introduced without serious discussion here first. I'll state, as I have in the summary, that I disagree this addition without debate and some consensus, of which I currently oppose the addition. Our Wikipedia definition of Creationism states the "belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their entirety by a supernatural deity or deities (typically God), whose existence is presupposed." Obviously ID says nothing about these things being created in their entirety, in fact it says the opposite stating only that some complex features of life and the universe were created by an intelligent cause. ID doesn't specify deity or deities (presupposed or not), doesn't specify all life, the earth?... If you add on top of this that Creationism has come to be most strongly associated with the branch of Christian fundamentalism, the statement gives the reader a very inaccurate and misleading idea of ID. The statements of creationist, thus religious, is a POV presented in the trial by the Judge and the author that you specified. Such can be included in the article with the presented source for the opinion, but it is POV to state this as fact in the lead when there is nothing in ID itself that states or defines such an argument and a differing POV exists. Morphh ^(talk) 14:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, changes to the lead need to be discussed here. Yes, ID is creationism (in a cheap tuxedo). No, I don't care about the Wikipedia definition of creationism, as Wikis do not meet WP:RS. Is pointing out in the first sentence that ID is creationism POV? quite probably.

Also, are you saying you oppose consensus? And what precisely does this mean, "The statements of creationist, thus religious, is a POV presented in the trial by the Judge"? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 15:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

1. I rather doubt if anywhere in the "very long and greatly debated history" you will find a consensus that ID is not, or even may not be, Creationism.
2. The Creationism article includes a section on ID among the "types of creationism"
3. ID is a close relative of Progressive creationism
4. "Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." -- William Dembski, leading ID advocate, explicitly admitting ID's Biblical roots and close relationship with Christianity.
5. Throwing POV accusations at anybody and everybody who, on the basis of trial evidence and/or scholarly research, comes to the conclusion that ID is Creationism merely serves to to undermine your credibility, and to negate WP:AGF

Hrafn42 15:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Jim, I oppose the addition not consensus. I was saying that the court ruling and the Judge's comment were a point of view that is debated. As such, I find it improper to label it as fact without attributing it. Hrafn42, I'm no throwing accusation - it is a point of view (opinion) ruled by the court with others differing on that opinion. It is also just confusing for most readers and I don't think it adds anything. Morphh ^(talk) 15:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Morphh: You are grossly misrepresenting Judge Jones. It was not a personal opinion (i.e. a POV) it was a legal opinion based upon the law and the evidence. The only people claiming otherwise are the IDists themselves, who (1) have enormous credibility problems (due to their long track records of misrepresentations and outright lies) and (2) have a very strong ulterior motive in denying that ID is Creationism (as otherwise they wouldn't be able to have it taught in public school science classes). Read up WP:Undue Weight Hrafn42 16:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There is already adequate reference in the article to intelligent design being creationist, or more specifically neo-creationist. This classification needn't, however, occur in the lead sentence, or for that matter anywhere in the lead. Morphh, who I presume will correct me if I'm wrong, appears to have asserted in the edit summary that it the proposed change is POV because (1) Judge Jones referred to "creationist, and thus religious antecedents" (emphasis mine); (2) The Kitzmiller judge was stating that it is inherently religious, but not necessarily classifying it as creationist per se ; (3) ID has the characteristic of intentionally avoiding mention of God per the legal strategy of attempting to get it taught alongside evolution in US biology classes. So it's not necessarily very accurate or useful to the reader to be terming ID "creationist". Either way, this intro involved an immense amount of discussion to achieve some level of recent stability, and is not fair game for unilateral changes at this stage in time. Any significant changes would need to be discussed and achieve a new consensus. ... Kenosis 17:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Reread the entire Dover ruling, the judge said specifically ID is creationism. Odd nature 18:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Creationism isn't mentioned in the lead in the current version. That should be fixed. Raul654 18:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The last sentence in the lead discusses the Dover ruling and the Judge's statement - "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents". Morphh ^(talk) 2:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Kenosis, I am not sure that there is much difference between having "creationist...antecedents" (Judge Jones' words) and being "a variant of traditional creationism" (the proposed wording of the intro). Both indicate an outgrowth from an earlier form of creationism. Given that ID, like all earlier forms of Creationism, is at heart religiously-motivated anti-evolutionism, it would seem both accurate and useful to describe it as Creationism up-front, and leave discussing how it attempts to obfuscate its nature to later. An insect that is camouflaged to look like a leaf should be initially described as "an insect" not as "something that looks like a leaf." Hrafn42 18:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, Jones stated: "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." He also pointed out: "Moreover and as previously stated, there is hardly better evidence of ID’s relationship with creationism than an explicit statement by defense expert Fuller that ID is a form of creationism." Hrafn42 18:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Odd Nature, Raul, and Hrafn42 are correct that the Kitzmiller decision went farther than calling creationism an antecedent of ID, but indeed concluded that it was a form of creationism. There are also a few confusing statements in the decision and order, such as the quote from the NAS included in the decision ("Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life..."), and in a couple other places. In general it is clear that the court concluded it is a form of creationism. I'm going to collect relevant passages from Kitzmiller and post them here in Talk so it can be more knowledgeably discussed. ... Kenosis 20:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> Ooh, fun! Lots to hand at s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context, Page 31 of 139 has "A “hypothetical reasonable observer,” adult or child, who is “aware of the history and context of the community and forum” is also presumed to know that ID is a form of creationism.,, The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. What is likely the strongest evidence supporting the finding of ID’s creationist nature is the history and historical pedigree of the book to which students in Dover’s ninth grade biology class are referred, Pandas.", Page 35 of 139 has " there is hardly better evidence of ID’s relationship with creationism than an explicit statement by defense expert Fuller that ID is a form of creationism." .. best read in context, .. dave souza, talk 20:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The court ruling is not in dispute. The court also stated that ID is an argument for God but we sufficiently debated it enough that we removed the explicit statement of fact from the lead sentence. Same thing here but even more so - not only is it God but creation. Proponent have denied that it is creationism and ID itself makes no direct relation to such. In such a case, the statement has to be attributed to turn the opinion into fact. Personally, I don't see the point of having it in the lead sentence as it adds little to the definition and really just confuses it due to the popular meaning of creationism (not some abstract concept). Creationism, like God, is not a definition of ID but a conclusion based on the motives of DI and whatever the reader draws from the ID claim. It is also duplication and already stated in the lead's last sentence. I think this is the appropriate place where it discusses Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District and the ruling of Judge Jones. Perhaps we could wikilink creationist in this statement to make it more apparent. Morphh ^(talk) 2:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Morphh: The proponents' denial is entirely self-serving, as ID is stealth creationism (i.e. admitting it is creationism would negate the whole stealth thing). ID is closely related to Progressive creationism. We have the expert opinion of two historians of science (one not generally considered to be a partisan) and the legal opinion of one Federal Court judge. Opposing this we have merely the "bare assertion" (to use Judge Jones' words) that ID is not Creationism of a bunch of people whose entire movement goes down the toilet when ID is admitted to be Creationism. Both ID and Creationism generally are, at core, nothing more than religiously-motivated anti-evolutionism. They are substantively identical even if, for legal reasons, they differ somewhat in form. Having this core identity front and centre is not "confusing" but rather is crucial to understanding ID. Hrafn42 03:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hrafn42, it's a bit unfair to say that they're "nothing more than religiously-motivated anti-evolutionism" – creationism as we now know it has also involved political motivations ever since it was started by William Jennings Bryan, and it's as much a battle between competing theologies in the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy as it is (as is often claimed) a struggle between religion and science. ... dave souza, talk 08:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Dave: what evidence have you that William Jennings Bryan's opposition to evolution was political rather than religious? My impression was that his main anti-evolution campaigning occurred after his political career was over (or at least in the final stages of winding down), and that it was primarily religiously motivated. And it is often difficult to differentiate between the Fundamentalists' opposition to the Modernists and their opposition to the scientific (and other modern) ideas that Modernism embraces. Whilst Creationism may be part of a pervasive Fundamentalist worldview that opposes far more of the modern world than simply evolution, Creationism (including its latest reincarnation, ID) is that aspect of that worldview that is opposed to evolution. Hrafn42 10:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You may be right about Bryan, but my understanding is that his campaigning against evolution began with opposition to German militarism and alleged WW1 atrocities – the political and religious aspects are intertwined, not so much one rather than the other. In Darwin's early years (1810-1840s) evolution was explicitly a political issue, supported by republicans and opposed by those wanting to uphold the aristocratic / feudal status quo in England. In the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy, "Modernism" means Liberal Christianity and not the modern world – it's an argument between biblical literalism and higher criticism interpreting the bible as a religious text related to the context of the times when it was written. That argument about interpretation continues, as can be seen from the response of various churches to ID. .. dave souza, talk 11:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hrafn42, I understand the points you make and that DI is self-serving. I also don't disagree with the aspect that it is a conceptual form of creationism; however, I don't agree that it is appropriate to state it as fact in the lead sentence. The NPOV policy requires that, "where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." (bolding added) I think the aspect of ID being deemed not science, religous, and a creationist argument is front and center taking up the majority of the lead. There is no need to inject this POV into the base definition. Morphh ^(talk) 13:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

But WP:NPOV does not require us to give equal validity to pseudoscientific claims: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Giving_"equal_validity". We also are explicitly directed not to give undue weight to ID's claims (since these are rejected by the vast majority of life scientists, and every neutral assessment of ID): Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight. I don't mean to suggest that you are unaware of these facets of the NPOV policy, but I find your post a bit misleading. We are not required to be "fair and balanced" here just because a bunch of vocal wingnuts are screaming that ID is scientific and is not creationism. That said, I agree with you in calling ID a claim up front rather than a variant of creationism. Silly rabbit 13:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring equal validity or undue weight. There is no weight or validity given to the view that it is not creationism. I'm not suggesting that we do. I'm only saying that we don't give total weight and total validity to one side as a matter of fact in the lead sentence, which is what is being suggested by Hrafn42 and Pasado. You're actually confirming my point by bringing up these other aspects of the policy. Morphh ^(talk) 14:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Morphh:

• Why, given that you have admitted that ID is a form of Creationism, are you against stating it in the introductory sentence? This would seem to be like having an article about lions that didn't mention that they are a type of big cat in the introductory sentence. In my opinion, the three crucial points about ID are:

1. It is a form of Creationism
2. It argues that life is too complex to have evolved naturally.
3. It is promoted primarily (and almost exclusively) by the DI.

Without knowing this information, you cannot hope to have even a superficial grasp of ID. Thus it is essential that these points be included in the introductory sentence.

• I would take your continual carping about the "ID is not Creationism" viewpoint, if you could even find one advocate of that viewpoint that was:

1. not entirely self-serving;
2. did not have a reputation for misrepresentation; and
3. had some level of scholarly standing to make the claim.

Hrafn42 15:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

How about the possibility of inserting this statement into the second sentence of the lead, such that it might read as follows: It is a form of creationism,^[4][5]a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer.^[6][7][8]
Footnote 4 might then cite to several appropriate passages from Kitzmiller v. Dover, and footnote 5 might cite to other sources independent of Kitzmiller? ... Kenosis 15:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Does ID actually discuss any aspects of creation or is it just that ID is being used to argue creation? I could go for the second sentence. Perhaps something on the end to also state that it avoids identifying creation. Morphh ^(talk) 16:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I would think this is adequately covered by the existing last phrase of the sentence and by other passages in the article. But it's just a thought at this point. ... Kenosis 16:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the article currently doesn't explicitly state that ID is a form of Creationism until the 'Movement' section. The Judge Jones quote in the introduction says it implicitly, but is not as clear a statement of this as some of the other statements in his Decision, e.g: "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory."

As it is stealth Creationism, ID makes no explicit mention of, or argument for, creation. Instead it implicitly frames the issue in such a way that it is clear that the intended answer is a supernatural omnipotent Designer, that is indistinguishable from a "Creator." Hrafn42 16:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, correct. The ways in which this issue is confounded by the inherent element of deceipt makes it a bit tough to state correctly and concisely. This is why, if ID is to be classified as a form of "creationism" in the lead, I suggest the editors dicuss it thoroughly and hopefully get it right on the first try. The lead has been far too labor intensive to be messing with it without careful consideration of what might need to be said, where to insert it, and how to state it, along with how to cite it properly. ... Kenosis 17:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The stealth aspect makes this something we have to write carefully to remain neutral. We had the same issue with specifying ID as an argument for the existence of God. We were able to write it as above to remain neutral by stating that it avoids specifying the nature and identiy of the designer. We need to do the same for creation. Here is my try at the sentence - It is a form of creationism,^[4][5]a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature of creation or identity of the designer.^[6][7][8] Morphh ^(talk) 17:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think you may be onto something. How about: It is a form of creationism,^[4][5]a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the identity of the designer or specifying the word "creation" .^[6][7][8] ... Kenosis 17:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Just as a copyediting exercise, reducing the "form of"s could result in: It is a form of creationism,^[4][5]a modification of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God which avoids specifying the identity of the designer or using the word "creation" .^[6][7][8] . .. dave souza, talk 18:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Does it go beyond not just using the word? It doesn't really address creation. From my understanding, it more so tries to disprove aspects of evolution and concludes that it must be intelligently designed. It doesn't go into how, why, where, when, who. So is it enough to say that it just doesn't say the word? It would seem more accurate to say ID is an argument for creationism rather then ID is a form of creationism. Morphh ^(talk) 19:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Would it be less controversial to describe ID as Neo-creationism:

Neo-creationism is a movement whose goal is to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, policy makers, educators, and the scientific community. It aims to re-frame the debate over the origins of life in non-religious terms and without appeals to scripture. This comes in response to the 1987 ruling by the United States Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard that creationism is an inherently religious concept and that advocating it as correct or accurate in public school curricula violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

This description seems to fit ID quite well (unsurprising, as ID is to date the only widely-promoted form on Neo-creationism). Hrafn42 18:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Neo-creationism may be a better choice though the second sentence is still a better place for it. I would not subsitute it in the first sentence. Morphh ^(talk) 19:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

To change it to neocreationism you'd need a source that is more notable than the Dover trial ruling, since ID is already identified as creationism there, and I don't such a souce exists. Since neocreation is already subset of creationism, it's better to not muddle things and use the more familiar and better supported term in my opinion. Odd nature 20:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Odd nature is right - while neocreationism is an appropriate descriptor, the Dover ruling called it creationist. Neocreationism is a subset of creationism - since ID has been described as both "creationist" and "neocreationist" it makes more sense to use the broader and more common term in the lead. Guettarda 22:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The last proposal as modified by Dave Souza was:

*It is a form of creationism,^[4][5]a modification of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God which avoids specifying the identity of the designer or using the word "creation" .^[6][7][8] .

Is this the appropriate language? Thoughts? As well, we still need to discuss citations of course. ... Kenosis 22:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I made a comment above to the sentence that hasn't really been discussed. I doesn't seem to me that stating that it doesn't use the word "creation" is enough. The idea seems incomplete to me. Morphh ^(talk) 2:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I had a feeling this issue might be opening a proverbial can of worms. Perhaps this would best be comprised of a paragraph a bit later in the article summarizing Kitzmiller and the many commentators who've described ID in ways that amount to calling it "stealth creationism"? Such as in the "Overview" section? ... Kenosis 02:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

<unindent>I don't think that the Dave/Morphh proposal works very well, purely as a matter of language. As it stands, it seems (to me, at least) to say that creationism is "a modification of the ... teleological argument", which isn't the case. There are two seperate propositions that this sentence asserts: (a) ID is a form of creationism, (b) ID is a version of the teleological argument; I don't see how these can be combined in one sentence, and I don't think that "It is a form of creationism and a modification of the teleological argument" would be acceptable. As I see it, this comes back to our perennial problem with the definition of ID. The statement "ID is a version of the teleological argument" depends on our defining ID as a claim/assertion/proposition, or whatever word we choose to be least contentious. If, however, we're moving towards a definition of ID as a form of creationism, then this isn't appropriate. Creationism isn't an argument (or a claim, or an assertion) - it's an ideology, or a viewpoint, or a Weltanschauung, or something of the sort. Creationists (and ID proponents) may (and do) _use_ the teleological argument, but, if ID is defined as creationism, it becomes impossible to describe it _as_ the teleological argument. If we're going to define ID as creationism (which, naturally, I support), then we should say this up-front, and make it clear that "teleological argument" is a characterization of the DI statment. I would support something along the lines of:

Intelligent design is a form of creationism, based on the claim 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." This claim is a modern form of the teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer.

But this goes even further than Pasado's proposed version, and is unlikely to be acceptable to everyone... Tevildo 22:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable source that classify it as intelligent design creationism and the like, though I don't have the time to collect any right now. Adequately collected so they're ready to use, I wouldn't object to this statement. ... Kenosis 22:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

When you realize that Intelligent design is a variant of creationism the fog lifts and you can see that the "teleological argument" trappings are there to help hide this fact. And since creationism is not an argument for the existence of God I propose dropping the sentence about "teleological arguments". It is DI smoke and mirrors to make ID seem like something new.

I also think "variant of creationism" is more accurate than "form of creationism". "Form" is used in the sidebar for the various forms of creationism, like "old earth", "new earth", etc.Pasado 03:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Pasado, I have to disagree. I think linking ID to the teleological argument shows that it isn't anything new, and that at its heart, it's an attempt to rehash tired old arguments for the existence of god, dressing them up as science. I would support ornis 04:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

ConfuciusOrnis, you are right. Creationism could be used as an argument for the existence of God. And since ID is a variant of creationism it too could be used an argument for the existence of God. But I think this is secondary to the root fact that ID is a variant of creationism. I would support expressing these thoughts along the lines of:

Intelligent design is creationism with the additional claim 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." This claim is the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer.

Although we need to find a better word that "claim". It doesn't quite sound right. Any thoughts?Pasado 04:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

As the cites from Kitzmiller v. Dover in the section immediately below indicate, IMO, any reference to "creationism" in the WP article lead needs to be closely accompanied by a more specific explanation than is afforded by a mere assertion that ID is a "form", "variant", "descendant", "type", or whatever single word might be chosen, of "creationism". The real issue is already explained in the "overview" section, that the words "creation", "creationist" and "creationism" were replaced with "design", "designed", and "intelligent design" in Of Pandas and People, which happened to be the textbook that Dover high school students were intended by the Board of Education to be guided to investigate as an alternative to evolution as it was about to be taught to them in their standard biology class. IMO, there's little or no value added to this article by merely mentioning the word "creationist" or "creationism" in the lead, at least as has been proposed thus far. And part of the reason for this is the "stealth creationism" aspect of ID. Assisting the reader in identifying where exactly the "stealth" lies is something the article already does, a stragegy perhaps more accurately identified as neo-creationism than it would be called simply a form of creationism. So I really see this debate as being about whether the word "creationism" should be mentioned as a class to which ID belongs right in the article lead, how it should be fit into an already crowded lead, and how to properly state this obvious fact in such a way that it is useful to the reader. As we've seen, well, it sort of does belong to the class of ideas called "creationism", and it sort of doesn't, so the "devil" here is in the details. Thus, I'd want to see more evidence of awareness of the need for attention to detail as to this issue among the participants as versus a mere agreement among participants that the word "creationism" should automatically be attached to ID in the lead without a clearer and more detailed explanation than has been proposed thus far in the discussion. ... Kenosis 04:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The beginning paragraph should state the simple truth about this subject. The 20 KITZMILLER quotes you generously researched all point to the simple truth that ID is creationism with new clothes. As you say, the details of the intrigue and drama surrounding how this came to be are adequately covered in the article and cites. But the simple fact that ID is a variant of creationism needs to be covered up front. Not to do so is to do a disservice the reader. I propose the lead paragraph start with the following wording:

Intelligent design is creationism with the additional claim 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." This claim is the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer.

P.S. I searched for the term "neo-creationism" in the Forrest paper and in the KITZMILLER ruling and found no hits.Pasado 06:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I oppose this suggested lead. It defines ID as a prominent conclusion (discussed in Kitzmiller) as a matter of fact and relegates the technical definition to an "additional claim". ID doesn't go into how, why, where, when, or who as far as I know. As you state, it is "stealth". Therefore, it is only defined as creationism as a matter of opinion (yes a neutral court ruled opinion). However, I don't think we should state this as fact just because we believe the source to be neutral or "truth". Proponents disagree that it is creationism (self serving or not) and ID doesn't define common normal elements of creation. IMO there is validity in the thought that ID itself is not a form of creation but a means to argue it. Therefor, I can not support a lead that states creationism as fact without stating that either Kitzmiller states it and / or ID does not contain such common elements. However, I'm also with Kenosis in that I'm not convinced that it need be covered in more detail in the lead. Kitzmiller and the Judge Jones quote is present (which states this) and the article goes on to discuss the matter in detail. The statement is proper in this context and the lead summarizes it nicely. Morphh ^(talk) 12:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"ID doesn't go into how, why, where, when, or who as far as I know." This is in fact the point. By refusing to be tied down on "how" IDers are implicitly defining their 'Designer' as omnipotent. By refusing "why," ineffable. By refusing "where" and "when," omnipresent. By refusing "who," undetectable. This complete lack of testible specifics is one of the reasons that it is outside science. The fact that all of these evasions lead back to widely known attributes of the Abrahamic God is what makes it stealth Creationism.Hrafn42 13:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

To quote Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged — "You who are worshippers of the zero–you have never discovered that achieving life is not the equivalent of avoiding death. Joy is not 'the absence of pain,' intelligence is not 'the absence of stupidity,' light is not 'the absence of darkness,' an entity is not 'the absence of a nonentity.' Building is not done by abstaining from demolition; centuries of sitting and waiting in such abstinence will not raise one single girder for you to abstain from demolishing–and now you can no longer say to me, the builder: 'Produce, and feed us in exchange for our not destroying your production.' I am answering in the name of all your victims: Perish with and in your own void. Existence is not a negation of negatives." Morphh ^(talk) 19:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there an argument, let alone substantiation for an argument in that lengthy diatribe of assertions? I don't think so. And the Abrahamic God is most certainly defined be an absense of limitations. Hrafn42 02:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The point was to point out the diatribe of assertions being used as a method of absence or "lack of" for defining that which is not stated. An example being your claim that the Abrahamic God is the absense of limitations. The very nature of defining said God applies limitations - that which is defined as all that is Good and the paridise of heaven is limited by constraints of Evil, paths for forgiveness, or a hell for those who he "saves". Morphh ^(talk) 13:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"that which is defined to be all that is Good" is defined so ineffably as to include incitement to commit rape, murder, infanticide and genocide as well as permission to keep slaves and barbaric punishments as "all that is Good," and thus is meaningless from any determinative viewpoint. "God is good, and God did it so it must be good" is circular reasoning and no genuine limitation at all. And given that we can only speculate about the workings of heaven, they are likewise not a genuine limitation. Hrafn42 13:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we've gone off topic. :-) Morphh ^(talk) 14:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

(ri) Did Rand ever write anything meaningful? I shrug. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Morphh wishes to return to the topic. To summarise:

1. By refusing to be tied down on "how, why, where, when, or who," IDers implicitly define a 'designer' who is omnipotent, ineffable, omnipresent and undetectable, i.e. the Abrahamic God.
2. Morphh asserts that you cannot define something by an absence of features, a logically vacuous assertion that he can only back up by a muddled Randian diatribe, but not with any genuine limitations on the Abrahamic God.

So Morphh, if this omnipotent, ineffable, omnipresent and undetectable designer isn't the Abrahamic God, then who is (s)he?Hrafn42 14:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Does ID state the designer is omnipotent, ineffable, omnipresent and undetectable? That's right.. it is implicit by its non-definition. And we should assert this as fact... Ok.. Nope don't think so. The Rand quote was an attempt at humor to address the point - I need not back up anything. I think I'm going to wait for some others to comment a little further as this back and forth is not getting us anywhere. Morphh ^(talk) 15:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"Does ID state the designer is omnipotent, ineffable, omnipresent and undetectable?" Of course not! The first rule of ID is don't talk about the designer! Only talk about fallacious claims about what evolution cannot do, with the clear implication that anything, anything, anything that evolution purportedly couldn't do, the designer did. Can do anything=omnipotent. Hrafn42 15:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sick of all this. We have three reputable sources (the Kitzmiller descision, Ronald Numbers and Barbara Forrest) that ID is Creationism. We have been presented with no reputable sources to the contrary, just a bunch of shoddy OR and hearsay. Therefore I would suggest that, unless and until evidence from reputable sources is presented that ID is not in fact Creationism, that ID should be prominantly described as Creationism in the article. Hrafn42 15:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Quick Google search:

• Intelligent Design is not Creationism, By: Stephen C Meyer, The Daily Telegraph (London), February 9, 2006
• Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same By: John G. West, Research News and Opportunities in Science and Theology, December 1, 2002
• FAQ: Is intelligent design just creationism (or creationism "in disguise")?
• "Intelligent design is not and never will be a doctrine of creation.", William Dembski, No Free Lunch pg. 314

To your point above, I did a quick search. I'm just making the point that the issue is disputed. This creates an NPOV issue when you state it as fact. Morphh ^(talk) 16:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's take a look at Morphh's 'reliable sources':

• Stephen C Meyer: faux-paleontologist, DI VP, and co-author of Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curriculum: A Legal Guidebook
• John G. West: faux-legal expert, DI Senior Fellow
• William Dembski: faux-Information Theorist(No Free Lunch was described by the co-inventor of the No Free Lunch Theorems as "written in jello"), producer of fart-videos, DI Senior Fellow

None of the these individuals have a reputation for honesty or good scholarship. All of them have a reputation for making unfounded claims outside their fields of expertise. None of the sources cited are scholarly. Additionally, all are members of the DI, so have a vested interest in denying that ID is Creationism.

Additionally, I would like to introduce the following quote from Phillip Johnson[6] as an 'admission against interest' (i.e. the opposite of a self-serving statement, and thus a statement with considerable evidential value):

My colleagues and I speak of "theistic realism" -- or sometimes, "mere creation" --as the defining concept of our movement. This means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology. We avoid the tangled arguments about how or whether to reconcile the Biblical account with the present state of scientific knowledge, because we think these issues can be much more constructively engaged when we have a scientific picture that is not distorted by naturalistic prejudice. If life is not simply matter evolving by natural selection, but is something that had to be designed by a creator who is real, then the nature of that creator, and the possibility of revelation, will become a matter of widespread interest among thoughtful people who are currently being taught that evolutionary science has show God to be a product of the human imagination.

Hrafn42 17:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me respond to West's baseless assertions[7]:

1. "'Intelligent Design Creationism' is a pejorative term" -- like "Darwinists" isn't? Talk about pot calling the kettle black.
2. Just like Creation Science, intelligent design claims to be based on science, not sacred texts.
3. Creationists know that intelligent design theory is creationism -- that's why there are so many YECs in the ID movement.
4. Unlike the Theory of Evolution, which has a large following both from theists and atheists, design theory is promoted almost exclusively by conservative Christians.
5. Fair-minded critics recognize the significant historical and ideological overlap between intelligent design and creationism.

Hrafn42 17:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, one of Morphh's own sources, William Dembski, is the author of a book entitled Mere Creation; Science, Faith & Intelligent Design-- a very odd title if "Intelligent design is not and never will be a doctrine of creation." Hrafn42 17:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Morphh, there is such a large amount of substantial documentation that intelligent design is a form of creationism that no reasonable person could deny it. Anyone who denies it obviously has a serious problem with facing reality. Statements that intelligent design is not creationism are even more suspect because the entire DI strategy relies on trying to position their movement as not creationism to avoid legal restrictions; in other words, to attempt to break the law.--Filll 17:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Further, if ID is not Creationism, then why did numerous ID proponents (including two of Morphh's sources, William Demsbki and Stephen C Meyer) present a conference entitled Mere Creation: Scholars United Under Intelligent Design? Hrafn42 18:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Calm down.. I just did a 2 sec goggle search for sources. Not like I research it. It was to show there is debate about the issue. We had the same issue with stating "ID is an argument for the existence of God" as fact (using the same sources you're presenting). After several article locks and over a month of debating, we came to a compromise. ID is not science but we do not state it as fact as DI argues that it is a scientific theory. We present both sides with the argument that it has been found by the scientific community to not be science or that it is God (but that it does not specify) or in this case that it is a form of creationism. We can not dismiss DI as unreliable and therefor not an appropriate source for support or opposition. Heck.. they are ID in many ways. Their POV is of primary importance to this article. Since there is dispute, both should be present and neither should be presented as "truth". As it is worded now, I oppose the addition but I'm not dismissing it and I'm willing to come to some compromise with adding it. Thoughts on compromise: Not in the first sentence, Attributed the statement to those making it and the point that some disagree or why they disagree. While I personally think it is a argument for creation rather than a form of creation, so long as we attribute it and mention that it is disputed.. I could come to support the addition. Morphh ^(talk) 19:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Compromise is good...but can we start a new section? This one is really long. BTW, I know the Rand quote was meant as humour, but is so often virtually deified that I've become hyper-critical of anything she's written. I see her writings as a lot of words with little substance. Oh well....back to the topic... &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"We can not dismiss DI as unreliable and therefor not an appropriate source for support or opposition." Why not, when we have: (1)a strong motive for DI dishonesty; and (2) clear evidence of DI dishonesty (in that they say both that ID is and is not "creation"). Such blatant self-contradiction surely renders their testimony worthless, except perhaps as evidence of their duplicitousness.

"Their POV is of primary importance to this article." Which of their points of view? That ID isn't Creationism, or that it is "Mere Creation"? Hrafn42 02:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Two different terms there. Again this is likely the application of ID to their beliefs. They don't think ID is creationism but they use ID to argue for creation. It is all dependent on the context and we can't infer one from the other IMO. Morphh ^(talk) 13:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"Two different terms there." BALONEY!

1. "Intelligent design is not and never will be a doctrine of creation." - William Dembski. Mere Creation; Science, Faith & Intelligent Design - book by William Dembski. Same term
2. "Mere Creation" is merely Creationism that has been stripped of all its overtly supernatural terminology (i.e. Neo-creationism).

Hrafn42 05:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

William Demsbki and Stephen C Meyer were to testify at Kitzmiller but they withdrew from the case. It they had testified they would have been exposed to cross examination. This action weakens their creditability in my mind.Pasado 03:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant speculation. Morphh ^(talk) 13:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The first two sentences are relevant facts. The third is my opinion. This is a relevant speculation: If I had spent 10+ years trying to get schools to teach ID and then one of them did and got sued over it, I would go testify to support my cause. That would show integrity.

Cites by people with low integrity are lower quality cites than cites from people who have shown more integrity. This should be a factor in deciding on the lead paragraph content.Pasado 05:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Earlier I told Morphh:

• I would take your continual carping about the "ID is not Creationism" viewpoint [seriously], if you could even find one advocate of that viewpoint that was:

1. not entirely self-serving;
2. did not have a reputation for misrepresentation; and
3. had some level of scholarly standing to make the claim.

I would like to point out that none of the sources Morphh cited satisfy any of these three points. Hrafn42

Locations in Kitzmiller v. Dover of references to Intelligent design as a form of creationism

Here are citations from Kitzmiller v. Dover that refer to ID as a form of creationism, or explain in some relevant way how it is a form of creationism, with page numbers. ... Kenosis 22:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

p18 An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching About “Gaps” and “Problems” in Evolutionary Theory are Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier Forms of Creationism

p31-32 A “hypothetical reasonable observer,” adult or child, who is “aware of the history and context of the community and forum” is also presumed to know that ID is a form of creationism. Child Evangelism, 386 F.3d at 531 (citations omitted); Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 624-25. The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. What is likely the strongest evidence supporting the finding of ID’s creationist nature is the history and historical pedigree of the book to which students in Dover’s ninth grade biology class are referred, Pandas. Pandas is published by an organization called FTE, as noted, whose articles of incorporation and filings with the Internal Revenue Service describe it as a religious, Christian organization. (P-461; P-28; P-566; P-633; p32 Buell Dep. 1:13, July 8, 2005). Pandas was written by Dean Kenyon and Percival Davis, both acknowledged creationists, and Nancy Pearcey, a Young Earth Creationist, contributed to the work. (10:102-08 (Forrest)).

p32 As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards, which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards. This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content, which directly refutes FTE’s argument that by merely disregarding the words “creation” and “creationism,” FTE expressly rejected creationism in Pandas. In early pre- Edwards drafts of Pandas, the term “creation” was defined as “various forms of life that began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features

p33 intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc,” the very same way in which ID is defined in the subsequent published versions. (P- 560 at 210; P-1 at 2-13; P-562 at 2-14, P-652 at 2-15; P-6 at 99-100; P-11 at 99- 100; P-856.2.). This definition was described by many witnesses for both parties, notably including defense experts Minnich and Fuller, as “special creation” of kinds of animals, an inherently religious and creationist concept. (28:85-86 (Fuller); Minnich Dep. at 34, May 26, 2005; Trial Tr. vol. 1, Miller Test., 141-42, Sept. 26, 2005; 9:10 (Haught); Trial Tr. vol. 33, Bonsell Test., 54-56, Oct. 31, 2005). Professor Behe’s assertion that this passage was merely a description of appearances in the fossil record is illogical and defies the weight of the evidence that the passage is a conclusion about how life began based upon an interpretation of the fossil record, which is reinforced by the content of drafts of Pandas. The weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates, as noted, that the systemic change from “creation” to “intelligent design” occurred sometime in 1987, after the Supreme Court’s important Edwards decision. This compelling evidence strongly supports Plaintiffs’ assertion that ID is creationism re-labeled. Importantly, the objective observer, whether adult or child, would conclude from the fact that Pandas posits a master intellect that the intelligent designer is God. Further evidence in support of the conclusion that a reasonable observer,

p34 adult or child, who is “aware of the history and context of the community and forum” is presumed to know that ID is a form of creationism concerns the fact that ID uses the same, or exceedingly similar arguments as were posited in support of creationism. One significant difference is that the words “God,” “creationism,” and “Genesis” have been systematically purged from ID explanations, and replaced by an unnamed “designer.” Dr. Forrest testified and sponsored exhibits showing six arguments common to creationists. (10:140-48 (Forrest); P-856.5-856.10). Demonstrative charts introduced through Dr. Forrest show parallel arguments relating to the rejection of naturalism, evolution’s threat to culture and society, “abrupt appearance” implying divine creation, the exploitation of the same alleged gaps in the fossil record, the alleged inability of science to explain complex biological information like DNA, as well as the theme that proponents of each version of creationism merely aim to teach a scientific alternative to evolution to show its “strengths and weaknesses,” and to alert students to a supposed “controversy” in the scientific community. (10:140-48 (Forrest)). In addition, creationists made the same argument that the complexity of the bacterial flagellum supported creationism as Professors Behe and Minnich now make for ID. (P-853; P-845; 37:155-56 (Minnich)). The IDM openly welcomes adherents to creationism into its “Big Tent,” urging them to postpone biblical disputes like the age of the

p35 earth. (11:3-15 (Forrest); P-429). Moreover and as previously stated, there is hardly better evidence of ID’s relationship with creationism than an explicit statement by defense expert Fuller that ID is a form of creationism. (Fuller Dep. at 67, June 21, 2005) (indicated that ID is a modern view of creationism). Although contrary to Fuller, defense experts Professors Behe and Minnich testified that ID is not creationism, their testimony was primarily by way of bare assertion and it failed to directly rebut the creationist history of Pandas or other evidence presented by Plaintiffs showing the commonality between creationism and ID. The sole argument Defendants made to distinguish creationism from ID was their assertion that the term “creationism” applies only to arguments based on the Book of Genesis, a young earth, and a catastrophic Noaich flood; however, substantial evidence established that this is only one form of creationism, including the chart that was distributed to the Board Curriculum Committee, as will be described below. (P-149 at 2; 10:129-32 (Forrest); P-555 at 22-24). Having thus provided the social and historical context in which the ID Policy arose of which a reasonable observer, either adult or child would be aware, we will now focus on what the objective student alone would know. We will accordingly determine whether an objective student would view the disclaimer read to the ninth grade biology class as an official endorsement of religion.

p42 In other words, the disclaimer relies upon the very same “contrived dualism” that the court in McLean recognized to be a creationist tactic that has “no scientific factual basis or legitimate educational purpose.” McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1266.6 6 The McLean court explained that: The approach to teaching ‘creation science’ and ‘evolution science’ . . . is identical to the two-model approach espoused by the Institute for Creation Research and is taken almost verbatim from ICR writings. It is an extension of Fundamentalists’ view that one must either accept the literal interpretation of Genesis or else believe in the godless system of evolution. The two model approach of creationists is simply a contrived dualism which has no scientific factual basis or legitimate educational purpose. It assumes only two explanations for the origins of life and existence of man, plants and animals: it was either the work of a creator or it was not. Application of these two models, according to creationists, and the defendants, dictates that all scientific evidence which fails to support the theory of evolution is necessarily scientific evidence in support of creationism and is, therefore, creation science ‘evidence[.]’ 529 F. Supp. at 1266 (footnote omitted)(emphasis added).

p43 The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.

p44 Whether a student accepts the Board’s invitation to explore Pandas, and reads a creationist text, or follows the Board’s other suggestion and discusses “Origins of Life” with family members, that objective student can reasonably infer that the District’s favored view is a religious one, and that the District is accordingly sponsoring a form of religion.

p49 In summary, the disclaimer singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere.

p56 An objective adult member of the Dover community would also be presumed to know that ID and teaching about supposed gaps and problems in evolutionary theory are creationist religious strategies that evolved from earlier forms of creationism, as we previously detailed.

p69-70 [Under the heading "Whether ID is science", the decision quotes the NAS as follows:] Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or

70 religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.

p71 ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed. (5:41 (Pennock)). This argument is not brought to this Court anew, and in fact, the same argument, termed “contrived dualism” in McLean, was employed by creationists in the 1980's to support “creation science.” The court in McLean noted the “fallacious pedagogy of the two model approach” and that “[i]n efforts to establish ‘evidence’ in support of creation science, the defendants relied upon the same false premise as the two model approach . . . all evidence which criticized evolutionary theory was proof in support of creation science.” McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1267, 1269. We do not find this false dichotomy any more availing to justify ID today than it was to justify creation science two decades ago.

p91 The purpose inquiry involves consideration of the ID Policy’s language, “enlightened by its context and contemporaneous legislative history[,]” including, in this case, the broader context of historical and ongoing religiously driven attempts to advance creationism while denigrating evolution. (citing to Selman, 390 F. Supp. Supp. 2d at 1300; and Edwards v. Aguilard)

p107 Accordingly, as accurately submitted by Plaintiffs, we find that the Board Curriculum Committee knew as early as June 2004 that ID was widely considered by numerous observers to be a form of creationism.

p112 There is no evidence that the Board heeded even one iota of the Solicitor’s detailed and prudent warning. We also find the email to be persuasive, additional evidence that the Board knew that ID is considered a form of creationism.

p114 The testimony at trial stunningly revealed that Buckingham and Bonsell tried to hide the source of the donations because it showed, at the very least, the extraordinary measures taken to ensure that students received a creationist alternative to Darwin’s theory of evolution.

p120 Finally, Spahr warned the full Board that ID amounted to creationism and could not be taught legally. (24:102 (Nilsen); 35:14-15 (Baksa)).

p131 As exhaustively detailed herein, the thought leaders on the Board made it their considered purpose to inject some form of creationism into the science classrooms, and by the dint of their personalities and persistence they were able to pull the majority of the Board along in their collective wake.

p136 ... we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

22:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed sentence

"In the same book, he also points out that natural selection is in many ways the opposite of chance. Dembski's specified complexity may eliminate chance, perhaps, but it says nothing about natural selection." Is this really POV? What do you think?--Filll 15:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the sentence, not so much because it may be POV, but because it appears to be OR, is poorly phrased, and is getting somewhat tangential (in that criticism of CS is better situated in the main article on that). Hrafn42 16:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Two questions. 1. In what sense is this comment a POV? Natural selection is not equivalent to chance. Anyone equating the two does not understand natural selection. 2. What does OR mean? It is not in the Wikipedia Edit summary legend [[8]].

I'm prepared to concede that this comment is misplaced and not well phrased, but if that's the case, then why not suggest better phrasing and move it rather than dismissing it out of hand? Kalense 13:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

OR means Original Research (see no original research policy) and I went ahead and added it to the Edit summary legend. Morphh ^(talk) 13:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

UK gov stance is ID...should not be taught as science.

From, http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page12021.asp or The register spin, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/25/id_not_science/

"The Government is clear that creationism and intelligent design are not part of the science National Curriculum programmes of study and should not be taught as science."

Well at least the UK is a lot clearer !.Ttiotsw 12:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Good find!--NeoNerd 12:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

An interesting re-phrasing of the statement made in December as currently included in Intelligent design#International status of intelligent design. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is taking its time getting its guidance together! Note that this applies to England and Wales, not Scotland and NI though approx zero chance of ID here, I'd hope. .. dave souza, talk 12:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow! http://intelligentdesignr.org.uk/ has all the answers! .. dave souza, talk 12:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

All bollocks eh? ROFL. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Mere Creation

Morphh has suggested that both (all?) sides should be presented. Taking him at his word, I would like to suggest the following section, entitled 'Mere Creation':

Although proponents of intelligent design frequently deny that it is Creationism or has a religious foundation, they also frequently discuss intelligent design in explicitly religious, and even Creationist, terms. Phillip Johnson has called "Mere Creation" the "defining concept of our movement," and this concept has made its way into book (Mere Creation; Science, Faith & Intelligent Design by William Dembski) and conference (Mere Creation: Scholars United Under Intelligent Design, a conference at which several prominent intelligent design advocates, including Stephen C. Meyer, William A. Dembski, Michael J. Behe and Phillip Johnson, presented) titles on the subject. Dembski has described intelligent design as "just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."

Hrafn42 03:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sections in this article should not be created for any of the books on this subject matter, as each already has its own article in WP. And the article on Mere_Creation is itself a stub. As to the article on intelligent design, all sides already are presented in the article. The only relevant question in the discussion above is whether to state in the article lead that intelligent design belongs to the class of things called "creationism", or whether, given the complexities and inherent deceptiveness of ID, the existing explanations in the article are sufficient to adequately inform the reader.

If anything requires a section, it seems to me that the issue of whether ID is a form of creationism may require one, in light of the complexities already discussed above. There already is a section on defining ID as science, so I don't see any reason to rule out a brief section summarizing the relationship of ID to the class of beliefs, philosophies and advocacy positions that, according to the WP:reliable sources, are reasonably termed "creationism". ... Kenosis 14:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That would make sense. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It would serve the article to not have a deceptive lead sentence. "Intelligent design is the claim 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.'" is deceptive because that DI quote is their smokescreen to make ID seem like something new and "not creationism". Using the word "claim" does not indicate this deception. Wiktionary defines claim as "A new statement of truth made about something". This sentence could be the lead on the DI website.

Instead state in the lead that ID is a form of creationism that is promoted using deceptive practices. This would agree with the rest of the content of the article. Pasado 06:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Such would be a violation of NPOV policy. As far as the current lead sentence and the lead in general, it went through a very very long debate process. While we're discussing this here, we should also consider similar statements on the articles Discovery Institute, which states in the lead "... its Teach the Controversy campaign to get creationist beliefs taught in United States ... " and Teach the Controversy that states "to promote intelligent design, a variant of traditional creationism, while discrediting evolution in United States". I'm not sure the Discovery Institute lead is an issue but the Teach the Controversy has some of the issues discussed here. Morphh ^(talk) 14:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"Such would be a violation of NPOV policy." Morphh: read WP:Undue Weight. There is not requirement to make allowance for a fringe viewpoint that is discredited, dishonest, contradictory and self-serving. Incidentally, if ID isn't Creationism, then why does the DI have so many theologians and so few practising biologists? Hrafn42 14:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

DI has due weight as this topic is primarily about them. You are more then welcome to present the case for how they are discredited, dishonest, contradictory, and self-serving. But you can not state these as fact, you can not make the judgement for the reader, NPOV - no bias - the reader must decided based on the argument! Don't present one side as fact if disputed, attribute the source of the statement, present the other view. Morphh ^(talk) 14:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• "DI has due weight as this topic is primarily about them." This is simply wishful thinking. WP:Undue Weight says no such thing!
• There is more than sufficient evidence of the DI's dishonesty and lack of credibility on its, and its members', articles already. I really don't need to go into any further details.
• "But you can not state these as fact, you can not make the judgement for the reader, NPOV - no bias - the reader must decided based on the argument! Don't present one side as fact if disputed, attribute the source of the statement, present the other view." Read the policy! It says: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." The only people saying that ID isn't Creationism is the DI themselves (except when they themselves are admitting that its Creationism).

Hrafn42 16:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Undue weight is about balancing views. Your not trying to balance views. Your trying to elevate one view as truth and exclude the other.
• DI failes to qualify as an extremely small (or vastly limited ) minority. If you were to qualify them in such a way (which I don't believe is appropriate as the article is about them), they would be classified as a significant minority per Jimbo's definition. As far as them admitting that it is creationism, you ofter no distinction between using ID to further beliefs of creation and a creator vs the belief that ID itself is a form of creation. These are two very distinct statements. There are plenty of sources that state a distinction between creationism and ID. There are also sources that state "critics claim that ID is creationism". Is it not obvious that stating ID as creationism is a POV and should follow NPOV guidelines in attributing the statement? Even the simple prestatement of "critics claim" is enough to make the statement factual. Morphh ^(talk) 16:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"they would be classified as a significant minority" How are they "significant"? They are not numerically significant, and they lack both significant relevant expertise and significant scholarly stature. They are simply a bunch of vocal, self-appointed cranks. Hrafn42 17:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo states it like this: If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; It is easy to name prominent adherents. In addition, the point is sort of irrelevant as views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views, which this article would cover views of DI obviously. Morphh ^(talk) 19:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations Morphh, you just flunked Logic 101. "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" does not mean that if it is easy to name prominent adherents, then it must be a significant minority. Nameable prominent adherents is a necessary condition, but that does not mean that it is a sufficient condition, for it to be a significant minority. Again, how are the DI "significant"? Hrafn42 04:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You're bordering on issues of civil, so don't be a dick and assume good faith... Again the point is irrelevant as the article is devoted in many respects to those views of DI. This makes DI one of the more significant viewpoints to be present in this article. Since all the primary proponents of ID are associated with DI, it would be a completely one sided article if DI was dismissed as POV not worth presenting. Morphh ^(talk) 0:29, 01 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't see a need for the section or any further explanation. What ID proponents claim about ID not being creationism but science and what the courts and the scientific community say about it is already very clearly covered. Also, "Mere Creation" is an allusion used by Johnson to CS Lewis' Mere Christianity. It's use here would be confusing. Odd nature 16:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thus, the questioon appears to remain, given the "stealth creationism" aspect, obfuscations, and differences of views within the sphere of the leading ID advocates, where in the lead should it be mentioned?, and how should the relationship to creationism should be characterized?. No one seems to be able to agree on this thus far. ... Kenosis 17:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"No it isn't"

A link to this cartoon is contained in WP:NPOVFAQ: http://www.idrewthis.org/d/20040825.html I think it's topical. Hrafn42 17:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

External Links - IDEA Center

I don't see anything wrong with having Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center - Intelligent Design FAQs & Primers in the links. Besides User:Odd_nature removing it for incorrect reasons like "Undergraduate clubs", who objects? --Yqbd 15:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

For

Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center - Intelligent Design FAQs & Primers is much more informative and relevant to this article than the site's front page. --Yqbd 15:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The site is not a undergraduate club or even a club. Please, read [9]. --Yqbd 15:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Odd_nature is reverting with false reasoning. S/he should read [10]. --Yqbd 15:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The FAQ and Primers page is more related to the article. IDEA Center's FAQs and Primer page is well organized.--Yqbd 16:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The Intelligent Design FAQs & Primers page summarizes and organizes information from other ID sites. --Yqbd 16:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Against

I object to linking against the faq. At one point during your edit war with most other editors of this article, someone removed the link to the faq, and replaced it with a link to the main site. I agree with that editorial decision, and I must question your motives for reverting that edit. The link you provided is POV and non-factual. It is inappropriate for the article to present the faq as though it were a reliable reference. Silly rabbit 15:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying all links under ID perspectives have to be NPOV? --Yqbd 16:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research". --From WP:EL Silly rabbit 18:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What is non-factual about the link? --Yqbd 16:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What is no reliable about the article? --Yqbd 16:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me turn that around: what is reliable about it? Silly rabbit 18:13, 27--PhDP 23:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC) June 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree. I think that if we are going to link this site in, we should only link in the main page. I also find it somewhat disturbing that one of the authors in question seems to want to engage in edit wars, violating civility rules and 3RR rules. We cannot link in every possible site like this, since there are hundreds or more and WP is not a link farm.--Filll 16:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think "we should only link in the main page"? --Yqbd 16:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should even link to the IDEA main page considering IDEA clubs are for addled undergraduates gather and compare their notes on ID and organize their efforts to disrupt Wikipedia, and not sources of notable ID thought and writing. But if we do include a link to the IDEA club main site, it should be to the homepage only; per WP:NOT Wikipedia articles are not link farms. Odd nature 16:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, read the IDEA Center FAQ before calling IDEA Center an undergraduate club. --Yqbd 16:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and there you'll read "our primary focus of outreach is to help students found chapters of "IDEA Clubs" at high schools and universities where they can promote intelligent design theory to their fellow students. To date, over 25 chapters have been founded by students and teachers around the United States and the world." It was founded by undergraduates, Luskin, Renner and Colanter, as student club, for chrissake. Just because it has now has an umbrella organization to serve IDEA clubs on other campuses does not mean its not still a student club. Give me a break. Odd nature 17:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You'll also see on the main page that "The Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to promoting intelligent design theory and fostering good - spirited discussion and a better understanding over intelligent design theory and the creation - evolution issue among students, educators, churches, and anyone else interested." and you'll find What's the difference between an "IDEA Club" and the "IDEA Center?" in the FAQ. Also in the FAQ, "The Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center is a 501 (c) (3) non-profit organization, formed in 2001."--Yqbd 17:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There is also, What exactly does the Center do? "The IDEA Center hosts classes, seminars, conferences, and maintains a website to promote intelligent design theory and promote the facts about the creation - evolution issue. The Center's primary purpose is to promote the scientific theory of intelligent design, and foster friendly discussion and dialogue among individuals of varying beliefs and backgrounds. We aim to promote a better understanding of these issues primarily to students but also to internet users, churches, community institutions, and educational institutions." --Yqbd 17:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you, but the IDEA club came first, then the Center was formed to support IDEA clubs on other campuses. Go ask Luskin if you're still unclear, or better yet, read some history of the movement other than the IDEA club FAQs. "Our IDEA Club at UCSD actually pre-dates the existence of the IDEA Center, as the Center was formed by some of the IDEA Club at UCSD co-founders in the summer of 2001" [11] BTW, stop violating 3RR. Odd nature 17:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Where do you get "organize their efforts to disrupt Wikipedia" from? --Yqbd 17:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You're an IDEA member, right? Well, you've violated 3RR at two articles in the last 24 hrs, so there you go. No? Others from there have. Odd nature 17:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not an article about the IDEA Center. This is an article about ID. If anyone wants to view the IDEA Center's FAQ, they can navigate there from their main page themselves. –Fatalis 17:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Object to the link -- IDEACenter appears to be little more than a DI astroturf organisation, rather than a source of new information on ID. Should we also include Dembski's www.overwhelmingevidence.com? Hrafn42 17:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I also object linking to the FAQ, and honestly I have no idea why a link to the main page should be included. The site contain inaccuracies and personal attacks (there's currently an article about "the gospel of evolution according to Sean B. Carroll"), I don't see any relevant information on the website. Wikipedia is not a link farm, we should not include all the websites of creationists/evolutionists, and, in my opinion we should remove some links in the External Links section, many are not relevant (Italian/Finnish Intelligent Design site ?). - PhDP 23:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

For main page link

I'm fine with linking to the main page. I think this 501(c) is more appropriate then some of the others, particularly on the Non-ID perspective (wikis, ACLU, etc). The external links section needs a good cleanup for WP:EL guidelines. The entire media section can go. If they're good links, then they should be used as a reference - otherwise, get rid of them. Morphh ^(talk) 17:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you check out the FAQs and Primers page? --Yqbd 17:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The IDEA club is just as partisan, in fact moreso, than the ACLU, so be careful what you try to delete. Odd nature 17:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

My thought was not in regard to partisan. My suggestion with the wiki and ACLU were in regard to #1, #12, #13 on "Links normally to be avoided". 1: Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. 12: Links to open wikis... 13: Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject... We might find they are perfectly fine.. I was just suggesting a reveiw as it seems like we have quite a bit of EL. The IDEA site is at least an organization directly about ID, which may provide resources beyond this article. Anyway.. nothing big.. was just thinking out loud. Morphh ^(talk) 18:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, that would apply to IDEA certainly, but not the ALCU since thier position is exactly that of the scientific community, a federal court, the science education community, and the National Academy of Sciences. I think you need to think that through and take care. Odd nature 19:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I understand you. But anyway.. I'm not going to change them. I only offered the suggestion that it be cleaned up based on the guidelines. Morphh ^(talk) 19:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Put your energy in some place useful

Why not write an article about the IDEA clubs for Wikipedia instead of engaging in stupid edit wars?--Filll 17:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up the External links section

Following WP:EL, I think we should remove the following links;

First;

• Intelligent Design Network Australia
• Finnish Intelligent Design site
• Italian Intelligent Design site

It would be absurd to provide links tp all departments of evolutionary biology or tp all associations promoting evolution, I don't understand why we do this for IDists.

• Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center

IMO, it violates guideline #1, there's nothing unique to this site. Also, there's many interesting links in the Non-ID subsection (e.g.:The Design Argument by Sober, E.), but there's already close to 200 references in this article, perhaps The Design Argument should be quoted somewhere but I think many links are not very useful.

- PhDP 03:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As the person responsible for introducing those foreign links, I have to admit this removal makes sense for several reasons. First, it has started to become clear that these external links are a magnet for creationists and assorted edit wars. Second, WP articles are not really supposed to be "link farms." Third, the external links section has become longer and longer, and still probably is too long. So why did I introduce those foreign sites anyway? Well there actually was a good reason. One of the most shrill charges always leveled at the creationist or intelligent design articles in WP is that these articles should be removed or scaled back because these movements exist only in the United States, and that this makes these articles of interest only to Americans. Many foreign editors of Wikipedia get completely indignant at the suggestion that there are creationist movements anywhere outside the US. They are completely unaware of any international scope to this problem, or what the views are in Turkey or other Islamic countries, which have (if anything) a more pronounced problem than the US. However, now that I have seen the difficulties these links introduce, there has to be a better way to address this problem, possibly with some other daughter article. Just something to ponder...--10:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Outside the US, most Creationist movements are very small, and tend to lack political influence or publicity. It is hardly surprising therefore that most foreign editors aren't aware of their existence in their own countries. This lack of visibility also means that these non-US Creationist movements are not "significant minorities," and so should be afforded little, if any, mention under WP:Undue Weight. The only exceptions to this that I can bring immediately to mind would be the UK (where Truth in Science has received recent, although probably fleeting, notoriety) and Turkey. Hrafn42 10:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could agree with you, except that in many Islamic countries, it is forbidden to teach evolution even at the college or graduate school level. Turkey is one of the more liberal, and it has just suffered an immense backslide. This has also recently been an issue in Poland and Holland and Russia and several other countries, in addition to the UK (where the movement seems to have had tacit approval from the Government, or at least the cabinet, and recent public opinion polls show strong support for creationism, almost as strong as in the US). Therefore, these movements give every appearance of spreading. Even if these movements might be somewhat small at the moment in most foreign countries, they bear watching. The extent of these movements should be tracked and catalogued. Otherwise, we not only are not describing the situation accurately, but we are leaving ourselves open to attack by foreign editors for even having any articles on these subjects at all. And I believe that the removal or scaling back of these articles would not serve the readership of WP well. --Filll 10:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• You are probably right on the Islamic countries (about whose educational policies on evolution, we tend not to hear too much).
• In the UK, the government was initially in a somewhat ambiguous position initially, as it was promoting private/public-partnership 'Academy Schools,' some of which were backed by evangelical groups, which promote Creationism. It has however recently come out with a policy explicitly rejecting ID in science classes.
• In Poland, the Deputy Education Minister from the "ultra-right-wing coalition partner in the conservative Polish government" (the League of Polish Families, which received 8% of the parliamentary vote) has made anti-evolutionary statements. It is unclear however whether this is the official policy of either the government or his party.
• Russia had a recent court case, whose losing Creationist side was championed be elements within the Russian Orthodox Church. I have however seen no signs that Creationism is gaining any momentum there.
• This article [12] gives a good summary of recent events (including events in Germany and Kenya), though is a bit out of date on events in the UK.

Hrafn42 11:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

A creationist museum just opened in Canada. There are mounting concerns in Canada about emerging creationist efforts. I have had many conversations with a creationist in Australia who has a very different impression of what the situation is in Australia from what I gather from the media. And the recent public opinion poll results in the UK about creationism speak volumes, I think. The situation might not be near as serious in other countries, but I think that creationism is a threat in many countries, and that we should recognize it as such.--Filll 11:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Saw your comments and I wanted to ask why you are concerned about a creationist museum opening. And why you feel creationism is a threat and what you think the governments of Canada, US and Britain should do to eliminate the threat. Octoplus 11:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

See Council of Europe Parliamentary Committee on Culture, Science and Education, Report 8 June 2007 "The dangers of creationism in education" which answers Octoplus's question, and describes attempts to get creationism into various countries in Europe. .. dave souza, talk 12:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I am wondering if we need a separate article that really emphasizes the worldwide/international threat or situation and efforts of creationists and intelligent design supporters. I just do not think that there is enough room in any of these articles to emphasize this.--Filll 13:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent Design broader than the Discovery Institute leaders

In the opening definition, you quote "...best explained by an intelligent cause ...", but at least even one Discovery Institute writer (Dr. Behe) allows for there to have been intelligent causes (plural). Dr. Behe says that the theory of aliens from other planets bringing life to earth falls within the purviews of the intelligent design movement (Darwin's Black Box). Not only is this plural in the sense of there being more than one alien, but it could have been different aliens from different planets at different times making their contributions, or even aliens from the same place doing so for more than one intelligent reason.

So my first point is that you narrowly pick one definition for intelligent design from one Discovery Institute contributor, and erroneously apply that as the same definition that all the Discovery Institute leaders would give ... and if that much is wrong, it is definitely erroneous to think that every intelligent design leader or adherent would also give that same definition.

My second point is that the Dover School Board could be seen as leaders in the intelligent design movement in the political field - pioneers in defining a bold policy, yet they went ahead and acted in defiance of the advice given to them by the Discovery Institute. When Barbara Forrest (footnote 7) says that absolutely all of the intelligent design leaders are from the Discovery Institute, she is using a specific definition of leader. The Discovery Institute may be the leader insofar as media attention - what with all the press and all their books and popular efforts - but that does not make them the leading scientists in the field of intelligent design, nor the only political leaders, etc. There most be room for the movement to go on and new leaders to pick up where old ones left off. To deny the new leaders the privilege of using the "intelligent design" label just because they are not members of the Discovery Institute would be unfair and overly-restrictive.

My third point branches off from that. There must be room for the Intelligent Deisign movement to expand and grow, even when work on intelligent design is outside of the Discovery Institute. I've written a book entitled Getting Past the Culture Wars: Regarding Intelligent Design. The way this can be accomplished is to drop two of the most disappointing features of the early Discovery Institute movement, namely, the emphasis on the supernatural, and the antagonism towards Darwinian evolution. A modern ID movement which is both naturalistic and evolution-friendly would render most of your Wikipedia article moot, but it would still be Intelligent Design theory according to the original concept.

I would love to add my book to your article, but I wouldn't dare. The thing that bugs me, though, is that even if one of my readers tries to add my book to the Wikipedia discussion of Intelligent Design, you would try to use Discovery Institute sources to prove that my book's proposals are really not related to ID at all, since I am not a Discovery Institute fellow, and since my name was not brought up in the Dover trial. What kind of logic is that?

We can agree that evidence of intelligent causes does not constitute proof of the supernatural, and most scientists do not like to even infer the supernatural from the intelligent. Secondly, the definition that certain features can best be explained by an intelligent cause or intelligent causes, in no way dismisses certain other features which CAN best be explained by unidirected processes such as natural selection. It is no more anti-evolution to say that Darwinian explanations do not account for every characteristic of life forms on earth, than it would be anti-American to say that Americans did not come up with every technological advance on earth. The definition does not contrast the supernatural with the natural, but rather the intelligent causes with those causes which are non-intelligent. It never denies natural or unintelligent causes.

I attended a Dr. Shermer debate at Penn State Berks. It is very odd that he writes about debating the existence of a deity or intelligent designer, which is what he tried to do from his end, yet all the while Dr. Paul Nelson at the other podium never brought up either concept.

Dr. Nelson (of Discovery Institute) spoke of intelligent causes, not intelligent persons, and was very clear that he chose not to think of the intelligent causes as being supernatural. Dr. Shermer, on the other hand, talked about a God of the gaps, the super-natural, the age of the earth, and evidence for evolution.

Really, these two gentleman had no argument with each other. Dr. Shermer admitted the possibility of intelligent causes, provided we think of them as having a natural origin. Dr. Nelson said nothing to the contrary.

Dr. Nelson had nothing to say against evolution, nothing to say about the age of the earth, and nothing to say in favor of God or the supernatural during his 30-minute presentation of intelligent design. Dr. Shermer's only answer to Dr. Nelson's evidence of intelligent causes was to admit that it was very possible that they could in fact exist.

Dr. Robert F. DeHaan and Dr. Arthur V. Chadwick are two scientists that I quote in my book, and neither is from the Discovery Institute that I know of. They talk about an approach to ID which places ID "squarely in the natural order". So it is not just me who sees ANOTHER approach other than the one with supernatural implications.

This is the direction that I believe ID should go in the future: non-religious, and not antagonistic towards evolution. Your article is helping to stifle those changes and thwart my efforts by trying to put in concrete that ID is both about the supernatural and against evolution, much in the way that Judge Jones concluded at the Dover Trial. The Dover Trial was really against the Dover School Board, not the Discovery Institute. Even if the Discovery Institute could somehow have been justifiably implicated, it is not fair to talk as if the Dover Trial were truly against ID theory in and of itself, and against a movement which is much broader in perspective than what the Discovery Institute leaders may have originally bargained for. I don't think the Discovery Institute would be happy to have ID turned around to be a materialistic theory, since they would much rather see it lead people to God, but, as they say, one must follow the science where it leads.

Maybe it would be better to have one article about the Dover Trial and its conclusions, another about the Discovery Institute, and a third about Intelligent Design theory in general, instead of mixing up the trial and the Discovery Institute under the general heading of intelligent design. And what about separate headings for naturalistic intelligent design where religious and anti-evolution arguments play no part (no part, not as support, and not as criticism , because they would simply be irrelevant), and then a separate heading for creation-theory-related intelligent design where all the traditional debate sides can be presented?

Shrommer 03:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I am somewhat confused by your post. However, Wikipedia just reports on what we observe in society and science etc. If your book is successful, then it will be well known and we will naturally discuss it in this article if it is part of the intelligent design movement. If it leads to another movement, then we will make an article on that other movement. Wikipedia does not exist to promote your book or agenda, particularly when it has not yet had any impact.--Filll 03:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)]

two replies

1. "an intelligent cause" does not affect the pluarity of any beings involved, what is being counted is the cause, not the intelligence. A group of aliens is still a single causality. "Intelligent causes" would suggest continual interference by various entities, which may be part of fringe theories amongst design theorists (but not really ID).
2. There are three articles on Intelligent design, Dover Trial and Discovery Institute

That is all--ZayZayEM 03:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

1. "Dr. Behe says that the theory of aliens from other planets bringing life to earth falls within the purviews of the intelligent design movement (Darwin's Black Box)." Dover Decision:

   Although proponents of the IDM occasionally suggest that the designer could be a space alien or a time-traveling cell biologist, no serious alternative to God as the designer has been proposed by members of the IDM, including Defendants’ expert witnesses. (20:102-03 (Behe)). In fact, an explicit concession that the intelligent designer works outside the laws of nature and science and a direct reference to religion is Pandas’ rhetorical statement, “what kind of intelligent agent was it [the designer]” and answer: “On its own science cannot answer this question. It must leave it to religion and philosophy.”

2. "My second point is that the Dover School Board could be seen as leaders in the intelligent design movement in the political field" -- except that the Dover Board admitted near-ubiquitous ignorance of ID, and merely agreed to it as a potentially-legal stand-in for explicit Creationism.
3. "When Barbara Forrest (footnote 7) says that absolutely all of the intelligent design leaders are from the Discovery Institute, she is using a specific definition of leader. The Discovery Institute may be the leader insofar as media attention - what with all the press and all their books and popular efforts - but that does not make them the leading scientists in the field of intelligent design, nor the only political leaders, etc." Name a potential leader that is outside the DI. Outside the DI, the ID movement appears to be nothing but bloggers and self-published cranks.
4. "I've written a book entitled Getting Past the Culture Wars: Regarding Intelligent Design." Then you are mammothly self-delusional -- ID is nothing more than a weapon of culture-warfare.
5. "The way this can be accomplished is to drop two of the most disappointing features of the early Discovery Institute movement, namely, the emphasis on the supernatural, and the antagonism towards Darwinian evolution." But this is the core of ID -- eliminate these and ID has nothing to say. It is nothing but a vessel for (recycled) anti-evolutionary arguments and demands for supernaturalism in science. "A modern ID movement which is both naturalistic and evolution-friendly would..." have neither reason for existence nor any contents.
6. "The thing that bugs me, though, is that even if one of my readers tries to add my book to the Wikipedia discussion of Intelligent Design, you would try to use Discovery Institute sources to prove that my book's proposals are really not related to ID at all, since I am not a Discovery Institute fellow, and since my name was not brought up in the Dover trial. What kind of logic is that?" First you need to prove that there is a viable ID movement independent of the DI & its core anti-evolutionism and supernaturalism. I suspect that this would be highly problematical.
7. "We can agree that evidence of intelligent causes does not constitute proof of the supernatural, and most scientists do not like to even infer the supernatural from the intelligent. Secondly, the definition that certain features can best be explained by an intelligent cause or intelligent causes, in no way dismisses certain other features which CAN best be explained by unidirected processes such as natural selection." Yes, the trouble is that such platitudes do not add up to anything resembling a positive research programme. Until such a programme exists ID, even if shorn of its Creationist sentiments, has nothing to offer Science.
8. "Dr. Nelson (of Discovery Institute) spoke of intelligent causes, not intelligent persons, and was very clear that he chose not to think of the intelligent causes as being supernatural." Nelson is a YEC, and thus explicitly supernaturalist in his "intelligent cause." He is also extremely dishonest, having later blatantly misrepresented Shermer's position.
9. "Dr. Robert F. DeHaan and Dr. Arthur V. Chadwick are two scientists that I quote in my book..." Robert F. DeHaan is a crank who promotes his explicitly anti-Theory of Evolution, and explicitly religiously-motivated, Macrodevelopment hypothesis, in spite of the fact that he appears to have no training in genetics or developmental biology. Arthur V. Chadwick is an advocate of Flood Geology. So here we have it: anti-evolution and the Genesis Flood.
10. "Maybe it would be better to have one article about the Dover Trial and its conclusions, another about the Discovery Institute, and a third about Intelligent Design theory in general, instead of mixing up the trial and the Discovery Institute under the general heading of intelligent design." These articles already exist, although (naturally enough) they are heavily inter-related.
11. "And what about separate headings for naturalistic intelligent design..." - first prove that it exists: "no serious alternative to God as the designer has been proposed by members of the IDM."

Hrafn42 04:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I have now looked at reviews of Glenn Shrom's book and material in the blogosphere about his book. It just sounds sort of crazy to me. I have no problem with someone pursuing intelligent design hypotheses, however I am not sure that it would be easy for them to get funded. However, at this point, there is no science or evidence for intelligent design. Period. Once there is, then there is something to talk about. Until then, I do not see why we should promote this book, because it does not appear to me that it has made much of an impact yet. I could imagine devoting more energy to this approach if it gained some traction. There is no reason to teach this material when there is no science or evidence to support it.--Filll 04:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

We've long had sources far more notable than Shrom's personal original research on this issue, so I suggest we close this discussion before it becomes an even longer-winded and fruitless back-and-forth. FeloniousMonk 05:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, per Monk, the main concern here has to be the specter of original research. Once these theories come to represent a virtually undisputed bastion of creationist thinking, then we can incorporate them into Wikipedia articles. Until then, we should be wary of fringe ideas charming their way into the database.UberCryxic 21:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. If Strom's approach starts to snowball and produce a legion of followers and start to influence creationist thinking and approaches, then we are justified in documenting it. However, if it is just one of dozens and dozens of people who are leveraging the publicity surrounding the term "intelligent design" to try to hijack the concept and movement for their own personal gain, then it would be silly for us to document them all. For one thing, it would be very tedious. We have enough trouble keeping up with the real creationist movements. Also, this would tend to confuse any reader who is trying to actually learn about "intelligent design" itself, which is the subject of this article. It also is definitely inappropriate for us to champion one particular commercial venture over another, such as a self-published vanity book.--Filll 21:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: "A modern ID movement which is both naturalistic and evolution-friendly would render most of your Wikipedia article moot, but it would still be Intelligent Design theory according to the original concept."

Yes it would. But it doesn't exist. I'm not going to deny that a design argument could be scientifically constructed, but noone seems really interested in doing that. It would however need a different name, as branding ahs seen the term "Intelligent design" hijacked by the Discovery Institute (a conservative Christian think-tank) which severely limits its scope. Applicable here is WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. We can't predict a future version of ID, and no sources can verify the existence of any other organised version of ID than DI's.--ZayZayEM 02:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

On plurality of causes, Dr. Behe lists several non-intelligent causes for biological diverstity already accepted by mainstream science: common descent, natural selection, migration, population size, founder effects, genetic drift, linkage, meiotic drive, transposition, and much more. (Darwin's Black Box, Simon & Schuster, 1998, pp. 228-230.) Intelligent Design likewise allows for multiple forms of intelligent causes to all be found as factors in the development of life. There could be intracellular intelligence, intercellular intelligence, intelligent DNA, intelligent proteins, quantum intelligence, divine intelligence, natural intelligence as a universal principle, AND the intervention of alien intelligence from other planets.

Intelligent design has not nailed down where the intelligence lies, and does not try to with current research. For now, it only sees evidence of intelligence from the same deductions used to conclude that similar systems in the engineering fields have intelligent causes. The systems are similar in their being both specified and rare, or in evidences like closed-loops in biology, or in containing strings of information.

Recently we have discovered evidences of reasoning in birds where their behaviors were previously thought to have been only by instinct. We have also found ways to test for intelligence in other species, and believe we have found intelligence in monkeys, dolphins, etc. If intelligent design is pursued, ways will be devised to test for intelligence in sub-organism biology.

Another example I use is that there are different ways to account for flight: insect wings are different from feather wings are different from airplane wings are different from helicopter rotors are different from lighter-than-air lift. Up til now, we only understand intelligence on the neural level, like on the level of the brain organ. There is a whole new field of science waiting to be opened up about investigating other forms of intellgence in nature which could be behind the evolution of the species.

Shrommer 23:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

What about spaghetti? ... dave souza, talk 00:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Lamarck was right all along! Woohoo! Silly rabbit 00:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well it is hard to argue with that kind of reasoning...--Filll 00:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Getting Past the Culture Wars: Regarding Intelligent Design

Sounds like an interesting book. I read your comments about this wiki article and I agree with almost all of your points. There seems to be a lack of objectivity and lack of adherence to scientific principles here. Too much emphasis is on the politics and not enough on the science. Until the persons with political agendas who are controlling this article either get enlightened to true scientific principles or until wiki policies allow more science this article will be not a true representation of the subject matter. I will try to find your book. Octoplus 10:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

A word to the wise: if you want more proof, just look at [1]

--Filll 11:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't feed the unscientific: those who make unfounded claims. Octoplus 12:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sure we have met before. You just are someone who has returned as a different sockpuppet, I bet.--Filll 12:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

DFTT. BTW, there is no science to ID. Odd nature 16:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

And what is your criteria for an endeavor to be considered science? Octoplus 17:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I did some background-checking on Glenn Shrom. He currently teaches Spanish at The King's Academy[13] a hard-core Christian school[14], and has undergraduate degrees in Spanish and Music from Messiah College.[15] He appears to have no background in Science or Philosophy of Science, and to be just another self-appointed Creationist crank, and a particularly minor one at that, as he does not even appear to have had articles published by the normal wingnut crank outlets (Worldnetdaily, The Conservative Voice, etc), and seems to spend his time trying to defend his viewpoint on other people's blogs. Hrafn42 15:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate the efforts of people like Shrom to try to cool down the rhetoric and rancor, the bottom line is that no one yet has demonstrated that there is any science at all in intelligent design. When backed into a corner, creationists often resort to trying to point to theistic evolution as a potential source of allies or as proof that they have broader support than they might otherwise appear to. However, theistic evolution really is as different from hardcore creationist beliefs as night is from day. This is just grasping at straws to try to rescue an intellectually bankrupt enterprise, and I am afraid Shrom's efforts are in a similar vein.--Filll 16:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Defining Intelligent Design, Finally!

Dear Monk, et al:

In an article titled "Show Me the Science," Daniel C. Dennett wrote, "no intelligent design hypothesis has even been ventured as a rival explanation of any biological phenomenon" (The New York Times, August 28, 2005). The proponents of intelligent design (ID) have nevertheless asserted that ID is a verified hypothesis (i.e., a scientific theory).

I tried to find ID stated in the form of a hypothesis – the assertion that phenomenon A caused phenomenon B. I could not find ID stated as a hypothesis so I crafted an intelligent design hypothesis that suits me. My IDH includes natural selection. The IDists at the Discovery Institute will probably not like my IDH but they have no standing to complain because, after years of ballyhooing about ID, they have never bothered to actually present ID in the form of a hypothesis that could become a scientific theory.

The Discovery Institutionists have claimed that ID is the “best” explanation for this and that, and they have claimed that life is so complex that life “must have been” designed and created by an intelligent designer. They have stated these opinions over and over but they have never actually asserted that an intelligent designer designed and created the universe. I decided to bring their obfuscationistic tactics to a screeching halt.

My definition of ID reads as follows: “Intelligent design is the assertion that many billions of years ago an intelligent designer designed and created the universe, including the Earth and a form of life that has evolved, by natural selection, into the many different forms of life that exist today.” See http://intelligent-design-hypothesis.com

The IDists will be annoyed, perhaps infuriated, to see “natural selection” included in an intelligent design hypothesis. But they cannot complain without stating an alternative IDH, and they will not state an alternative IDH because if they do it will become obvious that all they are doing is running a propaganda campaign for creationism.

The IDists are now stuck between a rock and a hard place. I do not feel sorry for them. I am proud that I have put an end to their silly propagandizing.

Scott1618 00:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not think IDers say that natural selection did not happen. All ID is saying is that some aspects of life did not come without an intelligent intervention. IDers accept evolution, natural selection, common descent. The theory is very subtle and sometimes people do not understand it. Octoplus 00:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

So subtle as to be meaningless (and not a theory anyway). And of course this "theory" is not referring to any god (and most certainly not the Abrahamic version) *wink, *wink, but, in Dembski's words to a "time travelling biologist" from Earth (nevermind the idiotic paradox), or to an alien species (which concept just moves the question of life's origins back a step). Bah. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Octoplus: Your reference to “The theory” is not appropriate. An intelligent design hypothesis has never been verified so there cannot be an intelligent design theory.

When the Discovery Institutists assert that ID is a scientific theory they are lying. They know full well that no intelligent design hypothesis has ever been verified. Please do not let them trick you into making references to a theory that does NOT exist! Scott1618 02:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

A problem with your defintion is that it could have been more than one designer and the designer could have acted at many different times intervals. And I do not think ID says that a designer created the universe. It could be as simple as an alien planted bacteria on earth billions of years ago or aliens come every 500 million years to tweak the DNA. Octoplus 00:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it was a committee of designers. Or a group of competing designers in contest with one another, which might explain a lot about the way the world is. But this has little to do with the WP article. This article has mainly to do with a group of people asserting that a set of teleological arguments is a "scientific theory" so as to teach high school biology students that there's an alternative theory to evolution that is more consistent with what they were taught in Sunday school. Unfortunately, according to the many relevant reliable sources, it's not scientific; it's speculative philosophy and/or theology. ... Kenosis 01:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Now this I understand - there was a consensus to go with carbon based lifeforms on Earth with iron based blood. Trouble was someone vandalised the Earth with copper based "blood" lifeform on the grounds that the blue blood went well with the sea colours. They went against consensus; which was clearly decided as "red" blood. A minor view of Hemerythrin blood was allowed as it is a reddish colour (though less efficient as a oxygen carrier) but "blue" blood was clearly against consensus. They were then banished to hell and the other designers retired to heaven and from that all the myths of the world came forth. I think that if ID was able to come up with a clear explanation and evidence about why there are so many different oxygen carrying mechanisms of which the most efficient, iron (hemoglobin) has resolutely been selected over the others e.g. hemerythrin , copper, vanadium, chlorocruorin, hemoglobin/chlorocruorin mixture,..... We know that hemoglobin is the most efficient as a reversal oxygen carrier mechanism and the others are less efficient so what were the designers thinking of; they are "god" or "gods" - they know *everything* - how could they be so incompetent to design hemerythrin when hemoglobin is so much better ? (You be pleased to note that god got a 24 epoch block for 3RR but then on the RfC swung the consensus on the grounds that if everything was hemoglobin then it would be *obvious* a designer was at work). Ttiotsw 08:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Octoplus: You have asserted that there is a “problem” with my intelligent design hypothesis. Please note that my IDH makes reference to “an intelligent designer,” not to one or more intelligent designers. You can formulate and publish an alternative IDH that makes reference to “one or more intelligent designers” if you want to do so but please do not try to tell me that my IDH has a “problem.” My IDH is perfect just the way it is. Scott1618 02:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Scott, while I may agree with your statement, it doesn't accurately reflect what ID actually is - if anything, it represents the theistic evolution position. ID explicitly makes no claims about the age of the Earth, to keep it consistent with Young-Earth creationism - from the ID viewpoint, the Earth could be 6000 years old. Best of luck with popularizing your views, but they don't, as yet, belong in this article. Tevildo 10:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

The part which says "and seek a fundamental redefinition of science, no longer limited to natural explanations, but accepting supernatural explanations as well" is misleading. Creationists claim that definition of science is fundamentally restricted to natural explanations, but is it really so? No. This is only held by people adhering to naturalism, which are only a small fraction of the scientific community (albeit the part that most loudly fights Intelligent Design, and a part that often claims to speak for the whole of science, while, in fact, they don't—professional science searches for new knowledge, it isn't a skeptics organization existing to debunk pseudoscience). Naturalism is only one philosophy of science, and all other philosophies do not make a distinction between natural and supernatural phenomena. For example, methodological approaches will say that it is not science's statements that are scientific, but it's the method of investigation that is. The whole article has been trickily written so that naturalists and creationists can agree to it. But did you ever take into account that this is not what neutrality is about and that there are more views on science than a naturalistic and a creationistic one? You should not describe things as uncontroversial just because naturalists and creationists both agree to it... --rtc 03:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please compile and display an extensive and comprehensive list of all the philosophies of science that exist besides naturalism, with references.--Filll 03:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Ar you kidding? The absolute minority of philosophies of science is naturalistic. Take empiricism, rationalism, instrumentalism, constructivism and conventionalism just to name five that are not. No majority position exists within the philosophy of science; there are many positions. It would take at least a whole book to do such a list including all variants with references. --rtc 04:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

rtc: please provide substantiation that any of these philosophies are non-naturalistic. Hrafn42 05:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please provide substantiation that green is not blue. --rtc 06:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant (as is most of your trolling), but easily substantiatable. Colour is a property of light. Green light has a spectrum dominated by energy with a wavelength of roughly 520–570 nm, blue light has a spectrum dominated by energy in the wavelength range of about 440–490 nm. Now substantiate your assertion. Hrafn42 06:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, now I understand what you mean by "substantiation". Empiricism holds that science seeks for explanations that can be verified by observation. Rationalism holds that science seeks for explanations that can be deduced from reason. Insturmentalism holds that science seeks for explanations that make useful predictions. Constructivism holds that science constructs its explanations and is influenced by the cultural and historical background. Conventionalism holds that science seeks for explanations that are agreed upon. Naturalism holds that science seeks for natural explanations. --rtc 06:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Do any of these philosophies provide compelling arguments that naturalism is either wrong or irrelevant. Does Empiricism hold that valid observations need not be naturalistic ones? Does Rationalism hold that supernatural axioms lead to the deduction of valid explanations, does Instrumentalism hold that "useful predictions" can be gained from supernatural explanations, does Constructivism hold that supernatural "cultural and historical background[s]" do not yield inferior explanations, does Conventionalism hold that the (currently) agreed upon explanations aren't naturalistic ones? Hrafn42 07:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

These philosophies do not need to provide compelling arguments (I am not saying that they in fact don't), they merely need to be different. About your questions: They are contingent about naturalism in some areas, and dispute it where they contradict it. Constructivism does not hold that "cultural and historical background[s]" yield inferior explanations, it holds that all explanations are necessarily based on cultural and historical backgrounds. Constructivism has traditionally been opposed to naturalism quite harshly, for it holds that humans are grounded in culture, and that culture is not a natural, but a human product; that humans "constructed" it (hence "constructivism"). So it holds some kind of a anti-naturalistic culturalism, that is, from a naturalistic point of view, it says that culture is supernatural, and that naturalism tends to plays it down or reduce to purely naturalistic elements. Many people in the social sciences, where culture plays an important role, are quite opposed to naturalism, independent from whether they have a religion or not. Empiricism, on the other hand, for example, certainly wouldn't agree that science is fundamentally naturalistic either, but claim that it is fundamentally empiricistic. PS: I just saw that what I wrote about constructivism and its opposition against naturalism is described quite well at constructivist epistemology. How about reading it? --rtc 07:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

"...the constructivist view of the philosophy of science is not widely accepted among scientists and has been criticized by realists in both the scientific and philosophical communities."Philosophy of science#Constructivism -- the existence of this viewpoint thus gives little support for the assertion that "only a small fraction of the scientific community" adheres to naturalism. Hrafn42 08:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Yet, you refer to a list that seems to admit that Constructivism is held at least by a few people. Naturalism, on the other hand, doesn't even appear there, not even once, as a mere word. In contrast, it says that "Science in general is neither 'natural' in its approach nor moral in its purpose." So, has the fundamental basis of science been missed in Wikipedia's current version of the article on the philosophy of science? --rtc 08:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

That no formal school of Philosophy of Science is called "Naturalism" may equally signify that a number of schools adhere to a viewpoint that is naturalistic, so that "naturalism" is an insufficiently distinguishing characteristic to qualify as the name of a school. It is certainly hard to see Empiricism being antagonistic to naturalism, even if they consider Empiricism to be "fundamental" (and naturalism to merely be a consequence of it). You have only demonstrated that a "not widely accepted" school is antagonistic to naturalism. Can you demonstrate this for more widely-accepted schools of Philosophy of Science? Hrafn42 08:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No formal school of philosophy of science is called Naturalism? Vollmer and many others would certainly disagree! Please note that I was not claiming that no naturalistic idea is present within many schools of the philosophy of science and not that all other schools are opposed to naturalism as harshly as constructivism is. I was claiming that naturalism is not uncontroversial as the fundamental basis of science, as the creationist claim cited in the article implies. That would mean that the schools all start from naturalism and develop their variant. In fact, it is the opposite: Naturalism holds that the methods of the natural sciences (these methods are usually understood as empiricist, physicalistic, biologistic in this context) have a special rank, and that each valid explanation must be reducible to knowledge that has been attained by these methods (reductionism). This is actually what they mean by "naturalistic explanation". So even from a naturalistic point of view, one must admit that it is these methods of natural sciences that are the fundamental basis of science, not the additional claim that they have a special rank. And if we can actually talk of something that is widely accepted in science, then it is these methods, not the position of naturalism, which makes use of them. If atheism can be compared to a belief in god, then naturalism can be compared to catholicism. So the claim that naturalism is the fundamental basis of science is about the same as claiming that it's catholicism. (or that creationism is the fundamental basis of christianity, for that matter.) --rtc 08:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

rtc: Some professional scientists are supernaturalists. However, as professional scientists, they do not search for supernatural causes that produce natural effects, and they do not search for natural causes that produce supernatural effects, and they do not search for supernatural causes that produce supernatural effects. Professional scientists, whether they are naturalists or supernaturalists, search for natural causes that produce natural effects. I therefore believe that the introduction accurately asserts that scientists search for “natural explanations.” People who search for supernatural causes and supernatural effects are not professional scientists; they are, at best, pseudo-scientists and, most likely, they are demagogues who want to use religious doctrines to manipulate people into giving money to the demagogue. And, of course, the demagogue usually gets to decide what portion of the money will go into his or her own pocket, and how much money will go to achieving the advertised religious objective. Scott1618 04:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

rtc: Please provide substantiation for your assertion that "people adhering to naturalism" is "only a small fraction of the scientific community." Surveys have long shown that a majority of scientists are agnostic or atheist. Combine this with theist scientists who practice Methodological Naturalism and you have an overwhelming majority. Can you point to even one successful application of 'supernatural scientific research'? Hrafn42 04:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Some verifiable evidence for the assertion made just above, please? Also, even if it is verifiable, for a hypothetical example, that naturalism is a product of, or has a strong correlation with, secular humanism and other alleged "evils" of modern life, this would be fairly irrelevant to issues of WP policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:A, WP:Reliable sources, etc., I would think. ... Kenosis 04:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Kenosis, if this is addressed to me, then I would direct you to Relationship between religion and science#The attitudes of scientists towards religion, which provides statistics on atheism/religious disbelief & agnosticism/religious doubt among scientists. I will admit that I don't have any documentary evidence as to the prevalence of Methodological Naturalism among theist scientists, but I would suspect it to be high. Hrafn42 05:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please accept the simple fact that just because you are an atheist or similar doesn't mean you are a naturalist or a methodological one or something like that. --rtc 06:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No. I will instead accept "the simple fact" that you are a troll. Hrafn42 06:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You think completely in a wrong, stereotypical framework. Just because someone rejects naturalism doesn't mean he puts an emphasis on supernatural beliefs, just as you don't automatically wear blue jeans just because you refuse to wear black ones. Many people who are agnostic or atheist are not naturalists, and many people who believe in god do so without seeing an emphasis of science to supernatural beliefs. Statements like "People who search for supernatural causes and supernatural effects are not professional scientists" are quite wrong. First of all, a professional scientist is a scientist who is paid for his work, nothing more. Second, just because you search for supernatural causes and effects doesn't make you a bad scientist. For example, naturalism, if taken literally, is very much in danger of seeing gravity as supernatural cause. Does that make Physicists pseudoscientists? I don't think so. I have not seen even one creationist who has not been one, though. It can very reasonably be held that it is not the supernatural elements that make ID unscientific, but something else, and it should hence not be suggested that "the" definition of science (which doesn't exist) is currently fundamentally a naturalistic one. --rtc 04:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

rtc: "Science is knowledge that has been obtained and tested through use of the scientific method." "Scientific method means the principles and procedures used in the systematic pursuit of intersubjectively accessible knowledge and involving as necessary conditions the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and if possible experiment, the formulation of hypotheses, and the testing and confirmation of the hypotheses formulated." Webster's Third New International Dictionary.

The phrase "the systematic pursuit of intersubjectively accessible knowledge" rules out searching for supernatural causes. Scott1618 05:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No; it rules out unsystematic pursuit and pursuit of knowledge that is not intersubjectively accessible. Please don't simply invent alleged conclusions that are simply not there. --rtc 05:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

rtc: It is widely considered that the supernatural is not intersubjectively accessible. If you wish to assert otherwise, then please substantiate this assertion. Hrafn42 05:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It's talking about knowledge that is intersubjectively accessible. That means the knowledge is written down in a book and published; everyone can get it, if he wishes to. It's not in someone's head alone, or in the heads of a secretive group of people. Besides that, are you bound to your own standards? "It is widely considered that" seems neither like a very substantiating nor a very substantiated claim. --rtc 06:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• "...just as you don't automatically wear blue jeans just because you refuse to wear black ones." This is a blatantly false analogy! Blue and black jeans aren't an exhaustive set of options, naturalism and supernaturalism are.
• "Many people who are agnostic or atheist are not naturalists..." This is a blatantly false claim. Atheism is the denial that the supernatural exists. Please provide an example of atheist supernaturalism.
• "Second, just because you search for supernatural causes and effects doesn't make you a bad scientist." Provide even one example where a "search for supernatural causes and effects" has resulted in good science.
• "For example, naturalism, if taken literally, is very much in danger of seeing gravity as supernatural cause." So if I drop a 20-tonne anvil on your head, you would die from 'supernatural causes'? Your argument is ludicrous.
• "It can very reasonably be held that it is not the supernatural elements that make ID unscientific, but something else..." The supernatural elements are very closely related to why ID is untestable and unfalsifiable, meaning that it is not unreasonable to claim that it is these supernatural elements that render it unscientific.

rtc: you have done nothing but spout a bunch of fallacious arguments and unsubstantiated assertions. You have still not provided any substantiation for your original assertion that "people adhering to naturalism" is "only a small fraction of the scientific community." Hrafn42 05:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Naturalism and supernaturalism are just as inexhaustive as blue and black jeans. That is hence a perfectly correct analogy. There is more than naturalism and supernaturalism. A lot more. I already mentioned rationalism and empiricism, but that's really only a raindrop in a barrel of water.
• Atheism (at least the main variant) is the denial that god exists. It is not the denial that the supernatural exists. Naturalism is the denial that the supernatural exists. What do you mean by "supernatural" in the first place? How can I distinguish something that is natural from something that is supernatural? Do you simply accept as natural simply as you see fit, or do you have objective criteria for demarcation?
• There are and have been many good scientists who believe into a god and do their work as a search for understanding him. That doesn't yet make them creationists, though.
• If I drop a 20-tonne anvil on my head, I have died from a natural cause, since the anvil crushed me. What caused the anvil to move into my direction however, according to a literal interpretation of naturalism, was gravity, and hence a supernatural cause.
• unfalsifiable or "untestable", as you also misleadingly call it, doesn't mean unscientific.

It's unsubstantiated and completely nuts that science has or ever had a naturalistic fundament. Of course I have not brought any "substantiation" for my assertion, because there is none. Just as there is none for the opposite. But I brought arguments against the opposite; arguments that you are not handling with the necessary rigor. --rtc 05:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Further bunch of unsubstantiated assertions + complete unwillingness to substantiate anything = TROLL Hrafn42 06:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If Rtc is unable to respond to the questions posed above, or produce some information that makes a tiny bit of sense, I will begin to wonder if we have not found something else under the bridge.--Filll 05:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do you ignore my response above? --rtc 05:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Because it contained absolutely no substantiation -- just a further bunch of unsubstantiated assertions. Hrafn42 05:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Your claim that my assertions are unsubstantiated is unsubstantiated, and the current version in the article is unsubstantiated as well; it takes the creationist's claim and describes parts of it (that science currently is fundamentally naturalistic) as if it were uncontroversial. However, no substantiation has been given about that! So you may make unsubstantiated claims and defend an unsubstantiated part of the article, but you demand from me that I substantiate anything I say? Don't you think that this is a little bit unjust? --rtc 06:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

rtc is quite clearly trolling, and has admitted that he has no substantiation for, or interest in substantiating, his original assertions. I would therefore suggest that he takes his irrelevant intellectual masturbations elsewhere. Hrafn42 06:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Why should I? What I criticize about the article is not substantiated there either. If you demand substantiation, you should start by substantiating the part of the article criticzed by me, namely, the implied claim that currently science is a naturalistic enterprise. --rtc 06:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Substantiation "that currently science is a naturalistic enterprise":

Science, I came to realize, doesn't rule out the possible existence of a supernatural world. It isn't logically committed to metaphysical naturalism. But it is committed to methodological naturalism, the view that, in our attempts to understand how the world works, we should look for naturalistic explanations rather than taking easy recourse to supernatural ones. The successes of science in bridging the gaps that used to be plugged by the gods creates a strong presumption in favour of the idea that gods not only aren't needed but don't exist. It doesn't prove, but it does probabilify to a high degree, the truth of metaphysical naturalism. And by the same token, it makes all supernatural beliefs highly improbable.

Raymond D. Bradley, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy, SFU[16]

Now it's your turn to substantiate your original assertion that "people adhering to naturalism" is "only a small fraction of the scientific community." Hrafn42 06:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

So you have found one naturalist who agrees to this. What a miracle. You will in fact find many persons agreeing with it who oppose ID. But that is not a substantiation of the claim that science is a naturalistic enterprise. I agreed from the very beginning with the claim that science, within the discussion around intelligent design, is held by proponents and opponents alike to be a naturalistic enterprise. But certainly not that science actually is a naturalistic enterprise. So although I certainly appreciate your effort, I am sorry that this is not an argument against what I said, which is "You should not describe things as uncontroversial just because naturalists and creationists both agree to it" I brought conventionalism, rationalism, empiricism, constructivism and instrumentalism as examples of popular positions within the philosophy of science that are distinct from naturalism and that don't embrace it. So please don't make it sound like everyone, or even a substantial majority, would agree to the claim that science is fundamentally naturalistic. --rtc 06:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No rtc, you have brought nothing. You have provided no substantiation that "conventionalism, rationalism, empiricism, constructivism and instrumentalism" are non-naturalistic and no substantiation of scholarly disagreement that "science actually is a naturalistic enterprise." In other words you have provided nothing. Put up or shut up! Hrafn42 06:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure; since you are not interested in discussing the issue seriously, but only trolling, I am not interested in discussing it with you anymore, either. Perhaps someone more rational can join? --rtc 07:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Any gratuitous assertion can be, by the laws of logic, gratuitously refuted. This is like trying to argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The scientific enterprise would grind to a halt if one allowed the introduction of miracles, supernatural causes, magic, gods, etc to explain the evidence in the natural world. I know of no serious, respected scientist who would deny this. In my years in science, I have not met any such person. The juducial world seems to agree with this position. I have not seen any surveys of attitudes, but I would find it difficult to believe that the attitudes about supernatural causes and influence in the universe are at variance with the attitudes about atheism, agnosticism, biblical literalism, etc. among scientists. Where is the evidence that would lead me to believe that scientists, although not able to use such reasoning in their professional work and publications, and not overwhelmingly believing in biblical literalism or its counterpart in Islam, Hinduism, or some other religion, actually reject naturalism? Only philosophers of science play such ludicrous games by nit picking scientific reasoning to death. Real scientists do not have time for such nonsense. If any of this can be demonstrated with examples instead of hypothetical assertions and philosopher's word play, then I am sure we would all be interested in seeing it. If not, then this is just talk page pollution.--Filll 13:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely that real scientists do not have time for nonsense of philosophical word play. But that includes methodological naturalism as well, which is only about assigning the label "supernatural" to everything that is somehow inconvenient—in a quite subjective manner. Would "[t]he scientific enterprise [..] grind to a halt if one allowed the introduction of miracles, supernatural causes, magic, gods, etc to explain the evidence in the natural world"? For not to introduce miracles, magic, gods etc, a scientist doesn't need methodological naturalism. He only need to use his head. Methodological naturalism is just one more thing like gods and miracles that magically brushes awkward things under the carpet. I think that "and seek a fundamental redefinition of science, no longer limited to natural explanations, but accepting supernatural explanations as well" should hence be replaced by "They also claim that science restricts itself to only natural explanations and hence needs to be redefined fundamentally towards accepting supernatural explanations as well". I mean it doesn't really imply that it is not so. It only restricts the claim to those who actually make it. --rtc 14:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

RTC, I have seen that you have gotten the typical welcome that anyone with some original thought gets here: told to shut up and called a troll. Hang in there. I like what you are saying. I really do not see how these people can get away with such awful behaviour. But this is a place where bullies can run free. I have to go now but wanted to let you know that you are not a troll. Octoplus 14:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, Rtc has an long history here of baseless objections, so I'm not surprised he's failed to gain traction here yet once again. And since neither you nor Rtc presented anything like credible, non-partisan sources to back up your claims and objections, which I (having read widely on the topic) can tell you already do not exist, things are unlikely to change in the manner you hope for. Any further long-winded objections, discussions or rants that ignore existing sources or misrepresent them will constitute a pattern disruption that will likely result in far more then being called a troll. So I suggest reading all the sources provided and accepting the fact that the article reflects the sum of these sources and moving along to another article; this article is not a place for promoting ID rhetoric. FeloniousMonk 15:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

What is ID rhetoric about "They also claim that science restricts itself to only natural explanations and hence needs to be redefined fundamentally towards accepting supernatural explanations as well"? Just because someone disagrees with naturalism doesn't yet make him a ID proponent, or someone believes in god after all. You seem to have a tendency to peg someone quite quickly. Where is the source that backs up the claim that science funamentally restricts itself to natural explanations? Why can't it be restricted to be something the cited Creationists claim? It's naturalist and creationist POV alike make it appear as if it were uncontroversial. --rtc 15:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You realise your post makes no sense (except maybe to your fellow under-the-bridge-dweller, Octolplus). Do you have a purpose for being here other than disruption? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

How about a real argument? --rtc 01:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

here. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

<undent>So somehow science does not have methodological naturalism at its base? Wow I am astounded. This has escaped the notice of the US Supreme Court and the US National Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Sciences and countless others. But the brilliant anonymous internet troll RTC discovered this, and no one else knows! Amazing. So let's try to convince the police and detectives and courts to drop methodological naturalism in crime investigations and convictions. The jails are full of people arrested for something a demon or a fairy or an ogre did. Their fingerprints and DNA magically appeared on the instruments of the crime. I wonder how far one could get with a defense based on the rejection of methodological naturalism? "Your honor, the magical imp stabbed my wife, and by a miracle the camera across the street shows me doing it, but I wasnt really there." How far do you think that would go? In fact rtc, you are under a magical spell and you do not own all the things you have- your car, your house, your possessions, your bank account. It all belongs to me. So hand it over or I will sue you. Seems more than fair, doesnt it? After all, you reject methodological naturalism!....Next time you get sick, or have a car accident, do not go to the hospital. Just pray. Let's fire all our doctors. Lets close all our medical schools. Let's not chlorinate our water or vaccinate ourselves. Let's not take antibiotics. Let's not use statics to design our bridges and buildings. It is all just methodological naturalism, after all. If methodological naturalism is good enough for police, or detectives, or doctors, or civil engineers, then surely it is good enough for scientists. --Filll 23:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

See, I am not interested in wasting my time with such troll answers. If you are not interested in improving the article and perhaps correct your views, which are nearly as erroneous as the creationist ones, then I certainly won't force this improvement onto you. I wanted to discuss this change, not what happens to your mistaken view on the world (not mine) if you drop methodological naturalism. The change is not about claiming that methodological naturalism isn't actually the base of science; it's just about not implying it anymore, since only within the creationism debate someone ever held such a nonsense. --rtc 01:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Terrible prose

Note: My concerns in this section have nothing to do with the facts conveyed in this article; nothing to do with NPOV; nothing to do with sources or reliability or any of the usual things people argue about. I'm dealing solely with the prose style; nothing else.

There's a lot of really, thoroughly crappy prose in this article. There is excessive footnoting. There are long, wandering sentences. There's repetition. There's disorganization.

There are whole sections rendered practically unreadable -- and uneditable -- by excessive footnoting. Footnotes are applied not merely to paragraphs or even sentences, but to individual noun phrases. The introduction is three paragraphs long, and has thirty-five footnotes. In the third sentence, a single factual claim -- the association of intelligent-design advocates with the Discovery Institute -- receives seven footnotes alone.

The introduction includes details that are true and correct, but that are greatly excessive for an introduction, such as the names of three scientific associations that regard intelligent design as nonscientific, and a summary of the judge's opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover. This kind of detail belongs in the article (and indeed is duplicated in the article) but does not belong in the introduction.

The article (excluding references) is 22 screens long on my browser. Eight screens, or more than a third of the article, form the section entitled "Overview". This is no overview; it is much of the meat of the article. It includes a history of intelligent design from Plato to Pandas. The history, however, jumps back and forth in time like something out of Doctor Who. Pandas is introduced at least twice, if not more. There is another section entitled "Controversy" -- never a good sign, since controversy is (as expected) all over the article. That section is mostly about the question of whether intelligent design is science.

The sentences ramble. Strunk and White would have conniptions. Many sentences have dangling modifiers, usually formed by splicing of a parenthetical and a conjunction: "The frogs are green, which is a pretty color, and very loud." What's loud -- the shade of green, or the frogs themselves?

Some examples:

1. The term "intelligent design" came into published use after the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in 1987 in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard that requiring teaching of "creation science" alongside evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution which prohibits state aid to religion.
   • The sentence rambles from the topic at hand (intelligent design) to another (Edwards v. Aguillard) to a third (one view of the meaning of the Establishment Clause).
2. The debate over whether intelligent design produces new research, as any scientific field must, and has legitimately attempted to publish this research, is extremely heated.
   • The subject ("the debate") and predicate ("is extremely heated") are separated by a vasty gulf, with a certain garden path way about it.
3. Dembski states that when something exhibits specified complexity (i.e., is both complex and specified, simultaneously), one can infer that it was produced by an intelligent cause (i.e., that it was designed) rather than being the result of natural processes.
   • Too many "(i.e.)". Shouldn't try to define "specified complexity" in parentheses; either define it in a sentence, or leave that up to the article on specified complexity.
4. Intelligent design proponents also raise occasional arguments outside biology, most notably an argument based on the concept of the fine-tuning of universal constants that make matter and life possible, and allegedly are not attributable to chance.
   • Dangling modifier. "Intelligent design proponents ... allegedly are not attributable to chance."
5. The intelligent design movement arose out of an organized neocreationist campaign directed by the Discovery Institute to promote a religious agenda calling for broad social, academic and political changes employing intelligent design arguments in the public sphere, primarily in the United States.
   • Dangling modifier. What is primarily in the United States -- the public sphere, the arguments, the changes, the agenda, the campaign, or the arising of the movement? (Arguably all of them -- but the construction still stinks.)

So, what can be done about this?

Reorganize the sections. Ditch the "Overview" and "Controversy" sections. Juggle paragraphs to get sections something like the following:

1. Concepts. The ideas of intelligent design as they are understood by its advocates: an "alternative" to evolution, irreducible complexity, specified complexity, etc.
2. Scientists' response. Present the rejection of intelligent design by the biological sciences community, the criticism of the concepts and arguments presented above, and so on.
3. Intelligent design and creation science. Present the relationship between "creation science" as "intelligent design". This is where Of Pandas and People goes, as well as the bits where the Discovery Institute are talking to their "base" about destroying atheistic scientific materialism.
4. Politics. Present the position of intelligent design in the world, including the U.S. and Kitzmiller v. Dover but not dwelling on U.S. constitutional politics overmuch.

Rewrite the introduction.

This can only be done after the article is reorganized, because the introduction needs to outline what the article says. The introduction should be short, punchy, and serve as an abstract of the article rather than a bullet list of details.

Clean up the prose style.

This can be done relatively independently of the larger-scale changes. Sentences like the ones I highlighted above need to be dragged out into the street and shot cleaned up. Each sentence should express a thought; each paragraph should express an idea. And all dangling modifiers should be chopped off.

Thoughts? --FOo 08:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Punchy? What about NPOV? –Fatalis 09:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the connection. We can express a neutral point of view while using short, expressive sentences instead of rambling ones. --FOo 18:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely on the issue of style. Attempts to enforce the "one sentence - one idea" rule in this article have not proved easy in the past, but I'm sure that we can at least try to improve it. I'm not so sure that your proposed reorganization is the way to go; a structure that gives ID proponents a "free hit" in any section, where their ideas are presented without refutation, is going to be controversial. Tevildo 10:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

That worries me. Given that this article is about an idea, it seems appropriate to make it as clear as possible what that idea is. Interspersing that description with refutations seems a little like heckling. It is not a matter of giving them a "free hit"; it is a matter of presenting the subject of the article in a way that is clear.

Consider, for contrast, our articles on caloric theory and geocentrism. These articles both have sections which describe those ideas neutrally; the articles then go on to show how modern science disagrees with those points of view. It is not necessary to say in every paragraph or section that geocentrism is wrong. --FOo 18:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably because neither caloric theory nor geocentrism have a bunch of PR hacks, theologians and bloggers attempting to manufacture a controversy over them and to present them in the most positive possible light. If it acts like a vampire, we're not being paranoid by putting a stake through its heart at every opportunity. ;) Hrafn42 18:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Putting stakes through vampires' hearts may be a heroic thing to do, but it is not Wikipedia's job. We're not here to take sides against pseudoscience, lies, propaganda, or tyranny. We're here to document them, and let the reader draw the natural conclusions. --FOo 19:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

See NPOV: Pseudoscience and NPOV: Undue weight – we're not here to present pseudoscience uncritically then add a separate section saying "someone disagrees". ... dave souza, talk 20:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I fully agree. I'm no friend to the intelligent design advocates. (As an atheist with a strong interest in the advancement of the biological sciences I have no interest in seeing them prosper at the expense of good science.)

But the heckling tone, where every proposition is countered immediately with a rebuttal, is bad style for an article on any subject. This isn't a matter of science versus pseudoscience, but one of prose style. The heckling tone actually makes the scientific position seem weaker than it actually is, by giving the impression that it has to interrupt the exposition of intelligent design for fear that ID will sound too convincing. --FOo 21:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the Concepts section may be problematical. The "ideas of intelligent design" do not offer an "alternative to evolution," but rather arguments against evolution. Irreducible complexity and specified complexity are arguments of "why we think evolution can't work" rather than why something else can work.

Further issues are that ID isn't only related to Creation Science, but also to Progressive Creationism (so that section would require retitling), and that to call constitutional issues Politics is, IMO, a misrepresentation. Hrafn42 12:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

"Legal issues," then. My point wasn't to dictate precisely what the sections should be. Rather, it was that the sections should deal clearly with aspects of the topic, rather than being loose, floppy, and generic. --FOo 18:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with the history of the talk page and the article. Thank you. ... Kenosis 18:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in either one can justify the terrible prose and disorganization of this article. --FOo 18:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is justified by WP:NPOV, WP:A, and WP:Consensus. ... Kenosis 18:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please go back to the top of this section (under the heading "Terrible prose") and read the part in bold face. --FOo 18:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

What I get out of all of this is that you fear sentences with multiple and subordinate clauses. Short simple sentences are nice if you're aiming for a fifth grade reading level, but they do very little for comprehension. While you may think that simplification is the key to understanding the opposite is actually true; it merely obfuscates the true meaning by producing easily digestible visual-bites that are bereft of meaning. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a remarkably aggressive thing to say. Please don't waste your time trying to insult me. I've certainly never heard anyone call Strunk and White "fifth grade reading level" before, or express concern that cleaning up dangling modifiers would harm comprehension or understanding. --FOo 21:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

<undent> And of course the tricky bit is improving the prose, a worthy objective, without losing the careful and painfully achieved balance. This is a field rife with cunning misrepresentation, and loaded terms or descriptions have to be carefully balanced. .. dave souza, talk 21:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I could not disagree more. What is agressive here is coming into an article and a talk page and saying, in essence, "all'y'all, the prose sucks, the style is inept, 'n I'm agonna do som'tin 'bout it" or "pardon me, mates, but the prose is horrid, and the syntax not up to standards", etc. There are reasons for the way the statements in the article are syntaxed, reasons for the choice of words, and reasons for the organization of the article. Those reasons have to do with a massive amount of discussion by many participants which the man on the white horse here is plainly unfamiliar. The recent edits by the man on the white horse also betray a virtually complete lack of understanding of the subject. Then to respond to responses with sarcasm, allegations of personal attacks, etc.? Gimmeabreak. At least read up on the material here that is a result of the hard work and research of numerous other participannts before deciding how everything should be worded and organized in this article. .... Kenosis 22:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to insult you, I'm pointing out what I see. It's hardly aggressive, it's merely a statement of fact: the primary push behind short sentences (and active voice) is simply a matter of the lack of reading comprehension on the part of the average person when complex sentences and passive voice are used. But, let's think about it logically: if one needs to write for the LCD, what are the odds the LCD is even going to understand the concept you are trying to explain? Yes, that sounds elitist, but given that the average American can only read at the 6th grade level, and thus has obvious limitations insofar as understanding complex topics, it is quite accurate.

What dangling modifiers?

And while Strunk and White is useful, it is hardly the be all and end all of composition. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you on "the primary push behind short sentences". The issue is not merely one of the reading ability of the average reader. Rather,a rambling sentence is less effective at conveying meaning to any reader -- even a skilled reader -- than a clear sentence. Indeed, I think characterizing my suggestions as merely "short sentences" is dishonest and, yes, insulting. I'm opposed to unclear sentences: sentences with no particular topic; sentences that undermine themselves; sentences that suspend dependent clause from dependent clause until the overall structure is ambiguous.

As for dangling modifiers, please go back and read the section entitled "Terrible prose," particularly the bit in red where I point out a few of them and other bits of unclear phrasing. The last example should make the problem clear. What is the phrase "primarily in the United States" modifying? --FOo 22:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting idea Fubar. But how about reorganizing the sections in a more fact based way? Something like the following:

1. Overview: Summary of the below, but short (two screens max).
2. Historical and legal background: How ID was evolved by creationists to promote creationism in public high schools; Plato to Pandas. Legal battles and political intrigue. Will need several sub-sections.
3. Aims and strategy: Wedge document, statements of leaders at rallies for the followers. Political support.
4. Scientific basis: This will be very short since they haven't gotten around to doing any research yet. Could probably be covered in the overview.
5. Implications: Freedom of religion issues; loss of secular, constitutional democracy; scientific literacy

And then, as you say, a new punchy introduction that reflects the content of the article. Pasado 22:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

References

Given the number of references in the intro, would anyone object to merging some of the <ref> tags into bulletted lists? Silly rabbit 12:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If a massive rewrite is being advocated, and a consensus agrees, I think this should be done carefully, possibly in a sandbox first. After all, this article has already reached FA status. Part of the reason for the excessive number of references and some of the other peculiarities of the article are those are the battle scars of past intense conflict, and the only way to placate hordes of critics. I think that using a different format for references might help, as a start.--Filll 13:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the need for caution. I've made some preliminary moves towards a more attractive reference format (just by consistently REFERENCE/TEXT-ing the intro). I have also made a few copyedits a la Strunk & White, although there is more to do. (I hope these are relatively uncontroversial.) Silly rabbit 14:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I object, it's a bad idea for a number of reasons and has been discussed and rejected here recently in a now archived discussion. FeloniousMonk 15:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Any changes to an FA article should be carefully considered and should be backed by a very strong consensus that the changes are necessary improvements. Having said that though, I do think that some of the multiple refs are excessive. I understand how they got there and why they were originally included; such is the nature of disputes in controversial articles. However, in other articles that I've worked on, editors were able to agree that 3 refs per sentence was a reasonable maximum. Is it possible we might agree to something similar in this case? Not only does this improve the article's readability with respect to the refs, it highlights subtopics within the article that might benefit from a rewrite; ie, any sentence which seriously requires more than 3 refs could probably be re-written for better clarity and more careful focus. This is just my suggestion, but it has been useful in other articles and it seems to be useful as a general guideline. Any thoughts? Doc Tropics 15:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No more than three references per sentence sounds like a good limit to start with. Of course, most sentences do not need any; paragraph-level references should usually be adequate. I do not think that making references into bulleted lists is a good idea; it is likely to take up a lot of space in the article and make it even harder to read. --FOo 18:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with the history of the talk page and the article. Thank you. ... Kenosis 18:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't repeat yourself. --FOo 18:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It is plain that you are unfamiliar with how this article has arrived at its present form. Please familiarize yourself with the history of the talk page and the article. Thank you. ... Kenosis 18:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm all too familiar with how previously-good articles acquire crappy prose style through successive small edits. --FOo 18:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It is now even more clear that you are unfamiliar with the massive amount of often-contentious discussion. Successive small edits have been rejected. The present article, imperfect though it may be, reflects consensus. If you are unfamiliar with how it arrived at its present state, and unfamiliar with the details of the topic, I would suggest gaining a more in-depth level of familiarity with the topic before unilaterally deciding what is approprate for the article. I personally would look forward to reading recommendations for possible improvements based upon a more thorough awareness of the topic and of how the article arrived at its present form. ... Kenosis 19:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried to section off the "References" bit from the foregoing more general discussion. I couldn't make heads or tails of the above discussion, which seems to be talking about Fubar Obfusco's original massive edit suggestion. He does seem to be right about the preponderance of footnotes interfering with the readability. I recently put references into bulletted lists, which I felt dramatically improved the readability of the lead. This was then reverted on the false grounds that I had removed references. Any thoughts on which version is preferable? Silly rabbit 00:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I now see that the blank spaces in the combined references were not removals. Please see the recent discussion as to why participating editors made the admittedly difficult choice to keep references separate. ... Kenosis 01:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see your point above. Still I think this merits some discussion. Although having references separate may make things easier for editors, it doesn't help readers much. Silly rabbit 01:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Please be bold and update the article. There is no requirement to get anyone's permission before making such elementary changes to the article. --FOo 01:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The requirement is WP:Consensus. By contrast, WP:BOLD is a friendly invitation to new and/or abashed users to participate, not an invitation to demand that one's bold edits be automatically accepted by other participants in any article, let alone in a complex topic with a long and controversial history, and with some 4 megabytes of talk among numerous participants. ... Kenosis 01:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Oddly that point isn't getting through. Maybe if we write in bigger letters. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Identifying the Claimant

The first sentence of the Wikipedia page about intelligent design describes intelligent design as a “claim.” That is an appropriate description of ID. I believe that the person who is publishing this claim should be identified. I therefore suggest that the first paragraph of the Wikipedia page about ID be revised to read as follows:

Intelligent design is the claim 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." This claim is being published by Discovery Institute, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Washington. Bruce Chapman is the founder and current president of Discovery Institute. [begin new paragraph]

It [intelligent design] is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God…[continue the current language]

I am proposing these revisions because I strongly believe that the “claim” should be attributed to the claimant. Mr. Chapman should not be allowed to hide behind a legal fiction (a corporation). He is the founder and current president of Discovery Institute and he must take personal responsibility for the claim that he is publishing. Scott1618 15:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I have discovered that there is a Wikipedia page about Bruce Chapman. Scott1618 16:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if this material is better put in a footnote or some other means of making it less unwieldy.--Filll 17:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a clickable footnote link would be appropriate. I have also discovered that the Washington Secretary of State has a web site and an information page about Discovery Institute. That page might also be referenced in a footnote. Scott1618 17:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not necessary to identify the State of Washington or the Discovery Institute's corporate status. Those facts belong in the article on the Discovery Institute.

It is not clear that Mr. Chapman is the chief advocate of intelligent design, or the sole person "claiming" it. Other persons such as Michael Behe, William Dembski, and several former members of the Kansas Board of Education are also well-known proponents of the claim.

It is certainly atypical to connect an individual to an idea because that person publishes the idea. For instance, the Wall Street Journal frequently adopts neoconservative views in editorials on foreign policy, but it would be unnecessary -- and arguably abusive -- to feature L. Gordon Crovitz in the article on neoconservatism.

And in any event, this level of detail does not belong in the introduction! --FOo 18:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Fubar Obfusco: You wrote, “It is not clear that Mr. Chapman is the chief advocate of intelligent design, or the sole person ‘claiming’ it.” Yes, it is not clear. That is exactly why Mr. Chapman’s claim should be attributed to him. If you review the voluminous literature about ID you will not find ANYONE who admits that the claim is their own! To date, no one has taken responsibility for the claim. I find that situation bizarre in the extreme, especially in the light of the numerous legal battles that have played out in court. You would think that the attorneys who represented people who complained about ID would have nailed down exactly who is responsible for the claim but this is not the case. The witnesses who testify about ID cite the claim and never identify the claimant!

Wikipedia has a duty to identify the claimant; not allow him to hide behind the skirt of a corporation that he created and is in control of to this day. Wikipedia should, Mr. Obfusco, cut through the neoconservative obfuscationism. Scott1618 19:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If, as you say, "it is not clear", and "you will not find ANYONE who admits that the claim is their own", then surely attributing it to Mr. Chapman would be original research on your part, yes? --FOo 19:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The DI is not just Chapman, and the claim was originally published, and continues to be published, by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics. Which became associated with the DI in 1996........ dave souza, talk 20:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Dave: I could not find that claim on the FTE web site. Scott1618 22:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

<unindent>I think it's reasonable to identify the DI as the origin of the quote, but the reference should do that already. I don't think we need to try and attribute it to a specific individual. Tevildo 23:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not just the DI though, but IDEA, IDNet, and every other leading ID group using the exact same def verbatim, so pinning the tail on the DI donkey is neither necessary, accurate nor useful here. FeloniousMonk 14:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Reference format

In an effort to gain consensus, here are two possible revisions for the reference format:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intelligent_design&oldid=141904528
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intelligent_design&oldid=141909230

Please note that the references contain precisely the same information, and occur in the same place in the text. Nothing has been removed from the article. The only difference is that adjacent references (without a "name=" field) have been aggregated into a bulletted list. In my opinion, this significantly improved the readability of the lead. Any preferences on one or the other? Silly rabbit 01:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this article is subject to a large amount of POV-pushing. The current arrangement of the footnotes was agreed upon as part of a compromise to help make clear that all the claims were sourced to many reliable sources. JoshuaZ 02:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Keeping the footnotes, but reducing their impact on the article text, makes the article more readable without compromising the sourcing of the claims. --FOo 03:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with JoshuaZ. This is not helpful to this article, and it will only open it up to POV-pushing down the road. Precisely why would anyone waste more than 2 nanoseconds discussing this issue. If it keeps the POV pushing away, why are even discussing it? Orangemarlin 05:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It is being argued that the article should be massively rewritten. There might be some language problems in some places, and other formats might be better. However, now that the article has reached FA status, it is a bit much to suggest that it be completely turned upside down. I think this should be approached very carefully and debated. I think that big changes should be tried first in a sandbox environment and carefully vetted. This article has been forged through the efforts of too many people and too many battles to just start over again from scratch.--Filll 05:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, have you read the introduction recently? Multiple mid-sentence footnotes are incredibly distracting to the reader. --FOo 05:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No I can't read. Apparently, I'm an idiot. Orangemarlin 15:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Filll, what I'm hearing here is that because this article has featured article status, that it should be considered effectively frozen -- that it shouldn't be changed without a bureaucratic hell that nobody who has a job or any hobbies other than Wikipedia would be willing to go through. I don't consider that a useful or productive answer to the problems with this article.

I don't see why there's so much obstructionism here. There's basically nothing wrong with the facts of this article; they're just poorly organized, and many of the sentences are unclear and badly phrased. Most of the problems are relatively easy to fix, but some folks would apparently rather play bureaucrat and revert-warrior.

As it stands, I don't consider this article to be worthy of its feature bit. It easily meets most of the featured article criteria: it is comprehensive, factual, neutral, and stable (to a fault!) However, it fails to meet four of the criteria: 1a (well-written prose), 2a (concise intro), 2b (sensible headings), and 4 (appropriate length and focus).

These things can be fixed. But only if the obstructionism will go away. --FOo 05:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to everyone for the grief that my edit caused. I really truly believed that it was in the interest of improving the readability of the article. I did not consider it to be a major rewrite in any way. Please accept my apology. Silly rabbit 08:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You have nothing to apologize for. Continuing to improve articles is what Wikipedia is all about. --FOo 08:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"Improve", yes...but assuming that wholesale rewriting and restructuring necessarily = improvement is not a valid assumption. As has been pointed out earlier, read through the archives to understand why the aricle is written the way it is.

Much consensus has gone into the writing of this article, and any rewriting will require consensus. Bring your suggested improvements here, rather than editing the article proper.

As for your comments re the FA status of this article, you are entitled to your opinion. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Brow beating us really will not serve much useful purpose. If you look at the history of the talk page and the article page, you will see that it has been a gargantuan effort to produce the article. Is the prose a bit strange in places? Undoubtedly. Can it be improved? Definitely. Are there reasons for many of these peculiarities? Probably. However, if you just sail in here without understanding the endless battles that have been fought over this article, and declare it all to have been a waste, you will irritate people. The problem is that this article, perhaps more than many others, is the target of a dedicated cadre of professionals whose employment and committment in life is to overthrow science and promote a certain agenda, and produce propaganda. This group, and a fairly large group of associates and others who have answered their siren-call to attack, is often well-educated, and almost fanatically dedicated to these ends. They have multiple phds in the sciences, in the philosophy of science, and degrees in law and other disciplines. They are aggressive. They view the internet as part of their battleground and have the skills to take the battle to the internet, and even here. If you think that this article on Wikipedia is immune, you are sorely mistaken. I would be willing to bet money that some of the principles of the DI and related organizations view this article as a challenge. I am sure this article irritates many young Christian and Muslim youth at Christian and Muslim schools and churches and mosques. Do a google search on intelligent design. See the position this article occupies in the output from a google search. Does anyone think that this would not irritate someone like William Dembski, who has gone out of his way to produce parody internet videos and cartoons featuring his "enemies" like Dawkins and Barbara Forrest farting and spouting nonsense? Given the cloak of anonymity that the internet provides, it is fairly obvious that a WP article like this would be an incredible troll magnet. See how aggressively and often editors want to change the article to make it more "fair" to the Discovery Institute or to remove information that was established in the Dover trial. I agree that other formats for the information and references should be considered, but bear in mind that the present wordings and formats have been forged through hard brutal battles, with many blocked and banned as a consequence. It has been necessary to immunize the article to at least slow the rate of outside attacks and compromise with the aggressive forces that want to change it. Once you understand this, then we can discuss it. But to imagine that one can just demand or unilaterally impose wholesale widespread changes on here without consensus is to be incredibly naive. Just look at the history. Just ask us what we think, and why it is as it presently is. Please.--Filll 11:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't support the changes to the references for all the reasons given a dozen times previously now found the archives. Again, it's a Bad Idea. FeloniousMonk 14:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It was easy to miss this the first time around: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive41#References. In the future, rather than glibly saying "Please check the archives", it may be helpful at least to say "Please check archive number <ARCHIVE NUMBER>." This may reduce such misunderstandings in the future. Regards, Silly rabbit 15:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This issue was recently encountered several times in separate talk sections, including http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive41#References_in_the_lead and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive41#Over-referencing . ... Kenosis 15:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this now a closed issue? KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I really hope so. Silly rabbit 15:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Good, I hope so as well. Adding comment: rather than complain to FM that he didn't do the research for you, when it was you who proposed changes, is a bit... less than helpful. Further, archive 41 is not the only place this has been discussed - take a look at this currently unarchived page, section #Suggestion That Will Almost Certainly Be Shot Down, for yet another discussion of the footnotes. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

(Comment: My "complaint" wasn't directed exclusively at FM. Plenty of editors have said "check the archives." An easy way to end debate is to be more specific about where in the archives one should look.) I really did not think that the change was a major one, and in fact would not have objected had it been reverted. I found it quite upsetting the manner in which this was done, though. I feel as though good faith was not assumed. My edit was misrepresented multiple times and by several different editors as some kind of major content change. I offered an apology and it was not even acknowledged. I made a mistake here, but I don't think it was an error of judgement serious enough to warrant the way I have apparently been censured here. Great allowances should be made on Wikipedia, under the WP:AGF policy, for well-intentioned editors making such mistakes. Silly rabbit 15:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think an apology is appropriate to Silly Rabbit for confusion involving the combination of Fubar Obfusco and Silly Rabbit's advocacy positions here. Apparently Silly Rabbit's position was limited primarily to consolidating the references, while Fubar Obfusco appeared to have a much more sweeping intent. See, for instance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kenosis#Reference_format_at_intelligent_design, where the two positions immediately get mixed, in a way similar to how they got somewhat intertwined on this talk page. ... Kenosis 16:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody can read this article, huh?

Earlier, I posted regarding the dangling modifier in the following passage:

The intelligent design movement arose out of an organized neocreationist campaign directed by the Discovery Institute to promote a religious agenda calling for broad social, academic and political changes employing intelligent design arguments in the public sphere, primarily in the United States.

I challenged those who believe the prose in this article is clear, to tell me what noun phrase the prepositional phrase "primarily in the United States" is modifying. Does it modify "public sphere"? Or perhaps "social, academic, and political changes"? Or "religious agenda"? Or "neocreationist campaign"? Or "arose"?

Is the modifier saying that:

• the intelligent design movement arose in the United States (and not elsewhere),
• or that it is a neocreationist campaign located primarily in the United States,
• or that it promotes a religious agenda primarily in the United States,
• or that the religious agenda calls for changes primarily in the United States,
• or that it employs intelligent design arguments primarily in the United States (and possibly employs some other arguments somewhere else?)

For that matter, there's another internal dangling modifier as well -- "employing intelligent design arguments in the public sphere". By its meaning, this is meant to be attached to "campaign" or possibly "agenda". However, grammatically, it is attached to "political changes".

The prose in this article is frequently grammatically unclear. This isn't a matter of "reading level", as has been snidely suggested above. It's a matter of bad writing, and obstructionist editors who won't let it be fixed. --FOo 16:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Last I checked, nobody was arguing against cleaning up the prose style. However your suggested changes went well beyond that, into far larger and more controversial issues. I would suggest that the cited sentence be reworded as "The intelligent design movement arose out of an organized neocreationist campaign, conducted primarily in the United States and directed by the Discovery Institute, to promote a religious agenda calling for broad social, academic and political changes employing intelligent design arguments in the public sphere." It may also be preferable to split it up into two sentences. Such rewording for clarity, as long as it does not significantly change the meaning of the statements, tend to be non-controversial. Hrafn42 16:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I would rewrite this particular sentence, based on my understanding of it, as follows:

The intelligent design movement arose out of an organized neocreationist campaign, directed by the Discovery Institute and primarily conducted in the United States, to promote, by employing intelligent design arguments in the public sphere, a religious agenda calling for broad social, academic and political changes.

I hope that this is at least unambiguous. We could further simplify it along the lines of:

The intelligent design movement arose out of an organized neocreationist campaign to promote, by employing intelligent design arguments in the public sphere, a religious agenda calling for broad social, academic and political changes. This campaign was directed by the Discovery Institute and primarily conducted in the United States [and was named, in internal Discovery Institute documents, the "Wedge Strategy"].

This introduces additional material, admittedly. Tevildo 18:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy with Tevildo's second version, though would suggest that the addition be reworded to "[and was initially named, in an internal Discovery Institute document, the "Wedge Strategy"]" -- as I don't know of it being so-named in more than one document, and I think the name is no longer currently used within the DI. Hrafn42 18:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd lose the brackets. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The cite that's in that sentence does not support use of the term "neocreationist". Could we find one that does or use "creationist" or "progressive creationism of the 1980s". This Forrest cite supports the last one: Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy Barbara Forrest. May, 2007. page 2 bottom. With some rearranging of words this would then look like:

The intelligent design movement is a direct outgrowth of the "progressive" creationism of the 1980s.[Forrest cite] This campaign, called the "Wedge Strategy" in internal Discovery Institute documents, is primarily conducted in the United States.[cites] By employing intelligent design arguments in the public sphere it promotes a religious agenda calling for broad social, academic and political changes.[cites]

Pasado 05:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> For info: ""I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science. One very famous book that's come out of The Wedge is biochemist Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box, which has had an enormous impact on the scientific world... the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible... where might you get the truth? When I preach from the Bible, as I often do at churches and on Sundays, I don't start with Genesis. I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves".How the Evolution Debate Can Be Won – pretty sure there are other references to "that's when the wedge got together" etc. , if you want to start hunting there are some cited sources at the timeline of intelligent design. .... dave souza, talk 23:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The above suggestion passage as most recently modified by Pasado still simplifies the development of the campaign in a misleading way, so here's a redrafting –

The intelligent design movement is a direct outgrowth of the "progressive" creationism of the 1980s.[Forrest cite] A group calling themselves The Wedge took up the campaign initiated by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics to teach creation science in schools under the name of intelligent design, and as part of the Discovery Institute developed what they called the "Wedge Strategy" as a campaign primarily conducted in the United States.[cites] By employing intelligent design arguments in the public sphere it promotes a religious agenda calling for broad social, academic and political changes.[cites]

If more cites are needed, see the timeline of intelligent design. ... dave souza, talk 09:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC) tweaked 09:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that my change didn't survive - at least we now have two sentences rather than one. :) There's one substantive query I'd have over one part of this section:

"Nearly all intelligent design concepts and the associated movement are the products of the Discovery Institute"

I don't think "concepts" is the right word, especially as we're forbidden from capitalizing "Intelligent Design". The concept (singular) is the teleological argument, which is a product of Plato, Aquinas, Paley, et al. I would suggest "arguments", or "modern intelligent design concepts", or perhaps "concepts of the intelligent design movement". I'd also like to lose the 's in the last paragraph (converting "obfuscating" from a gerund to a participle); alternatively, we could have "the Discovery Institute's obfuscation of its agenda"; and the [sic] in the Forrest quote. Tevildo 00:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "concept" is an imperfect description for such 'things' as Irreducible Complexity and Specified Complexity. These 'things' could, with varying degrees of accuracy be described as 'assertions,' 'arguments' or 'ideas,' in addition to 'concepts.' None of these descriptions is either perfect, or even unambiguously better than the others. Hrafn42 08:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"Concept" is probably as good a word as any for the things in isolation, it's just that I don't think it's the right word to use in this particular sentence. There's a difference between an intelligent design concept and an Intelligent Design concept, in the same way that there are differences between democratic principles and Democratic principles. However, we can't use capitals to make that distinction here. My preference would be for "the concepts of the intelligent design movement", but this involves a substantive change to the content; we could have "the concepts of the intelligent design movement, and the movement itself", if we think it's _really_ necessary to spell out the DI's involvement _again_ at this stage in the article. Tevildo 21:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the "wedge" was just a document that formalized the movement's strategy and helped with fund raising. What is the source that identifies the group of people that thought they were the wedge? Pasado 04:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

See .How the Evolution Debate Can Be Won above, and The Wedge, Breaking the Modernist Monopoly on Science By Phillip E. Johnson, 1999. .. dave souza, talk 06:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Also note Wedge strategy cites Johnson's 1997 book Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds "we should affirm the reality of God by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world of the mind. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this... We call our strategy the "wedge." pg. 91-92. An earlier section states Drafted in 1998 by Discovery Institute staff, the Wedge Document first appeared publicly after it was posted to the World Wide Web on February 5, 1999 by Tim Rhodes. The Wedge, Breaking the Modernist Monopoly on Science By Phillip E. Johnson which appeared in July/August 1999 has a section headed The Wedge Strategy which describes "the battle against the Darwinian mechanism [and] scientific materialists". The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism by Phillip E. Johnson was published in July 2000. Berkeley’s Radical, An Interview with Phillip E. Johnson in November 2000, gives answers to How did others become involved in the "wedge" strategy?. In October 2002 the Discovery Institute's William Dembski said "the wedge metaphor has outlived its usefulness", and in February 2006 the Discovery Institute published The "Wedge Document: So What? which states that the original document was only a fundraising proposal, and criticizes its opponents for what it believes are baseless accusations. .. dave souza, talk 08:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

How the Evolution Debate Can Be Won talks about the wedge as a movement. Breaking the Modernist Monopoly on Science talks about "key Wedge figures" that were at a seminar. It's too much of a stretch to say this supports stating "A group calling themselves The Wedge...". There's no verification for that usage so we can't use it. So here's the paragraph with that part removed:

The intelligent design movement is a direct outgrowth of the "progressive" creationism of the 1980s.[Forrest cite] This movement was initiated by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics to teach creation science in schools under the name of intelligent design, and as part of the Discovery Institute developed what they called the "Wedge Strategy" as a campaign primarily conducted in the United States.[cites] By employing intelligent design arguments in the public sphere it promotes a religious agenda calling for broad social, academic and political changes.[cites]

Pasado 04:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Moved

Moved off topic ranting to rts' talk page ornis 12:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I support this userfying to minimize Rtc's disruption, and for not only his rants, but for any repeat objections to article content or objections that misrepresent or ignore sources. FeloniousMonk 14:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Pasado 16:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Good call. Odd nature 17:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I knew this was eventually going to come. Too much nonsense in too short a time. And completely distracting.--Filll 17:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Outstanding. But the MO is reminding me of one or two sockpuppets. Orangemarlin 19:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank heavens. Much obliged, Ornis. Enough was enough. ... Kenosis 02:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Empiricism

I clarified empirical science as empiricism (it was already linked to that) twice.[17] Kenosis reverted it, claiming "Removing obsolete terminology that is counter to the consensus term of contemporary reliable sources used as source material for this article". Empiricism is not "obsolete terminology" for empirical science; it's one view on empirical science. The majority reliable verifiable consensus contemporary source that is provided for the first sentence under discussion is [18] (the second doesn't have a source), and it talks explicitly about empiricism, not about empirical science (the two words only occur once in a quotation). Please verify that the reliable peer reviewed consensus source and correct the article accordingly. --rtc 18:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I feel empirical science is more accurate. I checked with a few dictionaries as well. From American Heritage dictionary, empiricism is: 1. The view that experience, especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge. 2a. Employment of empirical methods, as in science. 2b. An empirical conclusion. 3. The practice of medicine that disregards scientific theory and relies solely on practical experience.

Of the 4 definitions, only 2a. is useful in this context. From the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, empiricism is:

Either of two closely related philosophical doctrines, one pertaining to concepts and the other to knowledge. The first doctrine is that most, if not all, concepts are ultimately derived from experience; the second is that most, if not all, knowledge derives from experience, in the sense that appeals to experience are necessarily involved in its justification. Neither doctrine implies the other. Several empiricists have allowed that some knowledge is a priori, or independent of experience, but have denied that any concepts are. On the other hand, few if any empiricists have denied the existence of a priori knowledge while maintaining the existence of a priori concepts. John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume are classical representatives of empiricism. See also Francis Bacon. Again, this is not as accurate as empirical science, frankly.

From the Columbia Encyclopedia, empiricism is: empiricism (ĕmpĭr'ĭsĭzəm) [Gr.,=experience], philosophical doctrine that all knowledge is derived from experience. For most empiricists, experience includes inner experience—reflection upon the mind and its operations—as well as sense perception. This position is opposed to rationalism in that it denies the existence of innate ideas. According to the empiricist, all ideas are derived from experience; therefore, knowledge of the physical world can be nothing more than a generalization from particular instances and can never reach more than a high degree of probability. Most empiricists recognize the existence of at least some a priori truths, e.g., those of mathematics and logic. John Stuart Mill was the first to treat even these as generalizations from experience. Empiricism has been the dominant but not the only tradition in British philosophy. Among its other leading advocates were John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume. See also logical positivism. Again, this is not as accurate as empirical science. So all things considered, empiricism is either too broad, or not quite the same meaning as the one we would like. So just leave this one alone please.--Filll 19:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

But the peer reviewed source is explicitly talking about the empiricist view on empirical science, not empirical science in general. Don't you think that the source is severely misrepresented if empirical science is used instead of empiricism? --rtc 19:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh please. This is an extremely old debate that ran from Descartes through the British empiricists. This phase, starting with John Locke and enduring quite a mentalistic sideshow by Bishop Berkeley, reached its culmination in the extremely skeptical conclusions of David Hume, which included such mind-twisters as the problem of induction, highly influential among the intelligentsia of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Immanuel Kant, in response to Hume, defined in his Critique of Pure Reason (also translated as "Critique of Speculative Reason") the concept of phenomenon which would ultimately become a basic requirement of scientific method, specifically that science limits itself to what is empirically observable (observable by one or more of the five physical senses, aided perhaps by instrumentation, but observable nonetheless). Other criteria for scientific method would of course follow, leading up to today. But the debate that used the term "empiricism" to describe scientific method is increasingly outmoded, having given way to the term "empirical" as shorthand for limiting investigation to what is observable.

What Barbara Forrest does in the article noted by Rtc ([19]) is merely review the dabate in philosophy and bring it into focus in the context of the modern term "methodological naturalism", because the intelligent design proponents have resurrected the question of phenomena vis-a-vis noumena and natural vis-a-vis supernatural. She says: "In response to the charge that methodological naturalism in science logically requires the a priori adoption of a naturalistic metaphysics, I examine the question whether methodological naturalism entails philosophical (ontological or metaphysical) naturalism." In the course of this examination, she uses the term "empiricism" in three instances as she revisits the now centuries-old philosophical debate.

By contrast, when we speak of scientific method today, the word "empirical" is standard, not "empiricist" or "empiricism". This is overwhelmingly the case, and I shouldn't even need to post a bunch of sources as indicators of this common usage by any number of reliable sources today. ... Kenosis 20:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The cited peer reviewed source says literally: "Kurtz's definition captures these two most important aspects of modern naturalism: (1) the reliance on scientific method, grounded in empiricism". We're not talking about common usage, but of the usage within this cited source. I think the words are chosen carefully and should not be replaced arbitrarily. --rtc 20:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Rtc, we aren't obliged to resort to the traditional philosophical usage when the overwhelmingly dominant usage today doesn't rely on "empiricist" or "empiricism", but instead merely refers to "empirical" to capture the concept-- unless, of course, the consensus of participants in this article is to use the term "empiricism". I'm outta here for now--July 4-- hot dogs to cook and ample chaise-lounge philosophy to indulge in. Bye for now. ... Kenosis 20:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a misunderstanding. 'empirical' has a much broader meaning than 'empiricist'. It's wrong to say the one is traditional usage and the other the overwhelmingly dominant usage today. They are simply different words that have always existed and that mean different things. The article explicitly talks about empiricism as the view on the scientific method that begins with observation and that, from these observations, makes conclusions via some sort of logical vindication (induction). 'Empirical' in a broader sense means simply some view on the scientific method that at some point includes observation. Apart from the empiricist view, this also includes, for example, the falsificationist one, that is, starting with some conjecture, and then using observation to try to falsify it. I agree that 'empiricism' is the traditional view on empirical science, but it is not another, more traditional word for it. That's why we have two different articles for the two different words, empirical and empiricism. --rtc 04:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Writing as a plain vanilla scientist, who has never studied or been interested in the philosophy of science, as near as I can determine by looking at several books and encyclopediae, the correct word is "empirical". Also, I am familiar with how the word is used in everyday usage in science, and in this context, "empirical" is the correct word. This business of endlessly pushing towards philosophical discussions is pointless. The average person who reads this article will not be splitting hairs based on discussions and arguments in the philosophy of science, and historical definitions etc. The average person who reads this will just want to know what it says and what it means, not debate the meaning for hours or days and sit around puzzling about what this or that passage means.--Filll 14:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Correct. Today, empiricism doesn't describe the conceptual position that science occupies in the world, because it isn't any longer specific enough and is bogged down in a centuries-old debate involving numerous oddities having to do the the philosophy of mind and other such things. In philosophy today, tthe appropriate term is "methodological naturalism". "Empirical science", "scientific method", or even just "science" are the terms used today to describe what scientists do, not "empiricism". ... Kenosis 14:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No real scientist doing real science, except those who have been exposed to this creationism/intelligent design/creation science debate even uses terms like "methodological naturalism". When I first encountered creationists and they started throwing all these philosophy of science terms around, I was lost. I think a lot of it is to obscure what is really going on. They should just be honest and say, "I am a creationist and I demand that magic be reintroduced into science." And science does not include magic. That makes it easy to understand for everyone, so no one gets confused.--Filll 15:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. I did not intend to imply that a scientist would put "methodological naturalism" on her or his CV or business card! or even in casual conversation ("So what do you do?" "Oh, I'm a methodological naturalist; how about you? "I'm a pseudoscientist, myself") ;) ... Kenosis 16:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Critical Rationalism works entirely without methodological naturalism or other orthodox doctrines, yet serious and successful scientists accepted it, among them Einstein. How come? --rtc 16:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said: "Unless, of course, the conversation or argument has to do with defining science, or with the demarcation problem, or with those who attempt to capitalize inappropriately on the hard-earned credibility of "science" by applying the word to their endeavors outside of scientific method." ... Kenosis 16:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

<undent>Well I have read Einstein's scientific work, and I did not see any discussion of critical rationalism or methodological naturalism or empiricism or any other philosophical terms. He might have done some work in that area, but it is certainly nothing that is well known in the science community and certainly not the reaason he is celebrated, or his major contributions to human knowledge. However, if you have references to prove me wrong, show me. The value of Einstein's work has been because of its empirical support. Otherwise, it would be useless. --Filll 19:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The Logic of Scientific Discovery contains a letter by Einstein in which he tells Popper that he basically agrees with him. Popper and Einstein were friends, and Einstein's work contains a wealth of writings on philosophical things. Perhaps you should read them, too? --rtc 06:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

We are talking about one specific source which talks about emiricism specifically, and the source is misrepresented by talking of empirical science. empiricsm is not empirical science, it is one specific view on it. What is said does not apply to all views on empirical science. We're talking about Intelligent Design, and it's mostly a problem of philosophy, not of science (in fact, while there is a lot of fuss about it among scientists, the philosophers are only yawning). So we can't use general inexact science jargon, but need to be philosophically exact. It seems to me that too many scientists and too few competent philosophers are editing the article (all scientists are also philosophers, but most are not aware of that and even fewer of them are competent ones—einstein was a notable exception). --rtc 16:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason that there is a fuss in science about intelligent design is that it is a weapon aimed straight at the heart of science, intended to destroy it, as the DI has written over and over again in various documents. And scientists are not philosophers, at least not in the modern sense. No courses or knowledge of philosophy is required in their training. In my opinion, no training in this area is required either. Some of the people who are opposing Intelligent Design are philosophers like Barbara Forrest. And their opinion is not that intelligent design is trying to alter science, not mess with philosophy. So this just looks like more pointless arguing and even trolling.--Filll 19:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course scientists are philosophers. All men are philosophers. They get their knowledge of philosophy, unconsciously, piggyback with their science education (often primitive knowledge with some utterly false elements). And it is a shame that no formal philosophy courses are taught nowadays. If Intelligent Design is trying to alter science, then that is a philosophical issue, so they are messing with philosophy. If you think that I am trolling (there is some sarcasm in what I say, I don't see it as trolling, but you are entitled to your opinion), why are you feeding me? --rtc 06:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh Jeez, not this again... Give it a rest. ID's proponents have staked their claims about ID in science, not philosophy, so this article is going to reflect that. Odd nature 18:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. Intelligent design and its cousin, creation science claim to rely on science, not on philosophy and hair splitting and counting how many angels can dance on the head of pin. If they just admitted they relied on religion and philosophy, instead of science, then there would be no argument. As long as they stay out of the realm of science, scientists have no argument with them. Let them say whatever they like in religion or philosophy. It is ONLY because they are interloping in science where they do not belong that we have problems. --Filll 18:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Because the current discussion has shown itself to be a bit of a conceptual minefield, I'll try to say the following carefully.

This discussion started with Rtc asserting, in essence, that the article should use the term "empiricism" instead of "empirical science" ("empirical science" presently is wikilinked to empiricism in the second sentence of the third paragraph of the section on Controversy, with the entire paragraph quoted immediately below). The text at issue presently is the first sentence and the first footnote that follows, with the footnote actually being in the second sentence of the paragraph:

Natural science uses the scientific method to create a posteriori knowledge based on observation alone (sometimes called empirical science). Intelligent design proponents seek to change this definition by eliminating "methodological naturalism" from science and replacing it with what the leader of the intelligent design movement, Phillip E. Johnson, calls "theistic realism", and what critics call "methodological supernaturalism," which means belief in a transcendent, nonnatural dimension of reality inhabited by a transcendent, nonnatural deity. Intelligent design proponents argue that naturalistic explanations fail to explain certain phenomena and that supernatural explanations provide a very simple and intuitive explanation for the origins of life and the universe. Proponents say that evidence exists in the forms of irreducible complexity and specified complexity that cannot be explained by natural processes. [footnote numbers are different above than they are in the article]

There appear to be several issues overlapping and getting a bit conflated in the discussion with User:Rtc, including but not necessarily limited to the following:

1. Rtc proposes to use the term "empiricism" in the first sentence, which presently reads:

Natural science uses the scientific method to create a posteriori knowledge based on observation alone (sometimes called empirical science).

Personally I don't see the need to use the term "empiricism" in the text here, because "empirical science" presently links to the article on empiricism. And I also think the link to the article on empiricism is unnecessary here, because empirical is far more consistent with the modern discussion about what "science" focuses upon today.

2.The footnote to Barbara Forrest's article presently occurs in the second sentence of the relevant paragraph, which reads

Intelligent design proponents seek to change this definition[116] by eliminating "methodological naturalism" from science[117] and replacing it with what the leader of the intelligent design movement, Phillip E. Johnson, calls "theistic realism",[118] and what critics call "methodological supernaturalism," which means belief in a transcendent, nonnatural dimension of reality inhabited by a transcendent, nonnatural deity.

This sentence in the article is of course either sentence-by-committee, or a run-on sentence, or both. But the footnote to Forrest's article is, in my opinion, quite correctly and appropriately placed in the context of the text to which it is presently appended. Forrest describes the philosophical landscape in which the ID advocates are attempting to operate. That description includes three (3) uses of the word "empiricism". The uses of the word "empiricism" by Forrest in the cited article do not by any means support the necessary usage of the word "empiricism" in this part of the article text. One of the problems here, as I see it, is that there is presently no WP article on "methodological naturalism", but rather two articles. But rather than having separate articles on methodological and metaphysical naturalism, methodological naturalism presently links to naturalism (philosophy), which deals with both methodological and metaphysical naturalism (i.e., there is a separate article at present on metaphysical naturalism but no separate article on methodological naturalism, the latter having been subsumed for the present into naturalism (philosophy). I imagine this issue is not permanent and that at some point in the future, naturalism (philosophy) will perhaps disambiguate to both metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism (along with any other future "naturalisms" as philosophers may choose to create, I suppose). But it does create linking problems for the purpose of the specific aspect of the analysis regarding intelligent design. Perhaps more importantly, in terms of potential confusion of the longstanding philosophy debate involving empiricism, naturalism and supernaturalism, etc., I think that the words "empirical science" should instead link to empirical rather than to empiricism as the article has done. ... Kenosis 04:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC) ...

For the present, I just changed the wikilink to link to "empirical" rather than "empiricism" here. ... Kenosis 04:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That step goes into the wrong direction. I am not saying "that the article should use the term 'empiricism' instead of 'empirical science'". What I am saying is that the article should use the term empiricism where empiricism is meant, and it should use empirical science where empirical science is meant. The sentence "Natural science uses the scientific method to create a posteriori knowledge based on observation alone" very clearly means empiricsm, not empirical science. As I already said, this contrasts, for example, the Popperian view on empirical science, which is that all knowledge from the natural science is a priori, and is not based on observation, but on phantasy. Only after having used phantasy and creativity to invent some arbitrary theory, it is tested a posteriori by observation, in an attempt to compare it to their alternatives by falsifying it or the alternatives. That's some kind of natural selection applied to scientific theories (evolutionary epistemology). That is, falsificationism instead of empiricism. Empiricism, on the other hand, has some similarities to the view of Intelligent Design: You have some given facts, and then, by Intelligent Design they are assembled into a theory. So these are two completely different views on empirical science, and to give empiricsm this exclusiveness and simply calling it empirical science, although the context clearly means empiricism, is both misleading and incorrect. --rtc 06:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is irrelevant and obsolete. The article already cites contemporary reliable sources about what "empirical science" is, or if one prefers, "science", is today. Not in 1767, not in 1867, and not in 1967, but in 2007. Barbara Forrest's article, the original bone of contention here, is appropriately placed in the present article text. ... Kenosis 07:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That's correct, we're in 2007, and empiricsm isn't the only view on empirical science today, as it was perhaps in 1767 or 1867. The article by Barbara Forrest, who certainly is aware of that and who uses correct terminology, is represented incorrectly by changing the term here. If "contemporary reliably sources" claimed that empiricism is empirical science, it would be Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. If they implied it, it would be Original Research. You are taking philosophical scrutiny about the article not serious enough and you stick too much to contemporary popular philosophy (in its most negative meaning) prevalent in the scientific community. --rtc 07:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

<unindent>While I'm reluctant to support Rtc in general, I can't help but agree with him on this specific point. "A posteriori knowledge based on observation alone" _is_ empiricism, not empirical science. The problem arises from the statement "Natural science ... [creates] a posteriori knowledge based on observation alone." This sentence - and only this sentence, not the rest of the article - is an explicit claim that natural scicence is empiricist (not empirical). I would suggest that we re-write the sentence so that it doesn't make this claim; on the other hand, if it's a direct quote or paraphrase from Forrest, we should make it clear that it's her claim, and not ours. Tevildo 12:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Tevildo, at least about some of the problems that arise from the way the text is presently worded. I think the wording of this paragraph should be carefully re-examined and input gained from all the knowledgeable participants familiar with this topic. I also thank Rtc for calling the situation to our attention. As I've argued, though, IMO the issues with this paragraph are not fixed by merely calling it "empiricism" rather than "empirical science". ... Kenosis 15:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you do decide to do this, you should make it quite clear as to what the differences are, since this is not a topic that is of any interest or well known among scientists, who are a major target audience of the article, or of the general public. The target audience will not be knowledgable about the differences and nuances. As used in science, empirical means observational or experimental, instead of theoretical or analytical etc. I think that the philosophers of science are a tiny minority of our target audience, and that this sort of philosophy is far from clear and definitely not useful for understanding science.--Filll 14:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. Just to "tide it over" for now, I'm going to change the first two sentences of that paragraph slightly, to read:

Natural science uses the scientific method to create a posteriori knowledge based on observation and repeated testing of hypotheses and theories (sometimes called empirical science). Intelligent design proponents seek to change this fundamental basis of science^[116] by eliminating "methodological naturalism" from science^[117] and replacing it with what the leader of the intelligent design movement, Phillip E. Johnson, calls "theistic realism",^[118] and what critics call "methodological supernaturalism," which means belief in a transcendent, nonnatural dimension of reality inhabited by a transcendent, nonnatural deity.

Hopefully this modification of the language will not be regarded as terribly controversial. I presume the paragraph will end up being further improved after all the knowledgeable participants have weighed in about how to briefly state these issues in that part of the article. ... Kenosis 16:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You are still writing about empiricism, now even calling it the "fundamental basis of science", although perhaps now a modern form, such as logical empiricism. It is claiming that the falsification point of view, which starts with metaphysical ideas, phantasy and a priori theories, does not satisfy fundamental scientific principles. Was Einstein a pseudoscientist, because his ideas were tested only after being published? --rtc 06:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This is complete nonsense. Einstein (and other theorists) do not and did not ignore empirical data. For example, the photoelectric effect paper (for which Einstein won the Nobel Prize) was based on empirical data. The brownian motion paper (a cornerstone of the field of applied probability) was based on empirical data. The Michelson-Morley experiment provided empirical data which predated the 1905 papers by several years. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury was empirical data employed by Einstein in his general theory of relativity. The observations of meandering of streams lead to Einstein's work and publications on stream meandering mechanisms. And on and on. Someone making this claim is completely silly and suffering from multiple lacunae in his background, and obviously pushing a certain POV and agenda. Any claim that science is not anchored firmly to empirical data knows nothing of science. That is very reason that m-theory is treated gingerly by scientists and some feel that it is not science at all. So please, give it a rest. You are starting to sound like a broken record. And I suspect, you are starting to exhaust the patience of editors on this page with your repeated, ridiculous biased and ludicrous statements.--Filll 14:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

No, Kenosis' change has corrected the primary issue, and I think it's now acceptable. To make it explicit, the change is from "based on observation alone" to "based on observation and repeated testing of hypotheses and theories". This article isn't the place to discuss the relative contributions of the Baconian and Aristotlean methods to contemporary science; what matters is that it no longer claims that science is entirely empiricist. Tevildo 10:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

<unindent>Moving for the moment to another related issue with this paragraph, I wonder about the sentence that reads:

Intelligent design proponents seek to change this definition[116] by eliminating "methodological naturalism" from science[117] and replacing it with what the leader of the intelligent design movement, Phillip E. Johnson, calls "theistic realism",[118] and what critics call "methodological supernaturalism," which means belief in a transcendent, nonnatural dimension of reality inhabited by a transcendent, nonnatural deity.

The last clause appears to me that it might be incorrect. It isn't just critics that have termed it methodological supernaturalism, but proponents too. See, e.g., Mark I. Vuletic (1997) "Methodological Naturalism and the Supernatural" (presented at "Naturalism, Theism and the Scientific Enterprise: An Interdisciplinary Conference at the University of Texas--Austin", Feb. 20-23, 1997 http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/ntse/papers/Vuletic.html. And it also appears to me that not many sources have used the term at all, whether critic or proponent. Perhaps this should be a separate sentence? Perhaps, even if kept in the same sentence, it might say something like "... and what some have called it methodological supernaturalism." and perhaps put the note about what methodogical supernaturalism means in a separate sentence within parentheses? ... Kenosis 11:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I've modified the run-on sentence mentioned just above to read:

Intelligent design proponents seek to change this fundamental basis of science by eliminating "methodological naturalism" from science and replacing it with what the leader of the intelligent design movement, Phillip E. Johnson, calls "theistic realism", Some have called this approach "methodological supernaturalism", which means belief in a transcendent, nonnatural dimension of reality inhabited by a transcendent, nonnatural deity.[footnote #s different herein]

In a related development, I made an edit to the first sentence of the section on Intelligent design#Controversy directly related to the discussion above. Specifically, I changed the first sentence of the paragraph at issue in this talk-section to the following, for now at least:

Empirical science uses the scientific method to create a posteriori knowledge based on observation and repeated testing of hypotheses and theories.

I made a note about this edit in the section below presently titled Talk:Intelligent design#Ambiguous_sentences, about what appears to have been designated as #4 in that section.

... Kenosis 04:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed shrinkage of introduction

The following is an attempt to reduce the size and verbosity of the introduction while retaining all the essential facts. It reduces the introduction from 371 to 309 words (not including reference text or comments). No references have been removed or altered.

Here's what I did:

• Rephrased cumbersome sentences.
• Summarized excessive detail:
  • Mentioned only one scientific association by name. The others are cited by reference.
  • Removed the name of the Kitzmiller judge.
  • Removed a restatement of the Discovery Institute's goals.
• Changed paragraph boundaries, putting the "is it science?" issue entirely in the second paragraph.
• Cited the Edwards v. Aguillard article by name (and spelled it correctly) rather than hiding it behind the word "ruling".
• Added one detail: The Edwards v. Aguillard case dealt with "creation science".

Please provide concrete and specific responses to this proposed edit. For instance, if you think I've understated a particular point, provide the precise phrasing you would like to see. --FOo 03:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design is the claim 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." It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer. Its primary proponents, members of the Discovery Institute, believe the designer to be the Abrahamic God.

Intelligent design's advocates claim that it is a scientific theory, while seeking to redefine science to accept supernatural as well as natural explanations. The consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has argued that intelligent design fails to be science, because it makes no testable predictions or hypotheses. Other scientific associations have concurred, or termed it pseudoscience or junk science.

The term "intelligent design" originated in response to a 1987 United States Supreme Court ruling, Edwards v. Aguillard, which forbade the teaching of "creation science" in public schools on constitutional grounds of separation of church and state. The first significant published use of "intelligent design" was in a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes titled Of Pandas and People. The Discovery Institute was founded the following year. This "intelligent design movement" became more visible in the 1990s and early 2000s, as a small number of U.S. school districts adopted intelligent design into their science curricula. In 2005, a group of parents of students in Dover, Pennsylvania brought a lawsuit challenging the practice. In this case, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the court ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and thus that the school district's promotion of it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

A defining characteristic of ID is that it is a form of creationism. This needs to be stated in the introductory paragraph. Pasado 05:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I second Pasado on this. I would also suggest "In 2005, a group of parents of students in Dover, Pennsylvania brought a lawsuit challenging the practice. In this case, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the court ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and thus that the school district's promotion of it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution." be reduced down to "In 2005, in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, a federal court ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and thus that the school district's promotion of it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution." and that a 'Kitzmiller v. Dover' section be added to the article to cover the details of the case (it is the only major court case involving ID, so is surely notable enough to warrant its own section in this article). Hrafn42 05:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the urge is to revisit the entire long debate about the form of the article lead (the introductory part), I personally would prefer to avoid such a rehashing of every single little issue involving WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:VER. WP:A (WP:A being a still-debated "mixerupper" of WP:NOR and WP:VER as one single attribute), in addition to WP:RS, WP:MOS and a host of many other guidelines, all of which must be managed, or course, by WP:consensus. The longstanding form of the introduction has been: Paragraph 1 - What ID is and who are its proponents; Paragraph 2 - What the scientific community says ID is in response to the assertion that ID is scientific (which, by the way, is the only reason it's worth an article in WP); and Paragraph 3 - What is ID's legal status. Recently, paragraph 3 was expanded somewhat to integrate (a) an international perspective, and (b) a brief historical overview to quickly let the reader know what led to all this $@#&*$#¡^&¢#ƒü綣®§ that is the topic known to the modern world as "intelligent design".

My offhand impression is that it's best, in light of the many concerns involved in a controversial article such as this, to keep following the same plan. But, of course, WP:consensus is never permanent, but only requires a sufficient warrant to override a prior consensus and a reasonable justification for following a differnt path. Speaking for myself, I look forward to reading such justification(s). ... Kenosis 05:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Pasado's suggestion is to mention that ID is a form of creationism. This is not in the current introduction, except in the form of the Kitzmiller court's remarks on the "creationist antecedents" of ID. I don't object to it being added in the future, but I don't think it needs to go in this revision.

Hrafn42's suggestion is to shorten the introduction further by removing more details about Kitzmiller v. Dover, but to include more details about the case in a section in the article. I agree with the shortened phrasing. I'd like to see a Kitzmiller v. Dover suggestion.

I can't tell what Kenosis is suggesting. Kenosis, could you please clarify the specific concrete changes you're suggesting? --FOo 06:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Absent a compelling argument for changing the previously agreed form of the lead, I'm not advocating any changes at all. To begin with, why would one presume anything needs to be changed? It's already among the most thoroughly cited and intensively discussed articles on the entire wiki. What's being proposed above by Fubar Obfusco and Hrafn42 in this talk section is, essentially, to completely rewrite the article lead. So I'm personally advocating no change at all, given the present state of affairs about the topic of intelligent design... Kenosis 07:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It really isn't a complete rewrite. Indeed, most sentences of the intro aren't changed, or are changed only in minor grammatical ways. A few details (that are covered in the article proper) are removed, a couple added. All the references are left the same.

Do you really think that this article is basically finished and there's nothing that can be done to improve it without upsetting some precarious balance? --FOo 07:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

What I am supporting is a rewrite for flow and legibility, not for substance (apart from removal of some minor peripheral details, like the location & judge's name in KvD, that really aren't sufficiently integral to ID to belong in the intro). I would think that regular rewrites for this would be entirely appropriate, particularly as frequent battles over content would tend to disrupt flow and legibility. Hrafn42 07:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Kenosis states "The longstanding form of the introduction has been: Paragraph 1 - What ID is and who are its proponents". Since a defining characteristic of ID is that it's a form of creationism, and we have further verification of this with the May 2007 Forrest cite, why is this not in paragraph 1? Pasado 07:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I participated in the contentious debates to fix the lead. I hate the current lead. But I hate the contentious arguments even more. If I were to write the lead, it would simply state, "Intelligent design is simply another religious argument for Creationism." I'd be done then. However, I don't see a single good argument to significantly change the lead. Moreover, every editor here, myself included, doesn't think Intelligent design is anything but religious hooey. However, even the less-POV pushing Creationists are going to object to a major change, and we will never arrive at consensus. I'd say let's leave it the way it is. Orangemarlin 07:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

My apologies if you don't see a single good argument to change the introduction. It seemed to me that the argument was rather obvious: the prose style of the current introduction (as with much of the rest of the article) is not very good and not very readable; there are details mentioned in it that are appropriate to the body of the article, not the introduction; and a few relatively minor changes can improve it.

The only reason I'm putting this to so much discussion (which shouldn't really be necessary) is because when I tried to clean up the article directly, I got reverted. I would rather clean up the article than just dump it in Featured Article Review. :( --FOo 08:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Is that a threat? You mean agree to your demands, or you're going to force this article into a review. Nice. I don't get it.Orangemarlin 06:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I also participated in the very heated discussions about the current lead. It was forged by very very difficult compromises and negotiating. Big changes will end up with more big big long drawn out fights. The article might have drawbacks, but it is at FA status. Sure it can be improved, but I would aim for small changes, not big changes. There are many other places where we need editor input besides this article which has already reached FA status. Lets improve some of its sister articles and bring them up to a higher standard as well, or fill in some of our missing articles in this topic area, rather than waste HUGE amounts of time trying to improve an article that has already reached FA status.--Filll 08:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, dude. This article needs a lot of work still. If you think that FA status means that it can't be changed, then the FA status is getting in the way of a quality article and should be removed. --FOo 08:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I wish you had actually read what I had written above. Oh well. It just tells me something about human nature...or at least your human nature.--Filll 11:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Me too. I think it's a great article. So my one-person opinion balances Foo's one-person opinion. Orangemarlin 06:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

As indicated in the timeline of intelligent design, the sequence in the following couple of sentences seems misleading: "The first significant published use of "intelligent design" was in a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes titled Of Pandas and People. The Discovery Institute was founded the following year. This "intelligent design movement" became more visible in the 1990s and early 2000s, as a small number of U.S. school districts adopted intelligent design into their science curricula." The following suggestion aims to clarify this, and cover the point that the "wedge" proponents initially seem to have had little connection with the FTE writers / editors who introduced ID campaigning, but then the "wedge" began to present themselves as "intelligent design scholars" and, together with the FTE originals, were funded by the DI through the CSC from 1996 –

Use of the term "intelligent design" originated in response to a 1987 United States Supreme Court ruling, Edwards v. Aguillard, which forbade the teaching of "creation science" in public schools on constitutional grounds of separation of church and state. To avoid this restriction the 1989 high-school biology textbook Of Pandas and People used the term to replace "creation science", initiating campaigning to promote the teaching of intelligent design. The wedge strategy supported by the Discovery Institute developed the "intelligent design movement" pressing for political and educational changes, and a small number of U.S. school districts adopted intelligent design into their science curricula. In 2005, a group of parents of students in Dover, Pennsylvania brought a lawsuit challenging the practice. In this case, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the court ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and thus that the school district's promotion of it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

It's a little longer, but in my opinion much clearer. . .. dave souza, talk 10:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. One nit: the phrase "initiating campaigning to promote the teaching of 'intelligent design'" seems a little unclear -- too many gerunds. --FOo 00:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

What are these gerunds? Ah yes, think I agree, probably too much concising and improvements welcome. Perhaps on the lines of "To avoid this restriction the high-school biology textbook Of Pandas and People used the term to replace "creation science", and its publication in 1989 saw the start of campaigning to promote the teaching of intelligent design" – dave souza, talk 08:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

These? Tevildo 16:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Chiz, chiz, Tevildo is a wede & a swot. Wot sa FOo? Much ta, ..dave souza, talk 18:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

A few specific comments on Fubar's proposal:

1. We need to keep "all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute". This sentence is one of the most bitterly fought-over and explicitly referenced of the article; the change to "members" is both inaccurate (although all the leading proponents are _associated_ with the DI, not all are full _members_ of it), and omits an essential fact: that there are no ID proponents outside it.
2. The change to "other scientific associations" has the same faults. The current wording arises, in part, out of a compromise with editors who dispute that the NSTA is a "scientific association", and the explicit identification of the two organizations is, IMO, better than the weasel word "Other".
3. The bare sentence "The Discovery Institute was founded the same year." isn't logically connected to the rest of the third paragraph. The current version of the article, which explains what the DI's purpose is, makes that connection.
4. "A small number of U.S. school districts"? Far too vague. I don't think we need to make this point in the lead, and, if we do, we need to specifiy (at least) how many districts adopted such a curriculum, and (ideally) where they are situated.
5. "A group of parents of students" is not the sort of phrase we want to include if we're trying to _improve_ the prose of the article. The addition of "high-school" both makes the statement more precise, and goes some way to mitigate the stylistic problem. "A group of parents with children in [the local] high school[s]" would be my suggestion, if "parents" or "local parents" on its own isn't enough. Tevildo 16:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Very good points. Also, as indicated above, the DI founding seems to have had little impact, their influence comes in 1996 when the CRSC is set up and begins funding the wedgies. .. dave souza, talk 18:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

1. If "members" is inaccurate, then "associates" is fine, yeah.
2. If "scientific association" is unacceptable, try "scientific organization". Listing these organizations by name still seems excessive in the introduction.
3. The DI's purpose is mentioned earlier in the introduction, as the group behind the "ID movement". The full details of its purpose are explained in the article, as well as in the article Discovery Institute.
4. "Local parents" is fine, although the plaintiffs are specifically parents of students. "Parents of students in Dover high schools" is fine. --FOo 19:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

1. The current text is "associated with", not "associates of". I agree that the latter would be equally unacceptable.
2. The objection is not to "association", but to classifying the NSTA as "scientific" - its members are teachers, rather than scientists.
3. True - so we don't need to refer to the time of its foundation at this point in the lead.
4. So the whole sentence would be "In 2005, parents of students in Dover, Pennsylvania high schools brought a lawsuit challenging the practice."? I agree that this _is_ an improvement on the current version. Tevildo 21:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to deal with RTC

Given the nature of the contributions of RTC to this talk page over a substantial period, their repeated nonsense assertions and combative nature, I propose that any contribution of RTC that resembles trolling or tendentious repetition of previously dismissed arguments and POV nit-picking be removed to his talk page.--Filll 14:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)