Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

→

Archive 45

New York Times article

this article seems like a goldmine for discussing the political end of ID, especially the split in American conservatism over the topic. JoshuaZ 04:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I watched the debate (not because I'd vote for a Republican, but because I'm a wonky kind of guy), and when the question was asked, McCain seemed to stumble for a second or two. Interestingly, McCain, Guliani and Romney did NOT raise their hands. Romney was most interesting lending credence to the fact that the LDS faith is not anti-Evolution. Of course, if you watched the abortion question, I believe that the answers were unanimously right wing. But I wasn't absolutely sure. Orangemarlin 15:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance at the moment. The main task here is to report what the reliable sources say about intelligent design. Seems to me the creation-evolution controversy is another topic, and other political issues are relevant to yet other topics. Or was this just intended to give broader insight into the contemporary political jockeying in the US, with which ID was somewhat intertwined? . ... Kenosis 15:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, we are all bright people, so interesting information that frames this debate is useful. The fact that the New York Times states that "Some of these thinkers have gone one step further, arguing that Darwin’s scientific theories about the evolution of species can be applied to today’s patterns of human behavior, and that natural selection can provide support for many bedrock conservative ideas, like traditional social roles for men and women, free-market capitalism and governmental checks and balances." What reads like social Darwinism may in fact move this debate from a political one to a strictly fringe-religious one. Right now, a certain number of right-wingers might take anti-Darwinism to be a matter of political gospel, when in fact it's not. And yes, this is an American problem, but ID is pretty much nothing outside of the US. Orangemarlin 16:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Kenosis: not too sure I understand the vehement dismissal of the article. While the ID article may not be the perfect place to bring up the NYT article (Intelligent_design_in_politics might be better), it does have a bearing on the bigger picture of ID as a movement, which we do touch on in this article. •Jim62sch• 23:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahh! Jim, I didn't intend to be vehement, nor dismiss it out of hand. Perhaps I could have said "I'm afraid I don't see the relevence at the moment", except I'm not "afraid" of not seeing the relevance. Orangemarlin explained it adequately for me, saying essentially that it's relevant to the wider context, to framing the debate. ... Kenosis 09:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You're not a-scared?  ;) •Jim62sch• 13:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal - 1650: 6 May 2007

Intelligent design is the proposition, claimed to be a scientific theory, 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 ancient design argument for the existence of God, framed in such a way that it does not specify the nature or identity of the designer. All of its original proponents, as well as all of its principal proponents today, are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, and believe the designer to be God. Intelligent design's advocates assert that as a scientific theory it stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.

The overwhelming scientific consensus is that intelligent design is not science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. The National Science Teachers Association and others have termed it pseudoscience, and some have termed it junk science.

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature. During the trial, intelligent design advocate Michael Behe testified under oath that no scientific evidence in support of the intelligent design hypothesis has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Can we all at least tolerate this version? No "teleological", "leading proponents" paraphrased. If so, I think we can unlock. If not, can anyone who objects single out particular sentenences that are at issue, rather than attempting to rewrite the whole thing? I also think it's time for an archive of last week's discussion. Tevildo 15:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to be stubborn here:

1. It is not "claimed" that ID is a scientific theory, it is flatly stated to be.
2. The quoted description of ID is complicated. In fact, I will state that natural selection DIRECTS evolution, just not willfully.
3. Sentence 2 is confusing. If it's an argument for G_d, then how can it not specify the designer. In fact, they do, if you read testimony from Kitzmiller, the Wedge Document and other parts of DI's goals.
4. The last parts are fine.

I prefer the original lead. It was clear, to the point, supported by references, and NPOV. Remember, DI is duplicitous, and we need to state that. What they publicly say is in opposition to what they say privately. See what I wrote above:

• Intelligent design is not an evangelic Christian thing or a generally Christian thing or even a generically theistic thing...Intelligent design is an emerging scientific research program. Design theorists attempt to demonstrate its merits fair and square in the scientific world--without appealing to religious authority--William A. Dembski, 2004
• Any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient...The conceptual soundness of a scientific theory cannot be maintained apart from Christ.--William A Dembski, 1999
• From Jerry A. Coyne ( Brockman, John (editor) (2006). Intelligent Thought: Science versus the Intelligent Design Movement. Vantage Books. ISBN 9780307277220. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help)): Well, which is it? Is intelligent design merely a sophisticated form of biblical creationism, as most biologists claim, or is it science--an alternative to Darwinism that deserves discussion in the science classroom? ...you won't find the answers in the writings of the leading advocates of ID. The ambiguity is deliberate for ID is a theory that must appeal to two distinct constituencies. Toe the secular public, ID proponents eprsnt their theory as pure science. This, after all, is their justification for a slick public-relations campaign promoting the teaching of ID in public schools. But as is clear from the infamous "WEdge Document" of the Discovery Institute, a right-wing think tank in Seattle, and the center for ID propaganda, intelligent design is part of a cunning effort to dethrone materialism from society and science and replace it with theism. ID is simply biblical creationism updated and disguised to sneak evangelical Christianity past the First Amendment and open the classroom door to Jesus. The advocates of ID will admit this, but only to their second constituency, the sympathetic audience of evangelical Christians on whose support they rely.

Herein lies the problem. The NPOV would be to represent not only what DI is "saying" but they are "doing". We must show the duplicitous nature of ID in the lead. Orangemarlin 16:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Why should we be so weasely in our lead if facts are these guys are lying to the public. Orangemarlin 16:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, we are _not_ going to get consensus. This needs to be escalated somehow. It looks like FAR is not the way to go - to whom do we refer this? WP:ANI? Tevildo 17:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

With regard to Orangemarlin's objections:

1. "'claimed' to be a scientific theory" is a judgment anyway. I'd agree to use the words "asserted to be a scientific theory". The response of the scientific community and the federal court system is given in the second and third paragraph, respectively.
2. The fact that the quoted definition is complicated should not be an obstacle. It's not excessively complicated, far less so in light of how complicated the topic itself is.
3. The second sentence states the verified fact of the matter in plain English, which is that it's framed in a way that it does not specify the nature or identity of the "designer". This is resolved in the following sentence, which states consistently with the reliable sources that its main proponents believe the designer to be God.
4. I have no problem with the last parts either. The differences between this and the previously consensused version are merely syntactic, assuming that all the existing citations are kept intact.

... Kenosis 19:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

One sentence that seems missing from the above lead that I thought was of benefit was "Intelligent design's proponents assert that what they call irreducible complexity and specified complexity cannot be explained by current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life, so must be the work of an intelligent designer." This gave more description about what ID is about and better summarizes the article content, since both of these topics have their own section in the article. Morphh ^(talk) 23:55, 06 May 2007 (UTC)

I personally prefer the idea of introducing these specifics in the "overview" section, which presently is lacking this aspect of overview. That is, one of the things presently missing in the overview is a specific, concise statement of the key terms, irreducible complexity, specified complexity and fine-tuned universe, the concepts that are explained in more detail in the point-counterpoint sections farther down in the article. Not that I think it absolutely needs it, but I think it would be an improvement to the overview section. ... Kenosis 00:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Since I'm dealing here with the issue of the level of specificity at the lead stage of the article, I also think that the statement about Michael Behe's court testimony is a bit too specific for the introduction. So I'd probably be among the advocates of placing that passage farther down, at least as far down as the overview section if not at the beginning of the "controversy" section. ... Kenosis 00:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

One thing I liked about the Citizendium article was the use of "contention" as opposed to proposition. contention suggests more contraversy and an argumentative/confrontational tone to the proposition at hand, which i feel is an accurate portrayal of ID.--ZayZayEM 02:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's inaccurate and incomplete, the current version is much better than the proposed version. FeloniousMonk 03:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

FM, what part of what is "inaccurate and incomplete"? ... Kenosis 03:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Shrommer writes: My problem with the opening is that it limits the explanation to "an intelligent causes" instead of "an intelligent cause or causes", and then goes on to talk about God, and then mentions "designer" instead of "designer or designers", or instead of allowing for design without any designers at all, such as in the case of natural impersonal intelligence and natural materialistic design. Intelligent design according to several proponents is anti-evolution and supernatural, but the movement as a whole loses many objections when the science is looked at in conjunction with evolution and with equal openness to either natural or supernatural causes and any combination of the two - note that it allows for entirely natural causes. Case in point, many secular scientists believe that human beings are intelligent and that this intelligence has no supernatural origin. It is just as possible to work under the assumption that the intelligent cause or causes responsible for evidence of intelligent design likewise has no supernatural cause behind it. It is one thing to talk about intelligent design as a social and political or religious movement, which is what this article mainly addresses. It is another thing altogether to discuss what intelligent design means as a scientific theory once you take away the assumptions of it being anti-evolution and pro-supernatural. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrommer (talk • contribs)

Hi Shrommer. You can sign and date your posts by using four tildes ( ~~~~ )

Man, there's a lot in that post you just made. May I suggest taking a few days to begin to digest the complexities of the topic, as well as checking the article on teleological argument, which loosely speaking, is roughly akin to "intelligent design" but without the push to teach creation-based philosophy or religious viewpoints in biology classes. Unfortunately, the predominant meaning of "intelligent design" in today's world is driven by the Intelligent design movement, in turn driven by the affiliates of the Discovery Institute. The article gives many reliable sources from which the article's content was formed, and many of these are a good point of departure from which to conduct further research into some of the philosophical or theological issues you just raised concerning ways of attempting to make sense of such things as origins and the natural-supernatural distinction, if indeed there is such a distinction in the "nature" of the universe and the life it gave rise to on this planet (including us). In general terms, the teleological argument (which is an overarching term for a class of arguments) and the cosmological argument provide excellent grist for the mill, so to speak, in discussing the lines of thinking involved in some of the classic philosophical/theological arguments, at least insofar as arguments for the existence of God (or if you prefer, a creative consciousness of some kind).

As to why the scientific community has overhwhelmingly rejected the notion that ID can be termed "science" or "scientific", this too is explained in the WP article on intelligent design, with many references provided for sourcing and for futher reading on the basic issues involved in the demarcation problem and the fairly detailed analysis conducted in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial about the issue of what is reasonably called "science" rather than philosophy, theological speculation, or religion. Also, the WP article provides some basic level of insight into the fact that even most of the churches have rejected ID as valid theology, with several points of departure for further reading provided in the footnotes.

As to the suggestion you made that ID allows for entirely natural causes, the court in Kitzmiller v. Dover analyzed this question whether it was a genuine feature of ID or merely posturing in pursuit of the agenda of presenting it to public school biology students as an alternative scientific explanation, and the court concluded, based upon evidence such as the wedge document and other evidence, that it was mere posturing. This is mentioned at the end of the section on "Origins of the concept" ... Kenosis 01:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding section 3.3.1 the example given seems irrelevant to the argument that ID proponents are making. The example talks about the probability of getting one rare and complex hand of cards out of 600 billion with a 1 in 600 billion chance of getting that hand. Intelligent design proponents are discussing something more like the occurrence of getting the same rare hand 3 billion times when the mathematical odds are only 1 in 600 billion. It is not one example of irreducible complexity and creative genetic improvements being looked at for natural selection to act upon, but myriads. Shrommer 00:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Between you and me (and whoever else is here), I go with Voltaire, who said: : "If a watch proves the existence of a watchmaker but the universe does not prove the existence of a great Architect, then I consent to be called a fool." I also find some of the estimated proportions raised by writers such as Barrow and Tipler, Polkinghorne, and Wald starting in about the mid-Eighties to be quite remarkable. But unfortunately proportions and large numbers are not valid statistics of themselves, and we simply know of only one universe to sample, and therefore cannot develop statistical analyses of what the odds might be against the conditions that exist in our universe. Thus they're not genuinely statistical, and as already stated by the scientfic community, these speculations about what are the implications of these numbers are not properly called science, but rather are philosophy and/or theology.

Paulos' point was closely related. His illustration in Innumeracy:Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences spoke to common misconceptions about how rare even common events like a particular hand in a bridge game can be. His point is, very roughly put, that nothing gets proven by saying simply "now, what are the odds againnst that ?! Well, in the case of the bridge game we know the odds to be one-in-more-than-600-billion to get the particular hand that sits in from of each player, becasue we know what the number of possible outcomes per-card-dealt is at the outset (52 cards) and how many cards-per-player are dealt in a hand. When dealing with the universe, we simply have no way to assess what the odds are. And what ID advocates (especially Dembski) are maintaining is that they can calculate the odds, while other scientists and mathematicians are saying the ID advocates are simply incorrect about their assumptions and premises, which are purely speculative at best. ... Kenosis 01:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not that familiar with exactly what Dembski calculated odds for. Did he really give odds on the creation of the universe? From what I remember he just did it for proteins or something like that. ProtoCat 16:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The WP articles on specified complexity and universal probability bound give some insight into this, and both articles cite some primary and secondary sources that deal more directly with the issue(s) summarized in each of those articles. ... Kenosis 18:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Intro para reshuffled

Reading the above, it seems to me that it could help if we use the more detailed description as an intro, then cite the DI definition verbatim as their statement:

Intelligent design is the contention that features of life and the universe which its proponents call irreducible complexity and specified complexity cannot be explained by current scientific theories about the evolution and origin of life, so must be the work of an intelligent designer. It is a version of the design argument for the existence of God, framed in such a way that it does not specify the nature or identity of the designer. All of its leading proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, and believe the designer to be God. They claim that it is a scientific theory requiring a fundamental redefinition of science, and state that "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

Natural selection isn't linked as it's a quotation, and could be linked and briefly noted as not being "undirected" in the next paragraph about the response of scientists. .. dave souza, talk 02:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC) revd. 06:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Dave, you're among the most thoughtful, rational persons in these parts of the world in my opinion. But........ "Intelligent design" can't contend anything. I've no serious quibbles about much else that you've just put forward as a possible option for the article lead. I still think the safest route is to quote ID's primary advocates' website for the initial definition, consistent with past consensus (within the last year and three months at least) about how to introduce the concept/proposition in the first sentence. ... Kenosis 02:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I had "is the proposition", tried "is the contention" then thought "contends" might work – it would with "ID theory" but I wanted to avoid theory too early. Changed to 2nd option .. dave souza, talk 06:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is no improvement on the current version. FeloniousMonk 03:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I can live with the current version, but think it could be improved by clarifying some obscurities. It seemed attractive having a direct quotation, as we did (cropped) for a while, but thinking it over, the term "proposition" used by Jones does show that it is the view of its proponents and not Wikipedia, so it's overall better to have the reworded summary as at present. See below for suggested clarifications. .. dave souza, talk 09:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

FM, I think I might have started this whole war, because I reverted the lead to a version from the end of March or beginning of April. THAT version is the one that is the best. IMHO, everything has been downhill since. Orangemarlin 06:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

And it's now like a sled, with greased rails, running down a 70 degree icy slope. •Jim62sch• 21:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Reshuffle mark II

For comparison, here's the current lead first para –

Intelligent design is the proposition that certain features of the universe and of living things can be better explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural processes such as natural selection. It is a modern form of the teleological argument (an argument for the existence of God), framed in such a way that it does not specify the nature or identity of the designer. Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, believe the designer to be the Abrahamic God, and claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.

It's concise, and close to the DI definition, but like that definition is too vague to give any idea of what the ID arguments are, other than saying they're claimed to be better. Here's a suggestion accepting that "proposition" is enough to indicate that this is the concept of its proponents, while giving more of an idea of the claims of IC and SC, and adding what to me is a very important point, that ID openly requires a redefinition of science. Note that the "undirected" which has been omitted from the current lead is a subtle reference to teleology, and could be translated as lacking an aim or purpose. Here's a suggestion with those points added to the current lead para:

Intelligent design is the proposition that certain features of life and the universe, described as irreducible complexity and specified complexity, cannot be explained by aimless processes such as natural selection and so are evidence for an intelligent designer. It is a modern form of the teleological argument (an argument for the existence of God), framed in such a way that it does not specify the nature or identity of the designer. Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, believe the designer to be the Abrahamic God, and claim that it is a scientific theory requiring a fundamental redefinition of science, that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.

The version OM favours put the "argument for the existence of God" first, and did not have the point that it's modified to avoid identifying "the designer". Would it be worth having a straw poll to get an idea of who else shares that preference? .. dave souza, talk 09:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think OM has a good point: ID is a teleological argument at its core, it is nothing more or less. (Of course, teleological arguments are functionally fallacies as they attempt to prove that which can neither be proven nor disproven, and hence are neither scientifically nor logically valid. But I digress). In any case, "contention" is certainly not the correct word; and what comes after is not really accurate. We're going around in circles trying to please people who see ID as some sacred theory that gives a "scientific" voice to religion. In the meantime we are missing the forest for the trees and are creating leads that are obfuscatory and fallible. •Jim62sch• 13:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

God, no! Aimless is even worse than undirected! Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Formal Mediation Proposal

I would like to suggest that we take this to formal mediation, with the following parameters:

---

Involved parties

• Orangemarlin
• (Other users who are not prepared to accept definitions other than "argument for the existence of God" - FeloniousMonk? Filll?)
• RBJ
• (Other users who are not prepared to accept "Leading proponents" - Morphh? Adam C?)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:RFC link - Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive37#Request_for_comment:_lead

Issues to be mediated

• Should the lead begin "Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God", or "Intelligent design is the proposition 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.", or appropriate paraphrases of either?
• Should the lead contain "Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute"? If not, how should this fact be expressed?

I hope I've identified the two main issues that are holding us up. I don't want to misrepresent anyone's position, so it would probably be better if anyone who feels that they should be parties to the proposed mediation adds their own name before we make it official. Tevildo 07:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The lead has been completely renegotiated since the start of the RfC cited above, so rather than going on to another stage, what's needed now is identifying the areas of dispute, which you're doing, then another RfC if we can't agree a form of words. .. dave souza, talk 09:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt whether another RfC is going to be productive, as I don't see how it's going to differ from the discussions we've been having over the past two weeks. However, if that's what we need to do, let's do it. I think that any formal process has to restrict itself to the above very narrow issues, rather than being a general discussion of the lead, if it's going to get anywhere - can we rely on everyone involved to do that? Tevildo 10:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

¡Mira, Sancho, los molinos de viento! ¡Los carguemos ya! •Jim62sch• 13:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I know, I know - which is why I think we have a case for going to mediation _now_, without the pointless exercise of an RfC beforehand. However, if the bureaucracy insists on it... Would there be any objection to putting the RfC on a sub-page (Talk:Intelligent design/RFC, perhaps) so that it at least has a chance of not getting overwhemled? Tevildo 14:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(Incidentally, Don Quixote was written in 1604, but the inverted ! wasn't introduced until 1754. Just in case anyone doesn't get the reference). :) Tevildo 14:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Back when I was involved with lobbying for ID to primarily designated a TA, I was envisioning something like "Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God that proposes "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." I don't see these as mutually exclusive phrasings. I think the second statement (even though its a ID quote) is better as a primary designation, but I feel a simple proposition is a weak non-specific noun when compared with linkable design argument.--ZayZayEM 14:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing here to mediate

Again, the tendentious and incessant gripes of the ID promoting crowd notwithstanding, there's nothing here to mediate: This article is accurate and extremely well sourced. In fact, it is one of the most heavily sourced articles in Wikipedia and its tone is consistent with all the most sources on the topic. That being the case, any misuse of mediation to force in less than neutral content into the article will 1) fail, 2) be viewed for what it is and only compound the already substantial evidence of chronic and disruptive pov pushing by those seeking to promote the minority (pro-ID) viewpoint while downplaying that of the majority (the courts and the scientific community). FeloniousMonk 03:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected

Felonius Monk has told me, by e-mail, that he was representing a large number of admins who think that the continued protection must end.

Fine. However, I'm laying out some ground rules:

• ANY edit warring will be met with temporary bans.
• Do NOT revert the whole article just to protect your preferred lead. You can copy and paste. Really, you can. It's easy. Takes 5 seconds more.
• Don't change all three paragraphs just because you dislike something in one.
• THERE IS NO CONSENSUS. Anyone using that as their purported reason for a revert will get a tongue-lashing from me. This is not to say you *CAN'T* revert, but actually explain why, e.g. "That was a well-cited fact. Revert to version in agreement with citations."

The current version is not necessarily the preferred version, but it's my best gess at the least controversial that does not compromise on cited content. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I rather imagine the pro-ID editors won't like it, but let's wait for some specific comments. One minor change I'd suggest - "...a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories..." isn't very well-expressed. Can we lose one of the "scientific"s? Preferably the second one. Tevildo 14:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What about "...stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, established theories?" Or, even better, "equal or better footing with established theories." Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the first option is better. "stands on better footing with" is, if not ungrammatical, at least unidiomatic. Tevildo 16:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

We're probably going to need to combine the references: That is ugly. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

New lead is not bad. However, how can you have an overwhelming consensus? Isn't consensus by definition, well, kind of everybody? Orangemarlin 15:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's what was suggested to replace having the wscientific scommunity "state" something, which is evidently impossible. I don't think that aspect really got discussed much beyond that objection, so... well, editing's open. Fix as you like =) Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What's the probability of removing all of that crazy HTML code stuck within the lead. It makes it very difficult to edit. Orangemarlin 16:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Tevildo 16:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I find it very difficult to edit without the code: I can't find where the text is because it's so outweighed in length by the references. I suppose we could be clever and use transcluded subpages to hold the longer references, but I suspect that would be even more awkward. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

We can't even get consensus on the HTML code for this article. LOL. Orangemarlin 16:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I will agree to suffer, provided you do the citing up if we agree to major rearrangements. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Whine. I hate cites. But if we want this to be a great article, I'll clean up the cites. Of course, I need to click back to the article to see exactly how many cites there are!!!! Orangemarlin 17:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did say "major reorginisations". At the moment, the cites... should be fine. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If this _is_ going to be an issue, my opinion is that we shouldn't encourage unecessary coding-based red tape - it's one more thing outside the text that needs to be checked during editing, which increases workload without an obvious corresponding benefit. Tevildo 16:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

My current opinion on the lead is that it's factually accuate, but not really what you'd call well-written, though perhaps better than the older versions. Perhaps it's trying to condense everything into too little space, perhaps a discussion of Edwards v. Aguilard would pull out some of the awkward clauses (particularly the one about the leading proponents being connected with the DI). But it doesn't have, in my opinion, POV or OR problems, at least. I think the best thing we can do is add a section on Edwards v. Aguilard. All the oddly-placed bits seem to deal with the history of Intelligent design, and pulling them together should help. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps something along the lines of (between the current first paragraph and the Kitzmiller one):

The roots of the intelligent design movement came about after the [[United States Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguilard that a Louisiana law requiring the teaching of creation science (an attempt to justify a literal interpretation of the Bible, particularly the Genesis creation account and Noah's flood, through supposedly scientific proposals) alongside evolution was unconstitutional. Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon were then working on a creation science textbook, and after the trial revised it to eliminate the explicitly Christian material, replacing references to God with an unspecified designer, and dubbing the result "Intelligent Design". The Discovery Institute was founded soon after...

I dunno. I'm in another of my illnesses. Can't seem to shake them of late. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I was rather pleasantly surprised to see the current form of the intro. I made a slight alteration at the end where about 3 wikilinks ran into each other, but overall it rates as not bad at all. I think this shows that there's hope for the wiki-process, even if it can be painful at times, and everyone here deserves a pat on the back (except me; I've been shamelessly avoiding the worst of it). SheffieldSteel 17:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Dammit Adam, I'm a doctor, not a...oh yeah, I'm doctor. So go see your doctor. A depressed immune system can be related to anything from exhaustion to something a heck of lot more serious. NOW!!!!Orangemarlin 17:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to take your [medicine] Adam. SheffieldSteel 17:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sheffield that was one of the best Doonesbury ever. Perfect!!!Orangemarlin 21:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I keep heading in. But they never find anything wrong. It's really frustrating. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with this lead sentence. I'd still like to see a bit on irreducible complexity and such. Morphh ^(talk) 17:49, 07 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, there ought to be a paragraph tracing ID's evolution from Of Pandas and People and Edwards v. Aguilard onwards through Irreducable Complexity, Specified complexity, and then into the Kitzmiller paragraph as it stands, though adding a mention of Teach the Controversy as its successor. But that's not really first-sentence stuff. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

On another front, I don't like Morphh's addition of a sentence on Irreducible complexiuit and specified complexity, as it defines neither term, so is just a jargon-related-to-the-issue list. I've left it in for the moment, though, as my attempt to fix it (below) got a little too complicated to make without discussion. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

FM may have asked for unprotection, but I don't think he wanted the article completely rewritten. Look, I'm sorry guys, but the lead is clunky, innacurate, and with the parentheical comment in the first sentence, utterly unreadable. •Jim62sch• 22:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate? I was careful to use the FA-version as the base, applying the changes to that, so anything inaccurate would be inaccurate in the old lead too, unless you dislike some specific sentence, which you're free to tweak. But I had to do something that would at least stall the revert wars, and, with full expectation of it being tweaked and changed, I tried to come up with some compromise that would suit as many productive editors as possible.

Change things as you like, but... I did what I thought necessary. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(Have changed from unprotected to semi-protected: Forgot how bad of a vandalism/POV-pushing magnet this was) Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I notice that Adam Cuerden, in addition to unprotecting the article, decided to rewrite the lead. My opinion is that it's now a conceptual and linguistic mess. It gives little or not credence to the "vote" staged a week or two ago, now archived. It also bears little resemblance to any prior version that involved a consensus process. But I'm willing to give it a bit more time to see where this rewrite goes. ... Kenosis 01:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Er... I know this is a little off-topic, but... do you think we're done with some of the earlier discussion? Because this talk page, even after removing everything before the vote, is still over 300kb long, which seems excessive. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think we can archive most of it - certainly up to "Answers in Genesis", and possibly all the way down to "Unprotected". Tevildo 16:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested major addition

Intelligent design is a traditional argument for the existence of God (modified to remove explicit identification of the creative force) which claims that an intelligent agent has designed certain aspects of biological life and the universe. Its proponents claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, established theories regarding the evolution and origin of life. However, the consensus of the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science, with the U.S. National Academy of Sciences explaining that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. A public statement by the U.S. National Science Teachers Association described it as a pseudoscience, other public statements have agreed or called it junk science. Indeed, intelligent design advocate Michael Behe testified, under oath, that there is no scientific evidence in support of the intelligent design hypothesis that has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Intelligent design grew out of creation science, a more explicitly religious form of creationism based on a literal reading of the book of Genesis, after the United States Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguilard that forcing schools to teach creation science alongside evolution was a violation of the principle of seperation of church and state. Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon revised a creation science textbook they had been working on to remove most of the explicitly religious references, and replaced "creation science" with the term "intelligent design". This term was then picked up by a newly-founded orginisation, the Discovery Institute, with which all the leaders of the movement would be connected, This led to the term being expanded and refined, changing it from the original book, Of Pandas and People's assertion that things "began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact" to a more subtle definitions, for instance, Michael Behe's irreducible complexity which claims that biochemical systems where one part cannot be removed cannot be evolved, a claim disputed by biologists, and William Dembski's specified complexity, an expansion of irreducible complexity based on calculation of improbability. However, Behe was forced to admit under oath that irreducible complexity did not actally address the task facing evolution; and specified complexity has not been the basis for further independent reseach, and the one attempt by Dembski to apply it involved calculating the probability of a protein coming together by pure chance, not by natural selection. Intelligent Design itself went on trial in 2005 in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District where Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature, and thus the public school district requirement for science classes to teach that intelligent design was an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as happened to creation science in 1987. The Teach the Controversy campaign follows it.

I think you can see why I didn't feel right just adding it in without comment Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that's too long for the lead, if that's where you're proposing to put it. I personally think it would be OK to cut the lead down to the first paragraph of this version and put the second paragraph in the "Origins of the term" section (perhaps replacing part of what's there already), but it means we don't have the "Leading Proponents" bit in the lead - is this too much of a sacrifice? Tevildo 20:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

On a secondary issue, I don't think it's right to describe creation science as "a more explicitly religious form of creationism". I know what you mean - "a more explicitly religious form of creationism than ID", but, without saying up-front that ID is creationism, the sentence as it stands is misleading. Creation science is (on paper, at least), _not_ solely based on the Bible, but on science, making it _less_ explicitly religious than the more honest "You believe in the age of rocks - I believe in the Rock of Ages" type of argument. Tevildo 20:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, can we cut it down a bit instead? Move anything that isn't important into the rest of the article (Where it *should* be repeated anyway). Let's work without references (much easier than all the cut-and-paste references force) and revise, noting the cuts so they can be placed elsewhere. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice allusion to Inherit the Wind ;) Anyway, I seem to be missing the point of the overwhelming zeal to rewrite the lead. How does anyone feel that these rewrites are in any way an improvement? •Jim62sch• 22:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Work

Intelligent design is a traditional argument for the existence of God (modified to remove explicit identification of the creative force)[1] which claims that an intelligent agent has designed certain aspects of biological life and the universe.[2] Its proponents claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, established theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.[3] However, the consensus of the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science,[4] with the U.S. National Academy of Sciences explaining that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[5]

Intelligent design grew out of creation science, an attempt to scientifically justify a literal reading of the book of Genesis, after the United States Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguilard that forcing schools to teach creation science alongside evolution was a violation of the principle of seperation of church and state. Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon revised a creation science textbook they had been working on to remove most of the explicitly religious references and replaced "creation science" with the term "intelligent design". A newly-founded orginisation, the Discovery Institute, with which all the leaders of the movement would be connected, picked up the term, and expanded and refined it. The original book, Of Pandas and People's assertion that things "began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact"[9] were replaced by more subtle, biomolecular definitions, such as Michael Behe's irreducible complexity, which claims that biochemical systems where one part cannot be removed cannot be evolved. However, Behe was forced to admit under oath that irreducible complexity did not actally address the task facing evolution.[10] Other proposals such as specified complexity have not fared much better, and Behe himself was forced to admit under oath that no scientific evidence in support of the intelligent design hypothesis had been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Intelligent Design itself went on trial in 2005 in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, and, like its predecessor, Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, is essentially religious in nature, and requiring public school science classes to teach that intelligent design was an alternative to evolution violated seperation of church and state.

The "Teach the Controversy" campaign followed its defeat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs)

The information is good, but I think the style is a bit too "chatty" - good for a newspaper article, but not for an encyclopedia. Some obvious changes - "seperation of church and state" needs to be "First Amendment", as the two are _not_ identical. I don't think that we can claim - er - common descent from the very crude Pandas definition to Behe. "Have not fared much better" is (a) imprecise (b) borderline OR. I think we should keep the wording of the current version as much as possible, and add information gradually, rather than attempting radical re-writes at this stage... Tevildo 21:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

A fair point. Let's leave it for now, then, but make an effort to gradually add more information, while cutting unnecessary parts. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as size, I don't think it is overly large. WP:LEAD#Length states our lead based on article prose length should be three to four paragraphs. However, they may be too lengthy and detailed. Morphh ^(talk) 23:41, 07 May 2007 (UTC)

For elsewhere

• Suggested cut: A public statement by the U.S. National Science Teachers Association described it as a pseudoscience, other public statements have agreed or called it junk science.
• Why?: While this rhetorically strengthens the side of the scientists, really, you know the real reason it's added is to justify Category:Pseudoscience. The new material will do the strengthening role.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs)

• Suggested cut: Specified complexity
• Why? Woolly, not-really-defined term which has never actually been rigourously applied as Dembski set it out anyway. Does it really need to be in the lead?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs)

It's what they call it, the main point is that the mysterious "certain features" are two varieties of complexity, not dissimilar to a famous pocked watch lying amongst some stones... or shiny pebbles if you're posh like Citzendum. In other words, their underlying argument is just a more sophisticated "this looks complex and sort of designed, so it had to be done by a designer". The sentence gives an indication of this argument, including what Jones called a false something (duality?), the argument that if evolution can't explain it, it must have been God or similar. Both varieties of "complexity" need to be mentioned as they're not treated as the same thing by the DI or by this article. dave souza, talk 21:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it needs to be in the lead. This topic has its own heading in the article so it should be mentioned. Per WP:LEAD: The lead section should concisely reflect the content of the article as a whole. For many articles, these suggestions can be helpful in writing an appropriate lead:

• Try to have a sentence, clause, or at least a word devoted to each of the main headlines in the article.
• The relative weight given to points in the lead should reflect the relative weight given to each in the remainder of the article.
• A significant argument not mentioned after the lead should not be mentioned in the lead.
• Avoid lengthy, detailed paragraphs.

We need to look at how well our lead summarizes the article content and follows the above recommendations. Morphh ^(talk) 23:45, 07 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, but it's hard to see how to deal with specified complexity briefly. It might be better to just make it clear that there are other arguments, but only mention the ones we can put across briefly and NPOVly. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverted rewrite and why

I've reverted to the last accurate and supported version. Recent changes were poorly phrased and not a meaningful improvement over it. We're not rewriting an FA just for the sake of rewriting it (and the gripes of those who'd like to see the article repeat the claims of ID proponents as fact). FeloniousMonk 02:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You can't just make bold assertions. Explain why things are less accurate, and copy and paste in reversions. I have reverted you. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, why do I even bother? You lot are just going to keep doing exactly what you want, revert *any* attempt to change the lead, and then in a few years lose FA just like Evolution. I'm frankly tired of this, and am just finding the whole thing depressing and frustrating, and it's probably time to just give up on whe whole thing. It's not bloody worth it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly Adam, it looks to me like you're the one who's doing exactly what you want, repeatedly trying to change the lead, despite no there being no inaccuracies or NPOV issues (gripes from the ID pov promoting crowd notwithstanding). FeloniousMonk 03:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, don't bloody bother. I'm a mass of frustration and depression just now, and having the second-worst week of my life. I'm not in the mood for any whining bugger who tells me the ball's in my court, then who's first reaction on me acting upon that is to immediately revert, not give any reasons for the change other than supposed "inaccuracy, and insist that the lead as it stood is holy writ, unchangable and immutable forever and evr Amen. Frankly, I'm getting sick of the whole damn wikipedia experience, and probably should just leave the whole thing behind. Spend three weels trying to reach a consensus of everything, despite projectile vomiting, being bedridden, and not relally wanting to? "Hi! Great! Thanks for your work. We'll be going right back to the version we like now, ignoring every issue that came up. Because, you know, weveryone who says bad things about our holy writ is a creationist."

And, yeah, I'll probably be sorry I wrote this in the morning. But the last week has made me about as close to suicidal as I've ever been, so the rage is something to cultivate, don't you think? Because, otherwise, the depression at losing another damn social structure (third this week) starts to set in. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Tell me about it. I've been contributing to this article for 3 years now and this is just one of literally dozens of minor kerfluffles here. It's always like this, Adam; the three things you can always count on are that seldom more than half the participants are going to agree with you at any one time, that the ID supporters here will never agree to any description of the notion and the movement that doesn't repeat the spin of the Discovery Institute as fact (or at least so plausible that it stands in contrast to more neutral sources), and that you'll be accused of bad faith POV pushing for insisting on a neutral description of the topic or including the viewpoint of the scientific community. You've gotten way too personally invested in rewriting the intro, it appears to me, and clearly need a break. FeloniousMonk 03:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You've got it exactly backward, Adam: The onus is on the one seeking the substantive changes to an article (which would be you) to make their case and gain consensus, not on those who support the existing version (which would be us). And as I said here before, I don't see your changes as any improvement on the previous version; in fact, it read worse. It was muddled and unclear. I'm sorry, but there it is. FeloniousMonk 03:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

FM, please understand that I'm not attacking you. However, I have left several messages with you to get involved with this "process". I didn't think the lead needed ANY change, but a few highly POV editors pushed here, and Adam tried hard to build a consensus (although none really came out). From my standpoint, DI is engaged in a duplicitous effort to fool people. They pretend that ID is a science, and state that to everyone. But then when speaking to religious groups, they say it's religion. Well, that should be how we describe this article in the lead. I thought the original lead effectively stated what was going on. But now, we're, in essence, allowing the Discovery Institute to state their propaganda in the lead. We need you here! But please, Adam is doing the best he can, even though I don't quite agree with the end result (although I'm willing to live with it). Orangemarlin 17:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have brought it back once again to the last version that reasonably resembled what's been previously consensused. I also reinserted the quotation marks and put in the correct quote for the definition of ID put forward by its "primary" (or is it "leading" or "principal" or "main") proponents here. This preference for the quoted version is about the only thing that can be accurately asserted to have come out of the recent "vote" too. ... Kenosis 03:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Good quote

It has been unanimously rejected by the National Academy of Science, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and every other major scientific and science education organization that has considered the issue, including, we learned this morning, the American Society of Soil Scientists. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice catch. JoshuaZ 03:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I just caught this. That last group-- think they're reliable? there's a lot of dirt in that business of theirs.  ;-/ ... Kenosis 12:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Not as neutral a source as Jones' summing up, but very useful. The paragraphs that follow it point to a fundamental issue:

"As William Dembski stated, unless the ground rules of science are changed to allow the supernatural, intelligent design has, quote, no chance Hades, close quote. In this courtroom, Steve Fuller confirmed that changing the ground rules of science is intelligent design's fundamental project... There's a reason that science does not consider the supernatural. It has no way of measuring or testing supernatural activity. As Professor Behe testified, you can never rule out intelligent design."

Which explains my suggestion that the lead include not just that proponents state it is better than conventional theories, but that they state that it requires a fundamental change in science. .. dave souza, talk 11:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The requirement of a fundamental change in the definition, boundaries and methodology of science, while definitely true, might complicate the lead ... unless you can be pithy about it.  ;) •Jim62sch• 19:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You taking the pith? Howsabout changing

"Its advocates claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life."

to

"Its advocates claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory which requires a fundamental change in the ground rules of science and is as valid as current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life, or even more valid."

Pithyenuff? ... :) . . dave souza, talk 20:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ick. How about: "Its advocates claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life. However, as this requires the collection of "empirical" data in the realm of the supernatural, the ground rules of science would need to be fundamentally changed." •Jim62sch• 20:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I bow to you as a wordsmith. How about:

"Its advocates claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life, subject to science being fundamentally redefined in terms of non-naturalistic theistic realism instead of the methodological naturalism that underlies the scientific method.

We've got references for this in the Defining intelligent design as science section. One point: Theistic realism has lately been tagged for lacking sources, and indeed it seems to have a lot of quotations without properly citing sources. Could someone with access to the sources tackle that? ....... dave souza, talk 16:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed minor changes

I hope that we've managed to reach something akin to consensus now - however, there are a few points which came up earlier that I think can be safely changed.

• Removal of HTML comments.
• "teleological argument" -> "design argument". (I personally prefer "teleological", but there was considerable opposition to it)
• "Abrahamic God" -> "God". (Fairly clear consensus on this issue earlier)
• Put NAS objections before "pseudoscience" reference.
• "support of the intelligent design hypothesis" -> "support of intelligent design". (Just my personal opinion, but, just before this, we've had a statement that ID _doesn't_ generate hypotheses). Tevildo 06:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

All seem sensible to me - I've not been around for a while, but agree with Tevildo's suggestions..... Petesmiles 11:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

One person does not consensus make. Traditional design argument makes no sense, Abrahamic God is there for a very specific reason, in short, it's no improvement. If you can get a consensus beyong just petesmiles and one or two other people, then fine. In the meantime, I'm restoring it to Kenosis' version. •Jim62sch• 11:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive39#Voting_on_the_nature_of_God shows a 6-2 majority opinion in favour of "God", and only one editor - me, as it happens - in favour of "Abrahamic God". I know, "voting is evil", but that's as clear a consensus as we're going to get on any aspect of this article. "Teleological", I'll leave to Orangemarlin. I'll give up on "hypothesis" as a lost cause, despite it contradicting what's said about ID in the previous paragraph. The HTML, see my comments above. Or is the lead now as the laws of the Medes and Persians? If so, at least let's put in another HTML comment to clarify that - and it's not a policy I support, if that needs saying. Tevildo 17:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That was a markedly limited poll, and involved only one regular (as in a year's time or more) editor. In addition, "God" cannot be assumed to refer to the Abrahamic God, which is precisely whom the ID proponents believe the designer to be.

Mot too sure where you're going with the Medes and Persians.

BTW, your counting is a bit suspect. •Jim62sch• 19:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I counted Morphh twice. If we're ignoring simple counting arguments, "God of Christianity" (from the source) might be a candidate. Daniel 6:15, incidentally. Tevildo 21:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, OK, thanks, I'm not fond of the prophetic books -- like Stephen King on acid. The God of Christianity (aside from the triune nature that...well, that's a separate screed) is the Abrahamic God. And, while OM has noted that Jews don't believe this ID crap, there are several Jewish ID proponents who've been trotted out by the DI, and several proponents from Islam (Why Muslims Should Support Intelligent Design. •Jim62sch• 09:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine-tuned Universe

I'd like to tidy up and improve this section - does anyone have any further information, insight or comments on any of the following points?

• Does Gonzalez/the DI actually argue that life couldn't have existed if the universal constants were different or is the current implication OR?

• Why is the 2nd law of thermodynamics in this section?

• Does the DI promote or support the notion that evolution violates the 2nd law? IMHO they're too smart to be that dumb, but you never know....

Tnx - Tomandlu 16:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

All valid questions...lemme go one at a time because I have to do a bit of research:

• Yes, see Guillermo Gonzalez (2004). The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery. ISBN 0-89526-065-4. •Jim62sch• 19:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've now read some of the reviews, which seem to confirm that the book at least makes a partial argument that a fine-tuned universe is required for life. Hard to tell if it's a vague suggestion or a firm assertion. Tomandlu 13:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Because it's been used by leading ID proponents. See [1]. Dembski has actually been dumb enough to support that tripe. •Jim62sch• 20:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so we can confidently say that Dembski is an idiot regarding the 2nd law, but should this have its own section - it doesn't really belong in "fine-tuned universe", does it? Tomandlu 13:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if there's a misunderstanding here. As a creationist, I've always understand the application of the 2nd law in these arguments to be to the whole universe, not just to the earth. Both of the rebuttals here (footnotes 45 and 47 seem to be the same article based on a quick skim of 47 after reading 45) seem to express the idea that creationists (yeah, or ID proponents) are only thinking of the earth as a closed system. It would be good to have references showing ID proponents saying they think the earth is a closed system, if that's possible - or to highlight the misunderstanding.NigelCunningham 01:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't that (the whole universe) be even sillier? Tomandlu 13:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

How so? NigelCunningham 06:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see that I read 45/47 too quickly :) It's the ID side. Perhaps it would be good to put it right after the ID part of the sentence? That said, perhaps I'm still reading too quickly, but I don't see where in the DI article they assert that the earth is a closed system. NigelCunningham 01:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Also see [2]. •Jim62sch• 20:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

And this might answer some other questions as well [3]. •Jim62sch• 20:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Nigel, he DI tends to pick and choose which parts of science/pseudoscience they are going to adopt. With the DI, it seems that anything Dembski says is OK by them as he is their "intellectual" leader.

Tom, 2LOT may not strictly belong in the section it's in (although that depends on how you define fine-tuning), but it is germane to ID as ID is simply creationism reheated. •Jim62sch• 17:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but I still don't think that reference shows that DI thinks the earth is a closed system. My Googling has only found evolutionists saying the creationists say this, giving the impression this is a straw man. NigelCunningham 06:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

NigelCunningham, please don't insert your comments in the middle of comments by other editors – I've moved it here for clarity. One creationist who presents 2lot as an argument for ID is Granville Sewell, and his article making the case is hosted by the DI. Two of his articles are cited by the Discovery Institute as "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design", so you might say there's a connection. What was that about a straw man? .. dave souza, talk 08:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Re in the middle, okay. Sorry. Re the rest, I'm not disputing the use of 2lot. What I am disputing is that it's used to refer to the earth only as a closed system. My understanding has always been that the argument is "If the whole universe is a closed system that has always existed, then 2lot means entropy should be complete by now." HTH. NigelCunningham 22:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> NigelCunningham, you seem to be thinking of Claim CF001.2: as put by Wallace, Timothy, 2002. in Five major evolutionist misconceptions about evolution: the link provided now goes to Wallace's response of 2005-2007. For other claims see An Index to Creationist Claims, and for articles on the subject see Thermodynamics, Evolution and Creationism. Note that each of the pages listed in the index has a reference to the original claim. .. dave souza, talk 09:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

(Sorry for the slow reply) Yeah, I am thinking of pages like that first one. Note though that there is no claim there that the earth is a closed system. It's been a week since I started to read those other articles, and I didn't notice anything along those lines in the other ones I saw either. Did I miss something? NigelCunningham 04:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Separation of church and state

I was speaking to another Englishman about ID/DI the other day. He was fairly well-informed, but was nevertheless amazed when I explained how the issue of the separation of church and state (SOCAS) was a major factor in the creation of the ID baloney. I've given up trying to make any changes to the intro, but this might be something for the holy guardians of the lead to consider (i.e. that it currently assumes that the reader will know about and understand how the SOCAS affects the issue in the US). Tomandlu 16:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

To illustrate how this might be done,

The term was introduced in 1987 after the Supreme Court of the United States in Edwards v. Aguillard ruled out the teaching of Creation science alongside evolution. Drafts of the school textbook Of Pandas and People were then altered to replace "creationism" with intelligent design. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature. During the trial, intelligent design advocate Michael Behe testified under oath that no scientific evidence in support of the intelligent design hypothesis has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

SOCA is already covered under the Establishment Clause, which doesn't mean much to non-U.S. citizens but seems a bit complex to introduce into the lead: perhaps this adds to the case for the first section being an overview which goes over the main points briefly with more explanation than is suitable for the lead. .. dave souza, talk 19:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC) corrected 10:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thinking it over,

The term was introduced after the Supreme Court of the United States in 1987 ruled in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard that requiring teaching of Creation science alongside evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which prohibits state aid to religion. Drafts of the school textbook Of Pandas and People were then altered to replace "creationism" with intelligent design. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution was also a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature. During the trial, intelligent design advocate Michael Behe testified under oath that no scientific evidence in support of the intelligent design hypothesis has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Constitutional corrections welcome. .. dave souza, talk 19:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC) corrected 10:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit War! I was just about to submit:

The trouble is that this is only covered in the main article in one paragraph in "controversies" - a ", which prohibits the promotion of religion in state-schools." (or similiar). Not necessarily the lead - it could be in the overview imho. Tomandlu 19:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Your version is better imho. Tomandlu 19:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Dave's version looks good to me also. JoshuaZ 20:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well at least Dave was pithy with something.  ;) Looks fine. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

A discussion of this issue had already begun within the last couple weeks, with Dave and I advocating a mention of the Edwards case and how ID was framed to try to meet the standard set by the US Supreme Court in 1987. I think the discussion should continue until the idea is either rejected or a way is found of stating the information to the reader earlier in the article than it presently is. Presently, this information is not given until the third paragraph of "Origins of the term". As of now, I think it should be at the beginning of the "overview" section, and Dave thinks it should be in the article lead. And I also think we still have not found the needed language to express this chain of events from 1987 to 1990 more concisely than it presently is in the "Origins of the term" section. ... Kenosis 22:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Dave Souza, being from the Isles, may have a better perspective than I do on this aspect of the information gap about ID, which would appear fairly consistent with Tomandlu's perspective and related anecdote. How about considering an intermediary fix, so as not to break up the 1,2,3 balance of the lead (what ID is, what the scientific community says, and what the legal status is). Under this preliminary proposal, a modification of Dave's, the "Overview" section would begin:

• The term "intelligent design" was first published in 1989, in the book Of Pandas and People, 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 U.S. Supreme Court, in the Edwards case, had also held held that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."[cite to Edwards case.} In 1987 drafts of the school textbook Of Pandas and People, all derivativations of "creation-" were replaced with "intelligent design", a change involving over a hundred instances of the use of "creation science" and other uses of the root word "creation-". In the 1990's the term "intelligent design" became increasingly used by advocates of teaching a creation-based alternative to evolution, particularly in the United States.'

This proposal is submitted with the presumption that the Overview would just continue as it's already written from this point onward. .... Kenosis 23:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC) year of substitution corrected dave souza, talk 10:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Errm, I'm not from The Isles, but from the Scottish mainland. The required cite could be "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." Ruling - context, pg. 31 – 33 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. – link to page 33, the three pages refer to Edwards which is also described at Page 22 of 139: "the Supreme Court held that the state violated the Establishment Clause by 'restructur[ing] the science curriculum to conform with a particular religious viewpoint.' Edwards, 482 U.S. at 593." In my opinion this and other info discussed earlier or raised by Adam can greatly improve the overview, but the particular point is important enough to summarise briefly in the lead, as suggested above. ... dave souza, talk 10:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Isles, mainland, whichever - the edit looks good to me, wherever you happen to be. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmph. Thank ya', Dave, for puttin' it straight. Aw'Right, time fer a bevvy ... S'no yoor round, 's'ma round, ånd may yer lums reek lang ånd weil. ;-) ... Kenosis 14:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As of now, we have a valid citation to two reliable sources, Edwards v. Aguilard, and Kitzmiller v. Dover. The latter concludes, based on the evidence of drafts of Of Pandas and People before and after the Edwards case, that the post-Edwards drafts of the book had substituted "intelligent design" in place of all the uses of the root word "creation-", such as "creation science" and other variations of this term. I think this is adequate to support the proposed paragraph.

If I correctly understand the views put forward by participants in this discussion, it appears that Tomandlu, Jim62sch, JoshuaZ, KillerChihuahua, Dave Souza and myself are in support of including this paragraph or a close variation thereof. I want to go ahead with inserting the paragraph, with these two citations for now, at the beginning of the Overview section. Any objections? ... Kenosis 17:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop chewin' the cud an' jest put 'er in'ere. ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, the proposed revision to the lead is accepted by the above as well as Kenosis' more detailed clarification to the overview – both can refer to the same references. Any objections? ... dave souza, talk 17:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's a cite to the Edwards case: 482 U.S. 578, 594. ... Kenosis 17:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Being economical (Scots!) I've added the page numbers/links to the existing reference to provide citations for the whole of the revised lead paragraph with one inline link. It probably makes good sense to repeat the exercise with the overview, or if all three links are suitable the lead citation could become "ref name=" for re-use with a suitable title. Trust the lead now explains things better for us ignorant foreigners ;) .. dave souza, talk 18:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The sentence with the quote from the Edwards case is vital to making the point. That's why I advocated putting it at the beginning of the Overview section. Arrgh. ... Kenosis 18:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kenosis. Except I have no parrot on me shoulders. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved the section on the origin of the term to overview and removed the info from the lead. As "First Amendment" and "Establishment Clause" are linked I don't see a need for what I've moved being in the lead. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed. Unfortunately this leaves the lead incomprehensible to us foreigners who aren't familiar with the US Constitution, introduces Edwards without explanation and loses the point about Pandas changing to the term to evade Edwards. It means we're relying on newcomers reading on to the Overview before they begin to understand these points. Anyway, "The term "intelligent design" was first published in 1989" is contradicted by the Origins of the term section, suggest "The term "intelligent design" in its modern usage was first published in 1989". There's an overlap with the latter part of that section, suggest it be merged into this introductory paragraph of the Overview. ... dave souza, talk 18:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Dang you Isles foreigners -- we have to learn about your bloody Magna Carta, you could return the favour!  ;)

Anyway, Kenosis reworked it, I'm OK with it. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Not our bloomin' Magna Carta mate, and do you learn aboot the Declaration of Arbroath? Anyway, agree Kenosis has cracked it imo, all good. Now for the other points about the Overview sections... .. dave souza, talk 19:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

i did rework it, tentatively at least, until we can sort this out and arrive at a reasonable expression from an international point of view.

I very strongly disagree that "first published use of the term" is contradictory. Prior to the 1989 publication of Of Pandas and People the words had only been used as a descriptive phrase attempting to describe something else, and even then only in transitory passing. In 1989, it became a term, a classification of a category of things, a subject or topic of its own accord. ... Kenosis 19:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

A fair point that could be made explicit in the Origins of the term section. ... dave souza, talk 19:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure Kenosis is assiduously working on that.

Yes, Dave, we did learn about the Declaration of Arbroath. What, do you think we're provincial louts or sumpin? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably learnt more about it than we did – too insular here! . .  :) . . dave souza, talk 19:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As can be seen, I made several significant changes and a series of minor adjustments today in the article, the combination of which, I hope, correctly expresses the collective intent of the participants in this discussion. Tomandlu, thanks for the informative anecdote that you gave at the start of this section, which provided an extremely useful perspective on the information gap that needed to be filled. Hopefully it's now more-or-less taken care of, at least as far as mere information can go (until the next set of vociferous arguments of course). For now, good regards to all, and also to any and all particpating Scots whether from the Isles or not. ;-). ... Kenosis 23:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks for all that work. The sentence "Its first published use was in 1989 in a textbook intended for high-school biology classes, and the term's use became increasingly frequent in the 1990s and early 2000's, culminating in a 2005 trial challenging its intended use in public school science classes." seemed a bit clumsy, and focusses on the term rather than the proposition, so I've modified it to "Its first published use was in 1989 in a textbook intended for high-school biology classes, and the proposition was given increasing publicity culminating in a 2005 trial challenging its intended use in public school science classes." Technically its use didn't go beyond an admin reading out a statement that "Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view" and commending Pandas to the class, but it was in actual use to that extent, so is "intended" necessary? Guess it does show that it was intended, or dare I say designed. ... dave souza, talk 08:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Given the wording of the rest of the sentence, proposition is decidedly the wrong word. "Intended" belongs right where it is. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 12:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If it seems a bit clumsy, I would first try breaking it up into two sentences. ... Kenosis 13:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC) I broke it up into two sentences, and tried a slightly different approach, keeping in mind both the international perspective discussed in this talk section and WP:LEAD. Gives the reader a quick take on how the use of the words turned into a movement, essentially all in response to the Edwards case. ... Kenosis 13:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say its quite good, Kenosis, thanks. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. ... dave souza, talk 23:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Misleading statistic mining

Currently the article states that a 2005 Harris poll concludes that "ten percent of adults in the United States view human beings as 'so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them,'" but neglects to mention that 64% of respondents stated they believe man was created directly by God. As direct divine creation is a subset of intelligent design theories, isn't it rather misleading to leave the 10% statistic out there as though 1/10 respondents said they believed human creation was guided somehow, when in fact 74% of respondents said so? JDoorjam JDiscourse 00:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

For my own part, just one piece among many persons involved, I advocated leaving it out entirely, based on poor statistical method, questionable operational definitions and phraseology by the poll-takers. But, the Harris Poll appears to have wanted to differentiate between "pure" or "traditional" creation-oriented beliefs about origins, and "evolution-based" beliefs about origins (I use the word "belief" loosely in referring to the "end-users" of these ideas, those who were polled to sample their views). And apparently they assumed that "intelligent design" is a whole separate category, which, well, as experienced editors involved with this article know, well, it is, sort of, and then again it isn't, sort of, and then again, it's a legal strategy, and then again it's about a "designer of some kind" and then again about "God", depending of course on which audience they're talking to at the moment, and then again, it's about redefining "science", etc., etc.

And that's only the beginning of the issues with this poll. But to be direct, I personally think the next question should have been something like: "If you ansered "God", please answer the following question too. 'If your church officially told you as a child that God would not punish you for picking the "evolution" option over the "God" option, would your answer be different? (Yes - No - Maybe)" and "If you ansered either "God" or "was guided by an intelligence", would your answer be different if we had provided you the option to pick "More-than-one-of-the-above" or "All-of-the-above" (Yes - No - Maybe so, maybe not). In a couple words, the sampling method was highly questionable.

As to what part of the Harris Poll is relevant to the article on "intelligent design", only one part is necessary, the part about "intelligent design" or however the Harris Group put it. The rest belongs in creation-evolution controversy or somewhere else (like the proverbial "round file") ... Kenosis 00:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

However, transferring this discussion from my talk page, JDoorjam and I were discussing whether ID is a subset of Creationism, which I believe it is. Orangemarlin 00:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes OM, and ID is a subset of the teleological argument, and panentheism is partly a subset of theism and partly a subset of pantheism and partly a subset of creationism, and so on and so forth. And (I say this in the friendliest of ways) "So what?" ... Kenosis 00:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't care all that much. JDoorjam asked me on my talk page, and I told him I'd bring it here. It's all fantasy to me. Orangemarlin 01:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. With regard to the particular Harris Group poll presently under discussion, the most pertinent fantasy to me is the question, put very roughly (that is, about as roughly put as the more pertinent questions on broad-based issues most often are): "If you answered C, or D: How, if, as a child, you had not been taught that God would punish you solely for not believing in Him [capitalisation intentional], would you have answered the question, in 2005, "Do you believe in evolution or in Me [capitalisation intentional]?". Note very carefully that the Harris Group also had provided no option to say, for example, "Um, no, the question is ridiculous the way y'all put it". Wikipedia, ridiculous as it is at many times, at least provides this opportunity; and, I might add, given our common history I would think there's no reason to expect the argumentation about this article, complex, provocative, sometimes duplicitous, and often unnerving as it is, to stop at the present time... Kenosis 01:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind removing the Harris poll either. The only strong reasons to keep it are 1) its the only large scale poll we've got and 2) The DI has the same objections [4]. I wouldn't be surprised if they just got it from reading the top of this conversation. They do seem to spend so much time complaining about the state of this article. I suppose its what they do when they take breaks between all that cutting-edge ID research. Joking aside, the only reasonable way I see to include the Harris poll is to give everything verbatim and that seems to have its own issues. JoshuaZ 02:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with simply removing the poll, too. I went to try to improve the line, but couldn't decide what to put in. Other statistics quoted in the report only confuse the issue further - compare, for example, tables 1, 3 and 6. If it does stay, perhaps table 6 should be used. NigelCunningham 05:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd also be fine with removing it; as it stands it's the half-expression of a badly constructed poll. JDoorjam JDiscourse 07:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Move the whole paragraph to Intelligent design movement, it probably fits better there anyway. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Misleading section heading!! The interpretation is that of the Harris organisation, at a time when ID was not creationism oh no certainly not my goodness that is a coincidence that we're all in this big tent... A better summary:

A 2005 Harris poll identified ten percent of adults in the United States as taking the intelligent design position, that "human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them", while 64% agreed with the creationist view that "human beings were created directly by God" and 22% believed "human beings evolved from earlier species" (evolution).[5]

As Jim says, probably best moved to the movement. It was introduced when polls claiming massive support for ID were being waved about, methinks such polls less likely now... dave souza, talk 10:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I support this move. The poll, to whatever extent it might possibly convey useful information, is more relevant to the article on intelligent design movement. The issue can, of course, be revisited later if the demand is strong for the Harris Poll and DI-poll information in this article. ... Kenosis 17:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I love subtle sarcasm, Kenosis. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved it to the movement article. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI, according to the Discovery Institute's media complaints blog, evolutionnews.org, the DI would like to see the poll removed from this article as well: Wikipedia "Intelligent Design" Entry Selectively Cites Poll Data to Present Misleading Picture of Support for Intelligent Design For this very reason alone I think the info Harris (independant) and Zogby (DI sponsored) polls is necessary and should stay. Removing it only allows the DI to repeat its misinformation unchallenged. Odd nature 19:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought we'd agreed to move it. I'll leave its replacement unchallenged pending the outcome of this discussion, although one participant is not exactly "high demand" for its return. I still think it should be left only in the article on intelligent design movement. I also corrected it by removing "critics have written that" It's not only critics who have asserted the poll "suffers from considerable flaws", but the Los Alamos organization itself (many participants of which presumably know a thing or two about statistics).

On the one hand, the info in the citation (here) states: Joe Renick stated that IDNet-NM would STOP using that poll. From John Fleck's article "Anti-Evolution Poll Called Bogus" (Sunday, August 17, 2003): "Renick said Friday [August 15th] his organization plans to stop using the poll, saying it "is turning into a distraction from the really important business of the science standards." On the other hand, evidently the network has chosen to continue to assert the validity of the poll (e.g., here).

My preference would be to continue to leave this paragraph out. The Harris Poll is flawed no matter what it purports to show, as discussed above. And the issue of believing in the idea of an intelligent designer--or however exactly it was that the Harris Group chose to phrase it as a mutually exclusive alternative to either "created by God" or "evolved"-- is a separate issue from asserting it should be taught in biology class as an alternative to evolution. Moreover, the two polls are dealing with two populations, the Harris poll with the general public, and the Zogby poll (purportedly) with a population of scientists. I think it's too much scruff to rightly continue to include as part of the "overview" section. Frankly, both polls are pre-Kitzmiller and obsolete already, and from a statistical-sampling standpoint neither was ever properly implemented to begin with. Maybe placing it in a section at the end would be a way of approaching this, perhaps in a very brief section or subsection entitled "Polls about intelligent design" or something like that? ... Kenosis 23:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record I think it's relevant here and should stay. FeloniousMonk 04:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Overview Section:

Hi guys, just browing the article, which obviously many people have put a lot of time and effort into. I just have a question, that may have already been discussed in another talk page. In the Overview Section, in the last paragraph it is stated that according to a Harris poll, 10 percent of individuals believe in intelligent design. In my humble opinion, this is somewhat misleading. I think the contents of the entire poll should be posted, so the reader gets a better grasp on all aspects of this poll. I think the reader is left to assume that, therefore 90 percent of individuals beleive in evolution, which is clearly not the case. I think it would be more clear if this sentence stated 10 percent believe in ID, however almost two-thirds of U.S. adults (64%) agree with the basic tenet of creationism, or that "human beings were created directly by God." While approximately one-fifth (22%) of adults believe "human beings evolved from earlier species" (evolution), as stated in the Harris poll. I think that would provide more clarity to this statement. Overall, it seems the editors have taken a lot of time to explain both sides of this issue. Thank you. 131.44.121.252 18:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

yes, thanks. A number of participants were just discussing this above, and deciding what to do about that paragraph which mentions the polls. ... Kenosis 18:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

See above. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This article in the news

FYI... this article is mentioned in news articles that are showing up on Google News: this and this came up in my customised Wikipedia section. Mikker ^(...) 21:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that explains the flurry of interest in that poll. So, Casey's out of date already! However, are these reliable sources? . . ;) . . dave souza, talk 22:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Americans believe in Sasquatch, Alien abduction, and Miller Lite is really beer. I guess it makes sense that so many believe in Creationism. Of course, these articles fail to point out how bad these polls were. Orangemarlin 22:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The article talks about how I and others dealt with Chahax :) Raul654 22:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I remember reading about that – so you've created another Martyr to the sacred cause of ID! Will it get as much coverage as Sternberg? Also note the complaint that we didn't mention that the poll shows "a majority (55%) believe that all three of these theories should be taught in public schools" – so if they get what they want, you'll have to introduce more RI classes! (joke - we used to get a period a week of Religious Instruction) .. dave souza, talk 23:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I seem to remember this article dealing with intelligent design, not the general belief in a creator.

".. the poll had two responses that both favored ID thought, but only one was used for the 10 percent result. The 'actual results' would show that around 74 percent of Americans believe there is a creator."

Can we possibly clarify this even more? -- Ec5618 12:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed from this article, clarified at Intelligent design movement#Two fronts, two goals. .... dave souza, talk 13:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Clarifying lead

Well, I'm off on holiday in a few hours - it's kind of a last minute thing, but my rather spectacular meltdown seemed to merit it. It's looking a lot better now. I'm not... completely sure that things are always presented in the most logical order in the lead, but, well, I'm not going to argue about it until I'm a bit calmer.

I have made one change - revert it if you like, I guess, but I do think something needs done about it: "undirected processes" is (probably intentionally) ambiguous, so I kept the first, less controversial bit of the quote, but paraphrased the second bit to a more exact "unguided". I also changed "proposition" to "claim", as, well, with the "best" and all, it's being described in the proponent's terms. "Claim" makes that reasonably unambiguous, whereas "proposition" is a fairly neutral word that would go best with a neutral phrasing, or something not so strongly disputed.

It now reads Intelligent design is the claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause" as opposed to unguided processes such as natural selection, which I think is a little more precise. See you sometime Tuesday! Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Adam, hope you have a pleasant holiday, and come back refreshed. ... Kenosis 01:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I must say I really like the new paragraph three. Great work, everyone! Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"derivativations" of the term

Hah! ;-) Amatulic, thank you so much for catching that here! (;-/ And yes, "cognates" well replaces either "derivatives" or "derivations " ... Kenosis 17:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Cognates has been replaced with derivations as cognate has a special meaning not at all related to what was clearly an editing error.

To wit: Fire, feuer, pýř and πυρ are cognates. Firey, firing, fired are derivations of fire. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed Jim62sch's edit here, which prefers "derivation" to "cognate". I understand his concernativation about this, as cognate ordinarily implies an etymological aspect, but had no complaints about the broader interpretation of "cognate". No complaints about "derivation(s)" either. As another f'rinstance, "uses involving the root word 'creation-' " would have been fine with me too, along with other reasonable ways of expressing it. Anyway, thanks for catching the the errorizative in my grammaticalization. ... Kenosis 19:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Listen, Dubya...  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, lets have no Bushismitization on this page .... . dave souza, talk 19:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Though I thought about this just a bit more, and realized that "cognate" in its etymological usage tends to have as much to do with intent and meaning in etymology as it does with a specific root word. Given this, I suppose "intelligent design" is a cognate of "creation-", though I would hope not to dwell on this any much further at all. ... Kenosis 19:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

See Cognate. When speaking of words in the manner we are here, the only definition that matters is the linguistic definition. And no, ID is not a cognate for creationism, a euphemism or synonym yes, but most definitely not a cognate. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Um. This may seem a trivial point, but the article doesn't seem to me to say that ID is a cognate for creationism, though it did say almost all cognates of "creation-", such as "creation science", were replaced with the words "intelligent design" [currently "cognates" has been replaced by "derivations"]. The good judge actually wrote (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID" As to whether the judge was correct or not, or whether "creation science" is a cognate of "creationism", I express no opinion. Orrabest, . . dave souza, talk 22:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes Dave. This I didn't miss. And as I said, readily accept either Jim62sch's reasoning or Amatulic's reasoning here. My point,mostly in humor but partly sober in pointing up some of the implications of the word "cognate" in its broader usage, was not that either the WP article or the judge in Kitzmiller v. Dover was asserting that ID is a cognate of "creation-". Rather, the point was that when one looks across etymological analyses of the kinds of words and root-words that ordinarily are considered "cognates", a primary concern of etymologists has to do essentially with when and where a given word-usage picked up from another closely related word-usage, typically with a similar phonetic aspect (i.e. tending to sound similar at the time of the transition from one usage to another). This is generally not applied, as Jim observed and as I feel sure Amatulic agrees, to a replacement of a given approximate word-sound (e.g. "creation") with wholly different word-sound (such as "intelligent design"). So no one here, including myself, is seriously asserting that ID is a cognate of creation. But, the Kitzmiller decision was using the word "cognate" in a somewhat broadened sense from that of the typical etymologist already, and I was merely taking off on the broader meaning of "cognate" (a broader meaning that is included in a number of the major dictionaries AFAIK, which must in turn raise the hackles of many seasoned etymologists). Thus my friendly attempt at a but of meta-etymological humor here on a decidedly minor issue with this article on ID. But, again, by no stretch of the imagination was I seriously implying that ID should be considered a "cognate" of "creationism" because they are too far apart in phonetic construction to fit within the normally understood use of "cognate". I should have been more specific the first time. ... Kenosis 03:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Aaaargggghhh..... Linguistics lesson: (Note, linguistics not etymology).

This, "...a primary concern of etymologists has to do essentially with when and where a given word-usage picked up from another closely related word-usage, typically with a similar phonetic aspect..." is not really true. The when and where can matter to an extent, for example, the names of numbers and family members (father, mother, brother, etc) are the oldest words in most if not all language families, and all came from the same when and where. Other whens and wheres can show how the proto-language (PIE in the case of English, Latin, Greek, Russian, etc.) began to diverge to the point where cognates appear only in groups of related tongues in the family (i.e., Germanic, Slavic, Italic, Celtic, etc.). "Picked-up" word usage, however shows something diffent -- borrowings or lexicographical changes in the word (see for example, "preservative"; in English it is something we use in food, in most other languages it is a condom). As to phonetic aspect, beef and cow (which are cognates) have no phonemes in common. The same is true for star and étoile, in which one letter is shared, but the phonemes are different. Others are, four, quattuor, and tessares; five, penta, quinque; seven and hepta., etc.

Then of course there are words like cleave (to split) and cleave (to adhere firmly) that look like cognates but are totally unrelated. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, OK. So why isn't "intelligent design" a cognate of "creationism"? ... Kenosis 19:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC) Never mind, as it was a rhetorical question. The examples of beef and cow, star and étoile, had phonemes in common at the original point of departure from one usage to another. ... Kenosis 19:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC) Also Jim, interesting you should mention "cleave" as not even being a cognate of itself. Also interesting to me, contrary to my first expectation, it turns out that "cognate" and "cognition" are not cognates. The former goes back to the latin "nasci" (to be born) -> "natus" (born), same root as "nature". The latter goes back to another root, "co- + "gnscere", to know, same root as "gnosis". ... Kenosis 20:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

<Wheeee!> (Looks impressed as debate goes over head) a minor query: was "creation science" actually used in the pre-wordprocessorizated Pandas? We know "creationism" and "creationist" were from the trial conclusions, but have we a source for that variation? . .. dave souza, talk 19:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Good question-- I think I'd like to see an exact quote on that. The Kitzmiiler decision, as we know, simply mentions "creation-". The graphs exhibited in court in Kitzmiller sampled the character strings "creation-" and "creationis-". Anyone happen to have a copy of Of Pandas and People handy? ... Kenosis 19:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

According to [6] , the predecessor of Pandas, Biology and Origins, doesn't use the term "creation science". However, it's not clear whether the version referred to is the post-Edwards revision. All the quotes I've seen from the pre-Edwards revisions have just had "creation" or "creationists". Tevildo 13:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, beef and cow shared phonemes in PIE only. Star and étoile (< Lat stella) only had the initial phoneme "st" in common. Now, there are linguistic rules that cover these phoneme changes, but we don't have enough space here to go into them. See Grimm's law for a few of them. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

an old but stubborn error of semantic.

besides the fact that the references do not support the claim that both ID and WAP are tautologies (the references say only the common belief of many cosmologists that the WAP is a tautology), the statement is stupid and makes the article look stupid. we've been here before. a statement that is a tautology or truism is itself a "vacuous truth". it is about the most non-controversial statement one can make. i think it's reasonable to say here that ID is not considered to be uncontroversial nor "true" because of its very definition. ID is actually claiming something that is controversial, so much so that the "overwelming" consensus of science rejects it.

what becomes controversial is when such a vacuous truth is used to support a claim of something else that is not obviously true. sometimes the WAP is used to support the concept of the Strong AP or the Final AP, both of which are also controversial. just because the WAP is obviously true, does not mean that the SAP or FAP (or the "CRAP") or ID is true. WAP is a tautology, ID is a controversial claim. a controversial statement is not itself a tautology. r b-j 17:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, in all the sources given [7][8][9], the point is being made in the context of discussing ID. Odd nature 17:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

duh, your source do not support inclusion of ID as a tautology. they never have. and since ID is a controversial claim, it's not a tautology. not only are you being ignorant, you're being lazy. and you're expecting your ignorance to be reflected in the article. r b-j 17:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You are being incivil. Again. Incivil editors do not deserve responses; they need to be shown the door, not respect. Odd nature 18:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps only a brief response is due, then. The WP article makes no claim as Rbj claims it does. It only reports the position of Stenger and other such as Joseph Silk, and this brief reporting in the section on "Fine-tuned universe" is clearly and accurately stated. ... Kenosis 18:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

RBJ, I've seen enough of your insults and incivility to editors here. You've been asked nicely, you've been reminded, you've been pointed to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, you've been warned, and yet you are still calling people "ignorant" and "lazy". Apparently you have not been able to find the time to read these, or to consider how you can apply them to your discussions with fellow editors. I'm blocking to give you that time. Please read the linked pages, and when you return, I expect to see less nastiness and more civility from you. Cross posting to Talk:Intelligent design and User talk:Rbj. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

the comments stand. there is no reference that says that critics says that both ID and WAP are tautologies. only "critics" that say that the WAP is a tautology. and the funny thing is, it is not only critics that say so, but proponents of the WAP. you can make an argument that using a tautology to support a further claim (such as ID) is worthy of criticism, but tautologies, in and of themselves, are not controversial. ID is controversial and the article says that ID is a tautology in this one dumb statement that 151 clings to and, on the other hand, says that ID is controversial (or false) in nearly the entire rest of the article. it cannot be both a tautology and something that is not obviously true (because its conclusion is not obviously equivalent to its premise). i don't think that anyone here (except creationists which i am not) accepts that ID is so obviously true (and, again, it shouldn't matter what we think of whatever veracity of ID, such should not define the article content nor its POV). r b-j 05:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Puppy has spoken 8-O ...so let's all try to keep a cool head. We can make progress on this if we make the effort to be co-operative and respectful. SheffieldSteel 19:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

instantly reverting a change for accuracy without cause is hardly respectful. r b-j 05:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Good thing that isn't what I did, then. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think KC has resolved the issue of keeping a cool head, cooperation and being respectful. As for r-b-j, it's time for r-f-c. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:12, 11 May 2007

(UTC)

RfC is going nowhere it appears. A few comments, and it has been revised in a couple of days.Orangemarlin 14:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

References

I'm going to start working on the references for this article soon. It's a mess--I noticed commentary within references that are best placed in the article, inline references using a variety of formats, mostly nonstandard, and my favorite, a footnote referring to two or more articles (that's new). I will review each reference, and I will pass no POV judgment on it, unless it is really bad (in the Evolution article there were references that pointed to 3rd grade designed websites), dead, or, in fact, doesn't refer to the point being discussed. I will use the WP:CITET version of references. I don't like Harvard references because they are somewhat more complex. When I'm engaged in fixing a mass of references, I'm throwing a tag up asking that no one edit while I'm doing this to prevent edit conflicts. Thanks. And Adam Cuerden, you owe me :) Orangemarlin 14:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

There can be good reason for using footnotes for more detailed explanation of points in the article: Adam would tell you if he was here himself, but for an example see Charles Darwin. CITET gives an option of using Template:Citation or various Template:Cite book etc. templates – a choice to consider. In the interim I've modified the intro again as the statement about the DI getting involved a year after publication of Pandas is contradicted by this link - that's a reference that may be worth adding, as it presents a clear sequence which i couldn't find when looking through these articles. As always, perhaps I've missed something. ...... dave souza, talk 15:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm leaving in the ongoing ARGUMENTS that have been placed within the footnotes. However, it doesn't make sense, since those arguments are recounted much more clearly in the references. But I refuse on general principle and on what I know are good referencing styles to NOT place a reference after the argument. The ongoing discussion will be separated from the citation. The necessary citations will immediately follow the commentary footnote. This is really odd though, since I thought we settled all of this above, and the appropriate citations seem pretty good to me. Orangemarlin 15:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Summaries or direct quotes within footnotes are useful and fine here, I think, so please be circumspect in your effort. Considering I provided a large number of the sources here, I can tell you that we all have done our utmost to rely on the most notable outlets for all secondary sources. FeloniousMonk 17:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I promise. I guess I like neatly sourced and cited articles. Anyways, I volunteered to lay out the references in a neat and tidy manner, not to pass editorial judgment. I understand the conflicts that created this article, and I will be respectful of what was written. But my anal retentive side will attempt to make them neat.  :) Orangemarlin 04:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Damn, you destroyed my chance to make an anal retentive joke. Curse you Marlin.  ;)

Of course, I suppose I could mention OCD. Now, go wash your hands (25 times) before editing.  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Establishment Clause

This phrase, found near the end of the lead is kind of obscure. Can we instead say something like "in violation of the prohibition against the promoting of religion by the government in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution"?

...That, of course, is excessively verbose, but I'm sure we can come up with something. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I took out some of the extra specifics from the third paragraph, such as the mention of Phillip E. Johnson and Stephen Meyer. The lead is, per WP:LEAD, generally expected to be a compact summary of the rest of the article. Constitutional separation of church and state is articulated in the way Adam proposes in the very first paragraph of the "overview" that follows the lead, and yet again in the approximate way he proposes in the third paragraph of "Origins of the term". That's two levels of gradually expanding specificity. If it needs to be more specific, by all means it could be made yet more specific in some appropriate place in the article. But it's already specific enough for the lead. (If Phillip E. Johnson and Stephen Meyer need to be mentioned as being directly involved in the founding of the Discovery Institute and in having founded the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, this can readily be integrated into the Overview or given more specific treatment somewhere else in the article. Offhand, I think this more relevant in the overview than is the current last paragraph about the highly questionable Harris and Zogby polls). ... Kenosis 13:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's SHORTER, but the lead is supposed to be the most accessible part, not just a short summary. Since "Establishment Clause" isn't a term in general use, we ought to say, or at least imply, what it is in the minimum necessary detail that still allows the reader to understand the sentence. One possibility strikes me: The last sentence, "U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature." is... actually a much easier sentence than the one before, so if we rearranged the two sentences to allow a phrasing like "ruled that it was not science, but instead essentially religious in nature, and thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution." that would strongly imply what the Establishment clause is. It might lose Judge Jones, though, but... well, we could rearrange and chop up. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and did that - I think it works, at least, compared to [10], which is the last edit before the rearrangement, if anyone wants to roll back. See what you think. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to squashing in a note about "the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution" in the lead (though there's a very approximate limit to how much can reasonably be put there before it increasingly fails to be a WP:LEAD). I made several adjustments here and here , leaving it in this form. A very minor quibble I still have about using the words in the third paragraph of the lead, "... trial challenging its intended use..." (technically a "trial" doesn't challenge, but instead it is a "complainant" who challenges and a "trial" that is the process for assessing the complaint), but offhand I think we can get away with this informal wording in this one place. ... Kenosis 19:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC) One more thing at the moment, given that there appears to be a determination by some participants to alter the language of the lead at present (as if everyone will ever agree). The last sentence of the lead includes the phrase "and thus teaching it violated the Establishment Clause..." The issue was not even actively teaching it, but instead submitting to students a written statement in biology class that evolution is only a theory and that "intelligent design" is an alternative "explanation for the origin of life". Any thoughts about how to adjust the language of the last sentence of the lead to properly reflect this? ... Kenosis 20:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Good points. Sorry! I forgot about that specific. How about "and thus the district's promotion of it violated the Establishment Clause", or something along those lines? Of course, we could always go back to the version I linked as the pre-rearrangemt version and just explain the establishment clause instead. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the way I see it.

I have 100% confirmation that people pray in the name of Jesus over those who have amputated limbs and watch them grow out before their eyes. Now, you can assign whatever paranormal explanation you want to this phenomenon, but the bottom line is that from these experiences you can surmise a non-zero possibility that Jesus is real and has creative power. However, you are telling me that we are not allowed to give serious consideration to any kind of intelligent design theories (for the origin of life) because intelligent design "lacks consistency", "violates the principle of parsimony", "is not falsifiable", "is not empirically testable", "and is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive". I smell a real fart on this one guys and think you may be fooling yourselves in the end. DavidPesta 13:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain a little more what you are getting at? ProtoCat 13:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Science has its limits and the logic typically used to disqualify the question about intelligent design will never convince the large number of people who have these kinds of metaphysical experiences and other kinds of encounters with Jesus. If science is "not allowed" to explore an area of reality that falls inside of human experience, then the process of science falls short and is not enough to discover the truth about the most interesting and important questions. This may well include intelligent design for the origin of life. DavidPesta 19:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This discussion page is there to discuss and improve the article, not the subject. Maybe we should add the creationism article's "If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of [creationism] please do so at talk.origins, True.Origins Archive, or Wikireason. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article" disclaimer to this talk page? Malc82 13:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The point made here is relevant to the article because it is the reason why supporters of intelligent design wish to revise the practice of science so that it can consider theological questions about the origin of the earth (and other phenomenon that our approach to science has no hope of explaining). Are we in the vocation of science because we are interested in discovering truth? Or are we in it to become slaves to an increasingly outdated set of limited rules that are based upon an ideology of naturalism? The writing is on the wall. The best mainstream science ever does to explain a great number of things is to belittle and discriminate against people with a priori arguments in order to beat their story into submission unto naturalism. Science shouldn't do this if it is to be an impartial and reliable way to discover the truth about what is actually real. I am only one voice with limitations in time and space, so all I can do for the scientific community as a whole is make the following appeal: Either fix this problem or stop putting on the act that you are guardians of the truth! DavidPesta 19:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to potentially disillusion anyone, but WP actually is way down the food chain here, and can only report based on rules of WP:Attribution what reliable sources have said about the topic, in keeping with the principle of WP:NPOV, the manner of implementation of which is determined via WP:Consensus. The sources from which this article is derived include statements by virtually all the major scientific organizations and the U.S. federal court system which has standing to interpret constitutional requirements concerning educational policy in the U.S. Offhand, I think the actual complaint here rests upon the fact that the material is summarized all in one place, widely accessible on the web-- a fair enough complaint about a story that some would very much prefer to read differently. But, a significant change in its content would first require a significant change in the way the reliable sources report on the topic. ... Kenosis 19:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the discussion page, not the article page, and I was pointing out a problem in the way this subject is approached in this article. This is also aimed at the scientific community as a whole, which I hope you are a part of. Everything I wrote is to encourage everyone to reconsider the way they write articles like this. People who read this article do not know that the scientific community studies this issue with the hidden assumption of philosophical naturalism. Readers are led to believe that the conclusions of the scientific community have a level of authority in this matter that they do not. The reason I say this is because the way science is practiced (under the framework of naturalism) falls short of being able to discover the entire depth of truth about the possibility of intelligent design. People are not given this impression when they read this article, but it is only sane and rational to let readers know the limitations of science when studying origins. Why is the article partial to the idealogy of naturalism when only 13% of the United States even believes that "man developed over time, but God had no part in the process"? (http://www.galluppoll.com/videoArchive/?ci=23188) Why are you saying that the ideology of naturalism is a better point of view? People don't tend to believe in it. (Please note that theistic evolution is also a form of intelligent design that is unacceptable to science because theistic evolution adds the supernatural to evolutionary processes, therefore #1 and #3 in the gallup poll above is 82% who believe in some form of Intelligent Design, while only 13% believe in a completely godless evolution.) Could you at least mention in the article that most people (82%) believe in some form of Intelligent Design? If not, then I have to suspect a bias on the part of those who maintain this article and a conspiracy to prevent people from realizing that intelligent design is supported by a passive majority and is being suppressed and manipulated by an active minority who serve an outdated system that requires science to be understood in terms of naturalism. DavidPesta 20:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"People who read this article do not know that the scientific community studies this issue with the hidden assumption of philosophical naturalism." This claim is false on two levels:

1. Science does not work from the "hidden assumption of philosophical naturalism" it works from the perfectly open assumption of methodological naturalism.
2. Science does not apply this assumption just to "this issue" but to every issue in every scientific field. So does every court in every Western country.

"Could you at least mention in the article that most people (82%) believe in some form of Intelligent Design?" No. Because this is false, the 87% also includes those who believe in Theistic Evolution, a viewpoint widely considered to be mutually exclusive with ID.

"...who serve an outdated system that requires science to be understood in terms of naturalism." Substantiate your claim that naturalistic science has been outdated. What is to replace it? Johnson's embryonic viewpoint of Theistic realism? Hrafn42 16:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Methodological naturalism operates based upon philosophical naturalism. Isn't it obvious that the hidden assumption of philosophical naturalism is taking place while methodological naturalism is being practiced? I stand by what I said. And your second point is patently wrong about theistic evolution. "Science cannot have anything to do with the supernatural" is part of the talking points for many of the groups that fight against ID. And of course you realize that methodological naturalism is mutually exclusive with supernatural as this is the point that is made all day long against ID. Theistic evolution is all about the supernatural where theists use God to explain His creative process of evolution. If that isn't a form of ID, I don't know what is. DavidPesta 13:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"Methodological naturalism operates based upon philosophical naturalism." No it is not! The term was in fact coined by a Philosophy Professor at conservative Christian Wheaton College to distinguish this viewpoint from metaphysical naturalism. You clearly don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.

"I stand by what I said." I don't give a fetid pair of dingo's kidneys what you "stand by." I only care about what you can substantiate. And you cannot substantiate your absurd assertions on this point.

"And your second point is patently wrong about theistic evolution. "Science cannot have anything to do with the supernatural" is part of the talking points for many of the groups that fight against ID." Given that Theistic Evolution is a theological not a scientific viewpoint, "Science cannot have anything to do with the supernatural" therefore in no way contradicts it.

"If that isn't a form of ID, I don't know what is." This is the problem. You don't know what Theistic Evolution is. You don't know what ID is. You don't know what methodological naturalism is. You don't know what science is. You don't know anything about this entire debate. For this reason, I don't care about "the way [you] see it" -- I only care about what you can substantiate! Hrafn42 14:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

However you wish to define "theistic evolution", the results of the gallup poll were:

1. Man developed over time, but God guided this process. (36%)

2. Man developed over time, but God had no part in this process. (13%)

3. God created human beings in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so. (46%)

1 and 3 above are totally incompatible with methodological naturalism and today's scientific method (82%). It is sad to see you missed my original point, whether I defined theistic evolution the way you understand it or not. DavidPesta 13:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What is sad is that you have no idea at all what you are talking about. 1 is perfectly compatible with methodological naturalism, as can be seen by the vast number of Christian scientists who believe, theologically, that "God guided this process," but who apply Methodological Naturalism as a necessary and pragmatic discipline in their scientific research. If you want to find out more on how and why they do this, then I suggest you read Ken Miller's Finding Darwin's God. Theistic Evolution is merely the (particular example of this) intersection of this belief in God's guidance and acceptance of Methodological Naturalism within the field of Evolutionary Biology. Hrafn42 16:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

To respond more directly to what Kenosis said above: "The sources from which this article is derived include statements by virtually all the major scientific organizations and the U.S. federal court system which has standing to interpret constitutional requirements concerning educational policy in the U.S... But, a significant change in its content would first require a significant change in the way the reliable sources report on the topic." What if all the major scientific organizations and the U.S. federal court system base their paradigm on thousands of sources like Wikipedia, which in turn gets its sources from all the major scientific organizations and the U.S. federal court system? What you have is a closed self-perpetuating system of sources that refer to each other for authority and cannot source information outside of the box if it wants to remain reputable. What I am talking about is a need for a paradigm shift across the board. Naturalism is an outdated system that prevents us from moving forward in our understanding of a great number of things! DavidPesta 21:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> Well, you certainly seem to have caught the ID bug in your misrepresentation of science and methodological naturalism. However. the way you see it seems to be original research in Wikipedia policy terms, hence unsuitable for this article. Perhaps your understanding of a great number of things might be more appreciated on Conservapedia? ... dave souza, talk 21:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you certainly didn't seem to read most of what I wrote. I understand the usefulness of using methodological naturalism as a tool to understand many things. I didn't misrepresent science or methodological naturalism. Rather, I challenge the usefulness of methodological naturalism in certain cases as it limits science from exploring the truth about much of reality. Most of all, I challenge the right of those who accept methodological naturalism as a doctrine to make themselves appear to be in a place of authority about these matters. The fact that naturalism is nothing more than an assumption about the universe means that those who use it without disclaimer when they say something from a place of authority in society are actually abusing their power over those who do not know any better. I am afraid this is happening here on Wikipedia. DavidPesta 22:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

While your fears are much appreciated, Wikipedia aims to proportionately reflect verifiable published information in a proportionate way, and makes no claims to be an authority about truth, ultimate or otherwise. Now, this page is for discussing the article, and the more specific the point, the more likely such discussions are to be productive. .. dave souza, talk 22:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the entire approach that is taken to write this article is completely useless for really understanding ID since ID and methodical naturalism are mutually exclusive. Here is what I mean: If the supporters of ID insist to begin with that their approach to studying origins precludes naturalism, then why do you use naturalism to interpret ID? The fact that ID cannot be understood in terms of natuarlism has already been established! So why don't you write at least part of the article that understands ID from their perspective, the one that doesn't assume the ideology of naturalism? Afterall, I already established that most people in the United States don't believe in naturalism. Why is the whole world catoring to the paradigm of the minority? Can we present both sides? This is absolutely nuts you guys. DavidPesta 22:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, nuts would be the appropriate word. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Jim, if you are directing that at me, then you just made one of my points. As someone who rejects naturalism as a result of my experiences, I have lost reputation and can no longer be used as a reputable source in your thinking process. I see a self-perpetuating closed box system at work. ;D (Read above my direct response to Kenosis if you didn't catch this.) DavidPesta 23:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

David, you've got a good point here in that ID inherently precludes the scientific method, and may be valid as ultimate truth but unfortunately is claimed to be science, and so both here and in court has to be assessed as science. The point could perhaps be made more strongly in the article, that ID inherently demands that science should be changed to accept supernatural explanations for natural phenomena. Try thinking of a concise, well sourced, way of putting that. .. dave souza, talk 22:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If scientific method you mean "methodological naturalism" then yes, that version of the scientific method is precluded by ID. Yes, you should consider it noteworthy that ID demands something of a revolution in science. I should let you know that with what I have seen, we shouldn't be surprised if something like that happens someday in our future when enough minds finally decide to become open. Have a good evening everyone. DavidPesta 23:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No, by scientific method we mean scientific method. I've never heard of methodological naturalism. Yes, ID demands a revolution in science--it wants to toss it in the wastebin and rely upon supernatural beings, or aliens from the Planet Megatron. Science as a philosophy is rather static. Science as a field of study will change. But relying upon supernatural beings or the Megatronians is not science. Orangemarlin 00:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I see a bit of a misunderstanding with your comment. I was referring methodological naturalism as being a part of the accepted scientific method and didn't mean to equate methodological naturalism as the scientific method. It looks like everything you said in your comment deals with the issue of science being rooted in methodological naturalism. I agree with you that this is how science is practiced and didn't mean to suggest tossing it into the wastebin as you put it. Perhaps I am not suggesting any kind of a change to science at all, rather a change to what we understand as natural in naturalism. I certainly do not know what this revolution may look like if it happens at all. I hope that clears it up. DavidPesta 15:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to respond to dave souza with some more interesting and effective thoughts and suggestions: "David, you've got a good point here in that ID inherently precludes the scientific method, and may be valid as ultimate truth but unfortunately is claimed to be science, and so both here and in court has to be assessed as science." I like what you said here and may be inclined to agree. So let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that I was the one who defined ID and established the entire direction of the movement. Let's say that as the spokesperson for ID I concede that ID is mutually exclusive with today's understanding of methodological naturalism and therefore not compatible with the way today's scientists choose to practice the scientific method. Would the scientists also concede to the rest of the world (82%) that methodological naturalism and the way they practice the scientific method, while very practical as a tool to discover things about the world, is limited when it comes to discovering ultimate truth about other things like origins? Would they be willing to make this perfectly clear inside science classrooms if ID agreed to stay out of it? Could it be done in such a way that evolution taught in these classrooms is put into a perspective where students know that everything they are taught about evolution is based upon the ideological presupposition of naturalism as its foundation? That our science is a powerful machine that inputs data and spits out helpful but imperfect answers? Even the most extreme passionate believers in ID could teach natural evolution in a context like this and feel comfortable knowing that what they are presenting is understood by everyone in a way that doesn't create the impression that it has absolute authority about ultimate truth. Additionally, ID could also be thoroughly taught in a separate and required philosophy course that nobody claims to have less authority in matters of ultimate truth. In this way, students can learn the difference between the very foundation that both schools of thought are based upon in a way that doesn't create a bias for either one of them and nobody has to be discriminated against. And while we are talking about students, could we also do the same thing for this article? DavidPesta 15:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"Would the scientists also concede to the rest of the world (82%) that methodological naturalism and the way they practice the scientific method, while very practical as a tool to discover things about the world, is limited when it comes to discovering ultimate truth about other things like origins?" No. Because the US is not the world (and it is only 87% of the former, not the latter), because the 87% includes many who accept Methodological Naturalism, and because (in spite of your frequent, unsubstantiated claims that naturalistic science is "outdated") you can present no better method for discovering truths.

"Additionally, ID could also be thoroughly taught in a separate and required philosophy course that nobody claims to have less authority in matters of ultimate truth." Science speaks with the authority of evidence. Additionally, ID isn't even good philosophy (in that arguments for it contain numerous logical fallacies). Hrafn42 16:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence that does not have an explanation based upon methodological naturalism is too often minimized, ignored or discriminated against as evidence a priori (claims that the evidence doesn't exist) all in the name of science (and because of that hidden assumption of naturalism). Just so there isn't any misunderstanding, the 82% I came up with is a combination of the 36% and the 46% in the gallup video. Apparently the 5% is unaccounted for or didn't know how to respond to the poll. DavidPesta 13:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

1. You have presented no substantiation that "Evidence that does not have an explanation based upon methodological naturalism" even exists.
2. You have presented no substantiation that any of this mythical evidence has been "minimized, ignored or discriminated against," let alone that this "often" occurs.
3. All you present is a parade of ludicrous and unsubstantiated assertions. Why should we take any of it seriously? Hrafn42 15:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I call for a truce between both sides of the issue so that we can educate everybody how to look at this whole issue fairly. If a revolution that improves science doesn't happen anytime soon, or at all, could we at least communicate and educate people better about these kinds of issues in the meantime? DavidPesta 15:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Students and teachers alike are given the impression that science is something that produces the best answers in every area that we should all accept and apply to our lives without question. Too many scientists present science this way and fail to communicate the issues with the understanding that science is practiced using an ideology of naturalism. Orangemarlin said above that he never even heard about methodological naturalism for crying out loud! That, my friends, is a huge problem. Do you see that this is what causes the rift between both camps? Could we focus on bringing both sides together please? Sitting back and calling ID supporters morons is totally unacceptable. (The internet is full of this rubbish.) We need to rise up and put things into perspective. Stress the fact that science is practiced using methodological naturalism and therefore has its limits to discovering ultimate truth! DavidPesta 16:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"Stress the fact that science is practiced using methodological naturalism and therefore has its limits to discovering ultimate truth!" First provide substantiation that this "ultimate truth" beyond science's capabilities exists, and that there is a intersubjective method for determining them that is superior to methodological naturalism. You appear to be simply complaining because science does not genuflect to your own specific metaphysical prejudices. Hrafn42 16:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"Ultimate truth" must eventually defeat "tentative truth", and it is inevitable that we will all come to realise the truth of creation and worship the creator in all His glory. Until that glorious day comes, however, we're stuck with the tools we have. SheffieldSteel 17:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

In response to both Hrafn42 and SheffieldSteel and speaking about "the tools we have", I don't suppose you would allow "prayer to God" to be a part of the scientific method? It is methodological and its strong correlation to powerful results is empirical. But it isn't naturalism and that is the problem right there. Too many people have no idea what realms of reality they are missing out on by ruling it out by definition. There are tangible, physical, empirical results from this relationship with God. Scientific? Well, maybe not by your definition. I suspect that in the end, the same may be said about intelligent design as SheffieldSteel suggested. Not scientific as science operates in this day and age, but definitely something that could have happened to explain our origins. It is a pity that scientists refuse to study any of this because of their treasured definitions. It sounds very much like the kind of thing that blocked the thinkers all throughout history from moving forward. DavidPesta 13:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

1. "I don't suppose you would allow "prayer to God" to be a part of the scientific method?" Certainly, as soon as you demonstrate how a prayer can be empirically measured, and can tell me why a prayer to God is a an acceptable tool, but not a prayer to Allah, Zeus, Odin, Osiris, the Great Mother Goddess, Eris or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
2. "It is methodological and its strong correlation to powerful results is empirical." It is empirical only if you can substantiate these results. You haven't as yet.
3. "Too many people have no idea what realms of reality they are missing out on by ruling it out by definition." You rule out nearly as many as I do.
4. "It sounds very much like the kind of thing that blocked the thinkers all throughout history from moving forward." And you sound exactly like the purveyor of every other crank theory, from a Flat Earth to Alien Abductions. Hrafn42 16:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The day is going to have to come when scientists realize that they have more than just their five senses and that they can communicate with God. What would you do if you were trapped in a land where people glued their newborn's eyes closed and the entire society insisted that they only have 4 senses to practice science with? DavidPesta 15:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"The day is going to have to come when scientists realize that they have more than just their five senses and that they can communicate with God." Why just one extra sense? What about the polytheists who believe that you can communicate with multiple gods. Your entire argument is ridiculously parochial and ethnocentric. It amounts to nothing more than a childish demand that we all swallow your theology whole. Hrafn42 16:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

When I originally said "you can assign whatever paranormal explanation you want to this phenomenon", I had the specific intention of not being ethnocentric in mind. This is another example of where I do not believe you judge people like me properly. In other words, you want me to keep my mouth shut no matter how fairly I try to frame my experiences. DavidPesta 13:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It also forces the acceptance of the presupposition that there is a god (specifically, the Abrahamic God) even though there is no empirical evidence one way or t'other, no way to postulate that existence mathematically, and no way measure the effectiveness of, or even develop a methodology for, any communication with a supernatural entity. Beside, if you will recall, the clear fact of all the Abrahamic religion is that God initiates the intercourse, not man. Hence, David, on both the scientific (no matter how much you might wish to redefine that term) and theological fronts your argument is flawed. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> Kitzmiller v. Dover: Whether ID is Science answers the question: "In deliberately omitting theological or “ultimate” explanations for the existence or characteristics of the natural world, science does not consider issues of “meaning” and “purpose” in the world. While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science. This self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as “methodological naturalism” and is sometimes known as the scientific method." For more about methodological naturalism, see naturalism (philosophy). ... dave souza, talk 18:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

DavidP, I'd like to go back to your original point for a second, to illustrate an important area of the issue. Do you have any evidence for the miracles you mention? I'm sure that something as drastic as the re-growing of an amputated limb (and not, I hope, the old faith-healer's trick with the bootlace) would be fairly easy to verify by consulting the medical records of the patient. No? But this is the difference between the scientific and religious approach to the world. Science, whatever philosophical underpinnings and inadequacies it may have, requires empirical data to work with. Speculation about "ultimate truth" and "ultimate causes" may be enjoyable and interesting, and may indeed lead us to a better understanding of the world and ourselves - but it's not, and never can be, part of science. Science only deals with the material world, where empirical evidence can be gathered - and it will cease to be science if this principle is abandoned. Tevildo 00:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen the records, talked to the people involved, and have been directly involved in healing processes via prayer myself. I do not have the records in my possession at the moment. In any case, I can accurately predict your response to such records if I were to produce them sometime in the near future: "Forgery!" Why do I predict this? Because that is the way methodological naturalism interprets such data. And that makes the point that I am trying to make. DavidPesta 13:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No, David, methodological naturalism would seek a natural explanation for the phenomenon of limb regrowth, endeavour to determine the natural processes involved in it, and attempt to find a way of reliably reproducing it for medical benefit. It would be a major (and lucrative) area of medical research - if it existed. Again, science doesn't get involved without something empirical to study - I'm sure that anyone who actually had experienced limb regrowth would have come to the attention of the (methodologically naturalistic) scientific community before now. We don't say "this can't happen because we're metholodical naturalists" - we say "If you want us to study this, we'll need scientific evidence." Provide the evidence, and science will be more than happy to believe you. Until then, though... Tevildo 15:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

So what you are saying is, if God were the explanation (even if He revealed Himself to you personally in an extremely dramatic way with all of your physical senses engaged), the way we choose to practice science would never be able to come to that realization. Don't you see that this creates a limitation in science? And don't you think our society needs to clearly understand the importance of that limitation? DavidPesta 15:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Do let me know when you have all this purported evidence published in a peer-reviewed medical journal. Until then, it is just so much hot air. Hrafn42 14:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you think a reputable peer-reviewed medical journal would dare publish such a thing? They scoff at every submission whenever people try. Don't you understand the self-perpetuating closed loop system that science has established itself under the ideology of naturalism? DavidPesta 15:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"Do you think a reputable peer-reviewed medical journal would dare publish such a thing?" Yes. And even if they didn't, numerous newspapers would (eventually forcing the journals to address the issue). But all this is moot, because this evidence doesn't exist, which is the reason why you, and everybody else has failed to publish it. Hrafn42 16:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, it looks to me that I have been practicing the scientific method without the constraint of naturalism. Such a liberating experience that I hope every scientist would join with me in. DavidPesta 13:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Liberating perhaps, but completely unproductive. Hrafn42 14:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Completely unproductive? Even if it has the potential to reveal ultimate truth in a verifiable way? DavidPesta 15:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"Even if it has the potential to reveal ultimate truth in a verifiable way?" What "ultimate truths" and what "verifiable way"? You have presented absolutely no substantiation of either. But then, you haven't substantiated anything at all in this entire discussion. Hrafn42 16:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Alas, Wikipedia has become flypaper... &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

None of this discussion has any bearing on this article's content. I suggest it be archived or userfied. This page is not the place to debate teleology. BTW, here's a good that is relevant to this artile as a source:

Elliott Sober's "The Design Argument" FeloniousMonk 17:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hrafn42, I can see that any response I give you at this point will only perpetuate our shouting contest. I will gladly provide substantiation for a great number of things in the hope that many will come to understand the reality of what I am talking about. Just give me some time to get financially established and I will make this a part of my life's work. But to those who have already made up their mind, there is nothing I can ever show that will satisfy you. The paradigm that "materialism and nature is all that exists" will prevent you from judging me fairly, much like the closed mindedness that you accuse many unreasonable religious people of doing. (The stubbornness does happen on both sides and it is wrong in both cases.) DavidPesta 15:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• The reason we are having a "shouting match" is that you have said nothing but a string of absurd and unsubstantiated assertions. This causes me to repeatedly demand substantiation, which you respond to with yet more absurd and unsubstantiated assertions. I don't see why you expect me to respond more positively to this than to the ramblings of a schizophrenic street preacher (who are no doubt equally certain of the rectitude of their views).
• "I will gladly provide substantiation for a great number of things in the hope that many will come to understand the reality of what I am talking about. Just give me some time to get financially established and I will make this a part of my life's work." Always jam tomorrow. Your implicit admission that nobody else has produced this, and that your own work is nowhere near ready does not exactly raise your credibility. You have just admitted that you currently have no substantiation for any of your assertions, and most would view highly sceptically any hope of you ever developing such substantiation.
• "The paradigm that "materialism and nature is all that exists" will prevent you from judging me fairly..." Rather say materialism and nature is all that can be proven to exist. Everything else must be taken on faith, if taken at all. And faith is highly personal and idiosyncratic. Your faith is not my faith (any more than my faith is yours).
• "The way [you] see it" would appear to be yourself caught between two parallel mirrors. You see no other views or faiths, only dim reflections of yourself repeated out to infinity.Hrafn42 18:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• The reason we are having a "shouting match" is that you have said nothing but a string of absurd and unsubstantiated assertions. This causes me to repeatedly demand substantiation, which you respond to with yet more absurd and unsubstantiated assertions. I don't see why you expect me to respond more positively to this than to the ramblings of a schizophrenic street preacher (who are no doubt equally certain of the rectitude of their views). -Hrafn42

I added another note above about my point with our theistic evolution discussion and also what you said about ethnocentricity, be sure not to miss it because it is clear you are not putting a lot of effort into trying to understand what I say or judge me fairly. DavidPesta 13:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Your arguments are worth exactly as much as the substantiation you provide for them, that is to say: nothing. Hrafn42 16:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• "I will gladly provide substantiation for a great number of things in the hope that many will come to understand the reality of what I am talking about. Just give me some time to get financially established and I will make this a part of my life's work." Always jam tomorrow. Your implicit admission that nobody else has produced this, and that your own work is nowhere near ready does not exactly raise your credibility. You have just admitted that you currently have no substantiation for any of your assertions, and most would view highly sceptically any hope of you ever developing such substantiation. -Hrafn42

Your response here is exactly what I expected to see, an unfair judgement. First of all, I already admitted my limitations in time and space, so you are not allowing me to be human by insisting that I not "jam tomorrow". Also, I deny that nobody else produced substantiation and I insist that the scientific world is not willing to evaluate this substantiation as a result of the materialist paradigm and methodological naturalism. And where you just said most would view highly sceptically any hope of you ever developing such substantiation, that makes my very point. You are living in a closed loop self perpetuating deception, with all due respect. (And no intended insult to you personally.) DavidPesta 13:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is it "unfair judgement" to reject empty rhetoric out of hand? If you were acting in good faith you would not be attempting to foist on us assertions that you knew you were not in a position to substantiate. If such substantiation already exists, then produce it now!

• "The paradigm that "materialism and nature is all that exists" will prevent you from judging me fairly..." Rather say materialism and nature is all that can be proven to exist. Everything else must be taken on faith, if taken at all. And faith is highly personal and idiosyncratic. Your faith is not my faith (any more than my faith is yours). -Hrafn42

The belief that materialism and nature is all that can be proven to exist is an ideology that must be accepted by faith. Philosophy 101. (There are many examples of why this is so, such as if our understanding of what is natural changes--if what we think of today as supernatural someday becomes what we think of as natural. So to say "what we understand as nature today is all that can be proven to exist", is faith on your part because in the future what we understand as natural can be different. There are other examples.) DavidPesta 13:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "what we think of today as supernatural someday becomes what we think of as natural" -- but only by losing all supernatural elements along the way. Thunder was originally thought to be supernatural, and is now considered natural -- but only by losing Zeus, Thor, et al. What happened with the move from Natural Theology to Evolutionary Biology is no different from the move from Zeus' thunderbolts to Atmospheric static electricity. Hrafn42 16:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• "The way [you] see it" would appear to be yourself caught between two parallel mirrors. You see no other views or faiths, only dim reflections of yourself repeated out to infinity. -Hrafn42

I can make the same kind of argument about you. DavidPesta 13:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No. Because I can see the incompatible views of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, etc, which views can only work together on science with an assumption of Methodological Naturalism. You only see your own narrow, rigid, sectarian and profoundly hostile view of science. Hrafn42 16:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hrafn42, I can continue to respond to you forever but would like to respect the maintainers of this discussion who view this to have become off topic. I suggest you read through all of this again with an open mind and really think about it. DavidPesta 13:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Your viewpoint has no inherent right to consideration. Consideration must be earned by reasoning and/or evidence. You have provided neither, justifying me in disregarding your viewpoint entirely. Hrafn42 16:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I certainly hope we're done with this little excursion into the realm of the bizarre, now. The banal "science is bad because it doesn't do supernaural" argument is getting old, irritating, and quite off-topic. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

References in the lead

Anyone object to me combining the three-fold and four-fold references into one? It would make the article much more readable if it wasn't chock full of ^{[8][9][10][11]} and the ilk. Of course, it *does* have to be done carefully, so as not to break references referenced later, but that's relatively trivial to fix, if you watch out for it, and slight repetition in the reference lists shouldn't hurt us. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No complaint either way about this. The multiple footnotes make it a bit clearer to passersby, many of whom do not check the footnotes, that it's not WP editors that've made these assertions, but that they instead come from many reliable sources. On the other hand, it's more compact when combined, carefully as Adam said.

I appreciated seeing this edit. Gotta go for now. Later. ... Kenosis 14:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point on the merits of both sides, though I'm not quite sure how much more credibility is gained from multiple footnotes as opposed to one - some, certainly, but how much? Anyone else want to weigh in? (P.S. Thanks!) Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Condensing multiple sources down to appear in one footnote does make the article easier to read. But has the side effect of making it look less supported at first glance, a recurring problem we saw in the last few weeks when one particular editor kept objecting to content supported by just "one source" which turned out to be several sources. This sort of confusion is a problem we want to avoid if at all possible I'd think, and if it means trading off a little readibility to do so, then I'm for keeping the sources separate and discrete. Odd nature 19:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Right. Methinks that's the clincher, and I withdraw my query. Though "It's necessary because people are idiots" is kind of an annoying reason. I suppose we could still condense the non-controversial statements. If we can accurately identify them.... Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the fact that there are multiple references because to the more advanced reader it looks like it was well done and supported. To the casual reader, references matter. Also, if a reference is needed again, there's no way to repeat it, other than go and break up the first one. Let's keep it neat. Signed, the guy who's on the hook to fix these things. Orangemarlin 13:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Uncertain revision.

As it stands now, we have this phrase: "U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, but is essentially religious in nature". I wonder if this would read better as "not scientific, but essentially religious in nature", making both of the possibilities being compared adjectives. On the other hand, I'm worried that "not science", which I believe Jones said in as many words, might be stronger than "not scientific", and thus might - if that is true - mischaracterise Jones' ruling. Thoughts? Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I would be okay with either a literal quotation, preferrably using quotation marks, or a paraphrase (at the risk of introducing OR of course, if the meaning changes too much). What do other editors think? SheffieldSteel 21:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"H. Conclusion. .... In making this determination, 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." ... dave souza, talk 22:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added the quote (well, part of it). Though I am worried about using too many exact quotes - they can be distracting. Still, we'd never get away with that in paraphrase. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Reversion

FeloniousMonk extended the quote from the DI to include their comments on natural selection. I'm willing to let them characterise themselves, if indicated as such, but feel it is a straightforward violation of WP:NPOV to allow the one side to mischaracterise their opposition without comment. Undirected is at best misleading, at worst simply wrong. Unguided is a much more specific synonym that removes most of the incorrect meanings of undirected, and thus stops natural selection from being mischaracterised.

I'm afraid that unless good arguments can be given as to how they are not mischaracterising natural selection by careful use of a word with definitions beyond unguided that include "random", "directionless" and so on, I cannot budge on this issue. I am, however, not actually all that concerned with the particular language and methods used to work around it, so long as the end result either makes it clear that this is how they are characterising natural selection, or silently replaces it with a more accurate depiction. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It has been reverted back to the quote. I strongly disagree with this, but will let it stand until I can discuss it here. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with you, if we were discussing including this quote in the natural selection article. But we're not, and the quote does a good job of demonstrating ID's stance on natural selection. The entire thing is inside the quotation marks, making it clear that the statement's veracity depends on the trustworthiness of the Discovery Institute.

If necessary, I'd be fine with making it more clear that this is their opinion and not fact, but I do not think it necessary. It's in quotes. --Ashenai 12:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see no reason to let them mischaracterise their opponents when we never in the article provide any accurate description of natural selection. That's the only descripotion of it, and it's wrong. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be correct: it's a quote. In the Fred Phelps article, there's a quote from him: "fags die, God laughs". The accuracy of that statement is irrelevant: the quote is accurate and does a good job of summarizing his beliefs, and that's what counts. --Ashenai 12:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't being presented as an opinion, this is being presented as a definition. It's like writing that Fred Phelps claims that "when fags die, God laughs, and John Smith agrees with me", then nowhere saying that John Smith denies this. The reader not only has no reason to think this is a quote from the DI - indeed, the word "claim" excuses the excesses of the first part, and gives it a patina of respectability, and even if he knew it was from the DI, has no reason to believe that we'd allow outright misrepresentation in the definition. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I see the problem, I just don't feel it's a serious enough issue to justify chopping up the quote. Could other editors please give their input? --Ashenai 13:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

For clarity:

1: 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"

2: Intelligent design is the claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause" as opposed to unguided processes such as natural selection.

With 1. being Ashenai's preference, and 2. mine. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I must admit to having difficulty in seeing a difference between the two, except for the extent of the direct quote: "not"="as opposed to", "an undirected process"="unguided processes" (assuming a reasonable degree of looseness in whether you consider something to be a single process, or divide it up into multiple, in your definition). I think Adam needs to explain why his (partially paraphrased) version is superior. Hrafn42 16:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Because "undirected" tends to be read as "random", without any direction (natural selection, of course, has no automatic direction, but it does cause a progressively better fit to the environment), etc - and this wooliness is exactly what the DI wants, and is downright dishonest. "Unguided", however, instead has a more specific meaning, which in context should only be able to be read as "without supernatural influence", which is correct. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're reading too much into differences between these two very close (particularly in this context) synonyms. It is "directionless" not "undirected" that gives a strong implication of randomness. Both "undirected" and "unguided" have the clear implication of being without (external) direction/guidance. Hrafn42 17:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not just me: To quote Xerxesnine, "The use of the phrase "undirected process," while technically correct, nonetheless fuels this exact misconception which ID proponents exploit in their arguments. In the public's mind, "undirected process" is equivalent to "random process" or "accidental process". Or, at least, the Discovery Institute would prefer that people draw those equivalences." (From [11]) Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

And? ... Kenosis 17:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no indication that Xerxesnine would regard the closely equivalent "unguided" as any less misconception-fuelling. And given that it is both "technically correct" and how IDers describe ID, it is worthy of inclusion, perhaps with a caveat to minimise the risk of misconception. Hrafn42 17:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a quote, from the most authoritative source of what ID is held out to be by its principal proponents. That quote is the "point"--what ID is held out to be, in brief. Many "counterpoints" follow in the article, along with many additional point-counterpoint presentations of numberous aspects of what the debate/controversy is about. These are derived from, and cited to, many reliable sources about the issues involved. I personally don't see a problem with it. ... Kenosis 17:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

But without the caveat, it's a misrepresentation of the opposing views. I just don't see how that can stand untweaked. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It has everything to do with accurately representing the viewpoint. It also has something to do with withstanding the expected criticism of not being NPOV. This criticism has been, and probably will continue to be leveled by some or many. But this criticism should not be given the status of becoming true. The article quotes, and should continue to quote, in my opinion, the representation of what ID is, whether we agree with it or not, as faithfully as possible. If the quote summarizing what ID is is considered to be misleading, then please find reliable sources that state what the specific nature of alleged misleading is. I believe the article already states this adequately, based on a wide range of reliable sources. ... Kenosis 18:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The definition of ID is fine. Their definition of natural selection is not. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No definition of natural selection is offered in the lead, only a link to the WP article (which, within the quotation, is a bit debatable, but I have no complaint about that wikilink). ... Kenosis 18:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Oh, I see what you're saying, I think. If the problem is that natural selection is not unguided according to prevailing theory in biology, but rather is guided by identifiable natural principles, then find appropriate reliable sourcing for this issue and maybe argue for a brief subsection discussing arguments from those reliable sources that part of the debate is about what kind of directedness is involved. Personally I don't think it's necessary here, but perhaps more appropriately included in an article such as the creation-evolution controversy or elsewhere. ... Kenosis 18:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> The "Undirected" is a reference to their aim of overcoming "materialism" in science and replacing it with the immaterial, or "theistic realism" as Johnson calls it. It might be possible to leave natural selection unlinked in the quote, and follow up with "Although natural selection is directed by environmental conditions, intelligent design seeks evidence of divine direction." ....... .. dave souza, talk 20:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Natural selection is asserted in biology to be directed by natural factors. I think this is far too much to deal with in the article lead, and is already partly explained in the article. ... Kenosis 20:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Gould: Natural selection is actually a locally deterministic force.

Futuyama ...natural selection itself is the single process in evolution that is the antithesis of chance. It is predictable. It says that, within a specific environmental context, one genotype will be better than another genotype in survival or reproduction for certain reasons having to do with the way its particular features relate to the environment or relate to other organisms within the population. That provides predictability and consistency. So, if you have different populations with the same opportunity for evolution, you would get the same outcome.

Both those are pretty good reads, by the way. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This is why I want to paraphrase. There's no particular reason to be misleading, and, anyway, they use slightly different explanations elsewhere. What about some paraphrase along the lines of "...best explained by an intelligent cause" instead of evolution?

Adam, I understand your point, but I have to disagree with it. The DI and its minions defined ID, what other definition matters? Any other definition, no matter what the reasoning behind using it, is an inaccurate representation of ID. That the DI is inaccurate is irrelevant: we report, the reader decides. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

However, I must, once again, point out that the DI did not define natural selection, and I object only to the part of their statement that misrepresents it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Whether "undirected" is an accurate characterization of the process of natural selection is a matter of interpretation. It depends on what one means by "directed". I think that by the most common and most literal meaning of "directed", it is accurate to characterize natural selection in this way: one commonly speaks of humans "directing" something (by which we mean not just regulating, but deliberately conducting or managing the affairs of), but almost never of an unthinking process "directing" (e.g., one might say that gravity "regulates" the tides, but rarely that gravity "directs" the tides).
• However, it is not unheard of to speak of something being "directed" by an unintelligent force, especially in poetry and colloquial language. I'm sure that people like Dawkins would have no trouble adopting the metaphor of evolution as a "nonintelligent director", for the same reason that he sees no trouble with the metaphor of evolution as a "nonintelligent designer" (or "blind watchmaker"). But this is still metaphor, and I don't think most people regularly say that a natural process "directs" or "designs" anything; the verbs are usually assumed to have personal agents.
• I don't think that it is profoundly misleading to say that natural selection is "undirected", especially as contrasted with an intelligently-designed process: if anything, natural selection isn't directed; rather, it is (again, metaphorically) the "director", the thing that is "guiding" evolution in lieu of a designer. Nothing, strictly speaking, directs natural selection itself, just as nothing directs the intelligent designer.
• For all these reasons, the unguided/undirected issue seems trivial: most readers, even ones with an understanding of natural selection, won't see any problem with the "undirected" version in the quote. It doesn't seem worth it to break up the quote for the sake of such a semantic issue; it seems, in fact, to be potentially dangerous, as the Creation Institute could object to Wikipedia putting words in its mouth. Direct quoting is safest. If there are still concerns about whether it is accurate to characterize natural selection as "undirected" (and acceptable to let ID use an uncontested inaccuracy in describing evolution), then my recommendation is to simply use a footnote, rather than scrapping half the quote. The footnote can provide a sourced response to the "undirected" claim. Problem avoided. -Silence 01:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Which version of ID is being defined? Characterizing natural selection as "undirected" would seem to indicate an intelligent designer that is there doing the guiding at all the times usually attributed to natural selection. I thought there were versions of ID where the designer was involved at certain key irreducibly complex points, and at other times the role of natural selection was acknowledged.

Here is a statement from above where the distinction comes into play " natural selection is "undirected", especially as contrasted with an intelligently-designed process" Are there ID theories that postulate and intelligently-designed "process" as opposed to one or more intelligent design "events" or "instances"? If so, we may need several definitions for these competing theories, and separate evidence sections.--Africangenesis 01:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

--Africangenesis 01:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Africangenesis, it's easier to read your comments when you use indents. Anyways, there are more than one version of ID? Where's that? What we're saying is that Evolution is directed by natural selection, not by an intelligent designer, especially since there are no designers. ID changes it story to meet whatever audience they're seeking, so who knows what they're saying. Orangemarlin 01:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You are kidding aren't you? Go read their propaganda, and if you think their "theories" really qualify under anything scientific as a theory, please rewrite the article. Otherwise, I think you may have misinterpreted what was written above. Orangemarlin 01:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I find things go better if you treat the theories seriously, instead of allowing them just to take critical broadsides at evolution, pin them down on who, what, when and where. There are several different ID theories, you don't allow them to shift from one to the other at their convenience. Remember they are constrained by trying to appear as a science, things can't get too magical. Question every assumption, including how intelligent the designer would have to be for a particular design. What design constraints the designer wasn't apparently able to overcome, etc. What they realize pretty quickly is that ID theory has very little to do with their religion, if they believe the designer is an omniscient, omnipotent being.--Africangenesis 02:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence of an article is meant to be the most accurate definition of the subject that editors agree on. I don't see anyone thinking "unguided" is less accurate. I personally agree that it's slightly more accurate -- undirected could be misunderstood/conflated with "lacking direction". I see no reason not to change the wording to "unguided", it's a bit more accurate and there's no reason at all to stick to the definition provided by DI if a slightly more accurate version is available. (To use a bit of hyperbole, if the democratic party defined themselves as "A political party that advocates democracy", it's technically accurate but wikipedia should feel no obligation to use that definition.) In my opinion, just change the sentence to read "Intelligent design is the claim that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an unguided process such as natural selection." No quotes at all indicating an outside source, this is our definition, not theirs, even if we based it on their statement. While it might be nice to describe a subject from the perspective of people that promote it, that logical extension of that philosophy could lead to some very biased statements used as the defining sentences of articles. Madeleine 14:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not simplify it further "Intelligent design is the claim that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, rather than natural processes." Simplicity is best. TimVickers 15:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. With that in the lead, the whole quotation including "theory" can be cited and discussed in the overview. .. dave souza, talk 17:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Tim hit the mark. I am concerned that the rest of the article is so chopped up that it looks like the evolutionists, out of fear and panic, won't let the ID theories have a word in edgewise. Fear is not a sign of strength. Let the ID theories be distinguished in as much coherent detail as possible. Pin them down, let them have their say and then respond. Some won't be able to be stated as a coherent testable theory and that will become obvious. Why the panic?--Africangenesis 17:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this first sentence (implemented here) is an improvement, if for no other reason than it bypasses the [sometimes bitter] quibbling about quoting the DI's definition, but still faithfully represents what the underlying debate is about. Second sentence then identifies ID as a particular type of theological argument framed in secular-sounding terms. Third sentence identifies the class of proponents that have made it famous, and what they have publicly stated they believe about who the designer is. Fourth sentence identifies that it is asserted to be science that is competitive with current scientific theories of evolution and origin of life. Nice work, Tim, in my opinion. ... Kenosis 00:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a reason why we use a quote here, you know. Many here agreed it should stay after man weeks of debate. I returned it to the version that was the result of that. Odd nature 22:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you please point out what weeks of debate you're referring to? I'm entering the debate right now and I want to know what you are talking about! I still feel that strictly using any advocacy group's self-defining statements as the defining sentence for an article is a very bad path to be going down, for wikipedia articles in general. Madeleine 23:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The discussion Odd Nature refers to is in the two most recent archives. The shorter version implemented here by TimVickers would, as Odd Nature points out, need much greater support and be subject to discussion as to its merits and disadvantages. I already gave my opinion just above, which is that I think it's an improvement, and admit the discussion is preliminary at this stage. ... Kenosis 00:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kenosis. I've never been comfortable with the quote. Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

ID and polytheism

I noticed that some commentators out there have written that intelligent design can apply to, and indeed suggests, polytheism. I wonder if that idea should be included in the article or not. 204.52.215.13 19:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Verifiable sources would be needed of such suggestions, and their inclusion in the article would be subject to the requirement of WP:NPOV that minority positions should not be given undue weight. .. dave souza, talk 20:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Given that ID doesn't even explicitly rule out space aliens, I would very much doubt that it would explicitly rule out polytheism. Implicitly, it is fairly clear that what IDers have in mind is a monotheistic God. However, unless you can catch them in a logical self-contradiction that excludes polytheism (equivalent to the one that excludes natural designers such space aliens), I do not see how they would be even implicitly excluded. This does not however prevent ID from contradicting certain specific polytheistic creation myths. Hrafn42 03:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Odd text

Can someone have a look at the text just before reference 18? While fixing the reference, I noticed how awkward that read, but I'm not sure my fix really helps. It also seems a little repetitive - it's one of about four references to teaching ID in schools in that paragraph. - Of Pandas and People, that, Kitzmiller, the decision... possibly a couple others. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is ugly, and it also seems to be quite inaccurate as well. Although the DI was formed in 1990, its pro-ID arm, the CSC (formerly the CRSC), wasn't formed until 1996 (with planning having occurred in 1993-94). The main articles on the DI & CSC has details on this. Hrafn42 06:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

<Beat me to it!>

The sentence concerned is presumably this one:

The following year a small group of proponents formed the Discovery Institute, which began advocating the inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula.[18][19][20]

It seems to me to be factually misleading in that although the DI was indeed founded in 1990 as it implies, this history of the IDM has Johnson publishing his first book, "Darwin on Trial" in 1991 with a grouping of supporters of that book meeting the following year, then in June 1993, the nascent ID movement met again at Pajaro Dunes in California, and "this meeting is generally acknowledged as the birth of the Intelligent Design movement", where Behe first presented his ideas about "irreducible complexity". It's not clear to me when they started using the term ID for their anti-Darwinian writings, but in 1996 the DI overtly became involved with founding of the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, and Behe published IC in Darwin's Black Box. Anyway, while I'd like to see this historical development clarified in the Overview, in the lead the sentence above is essentially redundant, as is the one that follows it:

The "intelligent design movement" grew increasingly visible in the 1990s and early 2000's, culminating in a 2005 trial challenging its intended use in public school science classes—the "Dover trial."

The lead no longer has an explicit statement that Edwards outlawed teaching creationism, or mention of Pandas by name, and correctly gives its publication date of 1989 without making the point that "creation-" was changed to ID in 1987: will review the paragraph again, .. dave souza, talk 06:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what's contradictory about the statement of the verified facts that the year following the publication of "Of Pandas and People" the DI was formed and began advocating teaching ID in biology classes. That's why Of Pandas and People was written. It gradually became a "movement", the birth of which is said by some to have begun in 1993, with the formation of the CSC (initially the CRSC), and so forth. The "movement" could be alternately said to have "begun" in at least several points in time, 1987 with Edwards v. Aguilard, 1988 in Tacoma, Washington, 1989 with Of Pandas and People, 1990 with the founding of the DI, 1991 with the publication of Darwin on Trial, 1992 with the meeting Johnson mentions as "the movement we now call the 'wedge' began...", 1993 with the Pajaro Dunes meeting, 1995/1996 with the formation of the CRSC. There's no need to pick a discrete date, which might be misleading, because it gradually became a movement that became increasingly visible through the 1990s and early 2000's. ... Kenosis 11:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph 3 revisited

Taking the above points into account, here's a first draft –

The current use of the term "intelligent design" began when a 1987 United States Supreme Court decision regarding constitutional separation of church and state ruled that creation science could not be taught in public schools,[16] and in response all reference to "creation" in drafts of a textbook intended for high-school biology classes were changed to intelligent design.[17] By 1996 a small group of proponents advocating theistic realism in place of naturalistic science had begun the "intelligent design movement" and with funding from the Discovery Institute were advocating the inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula.[18][19][20] They gained widespread publicity and persuaded some school boards, but in the 2005 trial Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District a group of parents of high-school students challenged a public school district requirement for teachers to present intelligent design in biology classes as an alternative "explanation of the origin of life". ....

The Judge Jones bit remains unaltered. Note that this also covers the essential point raised above in #Here is the way I see it. Corrections and clarifications welcome, .. dave souza, talk 10:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought we just sorted through this mess.

(1) It was not the "current use of the term" that began in 1989; but the use of the term. Sure the words had been used before, here and there on several occasions, as descriptors. It was not a term for anything before 1989, no more than the phrase "ridiculous plan" is a term for anything. If someone published a book that uses the words "ridiculous plan" to replace "atheism" and proceeded to make a national and international stink about it and advocatd the teaching of "ridiculous plan" (RP), and some people even make the mistake of capitalizing it "Ridiculous Plan", and a movement started advocating teaching it as a scientific theory in biology classes, and several more books followed using ridiculous plan to describe "the scientific theory that there is an 'plan for everything' (PFE), but that it is the result, according to modern systems theory, of mentally ill space aliens or a cosmic jokester" and people started talking about "hey, do you believe in "ridiculous plan?", and so forth, then it becomes a term for something. And I could then proceed to cite you numerous books and articles where the words "ridiculous plan" had been used before in published material and speeches by writers and speakers. The words "intelligent design" were fist used as a term for something with the publication of Of Pandas and People.

(2) The third paragraph of the article was very carefully rewritten to integrate an international perspective by specifying the facts that were relevant to making it clear to international readers how and why it's a controversy that arose in response to a US constitutional issue. The third paragraph has for over a year now been the third piece of a three-aspect introduction: what ID is, what the scientific community says about it, and what's its legal status.

(3) Specificity about "theistic realism in place of naturalistic science", if it needs to be said that "theistic realism" is involved, is capable of being more explanatory to the reader if it is integrated into a slighly more detailed explaination starting in the second paragraph of the Overview section. And "theistic realism" is primarily Johnson's term, not necessarily a shared preference of all the DI affiliates-- Dembski, for example, doesn't appear to prefer this term (but correct me if I'm wrong about this). But this has mostly to do with level of specificity and avoiding confusion by inserting too much into the lead. There already is a lead, and an Overview. That first section of the Overview is there for a reason, which is because it's a complex subject, and too much material in the lead will make it too complicated and lengthy if it includes terms that are understood by virtually no one.

4) The proposed replacement of the concise timeline given presently given in the article of what happened between 1987 and 2005 is not, in my opinion, improved by replacing it with "They gained widespread publicity and persuaded some school boards, but in the 2005 trial Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District a group of parents of high-school students challenged a public school district requirement for teachers to present intelligent design in biology classes as an alternative "explanation of the origin of life".

.... Kenosis 11:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

N.B.: Folks, please review the article, not just the lead. The Overview section has many aspects that could be done more effectively than at present, and it's there for a reason, which is to overview intelligent design in a somewhat more specific manner than can reasonably be put forward into the article lead. ... Kenosis 11:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The constant drive to rewrite the lead seems ridiculous to me, and a number of the proposals have done nothing to promote clarity. The lead really does not need to be rewritten, it gets its points across quite well. For example, we just had a change from "form" to "variant". Why? They are not semantically equal, there's a bit of a difference in "sense" (no, I don't care that thesauri list them as synonyms).

In anu case, Kenosis is right: we've been through the lead, move on to the rest of the article. At this point in time we should really be past the rewrite process and should just be working on maintenance. Nota bene: we will never be able to write this article in a way the pleases everyone so let's stop trying. If the truth hurts or bothers some, too bad. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

an argument for the existance of God that is framed differently, is not ipso facto teleological

The conclusion that ID is teleological, is an argument or inference and not a fact, and should not be stated for the truth of the matter. It should be attributed to specific persons, or the more weasal word "critics". The introductory paragraph is already argumentitive, implying that because the discovery institute members are religious that they can't propose a secular theory. They may have God in mind, but their theory can still be considered on its merits. Have they presented any solid evidence that God exists or is the designer?--Africangenesis 01:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Among the issues the article deals with in a moderate amount of depth of summary, one of them is the teleological argument, which is discussed in "Origins of the concept". The sources provided in the lead and in that section are not just critics of ID. If yet more sourcing is going to be needed, despite occasional complaints about the barrage of footnotes the reader is confronted with in the article, more can be provided. ... Kenosis 01:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Attribute it to them. It is a conclusion based upon arguments specific people, have presented. Presumably ID proponents deny teleology, and maintain they will accept aliens or some species of low, but adequate intelligence if the evidence points that way. So it is a point of contention and should not be presented as fact. This is a fringe theory, of little acceptance or merit, but lets not mischaracterize it.--Africangenesis 01:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

That ID is a form of teleological argument is not in contention by anyone who is closely familiar with philosophy and theology. These are basics, not points of contention among reliable sources, independent of public relations by the Discovery Institute and its affiliates. What AfricanGenesis is advocating here and the section above is essentially to sidestep WP:NPOV#Undue weight in a way which would imply that the whole controversy is merely a debate or controversy between ID and its critics. In a word, yes, ID is ipso facto a teleological argument. ... Kenosis 02:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I begin to see what some of the difficulty may be at the present. Evidently someone turned a direct quote from Kitzmiller v. Dover (presently footnote #5) into a nota bene, removing the citation to Kitzmiller. To begin with, I will now proceed to repair this error. ... Kenosis 02:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll restore the quote. This is why some people shouldn't be futzing with the souces all the time. FeloniousMonk 02:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the format of that source and others, removing the "nota bene" non-standard format and again gave each source it's own footnote. The latter I did for two reasons: First, it is less confusing and makes the sources easier to read. Secondly, it helps to show exactly how well-supported the content is thus avoiding many of the more clueless objections about the content not being well-supported. FeloniousMonk 03:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not just ID critics that say ID is the teleological argument, read the Dover trial ruling, it's a federal court as well. How about reading the sources before edit warring next time? BTW, even ID proponents concede ID is a version of the teleological argument. FeloniousMonk 02:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The conclusion that ID is teleological, is an argument or inference and not a fact, and should not be stated for the truth of the matter

Umm, no. Sorry African. Read the archives. To put it simply, intelligent design is a design argument. Design arguments are teleological. No one denies that ID is teleological - some people read Luskin's statements that way, but Luskin isn't trying to contradict Demsbki, Behe, etc., it's just the mangled garbage he comes up with when he tries to explain the whole "why does ID not speculate about the nature of the designer" thing. Do you have a source which trumps everything I have read on the issue - by ID proponents, by opponents, by Jones, by the Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy, by the Library of Congress catalogue, by Amazon.com's catalogue...? Guettarda 03:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a bifurcation here, I can agree that it is teleological in the general sense, but the text in the introduction specifies the teleological argument for the existance of God. From what I can see, that is mere inference based upon characteristics of those purporting the theory rather than upon the statement of the theory itself. So the "for the existance of God" should be removed or properly attributed to whomever is making that inference.--Africangenesis 04:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It was made by an impartial judge in Kitzmiller, among others. However, I do think that "Modern variant of the teleological argument for the existence of God" would be more accurate - "variant" emphasises that there is a significant change. Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

As differentiated from "It is a form of teleological argument ..."? ... Kenosis 05:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Form doesn't imply significant changes, IMO. Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Then it should be attributed to the judge. Did the judge say whether the argument succeeded? If he did would you also be citing ipso facto, unattributed, "God exists"?--Africangenesis 05:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

But it's NOT JUST THE JUDGE, he was summarising evidence from the trial and a large group of people. Admittedly, we could probably do with a few more references there to show the breadth of agreement on this point, but the agreement is widespread. Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but it's not *just* the judge. Someone needs to read the Dover ruling. We've got critics and proponents along with the judge all saying the same thing. I'd don't think we really need to add more sources to the article just for that, but we can if you insist on continuing to make a stink about it. FeloniousMonk 05:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

We don't need more references, we just need to qualify the statement. The language I proposed, is well supported by the references:

• "Critics have characterized it as a form of teleological argument (an argument for the existence of God), framed in such a way that it does not specify the nature or identity of the designer."

Perhaps "critics have characterized it" isn't strong enough, but stating it as a fact is not something I think most editors here would wish to generalize to their editing on other pages. How about "Scientists dismiss it", or "A court has ruled it" or "A court has judged it". I'm open to other suggestions.--Africangenesis 05:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you show me one source saying it isn't a variant of the teleological argument/argument from design? Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you're paying attention to what anyone has said here. It's not just critics who say ID is a teleological argument. It's not just a federal court judge who says ID is a teleological argument. It theologians like John Haught and ID proponents like William Lane Craig and Dembski who say it too. Read William Lane Craig's endorsement of Dembski's The Design Inference and Teleological Arguments for God's Existence, 4.3 The Intelligent Design (ID) Movement by Del Ratzsch. So we have parties from all sides, including their own, saying ID is a teleological argument. For that reason your proposed change is simply inaccurate and will never fly here. I'll add these sources to the article since you seem to be unclear. FeloniousMonk 06:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a variant of teleological argument, but a revival of it. Check the sources please; please do the needed research. These are basics, folks. ... Kenosis 06:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It's changed to not refer explicitly to God. That's the definition of variant. I agree with your other points, but I think "variant of the teleogical argument for the existance of God framed so as not to explicitly name the designer" is easier to understand: How does it vary? It doesn't explicitly mention the designer, as is soon explained. Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Adam askes "Can you show me one source saying it isn't a variant of the teleological argument/argument from design?". Recall that we are speaking of the "God" version of the teleological argument. That source would be Behe's "Darwin's Black Box". He specifically did not identify or speculate about the designer.--Africangenesis 07:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No, because we specifically say that it does not identify or speculte as to the nature of the signer as well. that's the reason it's a variant. But it's precisely the same argument, just stripped of some of its context. Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, not being specific about the designer or designers, means it is not an argument for the existance of God, either explicitly or implicitly. We contradict ourselves in a single sentence, calling ID an argument for the existance of God that doesn't specify him. Others have concluded that is what the ID proponents really meant. Even if Behe were to later admit that was what he really meant, the no-designer-speculation version, is still the theory he put forward, and he doesn't own it.--Africangenesis 09:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read the sources. This grows tiresome. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 12:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not an argument for the existance of a god as fact. Is this is the argument we can say that evolution is the argument for the non-existence of a god. Some critics call it an argument for the existence of a god and as such it should be stated from the critics view. If not then the critics calling evolution an argument for the non-existence of a god should also be taken as a fact. /me puts on fire proof suit -PromX1 12:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

But it is the same as the Teleological argument. I suppose we could debate whether it's better to say "teleological argument for the existence of god", or "teleological argument, normally an argument for the existence of God." But I think the second half of the sentence makes it clear anyway.

Teleological arguments are used for other than God. An archeologist who finds artifacts in certain strata, will look for other signs of the designer, and even if he can't find the remains, will make inferences about the level of advancement of the culture. The ID theory has been posed as a secular theory. Perhaps, those posing the theory had God in mind, but theories don't have minds, they exist as stated.--Africangenesis 19:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Theory? What theory? Jones in Kitzmiller called it a proposition for a reason: Barbara Forrest's testimony noted that in 2004 Paul Nelson interviewed by a magazine called Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity stated "Easily, the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a real problem.... Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions and a handful of notions such as irreducible complexity and specified complexity, but as yet, no general theory of biological design." ... dave souza, talk 19:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct, Dave, ID is not a theory. I'm not sure what's so hard about grasping this fact, although I do understand the motive that creates the need to see ID as a theory.

This, "...is the argument for the non-existence of a god..." is nonsense. Evolution is mute on the existence of a god or gods. Seems to me that too many people willingly conflate evolution and natural selection with abiogenesis. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I swear to Darwin that this discussion section is like the movie Groundhog Day. We keep going over the same old crap over and over and over again. ID is not a scientific theory, it is a religious argument to try to shove the teaching of Creationism into our public schools in violation of the US Constitution. It is without a doubt a duplicitous effort on the part of DI to fake out a few foolish school boards to waste money, defending lawsuits that they will always lose, that could be better spent on, you know, education. Once again, and I don't mean to be rude, but I probably will be, but we have gone round and round and round, and we get nowhere. Isn't this the fundamental definition of insanity? Repeating oneself over and over again in the hope of a different result? I'm going to scream!!!!! Orangemarlin 00:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Except I think some of the editors can only see the shadow of an imaginary divine sun and thus winter and darkness are perpetual. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Over-referencing

Intelligent design's primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute,^{[6][7][8][9][10][11][12]}

Oh, come now: That's just excessive superscripting. Can we group the references into 2-4 batches? Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a good idea. This is something we've learned through many hard lessons here. The problem is that some don't bother reading through grouped sources. Each source should have it's own footnote to avoid confusion. Read the section above containing Africagenesis' objections and tell me how that wasn't a contributing factor with his issue. FeloniousMonk 05:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying reduce it to one, but a compromise between identifying multiple sources and readability. Seven is too many for readability. Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. A number of the current participants in this article just very recently argued about a large quantity of minutia, and how precisely they should be stated in the lead section of the article, neglecting either by accident or design the issue of accessibilty. On balance, in my estimation the extra split-second it takes for the casual reader to choose to skip, hop, or jump past multiple ^footnotes is not even remotely comparable to the actual complexities of the topic of intelligent design. ... Kenosis 06:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC) On the other hand, the difficulty of line-spacing, or leading, that is caused by footnotes is a problem in general, but that problem is not addressed by reducing more footnotes into less footnotes. ... Kenosis 07:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Adam, I'm sorry, but I disagree too. I actually would posit the argument that we could probably reduce that to one reference. "40 days and 40 nights" seems to contain sufficient evidence to link the DI and ID together pretty well. But anyways, aside from that, it doesn't bother my readability to see that many references. Orangemarlin 06:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't feel so strongly about it to push the point in the face of unanimous opposition... Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what the weight of opinion is here at the moment or in the longer term. But I disagree that consolidating footnotes helps anything in a complex, continually controversial—or at least repetitively controversial—article such as this. ... Kenosis 07:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The number of footnotes has grown in response to the neverending objections raised by some readers. It is not enough to simply say "the Sun is a star" with just one source, we have to have that information verified by quotes from astronomers, cosmologists, theologians, physicists, photographers and some school teacher in Iowa. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 12:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Could always just combine them into a single footnote, the way it was done before (see the FAC discussion) - anything not repeated elsewhere can be lumped together with no loss of information. Guettarda 02:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Query

It is a variation of the teleological argument for the existence of God that has been framed to not explicitly specify the nature or identity of the designer.

Ignorigng whether "form" or "variation" or "modification" or something else is preferred - I could go either way, so long as we in some way emphasise the change - I must ask: does the word "framed" actually provide important meaning? Because it would read better to say "It is a variation of the teleological argument for the existence of God that does not explicitly specify the nature or identity of the designer." or, if not using a noun that emphasises change, "It is a form of the teleological argument for the existence of God modified so that it does not specify the nature or identity of the designer." or... something like that, but I'm worried that subtle shades of meaning might be lost. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

As is ordinarily the case, there are multiple different ways of stating the information to the reader. No objection to replacing "framed" with another suitable verb. ... Kenosis 14:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"Presented"? KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Intro structure again

I've restore the intro back to it's long standing structure, which 1) is easier to read, 2) is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject, 3) has stood for years for good reason. That reason is that that structure simply makes sense from a editorial and a policy standpoint: Simply state what ID is followed by what its proponents say it is in the first paragraph. This satisfies WP:NPOV for being neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. The following paragraph can then be devoted to describing how it was received by the venue in which ID stakes its claim, the scientific community. The remained should cover its legal status. The recent change to the structure interleafed the ID and scientific community's views within the first two sentences, making for an article structure that appears to be "tit-for-tat" and more difficult to read. I've yet to read a compelling argument for why that is better, and again this appears to have been done without consensus. FeloniousMonk 17:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I probably did not help that situation, with this edit, wherein I tried to squeeze in a clause about it being held out to be a scientific theory (while actually being a form of teleological argument, a philosophical or theological argument for the existence of God). I had hoped maybe there'd be some support for the approach, but it fell flat. ... Kenosis 20:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It was a nice idea, but, well, we can't trust people to realise the teleological argument isn't a scientific theory given one of my friends insists flood geology is more scientific than evolution. (remind me to paste the last online conversation we had about that sometime). Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to paste the last online conversation about flood geology. Orangemarlin 00:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, Kenosis seemed to think the information from the last sentence of the first paragraph had to go immediately after the lead sentence, so my rearrangement was the only NPOV way to do that without repeating information. Didn't really think it'd stand. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute

This clause is a bit out of place where it is; what do you think about moving it to the discussion of the Discovery Institute in paragraph 3 (or, rather, the information from it) where it would fit more comfortably? Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think its out of place? KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This section title almost made me vomit until I read the comment. Thanks. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 19:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It interrupts the flow of the facts: While moving from ID not explicitly naming the designer to the leading proponents identifying him as the Abrahamic God, we suddently add a completely unrelated fact about those proponents belonging to the Discovery Institute. It could be made to flow a lot better, with simpler wording, if we talked about the DI when we're talking about the DI anyway, instead of forcing it into a discussion about the designer according to ID. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not think about how to make the sentence flow better, rather than moving it out of the lead? Guettarda 02:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

But the third paragraph is part of the lead? Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

As the primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the DI, believe the designer is the Abrahamic God, it is important to have that information in the lead. Its crucial to understanding ID. That said, if I could think of a better way to integrate that, I would, and if you can think of better phrasing, please post it here. It would be nice if we could improve the flow. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

statement unsupported by reference

This sentence in the introduction:

• "Its advocates claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life."

Is not supported by the reference. First of all, the reference only has one author, so it would not support "Its advocates claim", perhaps it might support "One of its advocates claims". However, the characterization of the substance also appears to be wrong. It may be claiming that a methodology which does not exclude ID apriori is superior, which is quite different from from making a claim about ID's relative status vis'a'vis evolution. It is arguing for openness to evidence for design, hardly a superiority argument. How could this error have survived so long in a highly visible place like the intro?--Africangenesis 08:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the statement to better reflect the reference, here is the replacement:

• "One advocate has argued that it is irrational to rule out empirical evidence for design a'priori and that doing so reduces evolutionary explanations to little more than tautologies."

--Africangenesis 09:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

However, if that's only one person's opinion, then it's not important enough for the lead. Let's see if it can be supported first. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Can't you chaps count? There were two sources, but not everyone's read Behe's black box. However, the original sentence misses the fundamental point picked up by Johnson in 1987 before he'd even heard of ID, that for creationism to succeed it needs a fundamental redefinition of science to accept the supernatural. So I've added two more sources and modified the sentence to reflect that. .. dave souza, talk 11:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The references that I can access don't support the statement. In fact [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/4:Whether_ID_Is_Science#Page_66_of_139} is not by the advocates, but is someone else charactarizing what they think the advocates think. I've already discussed Meyer above. I own Behe, can you provide the text or page numbers that support text?--Africangenesis 11:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> Who said anything about what ID advocates think? The sources show what they claim, and Kitzmiller is a secondary source describing ID on the basis of a long and detailed investigation in court. To be clear, the sentence as modified reads as follows:

Its advocates claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory requiring a fundamental redefinition of science so that it is no longer limited to searching for natural explanations for what is observed in the universe, and accepts supernatural explanations.

That's more basic to ID than whether or not they claim it's "superior" to science. ... dave souza, talk 11:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Behe's testimony on redefining "scientific theory" Search for "astrology". Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't see where Behe is claiming that science needs a redefinition, rather the opposite, he claims that ID is testable, and that evolution is not, apparently under the current definition of science. I suspect this is related to the tautology argument of Meyer that is discussed above.--Africangenesis 12:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well page 66 says nothing about what the advocates claim, it appears to be more about what experts have said that science is and is not. --Africangenesis 12:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Kitzmiller p 66, after stating the scientific position that "rigorous attachment to “natural” explanations is an essential attribute to science by definition and by convention", states that "ID is predicated on supernatural causation", "ID takes a natural phenomenon and, instead of accepting or seeking a natural explanation, argues that the explanation is supernatural.", followed on p 67 by other statements including "ID’s rejection of naturalism and commitment to supernaturalism . . .” (Fuller) .. dave souza, talk 12:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC) correct which expert: further down, "It is notable that defense experts’ own mission, which mirrors that of the IDM itself, is to change the ground rules of science to allow supernatural causation of the natural world".. with more on p 68: would you prefer a list of page numbers? ....... dave souza, talk 12:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sentence tweaked on basis of Adam's suggestion to:

Its advocates seek a fundamental redefinition of science so that it is no longer limited to searching for natural explanations for what is observed in the universe, thus accepting supernatural explanations, and on this basis claim that intelligent design is a new scientific theory.

One of Johnson's statements added as a citation, and Behe's black box commented out pending confirmation. No doubt further sources can be found if needed. .. dave souza, talk 12:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The new Johnson source supports the redefinition statement, at least for himself and Ratzsch.--Africangenesis 12:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ta. Note Adam's improved the sentence to:

Its advocates seek a fundamental redefinition of science, no longer limiting it to natural explanations for what is observed in the universe, but accepting supernatural explanations as well, and on this basis claim that intelligent design is a new scientific theory.

Which looks better to me. .. dave souza, talk 12:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"And Ratzsch's conclusions, which we endorse, are bound to be controversial." This quote enlists both Meyer and Nelson, this source probably should replace the Meyer reference. [12] The "redefinition" is looking pretty solid now.--Africangenesis 12:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice citation, I've added it in addition to Meyer's essay which, though it woofles on at tedious length, explicitly spells out the need to jettison naturalism if ID is to be accepted as science: "Clearly, if naturalism is regarded as a necessary feature of all scientific hypotheses, then design will not be considered a scientific hypothesis...... As Phillip Johnson has argued, the use of "methodological rules" to protect Darwinism from theoretical challenge has produced a situation in which Darwinist claims must be regarded as little more than tautologies expressing the deductive consequences of methodological naturalism." .... dave souza, talk 15:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I added a clause about ID being claimed to be a scientific theory in the second sentence of the lead here, and adapted the syntax accordingly, thus bringing it to its present form here (and Raul654 also contributed an intermediary edit).

I think it's important to keep in mind that ID is primarily a legal strategy (though this needn't be stated explicitly at the ouset, but rather must be deduced from the many well-verified facts derived from the reliable sources about the topic). The drive of ID proponents to call it a scientific theory arises out of the Edwards v. Aguilard decision, the relevant passage of which is presently introduced in the WP article at the beginning of the Overview. Because its proponents are driven to say it's a legitimate scientific theory whether or not they are successful at changing the definition of science, it is important to make this statement in addition to the statement just added by Dave, Africangenesis and Adam. I have no objection to this approach just implemented and indeed compliment how concisely this info was stated just today, along with the citations just provided.

The only issue I have at the moment has to do with the use of the word "claim" or "claimed" three times in the first paragraph of the lead (one of which I'm responsible for). Not wanting to mess with the first sentence myself, I'd like to see "claim" replaced with another word such as "proposition", "concept", "position", "assertion" or some other suitable word. ... Kenosis 17:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed "claim"->"assertion" in first sentence, given the new 4th sentence by AdamCuerden/Africangenesis/DaveSouza and the add'l clause in 2nd sentence. It's merely tentative to tide it over until editors here can decide about it. Look forward to seeing what the collection of editors arrives at. My compliments on the research effort involving the last sentence of the first lead paragraph by Africangenesis, Dave_souza and Adam Cuerden. ... Kenosis 17:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"Proposition" rather than "assertion" might be a bit more neutral for the first sentence, but I agree that "assertion" is better than "claim". For the other two, how about "Stated by its proponents to be...", and "on this basis, claim..." if we're staying with "assertion" in the first sentence, or "on this basis, assert..." if we're changing it? Tevildo 18:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

We're using the DI's words for the definition. It includes the word "best". We either have to identify this as a quote from the DI, paraphrase it, or make it clear we're only putting acrross the proponents' side by calling it a claim. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say, the first paragraph of the lead is somewhat messy at the moment. ... Kenosis 19:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Kenosis' addition to the second sentence

Kenosis keeps trying to draw a conclusion in the second sentence of the rough form

"Claimed by its advocates to be a scientific theory, it is actually a form of teleological argument"

I'm not sure about this for multiple reasons:

1. It may count as OR. Has any independant source explicitly used that to debunk the ID claim?

2. Is it actually a good debunking of the claim? Flood Geology and oher forms of creation science?

2a. Far more blatantly religious pseudosciences, did not fall out of favour because people were embarrassed by it; it fell out of favour because Edwards v. Aguilard ruled against it. Both were being tught as a theory on a state scale.

2b. Even ignoring that, what the teleological argument is is fairly obscure. Its status as a scientific theory is being debunked by a slighly awkward definition that does not have much strength.

3. The first sentence is already misleading as to natural selection. Must we contininue to harp on the DI party line for another half-sentence?

Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I provided a source for the claim that ID is a "scientific theory" irrespective of movements to change the definition of science. That source is the Discovery Institute ([13]). Look at the source; it uses the words "scientific theory" six times on the one page. In legalese, there are their "magic words" to try to meet the standard set by Edwards v. Aguilard, which was that it's permissible to teach competing scientific theories about evolution if they have secular intent. Read it; it's in the ID article as well as in the Edwards v. Aguilard article, faithfully quoted from the original source of the court decision. The Kitzmiller v. Dover court said ID, despite its proponents' claims to be science, is a teleological argument. The sentence in the first paragraph of the WP Intelligent design article that resulted from the extra clause I inserted, which was in supplement to the rewriting of the fourth sentence discussed in the talk section above, is exactly what the evidence in the Kitzmiller trial showed and exactly how the court ruled. OR??? What on earth?? ... Kenosis 18:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And evidently Raul654, who participated intensively in the FA discussion several months ago, agreed it was a sensible approach, given his edit here. ... Kenosis 18:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

With all respect, I'd rather hear Raul speak for himself, rather than speculating based on him tweaking some language near, but not actually part of, the disputed section. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure. The more important point here is that the research y'all did today, excellent as it was, missed the basic point that ID is held out to be science irrespective of the success, or lack thereof, of efforts to redefine science. But I already said this just above. The adaptation I made to the first paragraph factored this in, and the second sentence of the paragraph, after I added the clarifying clause, was precisely what the Kitzmiller court said -- to which we can add, if necessary, numerous other reliable sources that say the same thing. In the case of my edits following up on your work today, I did not mess with the consensused language any more than mere syntactic adjustments, such that it read: "Claimed by its advocates to be a scientific theory, it actually is a form of teleological argument modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer." (Raul654's edit changed "... modified to not explicitly specify..." to "... modified to avoid specifying..." It seems to me if he disagreed with the addition of "Claimed by its advocates to be a scientific theory...", he'd have removed it.)

So, after I followed up by adapting the first paragraph so it continues to reflect the verified facts, it's instead now been changed back into something that misses the point. The point of calling ID a "scientific theory" has to do with the legal strategy of claiming to meet the standard set by Edwards v. Aguilard. But at the moment there appears to be something of a loss of perspective by some participants of the article format and the overall set of facts about this topic, in favor of grappling with semantic nuances. I understand how this can happen, and am endeavoring to bring this perspective back. Without a restatement of the fact that ID is asserted or claimed to be a scientific theory, the new sentence created today about attempting to redefine science is misleading, because ID is claimed to be a scientific theory on a number of grounds the ID advocates have argued along the way since this controversy began. And even beyond asserting that ID is a scientific theory under existing definitions, they've gone so far as to assert that evolution is not science under existing criteria for what is scientific (e.g., not falsifiable, not replicable, etc.). So this does need to be put into clearer perspective for the reader, and this is accomplished, among many possible ways of doing it, by modifying the second sentence to read:Claimed by its advocates to be a scientific theory, it actually is a form of teleological argument modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer. along with appropriate citations as already provided. ... Kenosis 19:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll grant you that now that I've weakjed the ecxplanation of the teleological argument enouhght that it's easily comprehensible, it *MAY* work.

I still hate hate hate hate hate that damn definition in the first sentence, which keeps having its language tweaked to present the DI's view of the world as more and more true. First unguided processes becaome the more misleading undirecte d processes, restoring the DI's word games. Then "claim" becomes the weaker "assertion", apparently without realising that the definition is itself POV, so it needs to be carefully identified as a POV statement. There's even a move to change "assertion" to "proposition", completing the taking of the DI's definition as fact. Is it any wonder that I'm rabidly against statements that may inject DI POV? Once they're in, they're completely unkillable. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I already gave my opinion on this, which is that I support the shorter first sentence introduced by TimVickers, which has been knocked down for now, but appears to deserve further discussion. ... Kenosis 19:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Tim's was flawed as well, although it was better than any of Adam's attempted "improvements". &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments and proposals..

Firstly, in my opinion "Claimed by its advocates to be a scientific theory,[4] " appears to give the teleological argument as an argument against its advocates, though they are actually happy to cite the argument (Paley etc) as earlier "design theorists", and so introduces unnecessary complication. The CSC source "for the claim that ID is a "scientific theory" irrespective of movements to change the definition of science" evades the issue and whinges about Darwin supporters being unfair, but underlying it is the need for science to accept their premise that "the 'apparent design' in nature... [is] the product of an intelligent cause", which as Kitzmiller has shown has to be supernatural. I've been roughing out a timeline which is now at User talk:Dave souza/ID timeline, and evidently Johnson started around 1987 with the idea that the definition of science was unfair, and though he may have heard of the term from Meyer around 1988 he didn't use it in his first book until the 2nd edition of 1993. As for the definition, an argument for the short summary one is that there are two current definitions of ID: the lawyery DI one that we've been using, and the Pandas one that goes back to around 1983, tweaked in 1997 and still current: definition "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc." – so I'd like to see the shorter summary in the lead, and both full definitions explored in the Overview section. Am aiming to produce more ideas, but not tonight... dave souza, talk 20:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not to describe Natural Selection as Undirected: Pt. 1

Kitzmiller v. Dover area School District, cross-examination of Dr. Miller

Q. Sir, is evolution random and undirected?

A. I don't think that that is an appropriate scientific question. First of all, evolution most definitely is not random. There are elements of evolutionary change that are unpredictable, but the principal force driving evolution, which is natural selection is most definitely a non-random force, and then the second part of your question, undirected, that requires a conclusion about meaning and purpose that I think is beyond the realm of science. So my answer for different reasons to both parts of your question is no. Or excuse me, perhaps more aptly put, science cannot answer the second part of the question. I think that's a more accurate way to put it.

As well, giving the ambiguity of "undirected" (which can itself mean random), the first part applies as well. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And? Miller was trying to put the best face on ID to save his and the DI's collective ass. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;

Um, Miller appeared for the plaintiffs, I believe. When speaking of natural selection, it is anything but random, and Miller states that he believes whether it might be directed is outside the purview of science - which fits nicely with his Roman Catholicism. However, more notable scientists than he have stated unambiguously that natural selection is unguided. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, my bad (mulitasking sucks). But, in that case, it makes Adam's use of the quote of even less value given the quote being used to define ID. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The world has order, if it were truly random, natural selection would not be possible. If what worked today was no more likely to work tomorrow, than what didn't work today, natural selection wouldn't work. If natural selection seems directed, it is because the world is orderly at least to the extent that exploitation or dependence upon that order improves ones chances. There are no guarantees, as several major extinction events demonstrate.--Africangenesis 00:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it would appear to most that "the world has order", and according to some, that order depends on the "thin blue line", and as everyone knows, it's a jungle out there, and so on and so forth. It sounds, judging by much of the literature I've read about "the world", more like a battleground or slightly mitigated anarchy, or like, er, virtual chaos. To others, it's seen as random. To yet others, it's seen in yet other ways. So what? These observations and arguments are not science, but rather widely agreed to be philosophy or theology. To assert that there is an overarching order to the world is basically to say "the world exists", and not a whole lot more. Again, this is frequently an interesting debate, but the assertion made by Africangenesis has little to do with the topic of "intelligent design", words that came into the modern lexicon for only one reason, which is to teach theology in biology classes in the United States. ... Kenosis 00:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Africangenesis, you make it sound like natural selection has some brain. It doesn't, because it is brainless. Actually, since natural selection works on the phenotype, it is possible that a phenotype will repeat itself over and over again, until the underlying genotype disappears from the population. I think that natural selections directs evolution but not in any conscious manner, just that's what evolution is. But natural selection is not ordered, or thoughtful, or anything else but a natural, unguided, and ultimately scientific process. Orangemarlin 03:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Natural selection has often been imbued with "invisible hand" qualities, but no, there is a tendency to somehow view our world as random, I was merely pointing out that it is orderly. The physical laws and environments and competitors for the most part are the same today as yesterday. So natural selection won't look unguided in the sense, that it is randomly changing direction. There will be trends in certain directions that may persist for awhile. When a change comes, the overspecialized adaptations may lose out to more general strategies and robustness. I am fine with "undirected", I think evolution can survive it.--Africangenesis 05:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It is "orderly" according to our definition and understanding of the concept. In other words, there is no inherent order, we merely see it that way as the earth is the only example of life we can look at. The same would be true for such concepts as "randomness" and "chaos". What we see as order might very well be chaos to some other species living on some other planet. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hah! Now all of a sudden I'm embarrased about the order of things in the world. But we digress. ... Kenosis 21:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed we do. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

("a form of" adds nothing.)

After you just got done arguing for variant? Stop Adam, you are making no sense and appear to be trying to prove a WP:POINT (although just what that point is remains ambiguous). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I was arguing that we need to make the change explicit in some way, either with choice of noun, or by clear choice of verb. Now that we've gone with "modified", and revised so much else, "form" is unnecessary. Will you kindly assume good faith? Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, looking again, "form of" is necessary. But it's better to explain what the "teleological argument" is - the phrase is obscure. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The phrase is not obscure, your apparent unfamiliarty with it notwithstanding. Adam, you are beginning to cross over into RfC territory. Go to sleep, and when your head has cleared, come back and try again. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Not obscure to who? Do you think that every single person has read Aquinas? The general person, if familiar with the history at all, is only going to vaguely know about Paley. And why on earth are you claiming it's vandalism to try and use a natural-language version?

To be completely clear, I don't think "a form of" is needed in a construction like "it is a traditional argument for the existence of God, modified to not specify the nature or identity of the designer". Unfortunately, I then went back and added a phrase in commas which broke the flow and re-required "a form of". That was a mistake, but I still object to you trying to claim this is a WP:POINT violation on no apparent grounds. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Could we all calm down please? Frankyly neither version looks that substantially different to me although for stylistic reasons I prefer Jim's. JoshuaZ 23:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

As to the inclusion of the word "teleological argument" in the first paragraph, first consensused around the beginning of 2007 by about seven or eight participants if I rembember right, I agree that "argument from design" will also do. But if it is stated as "argument from design" with a link to "teleological argument" it needs to be qualified by saying it is a traditional argument for the existence of God, otherwise it sounds redundant or superfluous to the unfamiliar reader of the article on the topic of "intelligent design". Another factor to be considered is that the reader of the article, presumably at least, reads it to learn about the topic. The word "teleological" is a central part of the topic, and would, as a matter of course, be part of learning about the topic. ... Kenosis 23:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the change that eliminates "traditional argument". I don't have any strong preference on how it gets phrased, but there needs to be recognition that the arguments being put forward now from IDC advocates are derived from much earlier work. For example, William Paley in his 1802 "Natural Theology" clearly makes arguments that correspond to "irreducible complexity", "specified complexity", cosmological design, and "privileged planet" arguments. The new sentence does not give any hint that the precursors of the present arguments have truly ancient roots. --Wesley R. Elsberry 00:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with Wes here. Odd nature 17:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Also agreed. ( Incidentally, I brought it back to the longstanding three-paragraph format for the introduction. Otherwise it'll surely and quickly become a complete mess again, based upon prior experiences with the article. And, what is currently footnote 1 is different from footnote 4 (or footnote 6, depending on how the clauses are organized--presently it's #6). The latter deals with the whole Discovery Institute page, which mentions the words "scientific theory" six times.) ... Kenosis 17:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Losing track of the flow of the first paragraph

As it now stands, and ignoring the exact phrasings, we have

"It is a modern form of the traditional argument from design for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer, and said by its advocates to be a scientific theory. Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, believe the designer to be the Abrahamic God."

That's two interruptions between saying it's modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer, and clarifying that its leading proponents nonetheless identify the designer as the Abrahamic God. Is there any way to rationalise this? I'm wondering about something like:

Intelligent design is the assertion, claimed by its proponents to be a scientific theory, 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 argument from design for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer, though its primary proponents all identify the designer as the Abrahamic God. All its primary proponents are connected with the Discovery Institute, which seeks to "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions", in other words, to fundamentally redefine science to allow supernatural explanations.

The new quote is from the Wedge document, of course, the material after it is supported by the references we have. I'm not entirely sure about moving the claims of it being a scientific theory to the first sentence, but, well, it fits content-wise there better than later. Thoughts? Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, allow me to apologise for yesterday: One of the problems with being highly confused from toxins and drugs is that it's hard to tell just how confused you are, and this led to some bad editing. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. This proposed paragraph is flat-out incorrect as a lead paragraph. The main issue is whether it's a scientific theory such that it can be taught to biology students under the standard set by the US Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguilard, in other words, whether it's science or not. Apart from that issue about ID, the underlying debate is all about the teleological argument and what particular POV one has, which is not a great big deal evidently, because the WP talk page on the teleological argument has gotten less traffic in its entire history than this article gets in a couple weeks. But when the issue of teaching it to biology classes as a theory comes onto the table, now it's a big deal that's worth arguing about, because personal POVs based on scripture appear to have a shot at being validated with an official rubber stamp in the public schools. Which is a large part of what the tension about separation of church and state is about in today's world, at least in the US.

Apart from difficulties involving very confusing syntax and context in the first two sentences of the proposed paragraph, the second of which is intolerably long and confusing as proposed article text, the points of the last sentence of the proposed paragraph are already dealt with several places in the article, and the push to redefine science is only one prong of the approach, albeit an important one. Fact is, the advocates, after Edwards v. Aguilard, began using the buzzwords "scientific theory" and "intelligent design", and the scientific community quickly began debunking it in the early 90s, and ID advocates responded by hopping more intensively on the position already taken by Phillip Johnson and others wanting to integrate science and religion via the route of advocating a complete redefining of science. They already know they haven't succeeded in redefining science, yet continue to use the buzzwords "scientific theory". In other words, the last sentence of the first paragraph that was just inserted into the article (replacing the earlier one) is already more than specific enough for the lead. This constant demand to rearrange, rearrange, rearrange the many issues is not, in general, reflective of potential improvements to the lead. There's only so much that can be said in the lead before the reader is expected to, well, read the damn article. ... Kenosis 18:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't follow you. I gather you dislike the style, and fair enough about the new quote, but I cannot figure out what your first paragraph is getting at, given the information about scientific theory as a buzzword, as far as I can tell, isn't actually explained by the current version either, where it's just sort of tacked on.

Could you clarify a bit? Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The main story of ID in a nutshell: First paragraph: ID is a teleological argument claimed to be a scientific theory, advanced by a small cluster of proponents associated with the Discovery Institute. Second paragraph: Scientific community says it ain't a scientific theory. Third paragraph: It came to be called a scientific theory in response to Edwards v. Aguilard which said you can't teach religion in our schools, and a movement grew around the idea of teaching it as "intelligent design" instead of creationism, and the Kitzmiller court said, no, it's not science, it's religion, so you can't teach it in our schools. Please don't try to fit too much into the first paragraph of the lead. ... Kenosis 18:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, yes, but I'm not actually arguing about adding content, I just want to rearrange the facts presented in the first paragraph so they have some sort of logical flow. New information is getting added in such a way that it pushes related bits of content further and further apart (e.g. moving the scientific theory bit to the end of the second sentence), and I think we should rearrange things so that clearly related facts (e.g. ID supposedly does not specify nature or identity of the designer, but its leading proponents nonetheless identify it as the Abrahamic god) are as close together as possible. This means ordering the facts and clauses already in the first paragraph so that they group in logical units.

How about this rearrangement?

Intelligent design is the assertion 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, claimed by its advocates to be a scientific theory that does not speculate on the nature and identity of the designer. However, its primary proponents all identify the designer as the Abrahamic God. Its primary advocates are all associated with the Discovery Institute, which seeks a fundamental redefinition of science, no longer limiting it to natural explanations for what is observed in the universe, but allowing supernatural explanations as well.

This will, of course, fail if I cannot find the Kitzmiller quotes (and enough other supporting evidence) to show the connection between the scientific theory and the lack of speculation on the nature and identity of the designer, however, I distinctly remember reading arguments along those lines when I was reading the Kitzmiller testimony. The wedge strategy will suffice to justify the minor change in focus of the last sentence's information. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Assuming a consensus can be gained for this approximate language, I personally have no complaints about the basic approach. With a couple of minor adjustments, I easily imagine it could have worked, and might yet work as an NPOV summation of what the reliable sources have said about intelligent design. It's one of many ways of approaching a lead for an article such as this. I think the only problem with the lead right now is that it's been read too many times by some participants, perhaps resulting in a loss of perspective and/or a desire for another way of saying the same basic things. ... Kenosis 19:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Aye, and I'll admit I'm probably getting a bit too worked up about undirected, which, though somewhat ambiguous, isn't as ambiguous as my fears probably make it. But a little more logical order is needed, and the recent additions are making the structure more and more disjointed. Thought it was time to speak up, and make suggestions. I'll dig up the necessary quotes. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It already has a logical order, as far as a non-mathematical summary can have for a topic such as this: (1) What ID is said to be by the representative organization of its proponents, a quotation of the longstanding brief definition given on that organization's website; (2) that it's a teleological argument for the existence of God, framed as a scientific theory that doesn't speculate on who the designer is; 3) it's main proponents operate through the Discovery Institute and believe the designer to be the Abrahamic God; and (4) that ID's advocates also seek to redefine science to include supernatural explanation.

The second paragraph states the response of the scientific community to the assertions that ID is science, and includes adequate information to give some sense for why supernatural explanations are not accepted by the scientific community, in addition to two supplementary characterizations of what ID actually is in the mind of the scientific community, specifically pseudoscience and/or junk science.

The third paragraph quickly summarizes the legal issues, allowing the reader to get some sense for how this all started, how it developed and how the federal court system has responded to date. At some point, the reader who wants to know more can read the opening section of the Overview, and if they still want to know more yet, can read the rest of the article. If they still want to know more yet, they can dig into the footnotes and move further outward from there if they still care to know more. ... Kenosis 20:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm only interested in the logical structure of the first paragraph, so your pointing out structure above the level of the paragraph is irrelevant, as rearrangements won't change that. Your (1) to (4) groupings are kind of weak: (1) and (4) consist of a single fact each, so can't count as a grouping, - (2) is a valid grouping, but not one made clear by the paragraph as currently written, (3)'s two points are not really much more connected than any other two points from that paragraph, since the whole paragraph is about the proponents' views anyway; and the identification of the designer is much more strongly connected with the attempts to avoid naming the designer. I suppose how you could see 3 as a grouping, but if you ignore the rhetorical device used to group it, it's clear the two things are only slightly connected. If we at least make my change to the second sentence, properly sourced, it'll make a reasonable start, by making grouping (2) work; the rest partially works already. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. ... Kenosis 20:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ditto on that. Adam, you need to stop. The edits you propose are by-and-large "unimprovements" and your obsession with the lead is quite troublesome from one aspect and quite nettlesome from another. The arguments you raise are becoming increasingly banal, and your seeming unwillingness to listen to the views of others and to refuse to seek consensus are precisely why I cited your edits as WP:POINT. There are many things on Wikipedia that I would have written differently, but I'll be damned if I'm going to obsess over those items and to try to ram my preferences down the throats of others -- especially in the face of increasing opposition. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

New references

I'm useing http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=985 , which makes a direct case that ID is science because it does not speculate as to the nature of the deisner, to improve the second sentence. I believe I can find more references if needed. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I see that's an old reference. So why hasn't their clearly-stated conclusion been used yet? It makes a direct connection between the facts:

"Behe and Dembski agree that design theory’s inability to identify the designer is not a “weakness,” but a strength. The reason why ID theory does not identify the designer is because ID limits its claims to those which can be established by empirical evidence" (further exposition follows) Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: this is gibberish -- "claimed to be a scientific theory because it is modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity". Look, we all know that your heart is in the right place, but you simply cannot write. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what they claim, isn't it? you could quibble about tweaking the wording, but it's perfectly accurate. Have you actually contributed anything but reversions to this article? Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes Adam, I've contributed plenty of things to this article (I'm pretty sure you know how to look that up).

As for your edit, you posit causation where none is proven. So, in other words, no, what you write is not exactly what they claim. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the link. They claim that the scientific method cannot deal with the nature of the designer, but that everything else is justified. How else would you interpret that? Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The article lead already summarizes as much of this topic as can reasonably be summarized in a lead. Then there's an Overview, which summarizes in more depth, then there's the rest of the article. Adam, I feel sure you've lost perspctive on the topic as a whole and have gotten stuck in minutia. It is, after all a complicated set of considerations. But they can't all be inserted into the lead, nor can they be constantly interchanged from one minor emphasis to another. You see, Adam, before you were arguing that the strategy worth including in the lead is that proponents seek to redefine science to include supernatural explanations. This concession was granted to yourself, Dave Souza and Africangenesis. Now you're arguing that the existing criteria for what is science will suffice in the eyes of ID advocates, because they claim ID is a scientific theory by merit of not mentioning God. As I pointed out repeatedly, this misses the point. The point is that advocates have decided to say the magic words "scientific theory" pursuant to Edwards v. Aguilard and then argue every possible angle of getting creation-based perspectives into the biology classes. Getting confused about these angles of argument is understandable. But that's why they don't belong in the lead of the article, because it's just too much for the lead. In my opinion the article already adequately deals with these issues, but perhaps you might want to propose a new section in the article, such as, for instance, "Arguments of proponents why ID is scientific". And while you're at it, you might want to include that they've also argued "evolution" is not scientific. But frankly, I think the article already adequately deals with these issues. ... Kenosis 22:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You wanted to tie the teleological argument to their claims of it being a scientific theory. I found a source that allowed us to do so, without it being WP:OR. I fail to understand why you now insist that we ignore the direct connection, and instead should just ram the facts together, making vague allusions to the old WP:OR connection, but may not use the valid connection or seperate the facts. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Adam, there is plenty of evidence lately that you're not paying attention to the sources or reading them, but rather are trying to deduce what the relevant issues are from the talk page, and indeed you are showing by a number of your comments that you have even missed much of what's pointed out on the talk page too. I had suspected this might be the case, but now I feel sure of it, and hope this will be fixed by a good night's sleep or whatever. Here's the quote from Kitzmiller v. Dover: "... 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, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer.""this argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley" (the teleological argument) "The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID’s 'official position' does not acknowledge that the designer is God." from Ruling, page 24. This quote constitutes one of the footnotes provided for the second sentence of the article.

The sentence in the article that we're referring to here, after I added the additional clause, said: Claimed by its proponents to be a scientific theory, it is actually a form of teleological argument for the existence of God modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer. Presently that sentence says: 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, and said by its advocates to be a scientific theory. Three footnotes are provided for both versions, including the quote from Kitzmiller. This sentence, in either form, is precisely what the evidence showed and what the Kitzmiller decision stated, except it's stated in one brief sentence as is appropriate for an article lead. ... Kenosis 01:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand any of your arguments of late. You're the one who tied the scientific theory claims to the teleological argument description. All I did was try and source it and use a common claim - from Behe's testimiony at KizmillerKitzmiller, that Truth sheet, etc - to actually justify the link. You... keep acting as if there was only one single source for any comment that matters, and all others can be ignored, even while adding more and more sources. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You might want to take some time off and reflect a bit then. Kenosis' arguments are quite clear, quite accurate, and quite logical. That you don't understand them speaks far more to your current state of mind than to any (imagined) flaw in Kenosis' arguments. The fact that a number of editors have pointed these issues out to you, subtly at first, and then with increasing vigour, would seem to be indicative of a consensus that you are simply not "with it" at the moment. You should really should consider a Wiki-break and resolve your personal issues, rather than to continue to disrupt this article. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 13:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

His arguments may be clear rebuttals of a point, but they never seem to be rebuttals of any point I'm actually making at the time. I talk about changing the order things are presented within the first paragraph, he argues against moving things from the first paragraph to other paragraphs, which I had never suggested, etc. Here he seems to be talking about the Kitzmiller ruling not containing the information I wanted to use (while not contradicting it), when I had clearly stated my sources, and they weren't the Kitzmiller ruling. It's so much at cross-purposes that it's as if he's not even reading a thing I say, but just guessing at what I might want to say. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

<unindent>In the quest to overcome the perceived encroachment of "science" upon traditional scriptural beliefs and national prohibition of teaching creation-based views as biology in the public schools, ID advocates have made various arguments along the way. Prior to Edwards v. Aguilard arguments were being made for teaching creation science, which were successful in Louisiana in the form of a law mandating the inclusion of creation science along with evolution. Then the Edwards decision said this can't be done. So the word "creation-" in its various forms was changed to "intelligent design" in the book Of Pandas and People. Since then, numerous arguments have been made for ID as a valid scientific theory. Arguments have been made that it is science under existing criteria for what is science. ID proponents have also made arguments that evolution is not consistent with current criteria for what is scientific. Arguments have been made for a complete redefinition of science (a quest already pursued by Phillip Johnson, and perhaps others, but given new impetus by the Edwards decision). Arguments have been made that the whole state of affairs in the world presently reflects an atheistic bias, or "materialistic" bias, and thus improperly removes God from the equation to the detriment of the entire society and the world today. Arguments have been made to change the "science standards", meaning educational standards. Arguments have been made that the assertions of major organizations of scientists are not reflective of scientific consensus about intelligent design, as well as that there is no consensus in the scientific community about the "theory of evolution", but rather that science is so divided on the issue of evolution that we must teach the controversy, etc. Arguments have also been made that the statements of the scientific organizations in opposition to ID are reflective of the materialist bias of science. Point being, after the Court in the Edwards case ruled that creation science and other forms of creation-based schools of thought can't be taught in public school biology class, but that a variety of "scientific theories" might be included in public school curricula, the magic words "scientific theory" have become the mantra for teaching creation-based views, and the specific arguments, of which there have been many, are put forward in pursuit of this goal of teaching a creation-based alternative as "science". In short, it's primarily a legal strategy, pursuant to which many arguments have been made by ID advocates, which do not need to be specifically stated in the lead.

The Kitzmiller court stated it succinctly enough that it can be said in the WP article lead in one sentence, which presently reads: 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, and said by its advocates to be a scientific theory. Three footnotes are provided for this sentence, including the quote from Kitzmiller. This sentence is precisely what the evidence showed and what the Kitzmiller decision stated, except it's stated in one brief sentence as is appropriate for an article lead. The lead does not need to include all the angles that ID advocates have pursued to argue that it's a scientific theory. The recently rewritten fourth sentence is more than enough. ... Kenosis 14:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

ID advocates are have made both claims, that ID is a theory limited to what can be empirically established, and that they (the advocates) must redefine the science. Because the latter goes beyond the former, doesn't mean that the former is contaminated in some way. It merely means that their design inference approach may not get them as far as they want it to take them. Due to the nature of the fossil record, we probably will never know how the first life forms got over that initial hump. Unfortunately gaps in our knowledge are not positive evidence of anything. But they are gaps that may be filled in, in unexpected ways, such as evidence that the initial stages of life's development occurred on Mars, or that the intersellar medium is chock full of spores using the same genetic code and apparently distributed on supernova shock waves. The "designer" may have been seeding the interstellar medium with terraforming organisms that will eventually produce something edible, rather than adoring worshippers. None of this is any threat to evolution as a theory.--Africangenesis 05:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is, because it's not science. It's not falsifiable. It violate Occam's razor by finding a more complicated theory. Etc. Gaps in knowledge are the reason why maps in the middle ages stated, "here be dragons." ID is NOT a theory. It's a religious dogma that requires faith. Orangemarlin 05:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Claims of ID have been "falsified" by gap narrowing advances in evolution multiple times, in fact, so often that gaps have no evidentiary value for ID that researchers need consider. If purported evidence of ID comes along such as shellprints near a precambrian crash site, that too will be falsifiable (or not). It is unlikely to be a productive theory barring some serundipitious discovery.--Africangenesis 05:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Still violates Occam's razor. It's also not how ID is being carried out by any large organisation.--ZayZayEM 07:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

How does it violate Occam? And I think that falsifiability is not a requirement for a 'science' (SETI, economics, anthropology etc ) ProtoCat 15:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry dude, but falsifiability is most definitely a requirement for science. See Falsifiability. The scientific method requires one to be able to either observe, through direct observation or an experiment, that would show the hypothesis to be false. You cannot provide experimental evidence that a supernatural being exists or doesn't exist. But you should be careful as to what is science. SETI, besides being a massive waste of money, itself is not science. It uses science for its fruitless search, but it's just a search for signals of an extratrerrestrial origin. As for Economics and Anthropology, well, I don't consider either a science, but that may be my POV. But I guess you could test a false hypothesis for both. Orangemarlin 17:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Economics has far too many human variables to be a science, unless you want to break it down to a very simplistic, "the only way to make money is to sell something". But economics has as much to do with how investors and buyers "feel" and with sociology that it's far from a science.

Anthropology at its core is a science, but it's very often misused. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Right.

I've tried one more version. Ideally, the sentence after it, explicitly mentioning that the proponents identify the designer, should be connected to what I wrote, possibly moving the "Its leading proponents, all of whom are connected witht he discovery institute" claim as well, but I thought I'd see how it went down before reworking the following sentences.Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It went nowhere -- that info belongs in the aticle proper, or as a ref. The lead should be short and pithy -- it is already a bit bloated and adding bloat helps nothing.

Is there a part of what Kenosis, myself and others have told you that you can't comprehend? We really can't be much more blunt.

Also, the lead is 393 words, the rest of the article (including refs) is 13,629 words. Why are you devoting 100% of your time (and by extension everyone else's) to 2.9% of the article? If that's not obsession, I don't know what is. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 14:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the lead is, in my opinion, the part of it in worst shape. Parts of it are (thankfully moving towards were) outright misleading. I can't say that about any other section. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Outright misleading, my foot. The second sentence, which Adam just edited twice again today to remove the clause "said by its advocates to be a scientific theory", is almost a verbatim synopsis of what the Kitzmiller court says in the footnote The footnote says (from: Kitzmiller v. Dover, at page 24): "... 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, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer.""this argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley" (the teleological argument) "The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID’s 'official position' does not acknowledge that the designer is God." from Ruling, page 24.

The court uses the words at the outset of its analysis: "ID is not a new scientific argument", which presumes that it is held out to be a scientific argument, or more specifically a scientific theory!!. It says it's an "old religious argument" that is identical to what all the philosophy textbooks and encyclopedias call a "teleological argument" which, according to all the standard philosophy encyclopedias is also known as an "argument from design". The court ruling also says: "The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID ... is that ID’s 'official position' does not acknowledge that the designer is God." It's virtually an exact cite for the sentence: ''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, and said by its advocates to be a scientific theory." Of course more cites can be provided, but this one should be all that's needed here, as it's from a highly reliable, objective source that heard all the arguments from both sides of the controversy, and these words reflect its ruling. ... Kenosis 17:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The point made at length by Kenosis in the above section is pretty sound, and what I'm finding in developing an ID timeline is that ID goes further back and is more fragmented than it appears on the surface. Pandas is essentially pre-1987 creation science with a bit of "find and replace" word processing in that year, and still has arguments predating the ID we keep discussing, but is still a current enough definition of ID for them all to defend it at Kitzmiller. In my opinion the way forward is to review the Overview section, then reflect the outcome in the lead. However, the timeline suggests that the sentence "The following year a small group of proponents formed the Discovery Institute and began advocating the inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula" is rather misleading.

I'm not going to rush into changing the lead, but note that at present the claim that it's a "scientific" theory is unnecessarily repeated. so would suggest that ", and, on this basis, claim that intelligent design is a new scientific theory" could be deleted, and the first part of the sentence modified to "Intelligent design's advocates seek a fundamental redefinition of science, no longer limiting it to natural explanations for what is observed in the universe so that their preferred supernatural explanations can be accepted". .. Any objections? ... dave souza, talk 15:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do object to the reliance on the present fourth sentence to make the statement in the lead that ID is held out to be scientific. ID advocates argue that it's science on any number of grounds, some of which are mentioned in the article. Redefining science to include the supernatural as part of science is only one prong of the strategy, albeit an important one. The simple statement that its advocates claim it's a scientific theory is vastly more important than the specific approach that is mentioned in the fourth sentence. The way it is currently written, both dimensions of the issue are accommodated, the general fact that it's held out to be science on many grounds, even under existing criteria, as well as that it's advocates seek to redefine science.

As to the brief synopsis given in the third paragraph in the context of describing the legal strategy, this is not the appropriate place to do a study of the precedents to intelligent design, where we can find the underlying idea (the teleological argument) as far back as Plato, perhaps before. And we can find attempts to teach biblical creation in the classroom in many different places, not just limited to early drafts of what ultimately became Of Pandas and People. I don't, though, have the slightest objection to revisiting how the third paragraph is written. ... Kenosis 17:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Kenosis here. I'm also at a bit of a loss as to why a timeline is necessary, from what I saw, the timeline adds very little in the way of new info and cetainly doesn't show any inaccuracies in this article.

As for paragraph three, yes it can be reworked, if it is done so by someone who can write, introduces no superfluous information and maintains a logical flow. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Dave, maybe I was a bit too hasty in using the word "objection" in response to your new proposal about the fourth sentence of the article (last sentence of first lead paragraph), which presenty reads: "Intelligent design's advocates seek a fundamental redefinition of science, no longer limiting it to natural explanations for what is observed in the universe, but accepting supernatural explanations as well, and, on this basis, claim that intelligent design is a new scientific theory." More accurately, I am "uncomfortable" with the reliance on the fourth sentence to make the point about the strategy of expanding the definition of science being used to try to validate ID as a "scientific theory", for reasons I already gave above.

If it were to read simply "Intelligent design's advocates seek a fundamental redefinition of science, no longer limiting it to natural explanations for what is observed in the universe, but accepting supernatural explanations as well.", it still stands on its own as an important aspect of ID, is well supported by the five cites provided by yourself, Adam and Afticangenesis, and still flows well with the existing second paragraph. Just a thought. I know this ain't Roberts' Rules of Order, but I move to strike the words "...and, on this basis, claim that intelligent design is a new scientific theory". ... Kenosis 22:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but don't think the mention of it being claimed as a scientific theory should be where it is: Kitzmiller supports making a comparison, but we don't actually draw any comparison as it's currently written, so it just serves to isolate it being claimed as a scientific theory far away from the rebuttal in the second paragraph. I think it may be possible to attach the "claimed to be a scientific theory" information to the last sentence without stating the redefinition is why they say it's a scientific theory, because they are thematicatically connected by arguments about definition. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

RE "...so it just serves to isolate it being claimed as a scientific theory far away from the rebuttal in the second paragraph" in the comment immediately above: Yes, exactly; well, not exactly "isolated", but they're admittedly a couple of sentences apart in the current text-flow. The longstanding format for this article lead has been: First paragraph: A brief description of what ID is and who's involved. Second paragraph: What is the scientific community's response to the assertion that it is a scientific theory. Third paragraph: What is its legal status. This format can, of course, always be reconsensused given adequate cause to do so, but would require a major discussion at length. The recent rewriting of the third paragraph was closely attentive to this format, and similarly, this discussion should be closely attentive to the basic format as well... Kenosis 02:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate scientific theory

While the claim that ID is a scientific theory was previously at the end of the first paragraph to lead directly to the rebuttal in the second paragraph, it has recently been duplicated earlier as "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, and said by its advocates to be a scientific theory." I've suggested modifying the last sentence to avoid repeating this statement, but as discussed above there is opposition to this change. Perhaps a better approach is to remove the first statement, shown in italics in the quote above, and change the last sentence. At present it reads "Intelligent design's advocates seek a fundamental redefinition of science, no longer limiting it to natural explanations for what is observed in the universe, but accepting supernatural explanations as well, and, on this basis, claim that intelligent design is a new scientific theory." It could be made more general by removing "on this basis". ....... dave souza, talk 06:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

ID is said by the Discovery Institute to be a "scientific theory" over and over and over again. Six times, on the one Discovery Institute page just cited as "over and over and over again", the words "scientific theory" are stated in the context of advocating the inclusion of "intelligent design" in public school science curricula. It's a scientific theory because of X; it's a scientific theory because of Y; It's a scientific theory because of Z; it's a scientific theory because of A; a scientific theory because of B; a scientific theory because of C;, and also, I might add, because "science" has been taken over by athests, materialists, etc., etc., etc. (The six uses of "scientific thoery" on the Discovery Institute webpage just mentioned are of course more neatly woven into the syntax of the page than just X,Y,Z,A,B,C.) I agree that the fourth sentence (currently the last sentence of the first lead paragraph) could be made more accurate and succinct by the removal of the words "...on this basis". ... Kenosis 07:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, have removed "on this basis". We know that the DI keep claiming it's a "scientific theory", the question is how often we show it in the lead, and whether we keep it close to the rebuttal. Both the DI and the FTE (in 1983 onwards) have explicitly linked their claim with their assertion that science should not confine itself to natural explanations. ... dave souza, talk 09:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Dave, and Adam. One could always quibble, but I think it's reasonable. ... Kenosis 15:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of edits by Rcarlberg

I reverted the edits by this user because they did not appear to follow the discussions herein. I used popups, forgetting that it saves automatically not giving me a chance to write comments. Orangemarlin 19:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I kind of like the idea behind "The Discovery Institute's response was to rewrite many Creationist texts, removing all references to a "Creator" and replacing the term "Creationism" with their new term "intelligent design" (without specifying who the "designer" might be)", though, of course, it's wrong to attribute it to the Discovery Institute, which didn't then exist. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I kinda remember seeing similar edits made before. Wonder why that is? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't know. Why? Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

These sentences seem to be erroneous

(Archived)