Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 64

Archive 60

←

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

→

Archive 70

Rearrange intro

move the 3rd paragraph so it is the second paragraph; I think that will be better logical flow cinnamon colbert — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.3.253 (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The arguments above (now moved to subsection below) don't address the OP's request. Reading over the lead section in the way the OP suggests (with the third paragraph before the second) does indeed result in a better, more logical flow of text. Look and see. I support this rearrangement. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd looked earlier and had mixed views about this proposal. It could work, but it puts the Kitzmiller finding "that intelligent design is not science" before the explanation that proponents claim it is science, and this claim has been rejected. . dave souza, talk 12:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not think the proposed rearrangement is an improvement.

• The first paragraph describes what ID is in terms of similar epistemological schemes.
• The second paragraph describes ID in terms of its own viewpoint and arguments, noting how those fall outside the bounds of science.
• The third paragraph summarizes the history of ID's origin, promulgation, and legal reception.

Jumping from a description to some history to more description does not make for a "more logical flow of text." In my view, the lead is fine the way it is. __Just plain Bill (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite intro

Here are tangential comments removed from the discussion above.

I think "rewrite intro" might be more appropriate. This is a shambles. There is an awful lot of politics buried in there - possibly more about the politics of ID than concept of ID! In fact I wonder if there needs to be two distinct articles, one on the concepts of ID, and the other (pretty much this one) on the politics of ID. This is not a NPOV article from a concepts perspective - have a look at the Natural Selection article and you'll see what I mean. If wikipedia is going to have a NPOV article about the concept of ID, then it should look a lot more like the Natural Selection article in that it presents the actual concepts up front, not all the battles. I'm not saying the disputes and politics aren't relevant, clearly they are, but currently this does the impartial reader looking for impartial information a disservice. In an article on concepts - if that's what this article is supposed to be - the reader should be able to glean the conceptual basics from the lead rather than copping a load of contextualising claims and analysis. So is anyone up for an "ID: the concepts" version of this thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.99.193 (talk) 07:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that ID mostly is "politics" and "battles". It is therefore difficult to 'set the scene' (as a WP:LEDE is required to do) for the concepts of ID without offering some background as to the battles that these concepts were created as ammo for. ID came into existence purely, and continues to exist almost purely, in the context of the American Christian right's battle against evolution. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Also note the banner at the top of the article: the theoretical concept is covered in the Teleological argument article, ID is a rebranding of that concept in the political struggle to get religious anti-evolution taught in U.S. public school science classes, contrary to the U.S. Establishment Clause. dave souza, talk 09:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure that's really capturing the situation as far as explaining the concept goes - you're still talking about the political dimensions of ID, which are absolutely important, but unhelpful in conveying what ID is about conceptually. You don't need the context to understand the concept - that is, there *are* arguments in ID, and these should be stated simply and clearly. How about this as a first cut at the lead - much of the existing lead should really be moved into a Controversy section and/or the History section.

Intelligent design (ID) 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."[1][2] Unlike mainstream evolution, ID hypothesises that natural structures exhibit signs of being the product of a combination of chance, natural law, and/or intelligence in an analogous manner to structures built by humans and other animals.

Adherents of ID have used Mt. Rushmore to illustrate the basic concept, arguing that that while mountain sides are obviously shaped by natural processes, some show signs of having been shaped by intelligence as well as random processes of erosion. Dembski has posed the thought experiment that since we know Mt. Rushmore was designed by an intelligent agents, it must have characteristics that enables an observer to distinguish between this intelligently designed mountainside and other non-intelligently designed mountainsides. He argues that such characteristics could then be used to identify evidence of intelligent design in other natural objects.

The main characteristics proposed as evidence of ID are irreducible complexity and specified complexity, amongst others. The attempt to infer design in natural objects is fundamentally at odds with the theory of Evolution and so ID is rejected by mainstream biologists and considered by many to be pseudoscientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.99.193 (talk) 10:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Wrong, epic fail of WP:WEIGHT. We're required to show how fringe theories are received by majority expert views, not present them unchallenged as you propose. dave souza, talk 10:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Beyond that, I would point out that the "Mt. Rushmore" "thought experiment" is "unduly self-serving", that stating that "ID hypothesises ..." gives the impression that it is a tentative, testable hypthesis, rather than a dogmatic, untestable assertion, that the claim that "irreducible complexity and specified complexity" are "characteristics " contains the implicit assertion that they have meaningful existence, and that "ID is rejected" NOT only because it "is fundamentally at odds with the theory of Evolution", but because it fails UTTERLY as science quite independently of evolution. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You guys sound quite exasperated by the whole thing! I think "epic fail" is a bit unreasonable, and by all means add content that demonstrate its utter failure, but let's work constructively to a NPOV lead rather than pushing one unyielding perspective. Readers should be able to understand the concept that people are frothing at the mouth about, not just that people are frothing at the mouth :-) There's plenty of space to present the relevant information, but surely we can give a fair airing of the ID arguments in the lead to the article on ID without being blinded by the politics!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.99.193 (talk) 11:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You appear to misunderstand WP:NPOV, people should be able to understand from the outset that this is a religious view presented as science, that it has been rejected as not being science and has been found to be an attempt to evade an aspect of the constitution. We give a fair aring of the ID arguments in the opening paragraphs, including their own definition of ID. Please don't be blinded by religious fringe views. . . dave souza, talk 11:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you can point out where those putting it forward specify that it is a religious view? Or perhaps you misunderstand WP:NPOV yourself... In any case, the concept of ID is not an attempt to evade anything - albeit there may be people who attempt to use ID to do so. But, again, that relates to politics, not concepts. A clear explanation of the concept of ID is in no way a violation of WP:NPOV. My attempt may not be a good example of a clear explanation, but that's what I'm proposing we collaborate on doing. Thanks for your concern, but let's not worry about who is blinded by what, I'm quite capable of thinking my way out of a paper bag without your exhortations. How about we do some editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.99.193 (talk) 11:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Dembski: "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory," as one example from the article. . dave souza, talk 12:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

@58.110.99.193: You're mixing up two different subjects here: "intelligent design" in general, and "Intelligent Design (TM)", as pushed by the Discovery Institute. The present article is about the latter only. For information about hte former, see Teleological argument. As for Intelligent Design (TM), it is nothing but a political and legal ploy to skirt court decisions against teaching Creationism in American public schools. It is a ad hoc, slapdash strategy that lacks any coherence or internal consistency, and it has not been developed to the point where it can be presented as a free standing concept. It's essence is no more than a religiously motivated attempt to discredit evolution and promote thinly disguised religious indoctrination at the taxpayers expense. It has NO scientific merit whatsoever. All of the reliable sources are unanimous in this regard. Wikipedia is not the place for advocated of fringe and pseudoscientific "theories" to "fairly" present their case without criticism. That's what Conservapedia is for. Our readers are entitled to the opinions of experts in the field, as supported by reliable sources. In this case, the experts in the field are mainstream biologists and scientists in related fields. You will find no reliable sources that treat ID (TM) as a serious attempt at genuine science, and none of the proponents of ID have made any credible attempt to develope the concept beyond what is immediately expedient to convince courts, school boards, politicians and the unschooled masses of their non-scietific cause and its goals. The reason the other editors seem "exasperated" is because your proposal is nothing new. Browse theough the archives of this talk page and you will see many other misguided attempts to restore "NPOV". You would be wise to become familiar with WP policies and the history of this article before you waste time proposing useless changes. As I said, proposals similar to yours have been rejected many times in the past. Go through the archives to understand why. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Well Dominus, thanks for your reply. I don't think we disagree hugely - or even that I necessarily disagree hugely with the others who have commented here. In fact you make my point - this article is called Intelligent Design, but is written as if it is called Intelligent Design (TM). By all means add all the political content into an article by that name, or into a Discovery Institute article, or into the relevant parts of this article. However, ID is not DI. Just a few minutes effort found me this from the ENCYCLOPEDIA OF GENETICS, GENOMICS, PROTEOMICS AND INFORMATICS (apologies for caps, couldn't be bothered re-typing): "Intelligent Design: This theory of organic evolution does not accept either Darwinism or creationism in its entirety and postulates that the evolution/development of the complexity of biochemical structures requires an intelligent design." pg 1101. So while I accept that there is a very large political debate surrounding ID, I still reject the idea that the lead of this article should not be reworked to clearly expound it's concepts. These are not identical to the Teleological argument, and while they may be relevant to include in that article, this in no way justifies a garbled and confusing lead in this article. ID is not creationism even if creationists use ID to further their ends. ID is not Christian even if Christians use ID to further their ends. The links to creationists and christians may be relevant in an appropriate section, but the lead should give at least a clear rendering of the concepts, and I don't see anyone saying that the current lead does that. It even contradicts itself by saying on the one hand that it (deliberately) makes no claims re: the designer, but that it's proponents say that it's the Christian God. Is the article about ID or Christian-God-Proponent-ID? And, incidentally, the source for the "deliberate" bit doesn't seem to exist anymore... Surely we can do better than this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.99.193 (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

If you take the time to review the archives of this talk page, you will find that a strong consensus has developed to limit the scope of this article to ID (TM) as pushed by the Discovery Institute. Material on "intelligent design" in general is to be covered in the article on the Teleological Argument, where it quite rightly belongs. ID as pushed by the DI is simply a variation of the teleological argument with any identification of the intelligent designer omitted for the expressed purpose of skirting court decisions. I'm afraid you will meet with considerable resistance if you try to expand the scope of this article, or to remove information on the essential religious, political and legalistic nature of the subject. ID cannot be separated from the DI or the political and legal moves to promote itself. ID as promulgated by the DI is indeed essentially Christian or tries to be compatible with Christianity. There is very little support for ID outside of the conservative Christian community. The very few exceptions prove this point, as does sworn court testimony by members of the DI itself. As I said, all of this has been discussed many times before. Look in the archives of this talk page and again, become familiar with WP policies, especially WP: NPOV and WP:RS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Well consensus can change, especially when it is so clearly in error. The article is called ID, not ID(TM) or ID by DI etc. I came to this page looking for some useful information on ID and just got an eyeful of POV - this is not helpful to me or anyone else looking to WP for impartial information. It is a mistake to try to 'protect' readers from ideas by couching them in POV cotton wool, and not in the spirit of WP. I'm not trying to remove information, I am trying to ensure that information is presented clearly, and it isn't here. Your assertion that ID cannot be separated from DI belies the POV that seems to have run amok with this lead - ALL I am suggesting is that the lead be clear about what the concepts of ID are in the first few paragraphs so that readers know what ID means. Ideas are ideally context free, just as 1 + 1 + 1 can be understood without including convoluted prose relating to notions of the trinity! I am not suggesting that the lead should not ... oh look I think I'll just start editing since it doesn't seem to matter what I'm suggesting here!! First I'm going to remove the unsourced part of the first paragraph and see if we can raise the bar that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.99.193 (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you build consensus for your proposal on the talk page first. It is unlikely that you will accomplish anything by being bold, based on your total lack of experience as an editor and unfamiliarity with WP policies. I'm all ears, but whatever changes you propose must be backed up by reliable sources and gain consensus. I suggest you read up on WP policy before you act, especially WP:RS, NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. This is a controversial article, and you will be not be taken seriously unless you are thoroughly familiar with policy. And take the time to look through the archives of this talk page to see why current consensus is to limit the scope of the article to ID as promulgated by the DI. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree the lead could be less muddled. How about... "Intelligent design was legal ruse created by a group of American creationists as a means of circumventing the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. see Red herring." Just a suggestion. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Sadly your version is a fairly accurate summary of the impression conveyed by the current lead Artifex. And it is all about the Intelligent Design Movement, not ID per se. In fact, many of my concerns would be fixed by renaming the article The Intelligent Design Movement - which seems far more accurate. Anyway, taking your offer at face value Dominus, let me point out a couple of obvious things that should be addressed. First, "deliberately avoids specifying the nature or identity of the intelligent designer[5]" does not reflect what [5] says and it should be corrected on that basis alone. In a less sensitive environment I might think it worth pointing out that Natural Selection deliberately avoids invoking God too, but I get the impression humour here is reserved for those clinging to the current version... I would point out, again, that the concepts of ID are being obscured by the history and culture war surrounding ID rather than being plainly stated. For instance, while Darwin is the originator of Natural Selection, it is quite possible to discuss the concept of NS without getting bogged down in his religious views - at least for a paragraph or two! Second, if there is a current RS that states that all leading proponents of ID are associated with DI then it should be included, otherwise the references here are 5 or more years old, so the statement is likely to be false (putting relevance to one side for the moment). It is also problematic to even talk about "leading proponents" - what does that actually mean? If someone like Brad Monton is included, then he claims to be an atheist, which makes the convoluted sentence in question even more problematic than it already is, so that definitely needs work. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.99.193 (talk) 09:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You're taking issue with well sourced published expert opinion, without providing any verification of your assertions from published reliable sources. See WP:TALK for guidance. Note that original research isn't accepted, and due WP:WEIGHT is to be given to majority expert views. . . dave souza, talk 10:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Am I? Perhaps you could read what I wrote this time and point out exactly the basis of your criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.99.193 (talk) 10:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Look what I found: Intelligent design is the proposition that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by reference to an intelligent cause, rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.[1] Proponents argue that the world contains irreducible complexity, which they say cannot be explained without reference to intelligence.[2] The concept is a contemporary version of the teleological argument for the existence of God, though it does not specify the nature of the designer.[3] Advocates of intelligent design seek to redefine science to accept supernatural explanations,[4] arguing that intelligent design is a scientific theory under this new definition.[1] The scientific consensus is that intelligent design is not science, because it is not testable by scientific method; scientists have referred to it as creationist pseudoscience.[5] An intelligent design movement emerged in the United States in the 1990s, led by the conservative Christian Discovery Institute, advocating that it be taught as part of the science curricula in schools; an example of a textbook written from an intelligent-design perspective is Of Pandas and People (1989).[6] The debate culminated in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), when parents of high-school students challenged a school-district requirement that teachers present intelligent design in biology classes as an alternative explanation of the origin of life. U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," and that the school district's promotion of it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[7]

How did this article ever descend from such a clear, WP-esque, lead to the mess we have currently? This fits the LEAD guidelines much better; "the first paragraph should be short and to the point, with a clear explanation of what the subject of the page is." Note the clear, neutral explanation. The guidelines go on; "The following paragraphs should give a summary of the article. They should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, including its more important controversies, if there are any." Note the emphasised bit here, that controversies should appear in subsequent paragraphs, not the first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.99.193 (talk) 11:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

As others have stated, we've had this discussion many times on this Talk page and there is no ID without the DI. The term intelligent design is occasionally used as a synonym for the argument from design (i.e. the teleological argument), and the content for this looser definition is in its own separate article, linked at the very beginning of this one. This ID article is about something entirely separate from the teleological argument, it's about...

Intelligent Design is the neo-creationist "theory" proposed as science by those religious zealots in America who cannot accept the truth of evolution. It is easily demonstrable that ID originated as a religiously motivated attempt to deny the last 150+ years of biological breakthroughs in favor of Christianity's Special Creation by God. It was paraded as science but fought in court rooms, and in both environments, it was dismissed for the obvious religious ploy it is. Furthermore, it has only seen extremely short-lived "successes" with Behe's irreducible complexity and Dembski's complex specified information. These two men, the main architects of the only aspects of ID remotely nearing science, are the American, Christian, leading proponents of which Judge Jones wrote in his ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case.

To summarize, you cannot separate ID with its politics because ID is itself a political movement, constructed by American fundamentalist Christians to violate the US Constitution's First Amendment and teach Christianity in public school science classes. This is what the reliable sources say, and therefore it must be what is presented here. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 15:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You might want to more closely examine your casual throwing around terms like "religious zealots" and "fundamentalist." In the US, the people who more accurately fit a fringe religious/philosophical position are those who contend that a God had nothing to do with the origins of man. Drrll (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

To be blunt: inaccurate and not relevant to the article. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 16:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It's as relevant to the article as MisterDub's name-calling. And yes, it is accurate--have you seen any US public opinion polls on the matter? Drrll (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't calling anyone names here, Drrll, just stating fact. Regardless of your view on religion, it is the fundamentalist Christians in the US who comprise the majority of both the official spokespeople and supporters of ID. But, as Jim62sch said, this is irrelevant to the topic at hand. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 16:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Not to be insulting, but I don't think you understand WP:Fringe. Fringe beliefs are assessed within the appropriate field of academic literature, not popular opinion of one country(ok two counting Turkey). For example, belief in UFOs as visitors from another planet is reasonably common among the population of the United States, but it's considered EXTREME fringe material among actual astronomers and aerospace engineers. As to the original point of this thread: controversy is an inherent part of intelligent design, almost by definition; it's not a secondary characteristic, but the entire goal. Including brief information to that regard is not getting into too much detail. i kan reed (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Well put. Public opinion polls are, in general, merely good sociological and educational-value measurements -- they have little to do with the reality of science. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about WP:FRINGE. I'm responding to MisterDub's characterization of ID adherents as "religious zealots" and "fundamentalists." That has to do with labeling religious/philosophical views as fringe, not with fringe academic views. So I also responded with regard to a religious/philosophical belief--that those in the US who hold to the position that a God had nothing to do with the origins of man are far more accurately characterized as fringe in their religious/philosophical views. I was wondering how long it would take for the UFO example to be brought up.

For the most part, MisterDub is correct, as is Ikanreed. There are very few legitimate scientists who buy into ID.

PS -- Philosophy, as a discipline, does not require a deity. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Drrll, I was talking about the fundamentalist Christians whose literal view of the Bible led them to create the Discovery Institute and Intelligent Design. This history of Intelligent Design was important to understand not only why the lead is the way it is, but why the lead should not be changed according to the IP's suggestion. I was neither name-calling nor commenting upon the efficacy or veracity of any religious or philosophical viewpoints.

More importantly, Wikipedia is not a forum, so unless you have a specific grievance or suggestion for improving the article, this discussion should be halted. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 19:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

"Religious zealots" and "fundamentalist" border on WP:NPA against a class of people based upon their religious views--and that includes editors of this article who generally accept the concept of ID. Drrll (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Tautology revisited. Abtract (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

"Religious zealots" and "fundamentalist" are descriptive terms which have at times been embraced by those who openly own their faith. Claiming otherwise, casting them as borderline personal attacks, brings the denial of Peter to mind. "Intelligent Design" has been shown, by the writings of its own proponents, to be a disingenuous strategy for circumventing the US Constitution, for teaching religion in public school science classes while denying that it is religion. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

So, back to the article then... MisterDub seems to have made an important contribution. S/he has argued that ID and the DI are synonymous ("there is not ID without the DI") - so this leaves us with two choices in my view. Either merge this article into the article on DI or The ID movement, or find WP:RS's that demonstrate the concept of ID independent of DI. I'm happy with either option, but I've already done the second. Nagel's 2005 article is clearly non-DI, and clearly arguing about ID, as a concept. I also suspect that there are RS's from skeptics who are not associated with DI who manage to engage with the concepts of ID without feeling compelled to exclusively bash the DI. These too would satisfy the second option. I appreciate a rant as much as the next person, but let's step back and realise that we're editing a WP article here, not shouting at each other in a bar. It doesn't actually matter if the DI are religious zealots, or vegetarians, or UFO hunters, or polygamists. This article is about ID, not the DI - all of the rz, v, ufoh, p content is appropriate to the article on the DI, not here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.99.193 (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Please use clear accurate language. They are not synonymous. ID is more like a syllabus, and the DI is an association of people. __Just plain Bill (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Please use clear accurate language. A philosophical or scientific concept is not "like a syllabus", although a syllabus may be fashioned around either. DI is not an association of people, it is an organisation. Please also explore the difference between literal and figurative use of words. If I were to say the name Bill is synonymous with being petty and silly, I would be using 'synonymous' correctly even though 'Bill' is a name and 'petty and silly' is a disposition common to those who wish to avoid the substance of an issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.99.193 (talk • contribs)

Cute, but irrelevant. I will stand by "ID is more like a syllabus than a concept or organisation."

In your earlier comment, "synonymous" is still incorrect, and MisterDub did not "argue that ID and the DI are synonymous." You put that up as a straw man. The notion that ID is a "scientific concept" is laughably misinformed. Your specious distinction between association and organisation is without demonstrable difference in this context.

You seem to be avoiding the supportable, substantial assertion that

"Intelligent Design" has been shown, by the writings of its own proponents, to be a disingenuous strategy for circumventing the US Constitution, for teaching religion in public school science classes while denying that it is religion.

We don't need to point out the hypocrisy of that strategy in the article, but there it is. __Just plain Bill (talk) 00:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll take the "cute" comment as a sign that there's at least some good humour out there - so I'll leave you with the last word on the linguistic issue as a token of good will. As for the substance of your comment about whether I am avoiding certain claims or not, I'm not. In fact you are making a case for the first option in that you (like MisterDub) claim that there is no distinction between ID and the ID movement. If this is true then this article should be merged with the DI or The ID Movement article/s. What you seem to be avoiding is that there is a second option, and there is at least one RS that supports this view (Nagel), which is that ID can be treated as a scientific and/or philosophical position in its own right. Such a treatment would be appropriate in WP, and I would suggest that the appropriate name for an article that treats ID in that way would be 'Intelligent Design'. But you may prefer to call it something else, perhaps 'Intelligent Design as Viewed by the Laughably Misinformed'. Surely you would agree that in such an article it would be possible and reasonable to have a lead that outlines the views of said laughably misinformed individuals without having to torture the reader with a whole heap of political overlays. Note that I'm not saying that the non-mainstream nature of the claims made by those individuals, nor that the political overlays of ID shouldn't be mentioned, merely that in such an article these things could be mentioned without being hammered home in every single sentence. Would you agree with that, in principle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.99.193 (talk • contribs)

Nice to meet you, too. In my view, a major difficulty with incorporating this article into the one on the Discovery Institute is simply the size of the two articles. The DI article is over 60K characters, which is about the point where it makes sense to think about splitting out sub-articles. This ID article is over 160K characters, not counting spaces, far too big to go tucking back into a parent article such as DI.

While I agree it would be tiresome to hammer the politics of it excessively, I don't really see that happening here, at least not in every sentence. That being said, this is inherently a political topic and, as has been said by others before me, is impossible to separate from the verifiable intent of its human creators. I make no effort to hide my view that I believe their intentions have to do with the hypocritical gaming of the US political system, and I take comfort in my belief that a plurality of religious folk are not so inclined.

One may blow smoke rings all day and speculate a priori all evening about teleology, but empirical facts about the nature and intent of a purported creator or designer are hard to come by. Wikipedia does have a philosopically oriented article about that, weighing in at around 32K characters, a comfortable size for an article to be. If you have specific suggestions for a rearrangement of the organisation of this and related articles, this is as good a place as any to put them forth. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 02:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Please don't take this as an attack on you, I only mean it with respect to the statement you made: this is the worst argument I've ever seen on wikipedia ever. It's just terrible. The formula you used was like this: 'A is very closely related to B therefore A is B'. That's not true at all, and wikipedia has hundreds of extremely closely related subjects with entirely distinct articles. A short list: White House and President of the United States, Jesus and Christianity, Special relativity and Albert Einstein(particularly appropriate example because we have an idea and its originator). Any sort of description you can make relating the discovery institute to intelligent design, I can trivially find high quality articles on wikipedia with the same relationship. i kan reed (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it deserves "worst ever." Having thought about this a bit, I can now see what 58.110.Victorian was saying with the loose use of "synonymous" there. It is figurative, meant in the sense of "strongly identified with," along the lines of "hey, Bill, I looked up 'silly' in the dictionary, and saw your picture there." No worries, I haven't taken that to heart, but in discussions like this, figurative language is too easily open to multiple interpretations, and hence misinterpretation. It can often look like an appeal to emotion or can be seen as tap-dancing around the point. That is why I aim for measured, unambiguous language, even though it can come across as dull and plodding. In contexts like this, I prefer unmistakeably accurate instead of colourful.

That being said, your point about other similarly related articles is a useful one. __Just plain Bill (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Split into sub-articles?

It has been suggested, by the anonymous editor coming in from 58.110.xx.yyy, that this article, in its present state, covers the ID movement as put forth by the Discovery Institute, and gives short shrift to the philosophical concept of ID. The suggestion has been offered that this article should be re-titled to reflect the co-opting of the ID concept by religious creationists in aid of influencing the public school science curriculum. If that re-titling were to happen, it might make sense for this article to be reserved for content regarding the "concept" of ID without the political baggage of a religious creationist agenda. It seems to me that we already have such an apolitical ID article titled Teleological argument.

Looking more closely at the size of this article, I see a great bulk of reference citations. Not counting those, the article's body text amounts to about 64K characters, which is not an unreasonable size. A quick scan of it, with an eye for content which could be split out into another article, didn't really show me any handy places to "carve content at the joints." Natural dividing points did not pop out at me.

I have had the pleasure of splitting an unwieldy article, more or less single-handed, into a parent article with a handful of children. It took a while, and could not have been done in brief bursts of editing. There were some lengthy uninterrupted blocks of time required. That was a fairly uncontroversial article on a mostly technical artistic subject, with reasonably obvious divisions between manageable subtopics. Here in the Intelligent design article we have a different case, where an article on "the concept" already exists, and is linked in a hatnote to this article, and where the lines between subtopics do not so easily suggest themselves. The really political/historical/motivational stuff already exists in the Intelligent design movement article. "Intelligent design," as most readers will come looking for it, is largely the Discovery Institute's brainchild, which is what this article covers in its present state, and I don't see a need to change that. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the scope of this article should be restricted to ID as promulgated by the DI, and not "intelligent design" in general, which is best treated in the article on the teleogical argument. There has already been a lot of discussion on the deliniation of the four articles: Intelligent Design, Intelligent Design Movement, Discovery Institute and Teleological Argument. There seems to be broad consensus that the present allocation of material is adequate. Merging would be difficult because of the length of the articles involved, and I can't see any benifit to be gained from splitting this article into sub-articles. I think the anonymous IP was looking either for information on ID in general, in which case he can find it a the article on the teleological argument, or for a coherent, comprehensive and systematic presentation of the concepts of ID (TM), in which case he is searching in vain, as ID (TM) is haphazard, ad hoc and often self-contradictory, and hasn't been developed to the point where a coherent presentation is possible. The various concepts of ID (TM) are ad hoc responses to various court cases, and it was for that purpose that they were formulated. They were not formulated to further intellectual discussion or scientific research. I think the IP would like to see a presentation of ID that can be put side to side with that of evolution for the purpose of comparison (each side puts forth their case without interference from the other). Unfortunately, that is impossible as ID is in it entirety a reaction to evolution. Presenting the concepts of ID without reporting what the mainstream scientific community has to say about them would violate WP:NPOV, especially WP:GEVAL. Furthermore, since ID (TM) is a strategy created and promulgated by the DI exclusively, it would be impossible to treat its concepts without abundant reference to the DI and to the various court cases that they are designed to address. Last of all, by far the most common use of "intelligent design" in English refers specifically to ID (TM), so there is no good reason to rename the article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. And, there is a disambiguation page for other uses of the term. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 14:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we all agree and understand why this article is separated from the teleological argument, but the IP has a point that this article and the one on the ID movement cover approximately the same subject matter. I'm not an expert on the Wiki policies, so let me just say that it's impossible to divorce ID from its political nature: it began as a way to sneak creationism into public schools, it's strategy is completely political (fighting for acceptance not in the scientific community, but the courts), and what little of it can be taken as scientific has been well refuted by professionals in their respective fields. This leads me to think that the articles should be merged, for what use is the ID movement article when ID is all about the movement anyway? However, this separation may be necessary due to length policies.

I definitely do not support removing the political nature of ID from this article, as per NPOV and Fringe policies as they relate to a completely political movement. The IP has a single reliable source supporting this division, but I think we must consider this within proper context: the vast majority of sources hammer home the point that ID is rebranded Creationism fought in the political arena and not a viable entity separate from this persona.

As more of an aside, it may well be that ID leaves the DI and its Creationist cohorts to become a valid, scientific theory. I think we need to keep an open mind and watch for more sources supporting ID as a legitimate scientific enterprise unto itself. This will greatly change the format of this article, simply due to the fact that it won't be covered under WP:FRINGE anymore. Personally, I think this won't happen for a rather long time (and one source isn't enough to instigate change in my mind), but we should at least be open to these kinds of changes when the source material becomes abundant. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 16:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• A question: what sub-articles would people suggest that do not already exist? Category:Intelligent design appears to be fairly extensive. Whilst its possible that some of the sections that already have subsidiary articles could be trimmed more, I'm not seeing too much further scope for new sub-articles. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Nor do I, really. This article has links to the various sub-concepts of ID. It provides an overview of the topic, and the reader can click in the links or read the numerous references should he wish to delve more deeply into the "nuts and bolts". •Jim62sch•^dissera! 15:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The odds of ID being removed from the category of WP:FRINGE are pretty small -- roughly the same as the sun exploding. ID will never be considered a scientific theory as it fails a number of requirements: it is not testable, it predicts nothing, it is inelegant, requires assumptions that are not testable (i.e., a belief in Gods or aliens or time-travellers) {see parsimony}, it is not falsifiable, uzw. Hence, this article will need to be written in the same vein for the remainder of our lifetimes. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 16:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a bit ambitious to claim that "ID will never be considered a scientific theory", since it is already considered a scientific theory by some, albeit bad science in probably most views that regard it that way. This is very much one of the focii of Nagel's article in which he claims "this way of drawing the boundaries around science depends not on a definition but on the unspoken assumption that all such propositions are obviously false". In other words, an article of faith that such propositions are obviously false. I think it is important to not let our personal beliefs blind us to making a good WP article that can present ideas qua ideas, and that carry appropriate caveats that don't turn into some kind of intellectual inoculation of every paragraph and/or sentence. The ideas of ID are not inexorably linked to DI, whereas DI may well be inexorably linked to ID. And while the DI is absolutely central to the history of ID, it is not necessary to the ideas of ID. 58.110.99.193 (talk) 02:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

@58.110.99.193: As has been pointed out several times, the article you are looking for already exists and can be found here:Teleological argument. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Richard Feynman had a few choice words to say about cargo cult science, which is what creation science and intelligent design amount to: activities with the forms and trappings of science, but without scientific integrity and without the utter honesty that science demands. Excluding untestable supernatural processes or entities from scientific inquiry looks less like faith and more like prudent diligent epistemological practice, no matter what kibitzers like Nagel may claim.

The current iteration of ID is based in dissimulation, so repeated intellectual inoculation is an entirely appropriate way of presenting the necessary caveats. If rule #1 of expository writing is "consider your audience," rule #2 is "since not everyone has time to scrutinize every word or parse every nuance, the key points need to be repeated throughout the piece." The noise now being made about ID has everything to do with religious fundamentalists trying to sneak religious instruction into science classes; that idea is central to this article, and applies to every facet of it. The ideas qua ideas are conveniently available in another article prominently linked at the top of this one, as previously mentioned.

ID has undergone robust refutation, and tiptoeing around that undeniable fact is not the way to present a good WP article. __Just plain Bill (talk) 04:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Given the concern over size, I think the most sensible approach would be to eliminate all the duplicated material in this article that is already covered in the numerous other articles on DI, ID movement, Intelligent Designer, the Wedge Strategy (thanks Jim) etc. It is also notable that the ID movement article refers to "the idea of "intelligent design" ", which is precisely what I think this article should be about. Both the "Movement" and "Creating and teaching the controversy" are covered (more appropriately in my view) in other articles, so should not be tacked on here. I'm undecided about the "Kitzmiller trial" and "Status outside of the US" sections. MissionNPOVible (talk) 04:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Reference removal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion is that the WP:CONSENSUS is that the cited source adequately supports the material in the article. -- Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

---

The history of the article shows MissionNPOVible removed a reference from the lead with the note, "I'm the IP 58.110.x.x BTW - Removed incorrect ref and tagged accordingly." Though I'm not sure why the editor believed the reference was incorrect (and it has since been restored by Yobol), I'm guessing it is due to incorrect page numbers listed therein: the reference specifies pp. 373 and 379-380 in Ronald L. Numbers's The Creationists, but these pages reside in the "Acknowledgements" chapter and don't contain the information presented in the lead. At least, not that I saw. Maybe someone else will check as well, or perhaps someone has the book and can locate the correct page numbers? The source material in question supports the following statement: "It is also a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one that deliberately avoids specifying the nature or identity of the intelligent designer." -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 14:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

A different edition/printing perhaps? Paperback vs hardback? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 14:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Got me. I'm only going off of what information is available online (the reference tag and the version of the book I can view at Amazon). The reference says it's the expanded version, and perhaps Amazon's free peek is not of this book. I can check my local library later, but that may take a while. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 15:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Then as a show of good faith I'd ask that someone reinstates my edit until the relevant quotes from those pages are produced. Obviously changing the ref to the appropriate pages will be a simple fix if the quotes don't exist on the cited pages, but as it stands the ref seems to be in error. Perhaps Yobol has the information handy given they reverted? MissionNPOVible (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm at the library now, but it's one of the branches, not the main library. The main library has the book, but it's on hold for someone. (Apparently they acquired only one copy). •Jim62sch•^dissera! 15:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Remove it because the page numbers are wrong? I'd have to disagree. Tag the ref, don't remove it. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 15:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

MissionNPOVible, do you have the book in question? If not, I would think assuming good faith means we leave the reference in and trust that the editor who added it did so with the correct information. Do you have a strong reason to suspect the reference is incorrect? I'm only asking because the reference specifically states it was taken from the expanded version of the book, which may not be the same version viewable online... at least on Amazon. If you removed the tag because the page numbers were incorrect (is this an accurate statement?) and you don't have that specific version of the book (accurate?), then we must assume the editor cited the correct page numbers. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 15:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like my library has a copy available, though I'm not sure whether it's the expanded version or not. I'll be sure to pick it up at some point today. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 16:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. If I were to tell 10 someones to read p314 in the OT odds are they'd read 10 different things.

And "cool!" regarding getting the book. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 16:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec)That's a fair point, wikipedia doesn't have a great mechanism for dealing with this particular issue. How, from the cite as listed, can we identify for sure that a given copy held in my hands is the same? This can be a really relevant point to ref-checking. Is there any approach that would work? i kan reed (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Add the UPC code? The codes are unique to each printing of a specific book. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 16:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• I have a copy of the extended edition, so can assure you that the section on ID (new to this edition) starts on p373. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  p373 explicitly mentions its origins in the argument from design, pp379-380 disccuses the 'careful avoidance' of discussion of Genesis or God. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks as usual, Hrafn. I assume this subject can now be considered resolved. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Just as a response, I confirmed the material was on the pages listed prior to my reverting the removal of the source. Yobol (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Well just to be clear, p.373 says nothing whatsoever about ID being "a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument", nor "one that deliberately avoids specifying the nature or identity of the intelligent designer", so that page reference needs to be removed at the very least. As for pages 379-80, it says "Hoping to distance themselves from the intellectually marginal creation scientists and to avoid endless niggling over the meaning of the Mosaic story of creation, design theorists carefully avoided any mention of Genesis or God, although, as one of them confessed to some fellow Christians, referring to an intelligent designer was merely a 'poltically correct way to refer to God'". I don't see anything about the "teleological argument" there, so this is clearly not a correct reference for that claim. And I would have to say that I don't see how "deliberately avoids specifying the nature or identity of the intelligent designer" is an accurate rendition of that quote. I've put the tag back until this is fixed. MissionNPOVible (talk) 07:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:Complete bollocks. p373 discusses ID as a "contemporary incarnation" of the "design argument" whose "intellectual roots ... go back centuries". p379-380 is also discussing ID. A single source states that ID is (i) a contemporary adaptation/incarnation of the teleological argument/argument from design/design argument (note that all direct to the same article), and (ii) later states that ID deliberately ("carefully") avoids specifying the nature or identity of the intelligent designer. I therefore cannot see how this fails to verify that "a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one that deliberately avoids specifying the nature or identity of the intelligent designer." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The information is plain as day in the book, I don't see how you could argue otherwise. Yobol (talk) 12:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I personally have reached a point where I can no longer find a way to assume good faith regarding MissionNPOVible's editing practices. Unilaterally removing references when several other editors vouch for their content is not a reasonable editting practice. Please stop Mission, this pattern of editting is disruptive and detrimental to the quality of the article. i kan reed (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It certainly seems that MNPOV's editing is not about the facts as they are, but rather as he would like them to be. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 14:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd also suggest that Missy gives the strong impression of working from a predetermined modus operandi (rather than 'making it up as he goes along') -- but I can't quite place the 'script'. Can anybody place it? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Being extremely contentious about a single minor technical point, which is in actuality, accurate, in order to undermine the credibility of an entire subject? Seems completely unfamiliar. Especially to people used to dealing with Intelligent Design. You simply must be imagining things. i kan reed (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

ROFL. Does the DI still lurk around this page? Just curious....I stepped away from WP for a bit.  ;) •Jim62sch•^dissera! 16:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

None that have self-identified as such (at least not recently) -- but a fair number display an earnestness, certainty of their own rectitude & utter lack of sense of the degree to which ID's claims have been debunked, that I could well believe they are from the DI -- or simply a home-schooler that has been brought up purely on such sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the best we can do is make sure that "the truth is out there". If people choose to subscribe to fantasy there's naught we can do about it. So it goes. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 16:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I feel compelled to point out that calling ID "a fantasy" here serves no purpose but to fuel persecution complexes and promote off-topic debate. Back on subject: Mission, if you feel the need to continue contesting this citation, please do so only on the talk page until we can establish exactly what is wrong with it. Further reverts to the article will only disrupt. i kan reed (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

True...I apologise. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC).

It seems some here are unable to cope with an intelligent discussion without descending to ad hominen speculation... not a pretty thing. In any case, I concede I'm mistaken re: p.373, I missed the synonym and misconstrued "the design argument" as referring to 'the intelligent design argument'. However, the second part of the sentence still conveys an impression not contained in the source. To say "...but one that deliberately avoids specifying the nature or identity of the intelligent designer" is not neutral and implies a form of deceit, whereas the source is clearly saying that they avoided being specific in order to distinguish themselves from creationists. This is a subtle, but significant difference. MissionNPOVible (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

And then you use "some" as an oblique adhom, then I mention that you mentioned it, then...blah, blah, blah.

Speaking of deceit: have you read about the Wedge Strategy?

In any case, to 'avoid' saying something is deliberate. Not subtle of me, perhaps, but true nonetheless. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 02:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems you are not distinguishing between an observation that editors are engaging in ad hominen speculation and actual ad hominen accusations themselves, so I am not surprised if you have missed other subtleties too. 'I wrote so as to carefully avoid being confused with a git' != 'I deliberately wrote that way'. They share similarities, but the nuances are quite different - especially when swapping "carefully avoided" with the stronger "deliberately" in such a way as to cast doubt on motivations, and when the motivations are explicitly contained in the source but not the summary of the source. MissionNPOVible (talk) 05:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Such officious, high-handed and unilateral behaviour, right out of the gate for a 'new' editor, is always liable to yield speculation as to your motivation and background. The use of the adjective careful attached to avoidance contains the clear implication that the avoidance was deliberate. One does not 'carefully' do something accidentally. 'I carefully tripped and fell' is therefore incongruous and humorous. 'I carefully failed to noticing her' clearly implies that the failure is intentional, not accidental. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if there's an article on Jung's concept of projection here. No matter, WP:BRD will suffice. Perhaps this will help; x = confused with creationists, y = mentioning god. The source says 'They carefully avoided y to !x', the lead says 'They deliberately !y'. Those are not equivalent sentences, and the second is not an accurate summary of the first. Even 'They carefully avoided y' is only a partial summary, and it becomes even further skewed by the use of "deliberately". It emphasises the action over the intention, and it is not for us to decide to emphasise one and not the other, to do so is non-neutral. MissionNPOVible (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Missy POV-pusher: (i) x = {young Earth) "creation scientists". IDers are themselves also creationists (as Numbers explicitly acknowledges in the title of this edition: The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design). (ii) The reason why they took, or avoided, an action does not change the substance of the action taken. Therefore 'x' is irrelevant. (iii) If you 'carefully avoid doing y', you 'deliberately do not do y'. Whether this means you 'deliberately do !y' is a (largely irrelevant) matter of semantics (is 'not doing y' the same as 'doing !y'?). As for your 'projection' crack, this is ludicrously WP:POT given the ubiquitous creationist nonsense equating evolution with 'religion', 'faith', 'dogma', etc.
It has by now been made abundantly clear that there is no WP:CONSENSUS supportive of your viewpoint, so I would suggest that you WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Failure to do so will result in appropriate sanctions. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that threats were an appropriate way to resolve a discussion on WP. I would appreciate a slightly clearer version of your argument because I can't quite follow the detail of what you're saying in i). As for ii), I'm not saying anything about the substance of actions or otherwise, I'm saying that what is in the RS is not being accurately reflected by the summary - I'm a bit lost by the x in this section too. Regarding iii), as I said above, what you are speaking about is only a partial summary of the RS which brings a subtle but significant change in its meaning. MissionNPOVible (talk) 08:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You might be aware, if you'd bothered to look closely at this thread, that (i) there has already been lengthy discussion, (ii) that it has already 'resolved' the matter, and (iii) that the WP:CONSENSUS is against you, and supports the view that the source is in fact "being accurately reflected by the summary". I would "appreciate" it if you did not flog this WP:DEADHORSE further. As such, I am tagging this topic as 'closed'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reference removal II

I wasn't aware that one person got to decide when a discussion was finished - could you point me to the appropriate policy section please? This strikes me as a pretty shabby response to someone genuinely trying to improve an article. MissionNPOVible (talk) 10:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

As MissionNPOVible appears determinedly WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT of the consensus against them, I would recommend WP:DNFTT & WP:SHUN might be applicable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

@MissionNPOVible: As far as I can tell, you are the only person interested in prolonging this debate, and that you have failed to garner any interest in, never mind support for, your position. I agree that further discussion would be pointless. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources need third party sources for significance

These changes depend on the significance, if any, of Monton, B. (2009). Seeking God in science: an atheist defends intelligent design, Broadview Press, p.129, and Steinhart, E. (2010). Theological Implications of the Simulation Argument, Ars Disputandi, 10, pp.23-37. They've no evident relevance or significance to the general topic of ID as developed and promoted by the ID, and a reliable third party source is needed to demonstrate that significance, and to support the claim that these are leading proponents. Something to develop in the body of the article before putting it in the lead. . dave souza, talk 15:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

e/c Here's a few pointers http://spot.colorado.edu/~monton/BradleyMonton/ID.html - don't know if these are from the blurb, but Dembski is there, so that should be enough for significance. Steinhart is already a secondary source for the sim arg. I'm not sure which claim about "leading proponents" you're referring to though... Agreed this needs to be added to the body too, interested? MissionNPOVible (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I see them thanking Monton for giving them atheistic cover, I see no indication that they take his use of the simulation argument seriously. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The primary problem is that he, too, is naught but a philosopher, and like it or not, ID did not set out on a philosophical mission but on a pseudoscientific/paranormal one. One can justify/excuse almost anything using philosphy and those cherishing the "woo factor" often seek refuge in the fringes of philosophy. Realistically, either a separate section, or preferably article, "ID and Philosophy" should be started as such musings seem to fall outside the general scope of this article. ID challenged (incorectly, in a way) evolution and, (something Darwin never touched on), abiogenesis. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 11:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Despite the confusion inherent in this article, nobody owns ID. It's a concept. So nobody has to get a licence to support, comment on, or contribute to ID. And it isn't our job to unravel who sleeps with who - all we need to do is find RS's, which these are. Additionally, google searches for Monton and ID generates over 34,000 hits. MissionNPOVible (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No. Nagel is a WP:RS on "philosophy of mind, political philosophy and ethics", he is not a WP:RS on philosophy of science, or subtopics thereof. And all sorts of cranks generate large numbers of WP:GOOGLEHITS -- that doesn't make them WP:RS. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)...@MNPOV: Perhaps no one owns the concept, but surely you must admit that the DI has coopted it, and is the only group seriously championing it. See below about the uselessness of Google hits. Hell, there are 3.85 million hits for "cinnamon" and "peanuts" [1]...doesn't mean I'm going to put cinnamon in my peanut butter, or that anyone else does either.

Bottom line, you might wish to look into the mechanism that creates these hits. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 10:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe that I am using google hits appropriately here, at no point did I suggest hit counts make for RS, so either you haven't read what I wrote, can't understand it, or are wilfully misrepresenting it. The google hits demonstrate that there is evidence of Monton and Nagel being relevant to ID, nobody has ever suggested (that I recall) that these are not RS's. Jim, it is immaterial who claims or attempts to own ID, the point is that it is a concept engaged in by many. We need to report on the significant and RSed who do so. As for your example, if you bothered to check you will see that you have supported my point: "cinnamon in peanut butter" generates only 10 hits, so as you accurately surmised, it isn't a very popular concept. Thanks google. MissionNPOVible (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Details in a Featured Article

This may be extremely nitpicky, but I thought it might be relevant in a featured article. The "Pandas text analysis" chart is an excellent contribution to the article, but I found the typewriter/dumb quotes in it to be a drawback. I know quotation marks in the article itself are rendered (without formatting to make them "smart quotes") as typewriter quotes, but for a graphic in a featured article, it's very unprofessional. It doesn't take the article out of FA status, of course, but I think it's a minor adjustment that would improve the professionalism of the article. Just my two cents.

The article seems well done otherwise though. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be a bitmap of an MS-Excel graph -- I'm fairly sure that Excel does not do "smart quotes" (at least older versions didn't). If you can find the original data & a more sophisticated graphing package (preferably one that can produce SVG output), then by all means go for it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't like so-called "smart quotes" and I believe all articles would be better without them. In articles, they are an obvious artifact of cutting and pasting something, instead of composing it in the editing box. Articles that use them rarely, if ever, use them consistently. There is no reason for our computer era to conform to an archaic typesetting standard. Quotation style has nothing to do with FA status. Consistency matters more, so why not use something that is available to everyone, everywhere, on every keyboard, when making edits? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No issues with typewriter quotes in the article's text. That has been brought up many times at the WP:MoS talk page with no change. I'm just talking about the graphic. The typewriter quotes there jump right out at me. I know everyone has personal preferences, but many people will come to the article knowing what professional typesetting standards are and shake their heads at the big, juicy dumb quotes in the graphic. And smart quotes aren't an archaic standard. Just look in any modern professionally published book, magazine, or newspaper. In digital media, dumb quotes are also used for prime marks—especially in fonts that don't have prime marks (slightly slanted) built in—but professionals do not use them for quotation marks today.

I'd make the change myself and save the space on the talk page, but I don't have the original file. I could probably download it, fix it, and upload again; I just haven't looked at the upload info on the photo yet.

Again, just my two cents. Just trying to help improve the article. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Nagel

My addition to the section on Nagel has been removed on the grounds that he is not a philosopher of science. Occupation has nothing to do with RS, and if he is a professional philosopher who publishes on the philosophy of science and/or ID, then he is at the very least a philosopher of ID who would warrant considerably greater WP:WEIGHT than my 2 sentence addition:

"He further argues that the decision to include or exclude ID from biology classes depends on whether divine intervention can be ruled out in advance. He states that such a decision is inherently religious in nature, not a scientific one, so it would be inconsistent to teach one theory premised on one religious assumption (no divine intervention) but not one based on a different religious assumption (divine intervention is possible).

I'm starting to get the impression that only certain people are allowed to edit this article! MissionNPOVible (talk) 10:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Missy POV-Energizer Bunny is wrong on a number of fronts. (i) Expertise in a field is relevant to whether an author is a WP:RS on a topic. (ii) "Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." (WP:NOT) (iii) It is NOT clear why Nagel's opinions on whether ID is science should be given any particular WP:WEIGHT at all, particularly as there is a considerable amount of evidence that his claims have been widely disparaged by both philosophers and scientists. His views would seem likely to be a WP:FRINGE "tiny minority" viewpoint. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Really, name calling now? You're very close to embarrassing yourself Hrafn. If Nagel's work is not worthy of mention, then why is it? If it is, then all my extra two sentences do is add the bit relating to the politics of ID that so many around here seem to insist on including. MissionNPOVible (talk) 11:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a regular MO for Hrafn. He called you a troll; he called me "ignorant" in an earlier discussion. I regularly edit contentious political articles, but I never see this level of WP:OWN of articles or the contemptuous dismissiveness for those who don't take the "correct" doctrinaire position on ID. Drrll (talk) 11:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

MNPOV: your third sentence above is missing something.

I don't know that I care that Nagel's comments are included as they seem to mean little one way or t'other. Essentially, Nagel embarrases himself by starting with an assumption rather than a question, and by implying that naturalistic theories are akin to religion. It's always scary when a "philosopher" embraces the use of fallacies. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 12:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

MissionNPOVible: if you choose a ridiculously inappropriate nick, then you should expect it to be ridiculed on occasion. Drrll: I don't recall calling you "ignorant", but based on this ludicrous edit summary, I'm certainly not going to disavow the adjective. Philosophy of science is the field concerned with "defining science" and what is, and what isn't, science -- so suggesting that someone should be a philosopher of science to be an expert on this issue is hardly 'having it both ways'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

e/c Thanks Jim, I think it's probably ok as is, but no harm being clear, so what I intended it to convey was that if Nagel has been deemed irrelevant, then why has he been included in the article at all? I'll leave you to decide the esteem you think appropriate for Nagel, but - purely as an aside - I don't think he's saying naturalistic theories are akin to religion, he's saying that there can be naturalistic theories that arise from an atheistic world view, and ones that arise from a theistic worldview, but that you can't decide the status of divinity through naturalistic theories; i.e. choosing to be an atheist, theist, or agnostic is a matter of faith not science. In my view part of the muddle with ID is that many seem to think that it's trying to be a teleological argument, whereas it is probably better understood (per Nagel) as being almost the opposite, in that it assumes a divinity/designer and seeks to find evidence of the designer in nature rather than trying to prove the existence of a designer based on natural evidence.

Hrafn, as a WP editor I never expect to be ridiculed, but I have noticed that people who don't understand the difference between ridicule, arrogance, and good humour often think that I should. I also reject your characterisation of my name as ridiculously inappropriate. On the off chance that you think that what you have written is equivalent to an apology, you are mistaken - these typically include the word 'sorry'. I'll settle for a strike out, however. As to the Nagel matter, either his essay is relevant or it isn't. Which are you suggesting? MissionNPOVible (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say you were being ridiculed, just that your ridiculous nick was -- just as would happen if you wore a clown suit to a serious business meeting. You may "reject" anything you like, but that does not mean that wrapping yourself in WP:NPOV, whilst engaged in POV-pushing nit-picking and WP:UNDUE promotion of WP:FRINGE views is any less risible. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn, given the way you treat various editors who dare disagree with you, I would be surprised to find you apologizing for personal attacks. The material in dispute was stating Nagel's views, not stating as incontrovertible fact in the voice of Wikipedia, as you have done in soapboxing against ID in BLPs. A requirement that Nagel be a philosopher of science to speak about ID is arbitrary and not based on WP policy. Perhaps you should consider another project besides WP if you don't like collaborating with editors with differing views and if you don't like seeing views you disagree with in articles like this one. Drrll (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)The real problem with Nagel's argument then is his presupposition that there is a designer. Science (and philosophy), when practiced properly, do not start with a presupposition, but rather with an open-ended question. Once one presupposes the existence of a deity (which is what the designer must be by definition) the argument becomes teleological as any "how" or "why" (especially why) one attempts to prove ultimately supports the presupposition by implication. The fact that the existence of a deity is neither objectively provable nor disprovable becomes lost. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 13:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Nagel is an atheist Jim, and there is a great deal of debate about what constitutes 'proper' science or philosophy. We are drowning in presuppositions and assumptions simply because we have to start somewhere. Anyway, sorry, this would be better discussed elsewhere.

Hrafn, I'm happy to ignore your silliness, and so to the substance: Is Nagel in or out in your opinion? MissionNPOVible (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• I think both sides of the argument are missing the point: it's not about whether Nagel is telling the WP:TRUTH or not -- that's not wikipedia's mandate (per WP:V). The question is (i) is he a legitimate expert on the subject matter (and thus a RS on it) -- which lies within the field of the philosophy of science & (ii) do his views represent even a significant minority view? I think this comment, from the citations for comments on this paper in his own article, is telling:[2]

I've read the piece only once and quickly, but it seems to me puzzling on many fronts. I'm struck buy [sic] how many times Nagel prefaces crucial moves in his argument with phrases like, "I'm not an expert, but...," and "To a layman, it seems as if...," and so on. Could someone out there who has read this essay with more care tell me: Has Nagel jumped the shark?

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think either side is saying anything about whether Nagel is lying, who cares? The point is, do you accept that Nagel's essay is an appropriate document to cite in this article or not? BTW I have no idea what that hand waving/wringing quote is supposed to explain. MissionNPOVible (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC):::As I said, I don't care that the quote is in the article or not: leaving it in (possibly out of context) belies him to be on the fringe, its removal probably won't be missed by many.

Whether he's an atheist is irrelevant as both atheism (knowing that there isn't a god/gods) is every bit as irrational as theism (knowing that there is a god/gods). The problem is in his argument -- at least as it is represented here. Any argument that begins with "how" or "why" a deity did anything is theological and hence outside science. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 14:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You're kind of making Nagel's argument Jim. His essay is worth a read if you're inclined to do so. MissionNPOVible (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is not how it is being presented here. As I noted, the quote is likely out of context. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 14:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep. MissionNPOVible (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think either side is saying anything about whether Nagel is lying, who cares? The point is, do you accept that Nagel's essay is an appropriate document to cite in this article or not? BTW I have no idea what that hand waving/wringing quote is supposed to explain. MissionNPOVible (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

As should be blindingly obvious to anybody not interested in simple disruption of this article I believe that "Nagel's essay" is NOT "an appropriate document to cite in this article" as Nagel is NOT an expert in the subject matter. The quote is NOT mere "hand waving/wringing" as it clearly articulates that Nagel is NOT writing as an expert and that his claims are NOT accepted by the philosophical community. I would request that MissionNPOVible NOT ask questions with such blindingly obvious answers. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid mind reading isn't my thing. If you believe it is not appropriate, then why are you not attempting to remove it from the article? If you are content to leave it in, then I see no rationally consistent reason for you to object to my proposed addition. MissionNPOVible (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"Expertise in a field is relevant to whether an author is a WP:RS on a topic." "It is NOT clear why Nagel's opinions on whether ID is science should be given any particular WP:WEIGHT at all, particularly as there is a considerable amount of evidence that his claims have been widely disparaged by both philosophers and scientists. His views would seem likely to be a WP:FRINGE "tiny minority" viewpoint." "Philosophy of science is the field concerned with "defining science" and what is, and what isn't, science -- so suggesting that someone should be a philosopher of science to be an expert on this issue is hardly 'having it both ways'." No "mind reading" needed. I'm not attempting to remove it yet, because I'm waiting to see what the WP:CONSENSUS is on it (and because I want to avoid even the appearance of an edit war) -- however, I'm certainly strongly against addition of further Nagel material without a clear consensus to expand his role. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you'll find you already have removed it. MissionNPOVible (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope -- there's still Nagel material in there. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so I've apparently missed out on quite a bit. Let me see if I can catch up a tad.

First, Nagel seems to interpret ID as a set of criteria to test God's existence and asks whether or not science is necessarily married to (methodological) naturalism (is divine intervention ruled out in advance?). If science requires methodological naturalism, and any hypothesis that oversteps this bound is not to be considered scientific, then ID cannot be taught in Biology courses. If, on the other hand, science can discover information about the supernatural by studying natural phenomena, then ID is eligible to be taught. Notice I said eligible: though scientific congruence is one, extremely important facet of teaching anything as science, it is not the only one. Also integral to inclusion in Biology curricula is strong acceptance by the scientific community; we don't want to waste time teaching concepts likely to be rejected in the short term. Nagel omits this fact and also ignores the attempts by ID proponents to discredit evolution, which is a clear indication that scientific procedures aren't being followed. Scientific theories must be supported by experimental and/or observational evidence; simply criticizing another (non-competing) theory does not confer greater verisimilitude.

Nagel incorrectly labels this as a decision based on religion instead of philosophy and seems to rest the scientific status of ID (and its consequent teaching in public schools) on whether or not science must adhere to methodological naturalism. The "Defining science" section seems to cover this already (especially the first paragraph), so unless I've missed something, I don't see how including this reference enhances the article at all. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 16:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I'd make a couple of comments on that. First, it's a RS by (arguably) one of the most renowned living philosopher, so even if your analysis is correct it is worthy of inclusion, whether the section covers it or not. It is not intellectaully honest to pretend something Nagel has gone to the trouble of getting published in a peer reviewed journal is neither notable nor relevant. Last, without wanting to degenerate into a forum, you have missed the cruicial part of Nagel's argument. He doesn't interpret ID as criteria to test God's existence, he interprets it as an attempt to identify evidence of design by a designer who is already assumed to exist. He argues that choosing to believe a god exists or not is a religious, not scientific, matter. In other words, just as science can't prove god/s don't exist, science can't prove god/s do exist - divinity based beliefs are religious in nature. Therefore, he concludes, ID construed in this way is the equivalent of evolution since both deal with empirical, testable theories (a little poetic license here), and to choose to teach one and not the other purely on the grounds of the original religious decision is unwarranted. MissionNPOVible (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Close. He's saying that ID can "prove" gods exist by observing the influence of the supernatural upon the natural. Hence, determining if divine intervention is admissible to science (and, consequently, if science is married to methodological naturalism) is a vital first step to determining whether or not ID is considered science. The answer to This question can be answered by one's prior philosophical/religious beliefs regarding gods (or, technically, any supernatural phenomena), but this would be an obviously biased decision, not one informed by a genuine desire to discover the truth. Bradely Monton makes the same argument.

Anyway, I'm not trying to keep this source out of the article, only trying not to beat the reader to death with the same information repeated. A change to add these folks' opinion would be fairly substantial: the first sentence of the "Defining science" section (see below) basically states that science is built upon methodological naturalism, which is the position of philosopher Robert T. Pennock and others. To properly add this information, I think we'd need to omit science's tie to methodological naturalism from the first sentence, and introduce it as debated by philosophers immediately after. Then we could continue on with the second sentence: "Intelligent design proponents believe that [methodological naturalism] can be equated to materialist metaphysical naturalism...".

“ The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge of the natural world without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural, an approach sometimes called methodological naturalism. ”

I just noticed that this first sentence doesn't have any citation, so I can't check a source for accuracy. Does anyone have a source to support the implicit claim that science requires methodological naturalism? Otherwise, we do mention methodological naturalism in a few other places in the article, most notably, the lead (2nd paragraph, third sentence):

“ The scientific community rejects the extension of science to include supernatural explanations in favor of continued acceptance of methodological naturalism, ... ”

Essentially, we need to amend all references to science and methodological naturalism in the article to cast their relationship in a more debated light, making sure to assign appropriate weight, if necessary. Do you have suggestions for such a change? -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 15:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Original leading proponents?

Can MissionNPOVible list a single leading proponent of ID (original or otherwise) who is not associated with the Discovery Institute? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I think so. I can't find Roger Olsen, Percival Davis, nor James Barham listed as members of the DI. I suspect there are others, but then, "leading proponent" is rather ambiguous, so perhaps it would be more accurate and easier to maintain by just saying that "many proponents" or "most"...? MissionNPOVible (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"Leading" means "primary" as opposed to some who signs on to the idea and goes about his life, •Jim62sch•^dissera! 14:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"Davis": In a November 1994 Wall Street Journal front page article concerning why he decided to co-author Of Pandas and People, quoted Davis saying "Of course my motives were religious. There's no question about it." •Jim62sch•^dissera! 14:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the belief in god bit Jim, I'm just saying that not all proponents of ID (you know, the ones who actually publish on the topic) are associated with DI - I've listed 3 above. MissionNPOVible (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

No none of these are leading proponents. Davis appears to have had no involvement in ID since coauthoring Pandas (and was not even listed as an author on the revised edition The Design of Life). Barham's sole claim to fame seems to be as a contributor (one of 15) to Uncommon Dissent -- hardly the most prominent of ID works. Olsen was merely the tertiary author of The Mystery of Life's Origin -- a work that has retained little prominence (and does not even get its own article). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Well if not all of the original proponents were associated with DI, then not all of the leading proponents were. I'm happy to drop the original and go with "many proponents" or a variation of that. MissionNPOVible (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"Original"≠"leading" -- particularly as Pandas was written before ID even existed as a movement. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that ID is not included in Pandas? In any case, this article is about ID, not The ID movement, so if Pandas predates DI then there's a leading proponent of ID who was not associated with DI. MissionNPOVible (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

No. I'm suggesting that simply being the coauthor of Pandas does not make him a "leading proponent", absent any significant activity since the IDM even came into existence. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, however you decide to try to invent definitions to exclude them, each of these people generates tens of thousands of hits on google if you search for their name and intelligent design. Not that google searches are definitive, but tens of thousands of hits are not trivial - especially in a fringe area. Percival Davis "intelligent design" 67,000 hits, Roger Olsen "intelligent design" 76,000 hits, James Barham "intelligent design" 36,000. Let's just change the needlessly precise wording to make the problem go away. MissionNPOVible (talk) 09:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"Needlessly precise wording"? Lack of precision in language tends to lead to interpretation that is at odds with the facts. Loose-wording is the playground of the charlatan. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 11:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I've mentioned in the past introducing this particular phrase with a mention of nod to its origin. This phrase (see below) comes from Judge Jones's ruling in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case. From the list of witnesses, I only recognize one scientist (Michael Behe), and am unsure exactly whom he considered before making this statement.

“ In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. ”

I think something like the following would be more appropriate (emphasis added to indicate changes): "In his ruling, Judge Jones found its leading proponents—all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank[n 1][6]—believe the designer to be the Christian God." -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 17:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I could certainly live with this. If nothing else, it's at least give us the novelty of finding out what creationists can find wrong with the new version (I'm getting heartily bored with seeing the arguments against the old one, which I never found convincing in the first place, trotted out every month or two). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Does the court ruling say "all of whom are associated with DI"? If so, I can live with that. Otherwise the statement slides toward WP:OR. MissionNPOVible (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

More or less. The statement is testimony from Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District witness Barbara Forrest, herself an author and RS on the subject:

“ Mr. Rothschild: And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute?

Ms. Forrest: All of the leaders are, yes.

”

You'll find this specific quotation approximately 3/4 of the way down the page. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 16:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT

I cannot interpret this series of edits by MissionNPOVible as anything other than disruptive WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT of the WP:CONSENSUSes contained in the above sections. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a case of using WP as a soapbox: "Look, see, it's not just religious in nature, we have this really cool neo-philosopher who says so". The fact that he apparently knows little of science or the scientific method and is not recognised as an expert on much of anything would seem to clearly exclude his comments from the ID article. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 10:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I concur with both Hrafn and Jim, and consider the "simulation argument" fringe at best and well beyond the scope of this article as well. It does indeed seem that MissionNPOVible is set on an agenda to dissociate ID from its religious basis, and that he is ignoring any objections or consensus in the process. I also have grave doubts about his good faith and ability to function as a constructive editor here. As an apparent "clean start" editor, he made a beeline for two controversial articles, where he began to edit against consensus and in violation of WP policies. Not a good sign. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd hate to be too hasty here, but I've been thinking the same thing. With a controversial article such as this, any changes should be addressed in the Talk page first, and that's just not happening. I appreciate that MissionNPOVible is trying to better this article, but he or she is going about it in entirely the wrong way. If it continues, action may be required. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 18:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyone heard of WP:BRD? Have a read and see if you can interpret my edits as something other than disruptive. MissionNPOVible (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

BRD takes a considerable amount of diplomacy and credibility to execute successfully. You failed at the "D". Rather than discussing and building up support for your changes on the talk page, you raised suspicions about your motives because of your unwillingness to listen what your fellow editors had to say. Rather than building consensus, you alienated your fellow editors by continuing to "BRD" again and again, until you convinced them that you were just another disruptive editor. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept there being truth in your statement, however my defence would be that my reception here was less than welcoming. I have no interest in edit wars, or even in ID particularly, but my observations that this article needs work have been roundly rejected and all of my suggestions pilloried in a tag-team manner. I would like to work constructively, and I hope this can mark the beginning of a different approach by all of us. MissionNPOVible (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that your "reception here" has been a direct result of your own high-handed behaviour -- which started with deleting, rather than tagging (we have {{failed verification}} for a reason) what turned out to be a perfectly legitimate citation, and then demanding the reinstatement of this unjustified removal. As I have stated before, your behaviour has been "officious, high-handed and unilateral" -- and you therefore have no reason to expect a "welcoming" reception. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Am I wrong to conclude from your response that you do not wish to work constructively to improve the article Hrafn? MissionNPOVible (talk) 08:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Given that you have failed to "work constructively" with anybody on this article, and your changes have been unanimously been viewed as non-improving, I would question why I am the one to blame for this. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Guys, you know what? A little bit more effort to get along with new editors at this article might be more helpful in the long run. This article belongs to Wikipedia, not us. MissionNPOV, now that you know that any major changes to the article are likely to be reverted, why don't you list the changes you want to make below and see how that goes? Cla68 (talk) 10:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your voice of reason Cla68. I can't claim to have a list of changes per se, but I think my biggest concern is the political dominance over material dealing with the concept of ID. I think a good start would be to modify the first paragraph of the lead so that it does not contain material of a political nature. Such controversies should appear in subsequent paragraphs per WP guidelines. Does that sound reasonable? MissionNPOVible (talk) 10:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't really buy your argument. This is more "the answer is in the middle" fallacious reasoning that drives this whole debate in the first place. As has been indicated before, controversy is literally the point of ID. It is part of its definition. That is why that is included in the summary, and is well within guidelines. Moreover, your edits haven't been oriented as changing that, but rather sabatoging the credibility of statements in the lede or inserting unnecessary weasly ambiguity into well-referenced statements. Your stated goals and actual edits are in clear conflict. I started off assuming good faith as Cla68 suggested, but the way you've re-made changes is completely in conflict with WP:BRP that you suggested was the guiding principle; there's no good faith there. It's not called "Be bold until it sticks, ignoring what people say on talk pages" i kan reed (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

And, if I remember correctly, the DI has gone out of its way to politicise ID and to stir up controversy.

As for MNPOV, everyone has said all there is to say regarding his behaviour, and it's not clear that he's a "new" editor. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 15:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a new account that belongs to someone who admitted to having a previous account but said "fuck you" when asked to disclose the nature of the previous accounts. The first edits seem to be providing a "third opinion" but afterwards everything is ID and vaccine controversy even though on multiple occasions the user claims to not be particularly interested in editing these articles. Also, the user introduced himself to the article in an RFc where he was the only person defending an indefensible source that was introduced originally by an IP. Quack quack. Aside from my own laziness I'm not sure why no one has opened a duck SPI. N^oformation ^Talk 19:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting the impression some editors are more fascinated with the personalities here than the attempts to improve the article, so I wont be playing soap operas in the spirit of WP:DFTT. MissionNPOVible (talk) 22:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, editors who spend a lot of time watching and caring for the content in certain articles can take attempts to alter said content a little personally, which sometimes results, unfortunately, with lashing out at the editors responsible instead of trying to cooperate, compromise, and collaborate, as we all should be trying to do. I'm sure the other editors here don't wish to fall into that trap, right guys? MissionNPOVible, if you want to change the article intro, why don't you show the changes you want to make below and explain your reasoning, and we'll discuss it? Cla68 (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Relation to Tibetan Buddhism moved from article

Some have accused the Dalai Lama of advocating a form of Eastern intelligent design by suggesting that random natural processes are actually manifestations of hidden complexity [ref>Johnson, G. (18 Sept 2005). 'The Universe in a Single Atom': Reason and Faith, New York Times. </ref] based upon the Buddhist notion of karma. [ref>Flanagan, O. (2007). The really hard problem: meaning in a material world, MIT Press, p.67.</ref ] Similar to Thomas Nagel's ID argument, the Dalai Lama argues that the karma theory is a metaphysical assumption, as is the assumption that life arose by chance.[ref>Flanagan, O. (2007). The really hard problem: meaning in a material world, MIT Press, pp.74-5.[/ref][ref>Dalai Lama, (2005). The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality, Morgan Road Books, pp.109-110.</ref]

This strongly suggests that some have been making vague assertions, with no evidence that this is significant to the topic. Actual quotations from these offline sources would be needed to even consider inclusion of this. . dave souza, talk 08:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

And, yet again, the scope of this article is ID as promulgated by the DI, not "intelligent design" in the broad sense. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Reading Flanagan, he explicitly states that Christian ID "will find no support in the Dalai Lama's writings on evolution", and appears to say nothing to tie these to Nagel (Edis does not mention Nagel or the Dalai Lama at all). Therefore we are left with Johnson as the apparent sole 'critic' of the Dalai Lama on this point -- so I would claim WP:UNDUE, even if the WP:WEASEL & WP:Synthesis problems were dealt with. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The Tibetan Buddhism ideas of a mix of natural and supernatural creationism, if that's what it is, probably should go in the Theistic evolution article. If there is enough material, then a separate article on it can be started and it should be categorized in the Theistic Science category, which I think I tried to start about six months ago. Cla68 (talk) 10:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I thought that the section on Islam was part of the consensus view of this article, so I was attempting to fit in something relevant and closely related to the theme of how ID fits in other cultures (outside the US). MissionNPOVible (talk) 10:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

A valid thing to want, but barring assertions of being science or specifically mentioning ID as a concept, such sources are bound to be more appropriate for Teleological Argument. Being a similar concept is not really enough to warrant a mention in the article, as the teleological argument has been made numerous times, in numerous ways throughout history. ID is special and distinct in that it specifically is argued to be science. i kan reed (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

ID is special and distinct in that it specifically is argued to be science. Well stated! I think it would be an improvement to the article to explicitly add this to the lede, probably in the first paragraph (with a source, of course). The second paragraph kind of points and hints in this general direction, but IMO it would not be clear to a reader who has no background dealing with ID. Perhaps: "It is also a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one that deliberately avoids specifying the nature or identity of the intelligent designer in order to pose as a scientific hypothesis" Mildly Mad^T_C 14:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we had something like that quite a while back, but I'll be darned if I remember how long ago. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 15:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

We have the following statement in the third paragraph of the lead:

“ Intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings such as the United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling, which barred the teaching of "creation science" in public schools as breaching the separation of church and state. ”

It says they revised their argument, but it doesn't specify how. You are supposed to deduce this from the last clause, which explains that religion cannot be taught in public schools (and hence, ID had to take on a scientific visage to circumvent the mentioned court case). I think the placement of this statement is perfect, as it introduces the paragraph's theme of ID's inherent political nature, though we could rewrite it so it's clear that the revision was to couch ID in scientific terms. -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 16:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused about your edit--are you in favor of my proposal, or would you rather insert something in the third paragraph? Mildly Mad^T_C 16:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the particular phrasing you've used (I think pose could present a POV problem), but I would support something very similar. Perhaps "... in order to gain scientific acceptance" or "... in order to be presented as science" would be better? If we do that, the third paragraph should need no changes. I support either measure of clarification and leave the choice to consensus. -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 17:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree "pose" is a little WP:POINTy-- I think "...in order to be presented as science" best achieves the meaning that's required, although it's a little bit clunky. I'll WP:BOLD it in and see if a grammar fairy can come improve it for us :-) Mildly Mad^T_C 17:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

A source should probably be added to support the statement that ID "deliberately avoids specifying the nature or identity of the intelligent designer in order to be presented as a scientific hypothesis." The source currently cited for this sentence supports two claims: ID is a contemporary adaptation of the teleological argument and avoids identifying the designer. I do not have this source, so if it supports the specific claim that ID avoids this identification in order to be presented as science, we can leave it. Otherwise, I'm seeing sources stating that the reason is not necessarily to be presented as science, but to skirt the Edwards v. Aguillard case. Perhaps this is trivial (avoiding identification to present as science, present as science to skirt the court case), but I thought I'd bring it up. -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 18:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the Dover case revolved around adding ID to the science curriculum and teaching it as science. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

A cursory glance at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District testimonies and ruling doesn't yield any immediately obvious support for the statement that the intent of ID proponents was to cast ID as science by carefully avoiding the identity of the designer. Instead, I found further mention of ID proponents' intention to circumvent the legal precedent set in Edwards v. Aguillard. Again, this may be splitting hairs, but I'd rather have this claim specifically supported. -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 18:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

How about: "It is also a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but presented as a scientific hypothesis by deliberately avoiding specifying the nature or identity of the intelligent designer." This states pretty much exactly the same thing, but doesn't make any assertions as to the ID's "intentions". Also, another thought: perhaps replace "presented" with "disguised" or a similar word, to emphasize that it has not gained acceptance as a true hypothesis. Mildly Mad^T_C 19:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

A bit long...lol.

Yes, it seems we're splitting hairs. Edwards made clear that other scientific theories could be taught... Oh, see [3]. (Sorry, I forget how to do the wiki article links). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I really like that version. I think a bit of a change in grammar would better its readability (especially around the "avoiding specifying" part): "It is also a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but presented as a scientific hypothesis by deliberately avoiding specifying the any specific nature or identity of the intelligent designer." If the consensus is that this is unnecessarily splitting hairs though, I'm fine without citing a source. -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 20:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That would be OK, but let's get some more input from the other editors.

I've been editing this article off-and-on since about 2005, and that statement has been debated and revised many times -- I don't know that everyone will ever be happy with the formulation decided upon. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

For me, it's been since about 2006.

I just reverted this change in the article as being obvious and unnecessary.

I disagree that we should include an assertion about motivations as if it were fact. That's what bothers me about this revision discussion, it's all about what position the article should take on an issue, when Wikipedia articles shouldn't be taking any position at all. Yes, we have sources like Kitzmiller in which the ID community was judged to have removed any identity of the designer to make ID presentable as a scientific hypothesis. However, that's what a source says. Wikipedia could say that's how they were judged, but for Wikipedia to say "this is how it is" crosses the WP:NPOV line. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Although it may be obvious to everyone who is familiar with the content, I don't think the addition is unnecessary--"ID as science" is one of the most important facets of the topic: it's what distinguishes it from regular old creationism, and how it is an evolution (heh) of Creation Science. What if the 3rd sentence were switched around so that it avoids accusing anyone's motivations? (as proposed above after the initial edit was made): "It is also a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but presented as a scientific hypothesis by deliberately avoiding specifying the nature or identity of the intelligent designer." Mildly Mad^T_C 21:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Amatulic that there are problems about asserting things as fact which are actually claims by participants in the debate. There are RS's which argue that ID is not a teleological argument, so it is POV to say in the lead that it is... rather than that it is often described as... (or similar). The same is true of "it is neocreationism". I think the word "deliberate" is too strong when compared to the source it is based on, and as you've mentioned, attributing motivations as fact is problematic. And then there's the too strong (and incorrect) claim about "all". And that's the first paragraph! MissionNPOVible (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought Mildly Mad's edit was an improvement. However, the sentence still has a problem in that it implies that the avoidance of specifying the nature of the designer is the only way it's presented as a scientific hypothesis. There are many ways that ID proponents attempt to make ID seem scientific. Avoiding mention of a deity is just one.

MissionNPOVible's suggestion would need RS's independent of ID that assert ID isn't a teleological argument; absent such sources, I have no problem with that sentence in the lead. The teleological argument is an argument from design, after all, and stating that ID has that attribute isn't controversial. And we certainly don't want to introduce WP:WEASEL often like "often described as". The claim about "all" is correct if referring to prominent proponents, as has been decided many times on this talk page. That isn't a claim one attributes to reliable sources, it's simply a matter of counting who's who.

I don't like the word "deliberately" either. Even though the Wedge document pretty much settled that question, the adverb "deliberately" adds no value to the sentence. Adverbs in general add little or no value to encyclopedia articles. Omitting them doesn't subtract meaning, it only subtracts emphasis, and NPOV should prevent us from emphasizing such a thing. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the Wedge document, but as discussed above in the Reference Removal section, the source for that sentence does not support the use of "deliberately", so I am happy to see it go. The teleological stuff is discussed above too, relating to the Nagel (now removed) and Monton material which claims that ID is better seen as asserting the existence of god axiomatically - outside of the claims of ID - and that ID proper is the attempt to find evidence or artefacts of the designer in nature. I'm sure it's possible to avoid WP:WEASELs and just use "described as" instead - but the main problem lies in joining "all" and "leading proponents" since one is very definite, while the other is quite vague. For instance an argument could be made that Roger Olsen, Percival Davis, nor James Barham satisfy the claim. I think it's unnecessarily dramatic, and relies on a pretty flimsy source. MissionNPOVible (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

@MissionNPOVible: Unfamiliarity with the Wedge document greatly limits your usefulness as an editor on this subject, and explains why you've been having so much difficulty understanding what ID actually is. It's a key document, without which you cannot possibly figure out what's going on here. Read up on it here. Otherwise you're going to keep shooting in the dark, and remain clueless about why your additions are being rejected. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

How depressing, there certainly seems to be a lot to tidy up relating to ID! At least I can see where 'the gang' got together :-) That page is enlightening in that it occurs to me that there seems to be a marked effort to use WP to counter 'the wedge strategy' - it certainly helps me make sense of the behaviour I've witnessed here and "why [my] additions are being rejected". For me this explains the desperation to keep this article welded to the DI, and the willingness to ditch perfectly reasonable material (Nagel for instance) to keep a pure ID=DI mantra intact. I wont be surprised if the Islam and Australian sections go next if they're perceived to be watering down the intended message. Thanks for showing me the source of all this POV DV. MissionNPOVible (talk) 05:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

MissionNPOV, I'm sorry for Dominus' personal comments directed at you. I'll take that up with him on his talk page. I believe the hostility you're experiencing on this article talk page is an aberration, as most of the editors here really are able and willing to work with editors who may have different ideas about this article's content, right guys? Cla68 (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Dominus, please remember that wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. There is NO specific reading requirement to edit this article. i kan reed (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

MissionNPOVible, there is no other prominent Intelligent Design. We're not trying to keep ID associated with the DI because of any wedge strategy, but because it is the only one. Again, this article is not on the philosophical argument from design, but the "scientific" Intelligent Design. The Islam and Australia sections specifically relate to the latter, hence why they are relevant to this article. And please do not accuse us of deliberated POV editing. ;) -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 15:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the sentiment Cla68 - it's surprisingly nice to have a moderate, friendly voice! I think there is a serious flaw in the idea that the only ID is DI ID, since there are many authors who have written on ID without pushing any of DI's agenda. It may have started as DI's idea, but it isn't any more. Afterall, there are plenty of WP articles on cars that don't mention Benz. MissionNPOVible (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Is the "simulation argument" a "serious alternative to God as the designer"?

MissionNPOVible suggests that the simulation argument presents a (more recent) counterexample to the Kitzmiller decision's statement that "no serious alternative to God as the designer has been proposed". In reading both the cited sources, and Simulation hypothesis (to which simulation argument redirects) I can see nothing to suggest this as anything other than a purely hypothetical and unprovable/unfalisifiable 'what if'. I can certainly see nothing to indicate that this is proposed as a "serious alternative" to either God or evolution/natural forces as an explanation for the world that we see. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. As I've noted in the immediately preceding section, we need reliable third party sources showing what significance if any these concepts or writings have to ID generally. Has an independent mainstream expert on the topic described these as having any leading role? Note I've undone these changes until proper sourcing has been given and consensus reached about including these novel interpretations. . dave souza, talk 15:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why either Nagel or Monton are mentioned in the article at all. Neither is a proponent or even a supporter of ID, nor have they contributed to ID in any way. Neither is a notable participant in the debate over ID, nor are their arguments representative of any significant faction in the debate. In both cases, the arguments they present are solipsistic and have failed to generate any interest among scientists or policy makers(as far as we can tell from reliable sources). The ONLY reason they are trotted out by ID proponents is that they happen to be atheists. Mentioning either of them at all is probably beyond the scope of this article. Anything beyond a mere metntion violates WP:WEIGHT. I propose that all mention of both Nagel and Monton be dropped from the article, and that expanded treatment of their arguments be presented on their own article pages. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm agreeable. I've seen nothing to suggest that either Nagel or the Simulation hypothesis (Monton or Steinhart) has had a significant impact on the topic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, google begs to differ. "christian god" "intelligent design" 160,000 hits; irreducible complexity "intelligent design" 289,000 hits; nagel "intelligent design" 226,000 hits; "Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design" 35,000 hits; simulation argument "Intelligent Design" bostrom 44,800 hits. MissionNPOVible (talk) 09:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Google can beg, whine or whimper for all I care -- WP:GOOGLEHITS is never a good argument. Reliable secondary sources please. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

@MissionNPOVible: It's the quality of those hits that counts. I looked through the first 200 hits for "Nagel" and "intelligent design", and found ZERO evidence that Nagel has contributed to the "theory" ID in any way, and ZERO evidence that, except for Creationists, anyone whatsoever takes his argument seriously, which means he has not substantially contributed to the debate. As for the Creationists, the ONLY reason they mention Nagel at all is that he is an Atheist, so that they can divorce ID from it's religious basis. Even so, there is NO evidence that Nagel's work has been used by the ID in its legal arguments, so it would be difficult to say that he has contributed to the legal strategy in any substatial way, either. Sixteen years after publishing his paper, he has garnered ZERO support from the scientific side of the debate. He argument remains solipsistic and fringe, especially in terms of his conclusions about teaching ID in science classes, which is the ONLY part of his argument that interests the Creationists. That makes him little more than a PR meme trotted out by Creationists to defuse rejection of their "theory" on the grounds of religion. Mentioning him at all does not help the reader understand the subject of this article, and also violates WP:UNDUE. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

ZERO evidence? I wonder what you think evidence is. Also, I rather thought creationists were part of the ID movement (which you insist on including in this article), so surely anyone that they take seriously is automatically relevant, not automatically banned. In any case, you can't have it both ways - you can't rule Nagel out as a primary source on the one hand for writing about ID and then try and rule him out as a secondary source because he doesn't contribute to ID theory in any way. If I am to take your argument seriously, then nearly all the skeptics who reject ID should be excluded from this article because they do not contribute the the theory of ID. Your mischaracterisation of his argument as solipsistic is irrelevant, the point is that he is arguing something to with ID that is notable. MissionNPOVible (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The argument your making here is flawed in a number of different ways. The general point that googlehits is unreliable is important, but to be thorough, I want to document exactly why it's unreliable and how that invalidates the point. Google is in the business of indexing, which means they take content, and extract possible keywords. The overall frequency and prominence of those keywords is used to generate an estimate of search result counts. That almost always overestimates, because google is generous with the likeliehood of overlap. What you're presenting here is google's estimate of the overall commonness of words and phrases with a bit of fuzzy math to GUESS at their overlap. The apparent result is that you can seem to show some sort of correlation between ideas, when all you're really doing is reflecting the overall usage of two seperate phrases.

Moreover, the frequency with which web-pages use particular phrases is very misleading, because of this whole concept of flexible languages. There are literally hundreds of ways of communicating the same concept, just by using a thesaurus(not reccomended, but possible). On top of both those points, is the simple fact that the internet as a whole is not known for its factual reliability. Putting numbers to an argument, does not, in and of itself lend the argument any credibility. It's kind of like cargo cult science. At first glance, the words and symbols used are a lot like numerical analysis, but behind that there's no real fundmental data, making the whole exercise a waste of time. i kan reed (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly! Well-put.

Also, Google is very easily manipulated (WP editors have done so to get articles at the top of the Google hit-list). Besides, it's quality not quantity that matters. If one million people insist that a duck barks and one person shows, through video and audio, that it quacks, I'm going with the one guy. That's pretty much how science works: it doesn't care that one's sensibilities are hurt or one's dreams are crushed -- it is what it is. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 10:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

For someone so smitten with 'the scientific method' you don't appear to understand it Jim. Hrafn, it seems I am mistaken. Perhaps you will be kind enough to point me to the WP policy which states that google hits 'is never a good argument', and if you could also demonstrate the way in which Nagel and Monton are neither reliable nor secondary. Thanks. MissionNPOVible (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Nagel and Monton's inclusion in this article, as they are questioning whether or not science requires methodological naturalism as a core philosophy, and the answer is critical for determining if ID can be considered science. There are other factors conclusively proving ID is religious and not scientific, so as long as we leave the specifics of this problem to its appropriate article (Naturalism (philosophy), Scientific method, or Philosophy of science?), I see no reason to exclude these views (assuming they meet the policy requirement of third-party sources). We can have these folks arguing (not sure if that's entirely accurate, but whatever) for a science without methodological naturalism, and others (e.g. Robert T. Pennock) arguing against.

As to the purpose of this section, the simulation/brain-in-a-vat argument is not a serious alternative to God as the intelligent designer. If our entire world is a fabrication and our senses and logic only apply within the simulation, there is no possible way to test hypotheses outside of this scope. Basically, if we accept the solipsist argument as true, we can neither observe nor test the "real world," only the fabricated one in which we live. Regardless of one's position on methodological naturalism, this case clearly places the designer outside the realm of science, which is not what ID proponents want. -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 18:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

1. You've already been warned about personal attacks recently. Please stop. Jim's understanding of the scientific method is not really relevant to this discussion. That was a pointless ad hominem.
2. I thought I made a very clear case above about exactly why your google methodology was extremely flawed above. There is absolutely no legitimacy to using google search result counts to determine anything about connectedness of concepts. It doesn't matter if it's invalid in all cases. It's invalid in this one and it's usually not a good idea. Burden of proof for your methods is on your side of the table.
3. These references are fine for establishing one of the viewpoints of subscribers of ID. They don't invalidate the preponderance of philospohical works stating it's not science, especially as commonly presented. i kan reed (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

MisterDub, I think you're right - the core claims around methodological naturalism is in dispute and Nagel and Monton speak directly to that point - the fact that the mainstream view disagrees is no reason to exclude this content from the ID article, especially when their support is the closest thing to mainstream support the ID advocates have! As to the simulation argument, whilst I accept that your argument appears reasonable, the whole point of Nagel et al. is that both accepting and rejecting a designer falls outside of science, so whilst we may not have access to the real world directly, maybe it is possible to observe artefacts of the designer in our world. I suspect you're right that many IDers don't want to characterise it this way, but I think it's important for the article to reflect that there are at least two different flavours of ID. MissionNPOVible (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You're correct, there's no reason to exclude minority views so long as we don't give undue weight. Do you have any suggestions for changes in this regard? There were a few places I mentioned in a previous post that would need editing (e.g. lead, "Creating and teaching the controversy", "Defining science").

Secondly, I object to your continued attempts to portray the argument from design as ID, which is the case here as well. Solipsist arguments are mental masturbation and nothing more: if you can't trust your senses, then you can't trust your senses and the testability of science goes out the window. This places the simulation argument not in science, as ID portrays itself, but philosophy (where the argument from design also resides). Furthermore, ID proponents have specifically defined their "theory" to account for life's origins and contradict the modern evolutionary synthesis; they're looking for evidence of life's designer (since evolution is impossible), not the conductor of a drawn-out experiment we call the universe.

There is only one ID of note. ID is the child of the DI. It is claimed to be science, but fails to produce any scientific work. It was created to skirt court laws that ban teaching creationism in US public schools. It is creationism. -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 14:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I'm disagreeing with you MD, although maybe I've given the impression I do...? I think the minority views are important, and need to be included - but not only was the Nagel material I added reverted, the material that was already there has now been removed. Maybe why people have been acting in a hostile manner toward me comes from the fact that I'm really not hugely interested in ID - I'm just trying to make the article more balanced, which to someone with strong views about ID could easily be misconstrued as me 'fighting for the enemy'... What are your thoughts about reinstating the Nagel material? MissionNPOVible (talk) 09:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think simply reinstating removed material is the best solution. My opinion is that we might need to better emphasize the demarcation problem in the "Defining science" section. Nagel and Monton are arguing that science can test the influence of supernatural phenomena in the natural world and this alone should be grounds for ID to be considered scientific. However, the current stance on the demarcation problem is that one cannot exclude the supernatural a priori, rather the content of the proposed scientific theory is the determining factor. This is what is trying to be conveyed by the list of expectations for a hypothesis/theory to be accepted as science (e.g. consistent, parsimonious, useful). Let me see if I can work up a revision of this section and I'll post it here later. Sound good?

As for making the article more balanced--and I'm not trying to be harsh--but it seems to me the reason others are irritated/hostile with you is that you aren't knowledgeable on the subject, especially regarding its history. -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 16:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

I want to make a case for "cosmetic changes." I believe the ones made several hours ago were useful, not useless. Why have awkward writing when it can be smooth? The current text reads:

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."[1][2] It is neo-creationism, a form of creationism restated in non-religious terms.[3][4] It is also a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but presented as a scientific hypothesis by avoiding specifying the nature or identity of the intelligent designer.[5] Its leading proponents—all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank[n 1][6]—believe the designer to be the Christian God.

I submit that the third sentence is unacceptable awkward. "by avoiding specifying" The dashes in the next sentence seem inappropriate in a lead paragraph. My personal opinion is that there is no need to state that ALL the leading proponents are associated with the DI; omitting that bit makes for a much smoother read.

This, I believe, is a more suitable first paragraph:

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."[1][2] It is neo-creationism, a form of creationism restated in non-religious terms.[3][4] By not specifying the nature or identity of the intelligent designer, it presents a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God as a scientific hypothesis.[5] Leading proponents associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank,[n 1][6] believe the designer to be the Christian God.

If the consensus is to cling for dear life to "all," the last sentence would be forced to:

All its leading proponents are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank, and believe the designer to be the Christian God.

I think my preferred version implies all the leading proponents are associated with the DI without getting bogged down in syntax. Yopienso (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably not better, Well given that the point that all leaders are associated is a fact established by a court of law, and there aren't really any reliable sources that alledge otherwise, it's hard to dispense with the "all" for the sake of brevity alone. It would remain a teleological argument if it DID specify the creator anyways. What I'm trying to get at here, is that the "by avoiding..." at the begining of the sentence introduces ambiguity as to whether the lack of specification refers to it being the teleological argument(it doesn not) or it faking its scientific basis(that was the intention). I agree that the current wording is abrupt, but your rewording is ambiguous. i kan reed (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The order of the clauses in the old version flows better with the surrounding sentences: Creationism -> Teleological Argument and non-specific designer -> DI -> Christianity are two critical connections that should be made in the opening paragraph, and are much easier to make when the sentence is constructed as it is. I love word-smithing as much as the next user, but I think a precise and easy-to-follow lead should ultimately take priority over small "cosmetic" improvements. Mildly Mad^T_C 18:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've tried to make some cosmetic changes without introducing ambiguity or straying from the source material, but I haven't really found a good way to work in the "ID is presented as science" bit. I was thinking something like, "It is presented as a scientific hypothesis by its proponents, but has been rejected by the scientific community." Not sure if the rejection should be introduced in the first paragraph though. Anyway, here's what I came up with:

“ 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." It is a form of neo-creationism, a form of creationism restated in non-religious terms. It is also and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but presented as a scientific hypothesis by avoiding that avoids specifying the nature or identity of the intelligent designer. All of its leading proponents—all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank—, and believe the designer to be the Christian God. ”

The dashes have been crossed out as well, though the strike-through doesn't really make that clear. I've mainly combined the second and third sentences while removing the definition of neo-creationism (doesn't the link to its appropriate article already serve this end?). Any comments/suggestions on this revision? -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 20:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

What if the 2nd/3rd sentences were simply: "It is a form of neo-creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented as a scientific hypothesis by avoiding specifying the nature or identity of the intelligent designer." Mildly Mad^T_C 20:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. I have just a slight issue with avoiding and specifying being right next to each other, but overall the sentence is quite informative. -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 20:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. Agreed, to adjacent present-tense verbs are a little rough. Maybe "omitting assertions" instead? (This seems like a little bit less non-controversial change, not going to WP:BOLD this one for a while) Mildly Mad^T_C 20:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Being in widely separated time zones makes discussion slow, and I support your boldness. I just can't stand the "avoiding specifying," though, and the dashes leave me cold. I'll hold off on my boldness to give you guys a chance to consider combining your ideas like this:

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." It is a form of neo-creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented as a scientific hypothesis that avoids specifying the nature or identity of the intelligent designer. All of its leading proponents are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank, and believe the designer to be the Christian God.

Yopienso (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The best changes are the simplest, Yopienso, and I think you're revision of the first lead paragraph is exactly what I was attempting to achieve. Great work! -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 21:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you've fixed the clunky flow issue with that version Yopienso. Personally I think the "nature or identity" is less crisp than just "nature", and I still argue that "all" is incorrect. It seems to be based on the testimony of one person in a court case responding to a question phrased as "almost all". I have nominated 3 people above who probably don't satisfy the claim, which is vague anyway ("leading proponents"), and I think using a primary non-peer-reviewed source for the basis of such a definitive statement verges on WP:OR. MissionNPOVible (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your input, Mr. Dub and Mission. I'll wait a couple of hours to see if anyone else chimes in.

M.NPOV--I think the "all" is correct from the perspective that this article is about intelligent design as promoted by the DI. I think I suggested a note at the top saying so, but the editors who live and breathe this page don't realize that someone coming to it for the first time couldn't possibly understand that. And you're right, Percival "Bill" Davis coauthored Pandas, which by my lights makes him a "leading proponent." But, to follow the overarching editorial mindset here, all the leading proponents of the DI's ID are associated with the DI. Get it? In any case, even if "all" is correct in every sense, it seems unnecessary imho. But, also imho, it's not worth quibbling about. Hashed out in January.

About nature and identity"--if I were going to drop one, I would drop "nature." But I don't mind leaving both, since the designer's nature could be a god, an E.T., a malevolent mind, a computer run amok from another universe, etc., while the identity would be her/his proper name. Ex.: the Greek god (nature) named Zeus (identity).

Whoops--I never signed this yesterday, and no busy little bot came around to do it for me. Here's the John Hancock: Yopienso (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not hugely fussed about "nature and identity", I just think it's a little wordy really, but not a major deal. I take your point about preferring identity over nature and could be easily persuaded you're right, but if the consensus is for both to stay I'm happy to go along with that. I think the "all" issue is closely tied to the heart of this article - whether it is about ID, or whether it is about the DI version of ID. The article name suggests the former, while most of the editors insist on the latter. If it is to be explicitly tied to DI, then it is true by definition that the proponents are "all" associated with DI - but if this is the case, then the lead needs to spell out that the article is only considering this kind of ID, not ID the concept. Perhaps the first para needs to become something like:

This article deals with intelligent design (ID) as advocated by the Discovery Institute (DI), a politically conservative think tank. The Discovery Institutes leading proponents of ID describe it as a 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". They believe the designer to be the Christian God, making ID a form of neo-creationism[3][4] and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, which is presented as a scientific hypothesis that avoids specifying the nature or identity of the intelligent designer.

That would more accurately reflect the efforts of many of the editors around here, and would justify the removal of Nagel et al., and the inclusion of a lot of the political material buried in the body of the article. MissionNPOVible (talk) 07:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree whole-heartedly, although The Discovery Institutes leading proponents of ID needs some stylistic reworking. Yopienso (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed! Perhaps even drop the leading proponent bit entirely so it reads:

This article deals with intelligent design (ID) as advocated by the Discovery Institute (DI), a politically conservative think tank. The Discovery Institutes describes ID as being 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". They believe the designer to be the Christian God, making ID a form of neo-creationism[3][4] and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, which is presented as a scientific hypothesis that avoids specifying the nature or identity of the intelligent designer.

That reinforces that the article is based on their brand of ID, and makes it implicit that this is what they collectively ("all") advocate. MissionNPOVible (talk) 04:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Changing Reference templates

Is there a straightforward way to simplify the referencing on this page - it makes it quite ugly to edit with all the embedded tags. I'm happy to research it, but thought I'd ask in case anyone has a ready made solution. MissionNPOVible (talk) 08:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The embeded tags ARE pretty simple. What kind of setup can you imagine that would be easier? i kan reed (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you want a setup I can imagine, or one that I think would be better? The difficulty I experience with editing is that the references split sentences beyond screen height - so, feeble human that I am, I end up having to do a search to find where the next word in the sentence is. What I think would be simpler is if we could have a section that declares all the references so that only the ref-name tag need be used in the actual body of the article. That way keeping track of split sentences would be much easier. MissionNPOVible (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I get your point now. Inline citations have advantages that outweigh those readability costs, namely that when you're updating text, you don't have to navigate to a seperate part of the article to update the reference. There isn't really a way to avoid that and retain the benefit. It's even more relevant when adding new text with citations to the article. What I can reccomend is using Google Chrome, which lets you resize the text editing area. i kan reed (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I already use Chrome. Apparently someone has developed a script that collapses the citation tags - I'll keep looking and let you know if I get anywhere. Thanks for the suggestion though. MissionNPOVible (talk) 00:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Other Intelligent Design?

I think the definitive nature of some of the phrasing could all be justified if we make it clear that this article is about DI ID in the lead. Several editors have been at pains to emphasise that in the talk page, so I think we should be bringing it into the article to avoid any confusion. Otherwise it will always be possible that we have missed something that renders the absolutist language as being incorrect - some of which have already been mentioned previously. So by explicitly making the focus of the article on DI ID - and saying that in the article - a lot of these kinds of problems will vanish. MissionNPOVible (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If you would be willing, and I know this asking a lot, could you point to some other sources that use the term "intelligent design"(exactly that term, no variation), to refer to anything besides the discovery institute's works, especially outside the context of something to be taught in schools. As far as I know, every similar thing you've been asking to involve in the article uses some similar terms, but not the title "Intelligent Design". I agree it could be misleading, if there were any other things by the same name. I don't know of any. Thanks in advance i kan reed (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's one: http://www.rael.org/download.php?view.1 More subtle variations like the simulation argument and Nagel's take on ID are different to DI ID too though. MissionNPOVible (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not one. I just spent a couple hours skimming through that, and it refers directly to a paper by the DI and even goes as far as saying the following

Intelligent Design, or ID, has attracted growing attention and ... into schools as an alternative to Darwin's Theory of evolution

That's one of the few times, in the body of that 414 page monstrosity the words "Intelligent design" are used.(other than the title) Referring specifically to an alternative to evolution in schools, and in the foreword he mentions the name of the book coming from "Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, Director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture". Hey look the discovery institute. Again. It's the same ID. Exactly the same. I know being wrong once doesn't necessarily invalidate your point, but I'm going to have to ask you to find some other source, because this one does nothing at all to justify the position that there is "more than one ID". Thanks! i kan reed (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Not only do we need sources demonstrating ID is used in some non-DI way, but we also need some sort of evidence that such alternate usage is prominent, per WP:WEIGHT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Any sources of merit that support the idea are welcome. Let us know if you ever find any. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Let me get you to use your own standards: If you can find a source of merit that claims Rael's ID is the same as DI's ID then I am happy to yield on the point. The fact that Rael mentions DI does not mean he is talking about the same thing, but if you can produce a RS stating that they are the same then please do so. Otherwise I think the prima facie case is against you. Rael makes claims about UFO's, their drivers, secret histories, and claims about the future. This is clearly something different to what DI is on about - which many here argue is thinly veiled creationism. This satisfies your request for a source that uses exactly the phrase "intelligent design" to refer to something other than DI's work. DI's ID may be a subset of what Rael is on about, but it is certainly not the other way around. MissionNPOVible (talk) 23:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Er... counterpoint, read the quote from my post. He specifically refers to the discovery institutes Intelligent Design paper. In that case and no other does he refer to "intelligent design" in exactly those words. It's almost like you didn't read the paper you linked at all. i kan reed (talk) 03:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it's you who didn't read the paper I linked to! You will find that he speaks about what he has chosen to call atheist Intelligent Design, which is soon to be reproduced in a laboratory. That doesn't much sound like DI ID to me. But if you have a RS that demonstrates that it is exactly the same, no variation, :-), I am happy to yield. As I said above, Rael mentions DI ID, but goes on to makes his own use of the phrase ID. Or to quote from the book itself "...it is for all these reasons that the title Intelligent Design - Message from the Designers has been given to this new edition of Rael's writings...[in] this book Rael develops this theme to a new level. He says that the original and unique Raelian explanation of the origins of life on Earth effectively offers a Thrid Way between Darwin and Genesis and it can best be described as atheist Intelligent Design, which is the scientific creation of life on Earth performed by an advanced human civilisation. And uniquely this Third Way is reproducible in a laboratory." I think this is pretty clearly the use of ID in a non-DI way. MissionNPOVible (talk) 04:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Er... the point was that there was some other ID, this clearly still has it's origins in the discovery institute idea, and takes its name directly therefrom. Lots of people have slightly different approaches to say... the socratic method, but it's still all the same socratic method, invented by Socrates. How is this case different? i kan reed (talk) 13:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

So are you suggesting that Rael's ID is the same as what the DI are promoting? Really?? Surely you would agree that something can inspire something else and then deviate quite markedly from it. For instance, I might be inspired by Socrates (well, Plato) to write dialogue's, but that doesn't mean my dialogues are Platonic. I don't think you seriously mean that Rael's talk of Elohim and atheism are consistent with DI's ID, do you? Just because Rael is inspired by, and pinched the name from, DI does not mean that Raelian ID = DI ID. And they're not just slightly different, unless you are willing to assert that the DI is happy to embrace an atheistic ID. MissionNPOVible (talk) 13:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This is kind of a Thesesus' ship question, but basically, yes. If I take a car, model it initially after a sedan, make a host of unusual changes to the design, like shaping all the windows like Mickey Mouse, and then market it as a "sedan", and even mention the sedan I modeled it on, and it's still basically got the same basic structure, 4 seats, a trunk, modestly compact size, it's still a sedan. Come to think of it, this argument seems like it would have made a better analogy with a duck. Count how many times Rael uses the words "intelligent design" in that book. Answer: 3 out of 414 pages. Count how many don't refer to a paper by the DI. Hint: 0. This is a very weak argument, and surely if this were true there'd be some other source that makes NO reference to the DI at all. If it were well and truly different, someone must have taken that idea as seperate. And while I don't think the the DI would agree with Rael's "atheist" perspective, that's the problem with watered down relgion, pretty soon you're saying nothing at all, just so someone can agree with you. i kan reed (talk) 13:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I've just counted 17 across about 30 pages, but that's essentially irrelevant. What is relevant is that he uses the phrase at all, and in a way that is different to the DI. You are now shifting your criteria by saying that it is not enough that this is "some other sources that use the term "intelligent design"(exactly that term, no variation), to refer to [some]thing besides the discovery institute's works", but they must now not ever mention DI. How else is someone supposed to differentiate their use of the term from the DI use of the term? The disagreement here is not whether people who use the phrase "intelligent design" also use the phrase DI, it is whether there are versions of ID that are different from the DI version. So the only way you can claim that Rael is not an example of a different kind of ID is to say that the DI would fully embrace his version of ID as their own. Is that what you are willing to argue? MissionNPOVible (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I got caught up with the first part of your response and missed your last sentence. I think we agree with each other!!! :-) MissionNPOVible (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• I would point out that while Raëlism is fairly prominent (mostly for their cloning claims, and as a fairly eye-catching UFO-based sect), Raël himself is considerably less so (I would suspect that few would actually know that the Raël it is named after is a person, rather than an alien deity, idea or whatever), and the full specifics of his religious manifesto barely makes a blip. So even if it were demonstrated that Raëlian ID is different from DI ID (and it isn't clear that it has), we still need a demonstration that this specific claim of Raël's has prominence. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Emphasize demarcation problem in "Defining science" section

After speaking with MissionNPOVible about Nagel and Monton, I've decided to compose a revision of the "Defining science" section to emphasize that an hypothesis or theory cannot be classified as science or pseudoscience without first examining the content of it (i.e. no a priori criteria can solve the demarcation problem). I've already started this and have it residing on my sandbox. I figured I'd start this section for any comments/suggestions regarding this kind of edit. -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 18:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This seems to come down to redefining science to accept the untestable: natural testing can never disprove supernatural explanations. At first glance your sandbox gives undue weight to a couple of philosophers promoting a fringe view which has no traction in science. . . dave souza, talk 18:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave, the point of the first paragraph is to show that supernatural phenomena aren't de facto ruled out of science (as Nagel and Monton both argue, and Laudan accepts), but that any theory claiming to test this must have a meaningful means to do so. Basically, natural testing can disprove supernatural explanations if the theory makes specific claims (e.g. if life on Earth was created by a designer, we would have a TM symbol in our DNA). The next point is that ID doesn't make any specific, testable claims and this is the reason it is not considered to be science. I know Larry Laudan and Brian Leiter, both in the mainstream view that ID is not science, accept Nagel and Monton's arguments that no a priori judgment can conclusively set a proposed hypothesis within the realm of pseudoscience. I think with these folks, and from the text I've read (see below, emphasis added), the idea that one can test supernatural claims is not a fringe view:

“ ... Laudan, like every other major philosopher of science now alive, thinks that the 'demarcation problem' that exercised mid-20th-century philosophy of science—how do we demarcate science from non-science, or genuinely cognitive domains from nonsense—can not be solved. ”

“ ... Laudan [notes] that ID "is inconsistent with methodological naturalism and ontological materialism...[b]ut that fact has no bearing whatsoever on the plausbility of the arguments for ID." Why does Laudan say that? Because methodological naturalism is an a posteriori doctrine, which means if ID generated any empirical results incompatible with it—it has not, of course—then so much the worse for MN. ”

-- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 19:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether science can test phenomena claimed to be supernatural, the question is whether supernatural explanations can be part of science. Science can only test to find if there is a natural explanation, it can't ever rule out an undetectable supernatural explanation. ID could be plausible as a religious belief, and as the Kitz ruling notes it may even be true, but by its nature it can't be science as it is understood by the modern scientific community. Even the natural theology of the early 19th century looked for explanations in secondary causes, while positing a supernatural "first cause". This has to be clear at the outset of the relevant section, and any philosophical equivocation can follow after the basic explanation of modern science as defined by relevant scientific bodies. . dave souza, talk 20:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Nagel describes ID in terms of attempting to detect the residues in nature of the design process. Let's remember that science isn't about truth, it's about attempting to disprove theories. For this to happen there has to be a natural implication that arises from a theory which can form the basis of a test. It imposes nothing whatsoever on the nature of the theory besides its falsifiability. So if the theory is natural, supernatural, or subnatural is immaterial to the scientific method, it just has to be testable. And, according to Nagel and others, ID does that. It may fail the test, but it attempts to provide a theory that can be tested. I haven't had a chance to look at your sandbox yet MrD, but should be able to shortly. Thanks for your efforts. MissionNPOVible (talk) 05:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think I've made the first paragraph of the "Defining science" section a bit better (see my sandbox), but I'd like to hear everyone's comments and suggestions. Dave, I've tried to make it clear that methodological naturalism is a common, a priori demarcation for what is and is not science, but we could specifically cite Pennock as saying, "[methodological naturalism] is shown to be a distinguishing feature of science both in explicit statements from scientific organizations and in actual practice." (Pennock, Robert T., 2007) Any thoughts? -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 18:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I don't have time to go into this in detail just now, the proposed section seems to be in reverse order in that it puts a couple of (minority view) objections before putting the majority scientific view they're objecting to. Will aim to read through the evidence and come back on this later. Thanks, dave souza, talk 19:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

@MisterDub. Well, right off the bat you get an "F" for fact checking: neither Nagel nor Monton is an "ID prononent". Not by a long shot. Both make it ABUNDANTLY clear that they strongly and unequivocally reject ID. Did you actually READ their papers? Or did you rely on blurbs from creationist reviews? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Dominus, please be a little more civil. I had to re-read my revision because I was fairly certain I hadn't made such a claim (I've read the material, I know they're not ID proponents), but my writing does suggest this. The sentence in question ("Intelligent design proponents and philosophers Thomas Nagel and Bradley Monton...") was not intended to cast Nagel and Monton as ID proponents, but rather philosophers who agree with ID proponents on this particular issue. I wanted three separate entities in the sentence: Nagel, Monton, and ID proponents. This sentence obviously needs to be rewritten, but do you have any comments/suggestions about the rest? -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 20:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the overreaction. Yes, that does need to be reworded. Still leaves a couple of problems, though.

First of all, "A common approach" should be "By far the most common approach".

Second, like Dave, I question the notability of of both Nagel and Monton for inclusion in this article. Both of them are pretty marginal and stand alone without support or interest from either side. Like I've said several times before, the only reason they are notable with respect to ID is that creationists like to point to them and say "See, ID is not religious; even the atheists agree with us", which is bizarre, because both Nagel and Monton argue the exact opposite.

Third, if you read Nagel closely, he is not really writing about the subject of this article, ID as promulagated by the DI, which he does not deem worthy of consideration. He is writing about some hypothetical overtly religious version of the "argument from design", which he confusingly calls "intelligent design", to be put forth by some hypothetical proponent, and not the DI. So Nagel is really beyond the scope of this article, as well.

With Nagel and Monton gone, there's really no nead for Loudon and Carrol, so both of those sentences can go, too.

That leaves the large block on criteria. Does it actually belong in this article? I don't mind if it's left in. In my opinion, it makes the succeeding paragraphs on Kitz and NAS easier to read.

Hope that helps. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the first issue ("By far the most common approach")? I only ask because I've been looking for it and have only found Pennock's quote I posted earlier. I've checked the NAS, NCSE, and NSTA, but no luck so far.

The article on the demarcation problem states that it (the demarcation problem) is still debated. This would indicate that Monton and Nagel do not stand alone in questioning the a priori criterion of methodological naturalism. And this is in addition to Laudan, Carroll, and others (sources are there, I just didn't want to overload the material with them) who argue that the demarcation problem itself is unsolvable by a priori criteria, of which methodological naturalism is one.

Third, Nagel is writing about the DI's ID:

“ For legal reasons that alternative [to evolutionary theory] is called intelligent design, with no implication that the designer is God, but I shall assume that we are talking about some form of divine purpose or divine intervention. Nevertheless, there is a distinction between the arguments for intelligent design in biology and the traditional argument from design for the existence of God. ”

Then Nagel continues to talk about "ID." Even were he not writing about ID, he is writing about the demarcation problem, which is exactly the subject of this section (what is and is not science).

Lastly, that list of a priori criteria was there before and has not been modified. I still like its inclusion though, more for the comment that ID has been said to fail all of them though. ;) -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 21:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That sentence could be fixed by reversing the order "Philosophers Thomas Nagel and Bradley Monton, as well as intelligent design proponents, criticize this method and...". I'm cautious about getting into too much detail around each theory (the dot points for instance) - we could summarise to keep the different perspectives front and centre rather than getting a little lost in details, using links for readers interested in more. As for the notability issue, at the very least Nagel and Monton are notable philospher (Nagel is one of the single most notable philosophers alive BTW) who have explicitly written on ID. This makes them absolutely relevant and notable. Don't forget that with all WP:FRINGE areas it is a pretty courageous thing to do for someone to go out on a limb in the way they have. You can't expect to find the same level of material as other mainstream areas, so the fact that they have written at all - especially Nagel - make them extremely important to include in an NPOV article. MissionNPOVible (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

@Misterdub: I've carefully read the Nagel paper five times, and I still cannot figure out what he means by "intelligent design". I've come to the conclusion that he does not know himelf, and that he is talking about some vague, non-existant, purely hypothetical argument that, in his own mind (and nobody else's), is scientific in nature. Normally, I would question his academic honesty, but he himself unhesitantly admits that he has no scientific background whatsoever, and that he is writing from the standpoint of a totally uneducated layman (from a scientific perspective). Furthermore, he amply demonstrates his complete unfamiliarity with biology throughout the article. The big question in my mind is why he took it upon himself to write this article in the first place, and why he thought he had any standing or competence to make policy recommendations in spite of his profound ignorance of the topic. His argument is little more than an argument from personal incredulity, and a particular sloppy argument at that.

The main problem is notability: while Nagel may or may not be a noted philosopher, this paper is not notable. It simply does not contribute to our understanding of ID or the demarcation problem as it pertains to ID, nor has it contributed in any way to the debate surrounding the subject of this article. It has not been used by either side, either scientifically, philosophically, politically or legally. When reliable secondary sources mention it, they uniformly reject it in its entirety. For the umpteenth time, the ONLY reason creationists mentionit at all is to claim that ID is not religious because even "the atheist philosopher Nagel" agrees with them, which, of course, he doesn't.

Nagel's argument is fringe and not shared by anyone else. In 16 years, it has failed to convince anybody. It is not representative of arguments on either side of the debate. It's a primary source that, if mentioned at all in reliable secondary sources, is mentioned only as a solipsistic fringe idea that has failed to gain any traction. As such, it fails WP:NOTE, WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT.

As for Monton, his paper is a solipsistic treatise on solipsism itself. It's entertaining, but still pure mental masturbation that fails notability for inclusion in this article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

DV, the fact that you don't understand or like his argument is utterly irrelevant. If Nagel is notable, then his work is notable, so his work on ID is notable for this article. If ID proponents think he's notable, then he's even more notable for this article. Therefore it is erroneous to suggest that he fails WP:NOTE or WP:WEIGHT. Let's move beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT and accept that he is a notable contributor to this topic. MissionNPOVible (talk) 09:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(i) Nagel is notable for his philosophy of mind, not for philosophy of science. (ii) You're drawing a whole heap of conclusions that have no basis in your premise. (iii) ID proponents generally consider to be "notable" any old garbage that happens to promote their cause -- so that's hardly a valid criteria for composing a Wikipedia article. (iv) Therefore your claim that "it is erroneous to suggest that he fails WP:NOTE or WP:WEIGHT" is WP:Complete bollocks, as is your claim that rejection of it is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. (v) Moston has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" so is not "a notable contributor". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Nagel is a notable philosopher. Nagel has written in his capacity as a professional philosopher on ID. Nagel does not need your or anyone else's permission to do so, and in doing so he has become a philosopher of ID and/or science (if you want to argue he wasn't before). Therefore he should be included in this article. The fact that several editors here don't like what he has to say, think he is confused, think that he isn't a philosopher of ID, think he's wrong, think he's solipsistic, think nobody respectable agrees with him, etc. etc. is utterly irrelevant. He is a notable philosopher writing on ID in peer reviewed and notable WP:RS's. Additionally, at least one side of the debate consider his contributions to be important. That satisfies all relevant WP policies for his inclusion. Exclusion would be the height of POV pushing, and I would encourage those who think otherwise to examine their motivations, since I think anyone wishing to produce an intellectually honest article would agree that he is an important contributor to this topic. MissionNPOVible (talk) 10:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Missi_onNPOV_ible for that ludicrous piece of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. (i) No, Nagel was not writing "in his capacity as a professional philosopher" -- as his philosophical expertise covers no area relevant to the question of whether ID is science. Further, his claims about this area have been widely disparaged, by both philosophers and scientists. (ii) As I stated before, "ID proponents generally consider to be 'notable' any old garbage that happens to promote their cause -- so that's hardly a valid criteria for composing a Wikipedia article." (iii) Given that (a) he was writing outside his area of expertise & (b) his claims have been widely rejected, there is no reason to regard him as a WP:RS on this subject. (iv) Given your blatant & disruptive POV-pushing on this article I would suggest that your accusation is (a) ludicrously WP:POT & (b) blatant projection. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You really didn't like that Jung gibe did you!! ;-) What seems to elude you is that Nagel has been published in a peer-reviewed philosophical journal on ID. So it's not me saying it's in his capacity as a philosopher, it's the editorial board of the Philosophy & Public Affairs journal. Now you can give them a call and explain how they shouldn't do that in future because you know better, but as things stand they've already done it, and that's all we need. MissionNPOVible (talk) 12:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

No -- I simply think it's absolutely bloody ridiculous for an ID-POV-pusher such as yourself to accuse others of "projection" -- so I'm rubbing the point in. Nagel's piece has been rubbished by every publication that I could find citing it. This, combined with the fact that it is outside his area of expertise, pretty much demolishes any pretensions it has to being a reliable source. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, there's the rub :-) The fact that there is so much rubbishing demonstrates how much of an impact Nagel has had on the field. I don't see rubbishing of Ernst Globstrakningleberry's elaborate theories relating to ID, so I would agree that his efforts should be excluded. What you are not grasping here is that you could say the same about Dembski (for instance). His work has been rubbished all over the shop, disparaged by philosophers and scientists, and even you don't like his work! However, that is exactly why he is important to the debate and why he must be in the article. The case for Nagel's inclusion is essentially no different. You have already conceded the point that he is both notable and a significant contributor to the debate. Your only remaining reason is that you aren't happy about him deciding to become a philosopher of ID and/or science, which isn't up to you, it's up to him. MissionNPOVible (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Who said there was "much" of it? I didn't say "rubbished by every one of the many publication that I could find citing it" -- actually there weren't that many -- just that what was there wasn't particularly supportive. You appear to be seeing what you want to see, not what I wrote. Dembski has had orders of magnitude more written about him (both in quantity & in prominence) in the context of ID & creationism generally, so is hardly comparable (except that he, like Nagel, is not a WP:RS on this topic except for his own, and the DI's views -- See WP:FRINGE#Notability versus acceptance). Nagel lacks both expertise specific to the subject matter, and any prominence on this issue, so there is no reason whatsoever to include him in this article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 01:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Google does: "christian god" "intelligent design" 160,000 hits; irreducible complexity "intelligent design" 289,000 hits; nagel "intelligent design" 233,000 hits; And you did: "there is a considerable amount of evidence that his claims have been widely disparaged by both philosophers and scientists". Either there's a considerable amount of evidence that his claims have been widely disparaged, or there isn't. Which is it? Some here may be falling into the very trap Nagel wrote about..."the widespread intolerance of any challenge to the dogma that everything in the world must be ultimately explainable by chemistry and physics"...which perhaps explains an unwillingness to accept that Nagel has made quite a splash, and not a few ripples, in the ID debate. If Nagel had written on any other topic and generated such a heated response amongst those interested in that topic, I seriously doubt you would consider his contributions to be negligible - you seem much smarter than that. But things are different with ID. For instance the much trumpeted 'Wedge Document' generates an order of magnitude fewer responses than Nagel ("wedge document" discovery institute 25,000 hits) yet is held up as a veritable anti-ID genesis by some here, so much that it has an article of its own, and has a fierce defensive following!! Atheist knights-templar perhaps?  :-) Anyway, I'd suggest that if you take a step back and see that we're just talking about a notable author, published in WP:RS's, who has made controversial contributions to a topic, then you'll see that this isn't a big deal and he should be included. MissionNPOVible (talk) 04:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Missi_onNPOV_ible for that WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT of the fact that WP:GOOGLEHITS DO NOT confer WP:Notability. Please read WP:WEIGHT -- which somehow manages to avoid making any mention of Google whatsoever. Then please provide some substantiation of your claim that is actually relevant to this policy. We are just talking about a cranky old knee-jerk anti-empiricist pontificating well outside his field of expertise. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I know this is a little subtle and confusing, but I'll try one more time. I am not using google to confer notability. Nagel is already notable, there's even a WP article on him you could read if interested. What I have used google to demonstrate is relative prominence. So you will notice that I have not just given a hit count for Nagel, but for three different searches. I am not suggesting that the raw hit counts are significant in and of themselves, I am arguing that there is some useful information to be gleaned by comparing the relative hit counts from similar searches involving the phrase "intelligent design". Once you've digested that, have a go at explaining your own position as to whether there is considerable widespread evidence or not, and then have a go at formulating a non-ad hominem based argument. Once again your capacity for self-embarrassment is on display by your purile characterisation of Nagel. MissionNPOVible (talk) 09:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No, you were being a lot self-serving and confused. WP:WEIGHT states: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." It is not an open invitation for argumentum ad populum/WP:GOOGLEHITS arguments -- it is a requirement to survey the relative weight of opinions in reliable sources. Now shut up about Google -- it is IRRELEVANT! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Putting your incivility aside, WP:GOOGLE states "In most cases, a search engine test is a first-pass heuristic or "rule of thumb"." That's precisely how I'm using it, as a relative gauge of prominence, not an absolute statement of notability. That deals with the only issue you have managed to raise in your reply. I will take your unwillingness to address your contradictory statements as tacit acknowledgement that you are busy railing against Nagel for reasons other than WP policy since you seem willing to argue whichever way you think sounds best at the time. MissionNPOVible (talk) 10:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Neither a "first-pass heuristic" nor a "rule of thumb" are a prima facie case -- they are merely the start point for developing an argument, not the end point of a valid argument. If a topic lacks hits, it will also lack reliable hits -- the converse is not true (many topics have oodles of hits -- none of which are reliable). I'm not saying you can't use Google to find sources -- just that you cannot make a valid argument on the basis of the number of hits alone. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

In science there is no such distinction between "supernatural" and "natural". There are things that can be falsified by empirical testing, and there are things that can't. This is a much clearer and more concrete distinction than the one presumed to exist between "supernatural" and "natural". (Indeed, the very definition of "supernatural" is rife with contradictions and absurdities.) Kevin Baas^talk 12:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kevin_Baas, obviously I don't know if you've had a chance/interest in reading Nagel's article, but this is squarely what he is arguing about. He is saying that both decisions to either embrace the supernatural, or not, are either scientific decisions, or non-scientific decisions. That is, either people decide at a religious level (non-scientific) to believe or disbelieve, or at a non-scientific level (religious) to believe or disbelieve. He says that the common mistake is to think that if a person chooses to believe they do so at a religious level, while if they choose not to believe they do so at a scientific level. Essentially he argues that you can't have it both ways, it's either all scientific, or all religious (just the belief in the supernatural). MissionNPOVible (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Or in Nagel's case, apparently, specious rhetoric masquerading as logic. If that represents a notable opinion of due weight, then in should be presented as such, along with the more mainstream and less convoluted view to provide balance. Kevin Baas^talk 19:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, this thread went to shit real quick. I'd like to get it back on track by talking about quantitative changes to the revision I made. I've removed both Nagel and Monton for issues of notability, which also clears up the mucky sentence Dominus spoke of earlier. I was out camping for the weekend so I have yet to find a source showing that science's reliance upon methodological naturalism as an a priori criterion is the accepted, mainstream view of scientists/philosophers of science. I will look for this, but would gladly accept help. ;) Does anyone have further comments/suggestions/objections regarding the text I've proposed? -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 14:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

A quote from Barbara Forrest, philosopher, ID critic, and Kitzmiller witness, shows that she agrees with Larry Laudan about the demarcation problem (emphasis added):

“ The emphasis in this definition [of philosophical naturalism] is on the exclusivity of methodological naturalism. This exclusivity is not mandated a priori; the philosophical naturalist justifies it on the basis of the explanatory success of science and the lack of explanatory success of supernaturalism. ”

In light of this, I've added her name to the appropriate opinion and wrote another sentence making it clear that methodological naturalism is a useful means of distinguishing science from non-science because of its produced results, not any necessary affiliation with science. Perhaps this clears up the issue with methodological naturalism being the most common approach as well? -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 15:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Great job. That solves the "a prori" question well. I especially like the sentence that starts: "The fewer criteria are met...". In my experience, that is how most scientists actually think. Thanks for dropping Nagel and Monton. I appreciate your hard work! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Dominus! I will leave the revision on my sandbox for a little while so other editors can voice their opinions before I make the change (I know Dave wanted to take some time and read the material). And thanks a bunch for working with me to make substantive changes! -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 14:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Rather a rush, but on the basis of my concerns mentioned earlier, I've tried rearranging the sections in an alternative sandbox version, and have modified this particular part of the section in light of my reading of the sources, which discussed Pennock's comments at the Kitzmiller trial. If we want a pre-trial statement Pennock's Tower of Babel sets out his ideas on methodological naturalism, and we can look at his testimony. The more recent Pennock piece no longer seems to be freely available, but these blogs may be of interest. Sorry if I've misread that, but the discussions clearly came after Kitz and I think the section flows better in the sequence I've tried, as well as giving due weight to the majority view rather than starting with these philosophical disputes. . dave souza, talk 20:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No need to hurry, Dave... we've got plenty of time. As for your revision, I don't really like the opinions of the NAS, NSTA, and AAAS as the first paragraph: it feels more like a disclaimer, warning people about what is to come next. It seems more appropriate to start off, as the section's title suggests, with defining science. Perhaps we could meet in the middle and state the quotes from reputable science organizations immediately after we've introduced the demarcation problem (the first two sentences from my version)? I've done this on my sandbox, so please let me know what you think. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 15:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, MisterDub, your revised version looks like an improvement to me, that's better than my sandbox suggestion. As a minor point, i'm uncomfortable with "Laudan and philosopher Barbara Forrest instead claim that the content of the hypothesis must first be examined to determine its ability to solve empirical problems", both because of "claim" and because we're presenting Laudan as instead of Laudan. Perhaps better along the lines of "Having said that, Laudan as well as philosopher Barbara Forrest state that the content of the hypothesis must first be examined to determine its ability to solve empirical problems." . . dave souza, talk 18:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This looks mostly good. I would however suggest that the final sentence needs clarifying. Something like "Methodological naturalism is therefore an a posteriori criterion based its ability to yield consistent results." or similar. Calling it a "procedural necessity" would require analysis of the results of relaxing the criterion, rather than just the results of applying it -- which the article does not do. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I figured I'd be bold since it seems we're mostly in agreement about this change and the discussion here is winding down. I've amended my revision to take into account both dave's and Hrafn's suggestions, so I'm assuming any further issues will be minor and correctable in the future. Thanks, everyone, for the hard work! -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 18:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Bring home the Bacon

As far as the a priori methodological-naturalism stuff goes, two sources come to mind: Novum_Organum#Bacon_and_the_Scientific_Method and Scientific_method#cite_note-1. Kevin Baas^talk 20:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting to the question but can't be used here. Per WP:OR, especially WP:SYN, editors can't make such associations. The article here needs to limit itself to claims in published references that draw such links. Professor marginalia (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

What associations? Kevin Baas^talk 19:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Associations with ID in its modern sense, or even use of the same words though perhaps they'd have to be in translation. Also, they look to be primary sources so care is needed. In some ways their view of what we'd call science (for them the word meant knowledge) might have a passing resemblance to ID, in that they probably took a First Cause for granted, but differ from ID in that they sought explanations in Secondary Causes. "To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both."[4] . dave souza, talk 20:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

An association requires two objects. associations with ID to what? Also, I don't think Darwin can be considered a relevant source for the philosophy of science, nor do i think he intended to espouse anything of the sort with that quote. Nor do superficial semantic resemblances pass muster. (e.g. in gaelic there are 3 different words for "knowledge") The source from newton, however, citing the into paragraph from the "scientific method" article, would be an appropriate source on the topic of the definition of science (in the modern usage of the word) and more specifically what the scientific method is and is not. In association to what? In association to science and what it is and is not. If you don't think this is a good source, well then you should probably bring that up on the article on the scientific method, because they use it in the intro! Kevin Baas^talk 21:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)