Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 66

Archive 60

←

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

→

Archive 70

Revert explanation

I have reverted changes to the main article, and I thought I'd explain here in case anyone wondered. The changes introduced an unreliable source tag on one of the sources in the lead section that had recently been endorsed by several editors as being entirely appropriate. Moreover a later edit introduced the positively ridiculous assertion that ID is a scientific hypothesis. ID neither has the structure nor scope of a hypothesis, and as such, I made the choice to remove that change as well. I don't think this will be a wildly contentious revert, but I believe giving a thorough explaination more expansive than an edit summary allows is probably wise. i kan reed (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Not only did you remove the tag to the ICR as an unreliable source (which obviously it is), but, without any basis and without any explanation here or in your edit summary, you wholesale reverted other changes that included correcting the author of one of the sources and providing links to the source authors. Drrll (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It's possible that I threw the baby out with the bathwater, looking at the whole of the revert, but there are definetly no-go changes in that set. As for the unreliable source thing, since you said it was per talk, would you mind pointing out where exactly anyone endorsed the idea that morris was unreliable? As far as I can tell, several editors have suggested the source is perfectly adequate for the exact way it is being used. i kan reed (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, in my edit summary I said see Talk and WP:ORN, not per Talk. Also, I specified in my edit summaries that I was correcting the author of one of the sources and adding the authorlink field, as well as adding the editor to one of the sources (the same one). Drrll (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind restoring the author correction, authorlink entries, and editor addition? Drrll (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Sorry about the overzealous revert. i kan reed (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Done i kan reed (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Drrll (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

neo-creatonism in the lede

Per the discussion at NPOV/N [3] I've been bold and replaced the mention of neo-creationism with a more general summary phrase taken from the article. aprock (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I feel like a moron. The text I was asking you to revert was already in the article. My apologies. I think I don't read very well. i kan reed (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like the text that ID is "an outgrowth of creationism." I feel like "a form of creationism" is more accurate and informative, though perhaps less linguistically satisfying. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 18:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't like it either, but I reverted too quickly earlier, and didn't want to engage in edit warring over the subject. That ID is neocreationism and not just creationism is an important distinction. And while ID is an outgrowth of the creationist movement, I feel this version lacks some accuracy, as well as sources. This is certainly not a good compromise for the issue Drrll brought up, given the sources he specifically cited were saying ID was not exactly the same as creationism. Maybe I'm just super-conservative and like the old versions of everything better for no good reason. i kan reed (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm just using the language of the article here. If that language isn't justified, then it might be best to improve the body of hte article than update the lede. As for Drrll's take, I made this edit based on his comment here: [4]. aprock (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but an outgrowth doesn't necessarily imply that it is a form of creationism, which is how it is represented in the article. I'm not arguing against the use of the term creationism instead of neo-creationism (though the latter term is certainly accurate and more informative), but the use of the term outgrowth instead of form. Would that be an acceptable change? -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 19:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I am totally fine with that phrasing. The current phrasing may be due to a misunderstanding. Here is what I originally changed it to [5] before ikanread gave feedback about sourcing [6]. aprock (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've reverted back to that previous version. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 19:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

"Scientific Hypothesis"

Does this phrase appear in "The Creationists", which is the ref for the sentence? If not, then it should be removed as the status of ID as "a scientific hypothesis" is not supported by the rest of the article.Desoto10 (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Split discussion

I would like to formally propose that the 'Creating and teaching the controversy' section be split out into an article titled Intelligent design and science (unless somebody can come up with a better article), as (i) both this section and the article as a whole is too large to conveniently coexist & (ii) the section contains considerable detail not necessary for a top-level WP:SUMMARY article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Not happy with that title. Can we try brainstorming a little? (give me a day or two, I will try to think of something.) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm also concerned that is awfully close to Teach the Controversy; were you planning to combine Teach the Controversy with the proposed new article? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Ummm 'Creating and teaching the controversy' is the title of the current section, not the proposed title of the new article. The proposed title of the new article is Intelligent design and science -- which is not "awfully close to Teach the Controversy". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Reading. I plan to learn it some day. :-P KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

How about Scientific claims of the intelligent design movement? 71.97.114.29 (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Inaccurate, and therefore unworkable. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see that section has all that much to do with science. It's about methods. I would suggest retaining an abbreviated section here called Methods that lists and briefly defines the eight points. Why not incorporate the bulk into Teach the Controversy? Yopienso (talk) 01:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It's about how ID differs from the scientific method. It has sub-sections on Neo-creationism (let's not mention God & pretend that its science not creationism), Theistic science (let's let the supernatural into science), 'Defining science', (scientific) 'Peer review', and 'Intelligence as an observable [and thus scientifically discernable] quality'. Very little of what's here overlaps with Teach the Controversy -- which is about a DI PR campaign, not contrasting ID with science. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
How about Contrasting intelligent design and science? More accurate, but perhaps a bit cumbersome. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer that we avoid an "X vs. Y" type title if possible. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Pseudo-scientific claims of intelligent design examined would not fly. :) I keep coming back to "Methods." Yopienso (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Intelligent design: the manufactroversy while slightly more succinct, would probably not fly either, inviting accusations of POV. How about Academic basis of Intelligent design? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... thinks perhaps intelligent design in relation to science, intelligent design and scientific method. or even science and intelligent design. Can of worms here. . dave souza, talk 22:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been trying to come up with a good title, but have utterly failed. I think, of the many suggested titles, Hrafn's original Intelligent design and science is the best. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 18:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have stalled on the topic of what to call the new article, so I'm splitting the question. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Should the 'Creating and teaching the controversy' section be split out into its own article?

Yes: the article is too long and this is an obvious place to cut. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 15:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes what Mr D said. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No: this section describes things which are integral to ID proponents modus operandi. ID cannot be properly and fully explained without including the tactics used by its exponents to try and insinuate it into the mainstream. ID is not a scientific field of inquiry, it is a political movement and the methods used by IDers is entirely germain to this discussion. That the article is long is moot. If a subject requires a lot of space to explain fully then so be it. There is no policy that states what the maximum size of a Wikipedia article may be. Sure, there are guidelines, but that's all they are. If there is material that is unneccessary then it should be removed, but the fact that the discussion is about splitting the article rather than deleting the content indicates that the information needs to be kept. So far, no one has shown that this section does not belong in this article. Vague statements about it being "too long" just don't cut the mustard. This whole subject is complex, primarily because ID's proponents have introduced so many spuruious arguments that need to be exlained and debunked so that the casual reader may gain a proper understanding of just what is going on with ID. The fact that no-one seems to be able to come up with a satisfactory name for the proposed article is itself telling. This section simply does not stand on its own and thus should remain where it is. - Nick Thorne ^talk 08:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The sensible way to split a section out of an overly-long article is to retain an overview of the subtopic in the parent article, showing a link to the page with the more detailed description. See Evolution for example, where many sections have "further information" or "for more details on this topic, see..." as a section hatnote. With this method, information is not deleted, but kept in an easy place to get to. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 11:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyone else have an opinion? If not, can we go ahead with this? The article really needs to be trimmed. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 20:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Pardon my possible ignorance, but there already is a Teach the Controversy article.Farsight001 (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to look to see how much information is duplicated there, but the existence of this article doesn't fix the main issue: the Intelligent design article is too large. If the information isn't duplicated, we'll need to create a new article for the information before summarizing it, which will need to be done even if the content is mirrored in the Teach the Controversy article. I'm still reading, but the Teach the Controversy article seems to be different information, and therefore we will need a new article. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 20:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

If so, what should the new article be called?

Intelligent design and science seems a logical title and the best I've heard thus far. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 15:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Intelligent design and science should be uncontroversial enough. Since it will be the target of a {{Main|Intelligent design and science}} tag, it will be easy enough for an interested reader to find. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

"Intelligent design and science" is in no way a relevant title for the proposed content. If it is going to be anything it should retain the current section name as the name for the proposed article. However, there has still not been any reason given as to why the split is necessary other than vague hand waving at article length. The reason to split an article it seems to me is that a part of an existing article is really a separate subject. In this case, however, the section in question is a core part of the overall subject of the article and removing the section raises questions in my mind WRT WP:NPOV and WP:Undue weight. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You're frickin' kidding me, right? This NPOV shit is getting really annoying. Every miniscule change is seen as either attacking ID or giving it too much weight. It's ridiculous! The split isn't necessary, but strongly advised since it's well over the rule of thumb for an article that "Almost certainly should be divided." There is information in this section which is necessary, but not in this length or depth. Not only do we have an article that is much longer than it should be, but we're beating the reader to death with information. I mean, we have 6 paragraphs to say that ID hasn't published anything in a reputable science journal! We could even remove most of that information and be fine, but we're only talking about moving it to its own article and paraphrasing it here. Surely that cannot be seen as giving undue weight to ID.

And as to the title, there is nothing in the current section about "Creating and teaching the controversy." The entire section is about ID's roots as a religio-political movement and its failure to be accepted as what it purports (i.e. science). Sure, we could title it, "ID is a farce propagated by religious morons," but I'm guessing that wouldn't fly. The title "Intelligent design and science" accurately reflects the topic of the section in a NPOV manner: though ID is portrayed as science, it is a religio-political movement to teach Christianity's Special Creation in US public schools. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 15:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Not only has it nothing to do with it, but the idea to Teach the Controversy (and thus the need to create an explicit 'controversy' to teach) post-dates ID, its lets-hide-God Neo-Creationism and its pretensions at being science, by several years. We would therefore need a Tardis to fit the latter into the former. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

How about Intelligent design and education, or even Intelligent design and education in the United States? Teach the Controversy is a specific initiative by a single organization, and so is a bit too narrow. Intelligent design and science would seem to presuppose that intelligent design is scientific, which is exactly the point at issue. Intelligent design and education would be the proper place for much material in Intelligent design, which at present is far too current-controversy and US-centric, and free the Intelligent design article to center on the broader historical and philosophical background of this way of thinking. Plazak (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Intelligent design and science "presupposes ID is scientific" only if you read meaning into it that isn't there. One might as well say that Babies and storks presupposes that babies are delivered by big birds. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Use of "Scientific Hypothesis" in the lede

I twice now mistook attempts to change the summary as adding the term "scientific hypothesis", when in fact it was already there and just red because of formatting changes. I feel like "scientific hypothesis" both misstates the goals of ID, and the actual theory. I would much prefer, given The Creationists doesn't use the exact term hypothesis, that we reword

contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented as a scientific hypothesis

into

contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented in scientific language.

I need to swing by a library or bookstore to check on the wording used in the source, because RS is king, but I feel the current phrasing miscommunicates the nature of ID(borad scope mechanism of understanding the world vs. concrete single hypothesis). i kan reed (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I think changing "as a scientific hypothesis" to "in scientific language" is a more accurate description of ID. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I really don't have a problem with the phrasing, "presented as a scientific hypothesis." Had ID not been an obvious religio-political movement, a serious postulating of exogenesis of life on Earth would be considered a scientific hypothesis. I'm also not sure how your suggestion would ease your concerns that it "misstates the goals of ID, and the actual theory." -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 18:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

For an example of what I'm talking about, see the Panspermia article, which describes a serious, scientific hypothesis that life was brought to Earth from an extraterrestrial source: "Panspermia [...] is the hypothesis that life exists throughout the Universe, distributed by meteoroids, asteroids and planetoids." -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 18:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I do have a problem with the phrase because it is incorrect. However, if the source uses that phrase, then I can live with it. ID is neither an hypothesis or scientific as this article points out. Until someone finds that the source uses that terminology I will delete it.Desoto10 (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No need to be rash, it's possible the source cited already uses that terminology. This is a minor phrasing quible and it can wait to be fixed. I personally would like to check out The Creationists specifically for this point. i kan reed (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

In fact, after reading, please revert or rewrite. It's very important to the summary of ID that it be made clear that the goal of ID is to be taken as science. It's a fundemental element of ID's nature, and should be included for someone looking to understand ID at a definition level. i kan reed (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Desoto10, please note that the text does not say that ID is a scientific hypothesis, but that it is merely presented as such, which is absolutely accurate. And, rather than remove the information until you have confirmed the source's language, WP:AGF would have us assume the editor who placed it accurately represented the source upon placement. As such, I'm going to revert your edit until there is adequate reason to remove/replace it. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 19:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I got interrupted before I finished my comment so I had to just post the 1 liner and sign off. I was going to say that I can see someone having POV issues with the phrase "scientific hypothesis", but "presented in scientific language" is true and accurate, and strikes me as more neutral, something that ID proponents would agree with as well as scientists. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

To MrDub--My concern is that the article does not support the statement, regardless of what the source says. Nowhere does the article say that ID is "presented as a scientific hypothesis" but rather, “…and present intelligent design in the language of science as though it were a scientific hypothesis.[n 18][n 20]”. These statements are fundamentally different. So we can either change the article or change the lede, but we cannot leave the lede with a statement that is not supported by the rest of the article.Desoto10 (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Numbers(2006) pp379-380 does not say anything about a "scientific hypothesis" or anything remotely similar. The citation was, I seem to remember, originally to pp373, 379-380, with p373 calling ID a "bold attempt to rewrite the basic rules of science" and discussing its origins in the teleological argument ("design argument"). I suspect that the material has been considerably garbled since it was originally cited. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• FWIW This discussion was where "scientific hypothesis" was put in to the lede--it was deemed a succinct way to describe how ID purports to be science, but actually is not. Mildly Mad^T_C 11:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Then I suspect we may have to decide between having a lede-as-purely-summary-of-article-body and a lede-as-cited-to-its-own-sources -- as having half-and-half is getting more than a little confusing & more than a little difficult to maintain. Regardless, the "scientific hypothesis" is not attributable to Numbers, so should not be cited to him. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright, assuming that changing it is settled, what approach do we want to take. I can see 3 possible courses:

1. removing the citation, and letting the statement stand. I'd oppose this, because I don't feel it communicates the scope and nature of ID properly.
2. removing the bit about scientific hypothesis. I'd also oppose this on the grounds that ID's goal of being taken as science is crucial summary information.
3. Some sort of rephrasing. I proposed one above, but it's not perfectly supported by Numbers either, so that deserves some discussion.

I strongly lean towards #3, but there could be arguments for #1 or #2 I'm not considering. i kan reed (talk) 13:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

What about "presented as if it were a scientific hypothesis"? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The following wording from Numbers p373 may prove useful as a basis of a consensus wording:

Proponents however, insisted that it was "not a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins -- one that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution."

— [the quote appears to be from Stephen Meyer]

I would further point out that IDers portray ID as a (scientific) "theory" far more frequently than they portray it as a "scientific hypothesis". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess I'm not understanding what all the fuss is about. Isn't saying that ID is "presented as a scientific hypothesis" a fair summary of Meyer's quote as it is represented in The Creationists? And, if people are worried about the term hypothesis in the lead, they're definitely not going to like theory; a theory is a much more evidenced and stable explanation than an hypothesis!

As to i kan reed's points, 1) I wouldn't want to remove the citation, but the statement as is seems supported by the source. Sounds to me that leaving it unchanged is a viable option. 2) I'm strongly opposed to removing such an essential component of ID as its parading as science. 3) I'm not necessarily opposed to rephrasing the text, but, again, I really don't see what's wrong with the text now. And, Desoto10, I really don't see the fundamental difference in the two paraphrased statements you posted: stating that ID is put forward as a scientific hypothesis is more succinct, as it presupposes its displaying in "the language of science." -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 14:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that "presented as a scientific hypothesis" is open to interpretation that the presentation is valid, and that there is a genuine hypothesis in question, rather than mere parading. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)MD: you've got to keep two things in mind: the first is that the page in question is not the page that is currently cited, and the above quotation was not the piece that the material was based upon even when that page was cited -- so I'm very much feeling my way here (you were getting this quote only minutes after I stumbled upon it myself). Second, no I don't think it's the same thing. Hypothesis + evidence = theory (assuming everything goes well). The IDers were not stating that 'hey we've come up with an idea, let's now test it' -- they're saying 'we had an idea we tested it, we've got evidence for it so we've got a theory'. They are not claiming that ID is some tentative "scientific hypothesis", they're claiming that it is a solid, well-evidenced scientific theory. O'course the scientific community has good reason for considering this to all be complete bollocks -- but that does not alter the claim that IDers are making -- and if we report their claim at all, we should at least do so accurately. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Dominus, I guess I don't see that as a problem when the beginning of the sentence states that ID is a form of creationism. Maybe that's just me though.

Hrafn, that makes sense to me. I assumed that the issue here was with the term hypothesis and, if that was seen as lending too much credibility to ID, theory would definitely not fly. I think people go overboard with trying to push theory as some untouchable explanation anyway, so I really have no problem using that term. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 15:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Count me with the ones who do not see "presented as ... scientific" as a problem. Including "presented as" implies a degree of doubt, which is elaborated in the article. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not just that, but does anyone actually try and describe ID as a hypothesis from, say, the DI? There are a couple of subordinate ideas that are structured more like hypotheses(e.g. irreducible complexity), though I need not point out they fail at being scientific. It's not about credibility, but structure, and how it was presented. ID is not presented, to my knowledge, as a hypothesis, at all. That is what makes the statement dubious. i kan reed (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Here's my proposal:

It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea". It avoids specifying that the hypothesized intelligent designer is God.^{pp 373, 379-380}

I would point out that Numbers explicitly states that what the IDers are avoiding mentioning is "God" (who Numbers state privately admit the intelligent designer is a politically correct stand-in for) and "Genesis" -- so it is rather difficult (and a heavily distortionary) to get the intelligent designer in here without God based upon Numbers. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I would further point out that this identity is further substantiated by the Kitzmiller decision, summarising Haught:

However, as Dr. Haught testified, anyone familiar with Western religious thought would immediately make the association that the tactically unnamed designer is God, as the description of the designer in Of Pandas and People (hereinafter “Pandas”) is a “master intellect,” strongly suggesting a supernatural deity as opposed to any intelligent actor known to exist in the natural world.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That'd work great. Far more in line with the source. I like it. i kan reed (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That proposal seems to be a more verbose way of saying what is already there. It seems like the majority here are in favor of a change and I will yield to consensus, but I don't see how these suggestions improve the lead. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 17:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Better.Desoto10 (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I think "...presented by its advocates as..." is still inaccurate. they don't actually "present" any evidence at all, contrary to what they claim. and to say that it's "presented as" suggest that ID could possibly be mistaken as an "evidence based scientific hypthesis"; that it has at least a superficial resemblance to one. but this is not at all the case. "...refered to by its advocates as..." would be more accurate as well as more to the point. Kevin Baas^talk 13:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Lack of visual aids

Used to have a bacterial flagellum version of this, dunno where it is now.

I've noticed the latter half of the article is really lacking in supporting visual aids. I'd be happy to brew something up(or import from another article where appropriate) if there was a section that we could identify as particularly able to be improved. I think there's a lot of potential for a visual aid like a neural net diagram under "Intelligence as an observable quality" for example. Thoughts? i kan reed (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Tricky. Ran into problems with original research last time we tried to produce something, but you never know. . dave souza, talk 22:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Does WP:SYN seriously apply to images? The conjunction of SYN and copyright law seems like it would create a situation with basically no images at all. I thought there was more flexibility there. i kan reed (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the topic was just more contentious then, syn has some leeway for images but there's still a need to avoid new thoughts or novel analysis not in a reliable source. However, as you say there's probably more flexibility. . . dave souza, talk 13:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Irreducible_complexity#Eye and Evolution of the eye have images that could be used in the irreducible complexity section. Raul654 (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That is not the section of the article that is lacking. It may be worth incorporating, but I don't want to introduce clutter. For now I'd like to focus on one image for the bottom half. If you think the irreducible complexity has viable candidates, I wouldn't stop you from adding them. i kan reed (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the addition of more images would be beneficial, but I think we need to concentrate on removing material from this oversized article before we go about that. After we have the content whittled down, we will have a better idea of what images are appropriate. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 15:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to find images for something that's not even tangentially empirical. I don't think one should be all that surprised at the lack of images for this article. If they said things were made by gnomes we could at least show a cartoon drawing of a gnome. But we don't even have that. Kevin Baas^talk 14:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps add some logos of key organizations (AiG, NAS, etc) or photos of key people alongside where they are mentioned? Sure, it doesn't add a lot of EV, but it would at least break up the wall o' text. Mildly Mad^T_C 14:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Answers in Genesis isn't part of the IDM. If by NAS you mean the United States National Academy of Sciences, their article does not feature a logo. Nor does National Center for Science Education or American Association for the Advancement of Science. This probably leaves us with Discovery Institute (has a logo of sorts -- but not particularly distinctive) & Center for Science and Culture (moderately distinctive). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I was thinking of File:Artificial_neural_network.svg for Intelligence as an observable quality. I think it would highlight the idea of arbitrary processing on inputs giving viable outputs. With maybe a caption like

Emergent behavior in software can give rise to seemingly intelligent descision making.

The file exists, is GFDL, and provides a supporting visual element to what is, right now, a pile of words. i kan reed (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Simple English Page

I just took a look at the Simple English article with the title "Intelligent Design". It seems to have little relationship to the English version. I'll take a shot at making the simple english article a little more in line with this one and I invite anybody else with an interest to do likewise.Desoto10 (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

non-religious id

Theres many non religious ID scientists, just look at Rhawn Joseph who is an atheist, Von Daniken (ancient astronauts atheism), Giuseppe Sermonti non religious intelligent design advocate, michael pitman non religious ID, Mark Ludwig (non religious ID)Bradley John Monton (atheist intelligent design). fred hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe both atheists who claimed intelligent design they claimed ID was natural, see their book cosmic life force, they claimed the universe itself was ID, the cosmic force, nothing to do with religion or a creator. none of this mentioned on the article. also michael denton is an agnostic intelligent design advocate... the list goes on and on. James Le Fanu supports intelligent design and he doesnt believe in God.. he claims some force may be behind ID but hes rejected religion. alfred wallace also anti religious claimed a spiritual force was intelligent and ID exists in nature, many others. all supressed is it from the article? see also david stove an agnostic who has defended ID, David Swift - author of evolution Under the microscope, swift is an environmental scientist who is non religious ID. see also Darwinism: A time for funerals - Norman Macbeth anti religious but has supported ID. see also Paul S. Moorhead. Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution or Leo Berg. Nomogenesis. argued against darwinism claiming intelligence is involved with evolution. also see The Genomic Potential Hypothesis - Christian Schwabe a biochemist who is an atheist who has argued against evolution. some of this should be added to the article, also see Graeme Donald Snooks. The Collapse of Darwinism : Or The Rise of a Realist Theory of Life (atheist) or Soren Lovtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (atheist) and Periannan Senapathy. Independent Birth of Organisms (atheist) and see Development and evolution: Complexity and change in Biology - Stanley Salthe. IntelligentDesign!12 (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It may astonish you to learn that Wallace died a long time before ID creationism was invented. Similarly with the others, you're presenting original research with no verification that these in any way connect to the current incarnation of ID, are in any way significant to the topic, or somehow override the well sourced statement about ID leaders. A list of claimed supporters doesn't cut it. . . dave souza, talk 21:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

ID wasn't invented by religious folk, Wallace used the word "intelligent designer" and "intelligence" throughout his work, so did many other vitalists and early biologists. Also the claim that all members of the discovery institute are christians is false. The book which started the modern ID movement was started by Michael Denton's book, Denton is an agnostic he was with the discovery institute, hes never been religious, theres also Giuseppe Sermonti a member of the discovery, who is an agnostic he has a popular book out. there may be some idiotic christian bible humpers such as behe, wells and johnson who have highjacked ID with the bible, but theres many nonreligious ID, they should be mentioned on the article, see also for example Walter J. Remine author of the Biotic message, a well known non religious ID advocate. Stanley Salthe signed the Discovery Institute's declaration of Doubts over Evolution he is a well known biologist, hes antireligious. Paul davies has also supported intelligent design not religious. Also there are hindu, buddhist and jewish ID proponents, see lee spetner hes jewish, albert low a zen buddhist rejected neodarwinism and had some supportive things to say about ID in his The Origin of Human Nature. A Zen Buddhist Looks at Evolution, and hes an atheist. even the atheist francis crick suggested a spacehip had seeded some chemicals on earth in the past. Raelism call themselves atheist intelligent design they have a book published and 1000s of members. IntelligentDesign!12 (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

DaveSouza you describe on your page ID as an "intelligent design con", some would say that is not neutral. It's understandable why you may feel this way, but you have not researched this topic in depth, if you did you would realise there are 100s of nonreligious ID advocates and that ID itself started from nonreligion. I won't get into a debate about this. Il add some references on it at some point. IntelligentDesign!12 (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, ID was created for the explicit purpose of teaching religion in U.S. public schools. It exists for no other reason. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, yes and that's why Alfred Wallace used the word Intelligent designer in his biology books, over a 100 years ago and why he wrote a whole book dedicated to ID in Britain (a non religious book) just to teach religion in "US public schools". It's also why the word "intelligent design" and "intelligence" pops up in most late 19th / early 20th century biology books, from vitalist biologists such as Hans Driesch (german) or Johannes Peter Müller (German) Louis Agassiz (Swiss) or from the British biologist Richard Owen... yep all this was to teach "religion" in US public schools even though these scientists were not living in america and none of them were religious. It's also why the atheist Hoyle used the word Intelligent design and why Michael Denton used the word Intelligent design an agnostic. You certainly know alot about ID! IntelligentDesign!12 (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

IntelligentDesign!12, you are absolutely correct that many, many people of diverse worldviews have suggested our world was designed by an overarching intelligence or that it exhibits evidence of having been designed by an intelligence. Please see at the very top of the article the note, This article is about intelligent design as promulgated by the Discovery Institute. We do not at present have an article that deals with the ideas you list. (Some editors will point you to Teleological argument, but that really discusses those ideas that aim to prove the existence of God.) Does that help explain the limited scope of this particular article? You could create an article called "Non-religious perspectives of design in the universe" or something similar. Actually, you'd have a hard time choosing a title and crafting an article that would pass muster, but it could be done. There's the challenge. Are you game? Yopienso (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but this has "original research" warnings flashing like crazy. Solid and authoritative secondary/tertiary sources are needed to correlate Von Daniken to Wallace, etc . It's a NoGo without solid and authoritative secondary/tertiary sources that explicitly make the correlations. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't you think there's an article to be written that collects--doesn't correlate--the multitude of thinkers who have perceived intelligent design (lower case) in the universe? Not as a movement or a philosophy, but just a collection of references to intelligent design (lower case) by notable people outside the Discovery Institute. Yopienso (talk) 07:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No, not really. I mean, I guess one could compile a list of people who think the teleological argument is strong enough to accept some level of creation by an intelligence, but that's all it would be. I honestly don't see how you're going to get an article that presents information about the subject by those who've pioneered it, such as this or the one on the teleological argument, let alone an article that will coherently present the multitude of opinions one can have regarding the teleological argument. I see that article as being prone to delete requests, but all the more luck to whoever chooses to take up this task.

IntelligentDesign!12, it sounds a lot like these authors are giving credence to the philosophical teleological argument, not ID. Do any of those you've listed specifically refer to the ID presented as science (as opposed to intelligent design or intelligence in a general, philosophical sense)? -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 14:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be many sources for David Swift and Michael Denton, Denton is a physician, an intelligent design advocate but also an agnostic, Swift is an environmental scientist who is anti-religious.

"Leighton Academic Press was set up to publish Evolution under the microscope. This is an exclusively scientific, not religious, critique of the theory of evolution" - Link

"The Intelligent Design movement appears at times to be primarily an American phenomenon, no doubt driven by our unique political, religious and educational situation. However, from time-to-time a significant book appears from another continent, adding fuel to the growing ID firestorm. The classic example is Australian biologist Michael Denton and his foundational book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Another example has just surfaced in the UK by David Swift entitled Evolution under the Microscope: a scientific critique of the theory of evolution. Swift's critique of Darwinian evolution appears almost independent of the ID movement and the U.S. issues. Instead he comes at the topic as a scientist that was once content with evolution theory, but who grew increasingly frustrated with a theory that could not account for the modern evidence of molecular biology." "Swift does not argue from or in defense of what the Bible (or any other religious text) may say on the matter. Neither is it typical 'creation science', for example he accepts that the earth is billions of years old" Link

"In contrast to the other would-be pioneers of Intelligent Design, Denton describes himself as an agnostic." - Link

I would point out that Michael Denton basically started the modern day ID movement. His book influenced Behe and Johnson etc to become advocates of intelligent design, so Denton should be mentioned on the article. Applesmangos (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I would also point out - ICON-RIDS which stands for International Coalition of Non-Religious ID Scientists & Scholars has connections to the discovery institute. Sources Link ICON RIDS Website The owner of ICON RIDS is William Brookfield a non-religious ID advocate.Link Applesmangos (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd point out that ID sources such as www.arn.org, www.uncommondescent.com, icon-rids.blogspot.com and conservapedia.com are self-published and unreliable, with an extremely poor reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Leighton Academic Press appears to be recycling the hokum, but the self-published description makes no mention of ID. As for Denton, he's an influence but hardly active as a leader other than setting the trend for misinformation: "we're all scientists here, not religious at all, nosiree". As the 2009 book you cite for his self-description notes, "More recently, he has moved to distance himself from the Intelligent Design movement". Reliable third party sourcing needed. . dave souza, talk 07:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Michael Denton should be mentioned in the history section of ID on this article. He was a member of the discovery institute at one point, and as mentioned his book influenced the American modern ID movement, Denton is still a proponent of ID but decided to remove himself from the American ID movement which he claimed is dominated by religion. See his website also: "I have never accepted the mainstream ‘Darwinian view’ that life on earth and particularly mankind are the products of blind unintelligent processes. I have always been convinced and argued throughout my academic career that our existence is ultimately a matter of design. My primary intellectual aim has always been to show that the findings of science support the traditional teleological and anthropocentric view of the world." http://www.michaeljdenton.com/?p=1 Applesmangos (talk) 11:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Still self published: a reliable secondary source is needed. Note that we cite expert opinion that Thaxton was the significant early influence, and his book predates Denton's. . . dave souza, talk 14:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

In-universe sourcing

Hi,

I would like opinions from the regulars on this page about a debate going on at Talk:Astrology. People are arguing that we can't mention responses in astrological journals to an article published in Nature, because the astrological "peer-reviewed" journals are not RS. Some are also arguing that in-universe astrological sources cannot be used at all in the article. I notice that many in-universe sources like this are used here, so I'm hoping for an opinion on this issue. No one is suggesting that in-universe sources be used to refute mainstream sources, just that they be included as attributed material or attributed responses, in the same way they're used in this article.

Posted at Talk:Intelligent design and Talk:Creation Science Talk:Creation–evolution controversy B^e——C_ritical 19:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Reverts by Farsight001

If you look at the concept of intelligent design, it came about a couple of years before Charles Thaxton, so I added this before his mention in the concept section, two scientists defended intelligent design in the 1980s and practically formed the early ID movement, Pitman in 1984 and Denton in 1985, this was three years before Thaxton. So I am not sure why this has been reverted, it is important information in the history of ID. Please explain. Thank you. Gutterpunks (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, this (to all involved) edit war (and your (Gutterpunks) violation of 3RR on top of that) will hopefully end right.... now. And now we'll move on to discussion. I hope. I'll be around if help is needed to mediate or moderate any discussion (or drop me a note on my talkpage if help is needed). Otherwise, I could just find the 3RR/WAR noticeboard ^{I know I've got that link someplace...}

Seriously, no article is that important that we need to engage in edit and revert wars. Let's work this out instead. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Farsight001, you even cited BRD and continued anyway. :-/ (I did that once too... so, let's move on from there; forward though, not in these endless circles). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It happens (i.e. edit warring) and it's never pretty. But moving on, I appreciate that Gutterpunks has explained what he was doing. I think it is now up to Farsight001 to speak to his concern. Sunray (talk) 02:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Lemme know if you all need a hand. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

As I pointed out in the edit summary the first time, per WP:BRD, the responsibility is on YOU, Gutterpunks, to support your changes on the talk page after being reverted (and BEFORE re-adding them into the article). You were bold (B), you were reverted (R), now you start to discuss (D). That's how it works. It is your responsibility to provide a justification for your changes to the article, and then to make changes AFTER a consensus has been reached.

Also, calling my edits vandalism when they in no way represent vandalism is a violation of policy as well. I highly suggest you familiarize yourself with posting policies and standards before you try editing again, lest your account be very short lived. (and no, that's not a threat)Farsight001 (talk) 06:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

???? and you still give no reason why you reverted the edits? It looks like you actually have no reason. Can you explain your problem with the information which was added to the article? So far it looks like you are not even interested in this you just revert for no reason?. I am not understanding this! This is crazy! So let me get this straight - You actually have no problem with what I added to the article you have given no reasons at all for reverting, you have not even read what I added or looked at the references by the looks of it but apparently it is up to me to now come to a talk page to explain my edits? Good Edits which you have not even looked at? Never heard of this before! Is this new on wikipedia? And it is violation of policy if you are reverting peoples edits which are well referenced and giving no reason at all.

I am clearly wasting my time here but let me briefly go over the edits - Charles Thaxton in the late 80s wrote an early book on intelligent design this is mentioned in the article, but there were two scientists who used the concept of intelligent design in 1984 and in 1985 (these were the only two scientists) they were Micheal Pitman a biologist and Michael Denton a biochemist, we have reliable references for both which were put on the article, both of their books pre-date Thaxtons by 3-4 years, and both were crucial for influencing many advocates of the later intelligent design movement. You will need to explain why you keep reverting this information, what do you have against this information being added to the article?. It would help if you explained why you revert edits. Gutterpunks (talk) 10:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

DID YOU NOT READ A FUCKING THING I SAID?!?!?!? It is YOUR responsibility to support your edits, and it is YOUR responsibility to do that while the information is NOT in the article. This is standard wikipedia policy. Continuing to re-add this information without FIRST discussing it is considered disruptive editing and can enjoy your account a nice 24 hour block from editing. You really need to learn how it works here. So here's what's going to happen because it's how it is supposed to happen. I'm going to remove the information once again. We are going to discuss it. And discuss it. And discuss it. And then we will come to a consensus, which depending on the activeness of the participating editors, can take anywhere from a few days to a few months, and THEN, AFTER an agreement has been reached on what to add to the article, one of us can make the changes. Otherwise, enjoy your ban from editing.Farsight001 (talk) 12:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I have already discussed why I included the information about Pitman and Denton to the article, as explained they are important to the development of the concept of ID, see above and on the edit summary, and see the references which explain why. You have still not given your reason why you want the information not in the article and why you have reverted it. This discussion can only go forward if you explain why you do not want the information added to the article. Everyone else seems to be happy with it. So what is your issue with the edits? Gutterpunks (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, you're talking about the post you made just a bit up from this, which, btw, was made after your last re-addition to the article, so you really didn't explain at all and I don't know where you got the idea that you did. Even so, it doesn't exactly matter because you should't be re-adding the information while editors are taking issue with it in the first place.

As for my issue with your edits, that would be the bias wording, the poor placement, the lack of notability of your sources, the lack of expertise of your sources. (a biochemist is a chemist, not a biologist. He is no expert in evolution). In addition, the use of the term "neo-Darwinism" is incorrect. Though that may be the word the texts you cited used, it is still the wrong word. (which really just lends more credence to the non-reliability of your sources if they can't get such a simple word right). Farsight001 (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if material is contentious it should not be forced through. The first source doesn't mention intelligent design, due weight has not been shown. The review notes how poor his arguments are. The addition is also a WP:SYNTHESIS of the two sources. The second source is about a chemist, a non-expert, where due weight has also not been shown. Mainstream responses, where applicable, have also not been shown. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• The reference for Michael Pitman can be found in the New Scientist Magazine (mainstream) mentions that his book brings "arguement from design up to date" this was in 1984, Pitman also uses the concept of intelligent design throughout his book, he used the word "design" not "created", in the introduction of his book he says that his book can be seen as reviving Paley's arguement up until the present day - And you are saying this is not revelant to the history of ID?. Also see Doubts about Darwin: a history of intelligent design by Thomas Woodward pages 64-68 and pages 96 where Michael Pitman and Michael Denton are both mentioned and discussed (see the other reference for Denton where it says he practically launched the ID movement), they are mentioned along with Charles Thaxton as the earliest influences on the intelligent design movement. So to summarise:

• Michael Pitman - 1984 - Book Adam and Evolution: a scientific critique of neo-Darwinism
• Michael Denton - 1985 - Book Evolution: a theory in crisis
• Charles Thaxton - 1988 - Book Of pandas and people

These were the first three intelligent design books, and they should be mentioned in the concept section of ID on this article as they were crucial in the developent of intelligent design.

• It is also silly to say Michael Denton is not an expert, we are talking here about an intelligent design advocate not a mainstream evolutionary biologist, this is an article about intelligent design. Michael Behe is a biochemist and ID he is mentioned on the article, so why is mention of Denton not aloud? Even when it is well referenced? Gutterpunks (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

ID claims to be scientific, and thus it is under the scrutiny of the scientific field. In other words, we reflect mainstream scientific views on the subject per policy. Neither Denton nor Behe, nor Thaxton are mainstream. Sure, they're relevant because they are big names in the ID movement. However, they do not qualify as experts.Farsight001 (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

For some reason Gutterpunks omits Charles Thaxton's 1984 The Mystery of Life's Origin, we have expert opinion linking this to ID. This seems to have been published in January 1984, so is likely to be the first of the books under discussion.

The New Scientist review of Michael Pitman's 1984 Adam and Evolution makes it clear that this is an example of creationism seeking justification in the design argument: we already cover that point by noting that creationists frequently invoked the design argument to explain complexity in nature. There's no source cited for the claim that this is ID, so it's ruled out by WP:NOR.

I'm sympathetic to a mention of Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, though this 1987 review and the booksellers I've checked indicate that this is a 1986 book. Both Behe and Johnson apparently said that they rejected evolution after reading the book, but that only indicates that it supports anti-evolution. Angus Macleod Gunn says this "laid the foundations" for ID, but doesn't say that it was an origin of the concept. The 1987 review is clear that it typified creation science literature and creationist arguments. We know that ID is an extension of creation science and creationism, but there's no evidence that the specific concepts in the book were a source of origin of ID. A better secondary source is needed for this. . . dave souza, talk 16:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Charles Thaxton's The Mystery of Life's Origin was not an intelligent design book. It is a chemisty book written to discredit abiogenesis and the primordial soup theory nothing in the book about design. That is a 1984 book, but the book itself does not mention the word "design" in the book, it was a semi-creationist work regarding the earths chemical evolution, at the time Thaxton was a creationist, Intelligent design was rather unknown to him then and the book uses no intelligent design arguements, near the end of the book he even mentions God, this is not intelligent design. If we wish to be accurate the first modern era book advocating intelligent design is the 1984 book by Michael Pitman every page of the book is an update of the design arguement of Paley put into modern terms, it came out just before Michael Denton's book Evolution: a theory in crisis, Pitman claims there is a coded design in all plants and animals and left the identity of the designer open, he even uses the word "designer" many times, this was the first ID book it has all the classic signs of what the arguements the later ID avocates used. This really was the first Modern era Intelligent design book - If this book is not aloud to be mentioned on this article, then it should be put on the arguement from design article. The other influences on ID were Denton (1986 third printing as you say not 85) and after that it was Thaxton with his Of pandas and people in 1988. I will put up some more references on here. Gutterpunks (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

First, if Thaxton's book is a chemistry book about abiogenesis, then it has no relevance to this subject, so why bring it up? Second, ID advocates mention God on regular occasion. Third, even if everything you say is true, that doesn't justify adding what you actually added to the article. If what you say is true, then it would be pertinent to the development of ID as a concept, not as defense of its voracity.Farsight001 (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes Thaxton's 1984 book is a chemistry book it has no place in ID, i did not bring that up another user called Dave Souza did, he clearly has not read that book, it is a very boring chemistry book where in the last chapter God is mentioned it has nothing to do with ID, the word design or designer is not used once. Thaxton is already mentioned on the article with his book of pandas and people, so let's forget about him. The concern here is with Pitman and Denton, heres the question, what does it take to get Michael Pitman and Michael Denton mentioned on the article? I have already listed references which link them to the early origin of ID. Doubts about Darwin: a history of intelligent design by Thomas E. Woodward pages 64-68 and pages 96 link Denton and Pitman to the formation of the intelligent design movement. Gutterpunks (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Barbara Forrest: "The ID movement began in the early 1980s with the publication of The Mystery of Life's Origin (MoLO 1984) by creationist chemist Charles B. Thaxton with Walter L. Bradley and Roger L. Olsen." Worth reading on, perhaps we should say a bit more about this. It would also be good to get more expert views on the topic. As for Pitman's book, published third party expert views are needed to show any connection between ID and this creationist or creation science use of the design argument. That view has to be explicit, it's not enough to present a design argument and assume that this is in some way relevant to ID. . . . dave souza, talk 17:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow that is crazy, I can tell you now Barbara Forrest is wrong not suprising though "She is a critic of intelligent design and the Discovery Institute." = Not neutral, and her book on the history of ID has been criticised as innacurate by many ID adovates, she clearly does not know the history of ID before criticising it and making things up, of course to be expected if that is her agenda, as explained The mystery of life's origin has nothing to do with ID the book doesn't use the word designer or design once, it's a standard chemistry book with a theistic tinge on the end written by many authors a few of which were creationists, the ID movement did not begin with that book, some may say it was an influence, but begin? Her article is called "Know your creationists" clearly Barbara does not know. Regarding Pitman, theres no more references for him, you see theres two articles in the newscientist magazine and hes mentioned in Woodwards history of the ID book, but we have references for Denton. Evolution in the Antipodes: Charles Darwin and Australia By Tom Frame page 195 mentions Dentons book as an influence on intelligent design and "launching the movement" big words indeed, oddly enough it also mentions Thaxton's chemistry book from 1984, and concludes regarding the book "but it did not launch the contemporary intelligent design movement". Poor Barbara. Gutterpunks (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Barbara Forrest's work has stood up well to scrutiny, unlike ID apologists such as Thomas E. Woodward whose opinions on science as an evangelical theologian "defending intelligent design and refuting Darwin's theory of evolution" should only be shown in mainstream context. Tom Frame as "the director of St. Mark’s National Theological Centre and a regular media commentator" looks more mainstream, it will be interesting to consider his views as a whole rather than snippets taken out of context. . dave souza, talk 17:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

lol from the way this conversation has gone, it looks like we may have one sentence on denton added and that is it. I am happy with that, I am finished here, It would be best if someone else could add that sentence in a couple of days, I will let other users discuss that. Gutterpunks (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion, sources for improvements

I have never seen it, but The Mystery of Life's Origin does not seem to be a textbook, but does, apparently, suggest intelligent design. See here. Excerpts and back cover. Scott and Matzke. (Do a page search for "Thaxton.") Scholarly review. (Subscription required.) Yopienso (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks, Yopienso, even before checking the others, the Scott and Matzke paper looks invaluable. Thaxton et al.'s MoLo can be credited with originating "specified complexity" of "genetic information" which they claimed showed evolution contradicted the 2LoT, and something more general about "no new information" by A. E. Wilder-Smith [possibly published in 1981] also inspired ID proponents. Buell's FTE begun in 1981 had two project, a critique which was published as MoLo, and a school text which became Pandas of 1989.
Interesting point: "Although ID proponents point to The Mystery of Life’s Origin as being the foundational publication for the movement that came to be called intelligent design, it was just one of many books written in the early 1980s that represented attempts by believers in biblical inerrancy to develop a creationist science that avoided the pitfalls of more traditional creation science, such as hostility to an old earth (71–74)."
So, a good basis for improvements. Will try to come back to this, if anyone can use this before me as a basis to improve the section that will be very helpful. dave souza, talk 20:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You know, other than specific mention of ID in the phrase, "Michael Pitman who wrote a book defending intelligent design in 1984," I didn't have a problem with the text added by Gutterpunks; I don't know why this got so heated. My main concern is adding a bunch of information to an article which _still_ needs to be split. It seems like everyone lost interest in that though. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we're on the same wavelength about Pitman not mentioning ID, synthesis to link creation science using the design argument to ID is just bloat. Amusing to find from Numbers that around 1942 Henry M. Morris "would sometimes study the butterflies and wasps that flew in through the window. Being familiar with structural design, he calculated the improbability of such complex creatures developing by chance and concluded that nature as well as the Bible argued for special creation." Hey, that's Behe and Dembski but about 50 years earlier! My synthesis, so not allowable. Agree about the split discussed earlier in relation to a different section, why not do it? . . dave souza, talk 22:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If I recall, the last time Hrafn asked for support of splitting the article we had three supporters, himself included, and two dissenters. Now, I think we responded well to the concerns of the dissenters (though, who wouldn't? :P), but the motion didn't seem to have enough support to pass. I didn't want to do a whole lot of work parsing the information if it was going to be rejected out of hand. I'll add a new section and ask for support again; we'll see how it goes. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Protected

Protected for 3 days - resolve it here rather than edit warring. Vsmith (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Split the article

Okay, it's been a while since this motion has been presented, so I'm going to rehash the case all over again. I want to see how much support we have for splitting the article into two: Intelligent design and Intelligent design and science. The latter article would consist of information within the current "Creating and teaching the controversy" section of this article, as it contains a lot of information, not much of which is necessary here. This section currently contains 1) a very brief introductory paragraph about the "Teach the Controversy" campaign; 2) descriptions of tangentially related beliefs (neo-creationism and theistic science); 3) a couple of paragraphs about Christians, who comprise the vast majority of ID supporters, reaching out to other religions and faiths for support; 4) a "definition" of science which details attributes that bring an explanation closer to the ideal scientific theory; 5) six paragraphs stating that ID proponents haven't published work in reputable scientific journals(!); 6) three paragraphs on whether or not intelligence can even be detected scientifically; 7) and two characterizations of ID arguments as logical fallacies (arguments from ignorance and god of the gaps).

Whew. So that's the information within the "Creating and teaching the controversy" section. As you can see, there really isn't much to do with the "Teach the Controversy" campaign, but instead an heavy emphasis upon ID's relationship to science and the scientific community. This is the reason the title Intelligent design and science has been chosen to represent this information, though suggestions are most welcome. Also, this article's size is 181,895 bytes (177KB) and the rule of thumb states that articles over 100KB "[a]lmost certainly should be divided." I think this simple change will greatly improve the article, so... how much support do we have for this? Thank you, everyone, for your time! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Fully agree with the split, though if possible this should comply with WP:SUMMARY leaving a brief mention of the main points. The title suggested wouldn't cover all of the topics, as some are more about religion or theology. Perhaps split these to form two sub-articles, or possibly relationship of intelligent design to science and theology. . . dave souza, talk 18:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave. I took a closer look at the material in the section and you're right, we have a variety of material here. Referring to the numbers in my previous post, we have 1) an ID campaign to teach religion in public school science classes, 2) related religious beliefs involving science, 3) religious outreach, 4-6) science, and 7) logic. It seems to me that 1, 2, and 4-6 could go into a new article (Intelligent design and science), but I don't think there's enough information in 3 and 7 for another new article. I guess we could make a stub article from it(?). Or maybe we can leave those within this main article? The subsection on religious outreach could be moved to the "Movement" section, and the logic subsections could be moved to... a new "Criticism" section?

Oh, and I absolutely agree with the WP:SUMMARY bit. Actually, maybe that could be summarized within a "Criticism" section as well? Here's what I'm thinking...

• Rename "Creating and teaching the controversy" to "Criticism"
• Move subsections related to science into a new article titled "Intelligent design and science" (1, 2, 4-6)
• Briefly summarize the newly created article within the "Criticism" section, as a subsection entitled "Scientific criticisms"
• Move "Inter-faith outreach" to the "Movement" section (3)
• Leave "Arguments from ignorance" and "God of the gaps" as their own subsections within the "Criticism" section (7)

This should keep the section limited to criticisms of ID and cut the overall filesize down substantially. What do you think? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm opposed to removing the scientific take on ID from the main ID article as it would then leave a pseudoscientific article with undue weight, though I'm not sure if that's what being proposed . If that's not what's being proposed, would you mind elaborating what the ID umbrella article will look like? Thanks. N^oformation ^Talk 20:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it sounds like it may become a POV fork. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I think a lot of the size is due to the references, notes and further reading (they contain full quotes etc). IRWolfie- (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Noformation and IRWolfie, we do not want to remove the scientific perspective and leave only the ID perspective. Instead, what we're proposing is a removal of excess, non-vital material. At the moment, we're talking about the "Creating and teaching the controversy" section: the title suggests the contained information will be about the DI's "Teach the Controversy" campaign, but the information has little to do with this campaign. Also, note that we're not talking about removing anything from other parts of the article, which means the scientific perspective will not be removed. Instead, we'd move both the scientific and ID viewpoints within this section only to a new article and summarize that information here, again preserving both perspectives (i.e. no net change in weight). I hope this makes the proposal and our intent clearer. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

@ MisterDub, your comment at 15:52, 2 November 2011, looks good to me. It's a sensible way forward, with the clear and obvious understanding that care will be taken to properly summarise any sections that are removed, thus maintaining the due weight in the article. My feeling is that there's a lot of detailed discussion and repetition that can be concisely summarised to give a clearer article, with ready access to the linked detail for those interested. . dave souza, talk 21:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Support as well now that it's been clarified. POV fork was what I thought at first as well but it's clear that's not the case here. N^oformation ^Talk 02:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Since the proposal seems to be well supported this time, I'll begin drafting the new "Criticism" section in my sandbox so everyone can view and comment before the change is made to the article. Thanks, all! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so I've got a draft in my sandbox worked up that I think is a pretty good start. Please read and comment. Also, I've copied the information from the main article's "Creating and teaching the controversy" section and placed it in its own article in my Userspace. This page needs a well-written lead, though I'm not sure what kinds of standards I should follow for it (e.g. do we bold "Intelligent design and science" as the first phrase of the lead, as in other articles?). The good news is that the WP:SUMMARY version is less than half the size of what is currently in the article: 25,773 bytes (25KB) versus 59,364 bytes (58KB). Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I must say I have a knee-jerk reaction against a section named "Critisism" in an article as good as this one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not particularly fond of it either. Do you have a suggestion for a title that better represents the information within the section? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I´m sorry, I can not come up with a good name for this section.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't heard any criticisms or objections to the proposed changes, so I guess I'll make the change at the end of this week. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

New atheism

I reverted this edit by user Stephfo due to the following concerns:

• The topic of new atheism isn't mentioned in the article, and therefore does not belong in the lead section, which should be for providing an overview of the article.
• The edit appears to take a quote from Dawkins out of context to imply that Dawkins somehow supports the idea behind ID (that the existence of an intelligent designer is a scientific question). Dawkins' views are well known.
• The edit references a source by a neurologist that appears to be a self-published work, not peer reviewed.

If I misunderstood anything above, I apologize, but those were my justifications for reverting. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Concur totally with with point one

As for point two, Dawkins has stated "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question, even if it is not in practice- or not yet- a decided one." However, this can in no way be construed as an endorsement of ID as a valid scientific approach to the question. The use of the source here is thus misleading, and irrelevant to the article.

As for point three, the source has indeed been published in a peer-reviewed journal, Science and Eduction. Nevertheless, it also does not support or endorse ID as a valid scientific approach to the question, as is thus irrelevant to the article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

1. The central part of lead section brings up a topic of relation between science and supernatural explanations, not topic of New Atheism. It specifically mentions attitude of mainstream science towards such supernatural claims ("The scientific community rejects the extension of science to include supernatural explanations"). Thus, you really misunderstood the topic, IMHO, article is trying to push a POV that supernatural claims are per se scientific oddity, but hiding that members of scientific community often regarded as so called mainstream, namely New Atheists, commonly declare supernatural claims for unequivocally a scientific questions, what is then highly controversial as it was also correctly mentioned in the text. This is evidence for a bias in article, IMHO. Please advise if you suggest to move the text to the body of article in case you oppose its presence in the head part on grounds that it is not mentioned in there.
2. Please explain how in your opinion the original context affects the validity of claim by New Atheist Dawkins that in his opinion "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence" that this article IMHO referrers to as "the hypothesized intelligent designer", believed "to be the Christian God", is "unequivocally a scientific question", if you believe so. Are you trying to suggest that he was not honest in this proposition? Do you suggest that there is a difference between "creative super--intelligence" and "Intelligent Designer"? In what sense? The article claim and claims by mainstream scientific New Atheists are in direct contradiction and I believe WP should correctly advise WP reader about this controversy. IMHO, to state "The edit appears to ... imply that Dawkins somehow supports the idea behind ID" after reading "Controversially, although generally rejecting the concepts of ID, so called new atheists assert that many supernatural claims are scientific claims in nature" is clearly impossible, unless a strong bias would be applied against the given edit. We can use stronger wording like "although completely rejecting the idea of ID" if you wish, pls. advise.
3. If you accept argument by D.V. below [on peer-review status --Stephfo (talk) 10:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)], pls. note contrary to his claim the text does not suggest whatsoever that given source endorse ID, but addresses the article bias wrt. controversy in attitude of scientist towards supernatural claims (in line with "When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Rather, balance it with what you think is neutral." WP:DR), what is a topic present in the lead section.

Thanx for your understanding--Stephfo (talk) 10:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I first want to say that the edit was rather poor and extremely POV ("Controversially", "so called New Atheists", attributing the second source to New Atheists when atheism isn't even mentioned other than in the bibliography and keywords). Even if we decide to keep the information in the article, this would need one hell of a rewrite. Second, if the point of this is to show that science can test supernatural claims, then perhaps this would be best placed in the new Intelligent design and science article proposed above.

That said, we already have sourced information in the last paragraph of the "Defining science" section which addresses the same topic, without mention of "New Atheists." Furthermore, this section, and others discussing the relationship of ID to science, is to be moved into a new article, so it wouldn't exist here anyway. In light of this, I find the new information superfluous and easy to drop, though perhaps others would like to amend the section I mentioned previously to account for these sources before the section is moved. The latter is fine by me, the former preferred. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Pls. explain your point: "extremely POV ("Controversially", "so called New Atheists", attributing the second source to New Atheists when atheism isn't even mentioned other than in the bibliography and keywords" in more detail: What is actual POV that you identified as "extreme"? Do you deem that there is no controversy between:

• the claim that "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question" and
• that "the hypothesized intelligent designer" as in fact supernatural claim referred to in sentence: "The scientific community rejects the extension of science to include supernatural explanations"?

Please explain how these two claims match together w/o driving the discussion to distraction, if possible.

• Add. "attributing the second source to New Atheists" - what source? What is actually wrong here in your opinion?

General note: Pls. note you have not demonstrated whatsoever that any WP rule would be by given edit violated, what is the very basic requirement when revert is made. (WP:IDONTLIKEIT policy states: "Such claims [declaration of deletions as appropriate] require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion") Thanx--Stephfo (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo, please don't slip into that habit. Just because we haven't "broken any rules" including the content doesn't mean we should include it, or indeed that consensus can't form that it shouldn't be. Users here have given a few solid reasons for opposing inclusion, which do not fit WP:IDLI. I'll also point out that quotes like this, particularly the one by Dawkins, are an explicit attempt to combat Non-overlapping magisteria, because Dawkins feels that supernatural claims have already failed investigation (either by being ludicrous, or tested and false). Therefore, to take the quote out of that context and imply that Dawkins is pushing for more investigation into the supernatural, as though there may be something there, is quote mining and OR.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

1. Mann_jess, please don't slip into habit of attributing me a position that I do not hold. When I declare that some response is not in line with WP policy, namely on removing content, I by no means suggest that consensus can't form that [certain content] shouldn't [be included], but rather make a call to keep discussion in a structured way, if possible, and definitely avoid such controversial claims as that "the edit was rather poor" not supported by any explanation, a fortiori if the text does not contained anything more than Dawkins claim 1:1 and stripped version of text already present at New Atheism page (so that it implies the given page is poorly written, what however, controversially nobody minds).

2. Pls. explain how "Dawkins feels that supernatural claims have already failed investigation" and at the same time declares that [supernatural claim] is "unequivocally a scientific question" that "is not in practice- or not yet- a decided one." If something is not yet decided it could not fail investigation already, unless Dawkins would be a prophet seeing the future, IMHO.--Stephfo (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Steppfo, please post responses to the discussion at the bottom of the discussion. Otherwise, the conversation will very quickly devolve into fragmented replies taken out of context. I will respond to you there. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I should have added a fourth objection that almost goes without saying. The passage I reverted ended with "many scientists are investigating the possibility of supernatural causes." Completely unsourced assertion.

The fact remains that the lead section of an encyclopedia article should provide a concise overview of the rest of the article, not introduce new claims or assertions that are not described later. The connection with New Atheism isn't mentioned anywhere in the article, and therefore does not belong in the lead.

The question of whether it belongs in the body is a different matter. Probably not, as this seems only tangentially related to Intelligent Design.

The main objection, however, is the misrepresenting of quotations from scientists to push a POV that scientists "assert that many supernatural claims are scientific claims." Jess is correct, this is quote mining. Nothing in the passage from Dawkins asserts "many" supernatural claims are scientific. If you read the quotation in the context of the entire section of that book, it is clear that he is simply arguing that science should not be excluded from addressing the question of the existence of a super-intelligent creator — and his consistent position as a scientist has always been that no such being exists. The selective quotation and positioning in the article imply that Dawkins somehow supports the notion that underpins the Intelligent Design movement is a bit far-fetched, constitutes WP:OR, and isn't relevant to this article.

I was mistaken about the peer-review status of the final source provided by Stephfo. However, Dominus Vobisdu is correct; the article doesn't support ID as a scientific approach to the question, so it is not relevant. It may fit better in a different article. Even so, minority viewpoints should not be given any prominent weight, especially in the lead.

Finally, balancing a perceived bias by what you think is neutral doesn't mean it's appropriate to introduce opposing bias, particularly when it's giving WP:UNDUE weight to what appears to be a decidedly minority viewpoint, and especially when taken out of context. As to rules that were violated by this edit, it seems to me that WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:LEAD were all violated. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Before I will continue with further points, I'd like to ask you regarding your point "I should have added a fourth objection that almost goes without saying. The passage I reverted ended with "many scientists are investigating the possibility of supernatural causes." Completely unsourced assertion." if this will cause the same zeal within you to remove the given claim from New Atheism page from which it was taken or if the claim becomes "Completely unsourced assertion" subject of your objection only when this claim is not serving right my follow atheist editors (hopefully unbiased and with good faith/intention). Thanx for clarification --Stephfo (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo, the adjective "controversially" is unnecessary and implies that there is an actual controversy where there is none (WP:OR and WP:WEIGHT). As is explained in the final paragraph in the "Defining science" section, methodological naturalism is an a posteriori criterion, not an a priori one: the fact that supernatural claims have failed to stand up to scientific scrutiny does not indicate that they are inherently unscientific. If you read the "Defining science" section, you will see this supported by several sources.

The adjectival phrase "so-called" is also unnecessary and implies that the label is false or otherwise inaccurate. This is not supported by any source and is therefore WP:OR.

You use the second source to support the claim that "[t]he New Atheists believe science is now capable of investigating at least some, if not all, supernatural claims, ..." yet the source never mentions New Atheists or atheists at all. This is also clearly WP:OR. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

But I provided a hyperlink to New Atheism#Scientific testing of religion page where this exactly same claim seems to be tolerated by our fellow editors and no one proposes to remove it on the same grounds like you here, does it mean it should disappear from there in your opinion per your reasoning presented in here?--Stephfo (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Stepfo, a number of reasons have been presented as to why this content is unacceptable, but you've fallen back into the behavior of repeatedly asking that simple statements be explained over and over. It has been explained quite adequately why "the edit was poor", so suggesting that no one has explained their reasoning at all is unhelpful. I'll repeat a few objections, and I hope that if you wish to continue the discussion, you respond to them appropriately. 1) This content is not in the body of the article, and so is not appropriate for the lead, which aims to summarize the body. It simply cannot be included where you have proposed. 2) The text includes claims which are unsourced, including "many scientists are investigating the possibility of supernatural causes." We can't include controversial unsourced statements such as this. 3) The prose includes words which push a POV not presented in reliable sources, namely that there is a controversy about supernatural explanations in science. This weasel wording, and editorializing in the prose must be removed to present an encyclopedic view of the topic. 4) Your proposal draws a link to New Atheism and atheists generally which is not presented prominently in the sourcing, and not relevant to this article. If it is relevant to a different article, that is not our concern here. 5) You appear to be synthesizing sources in order to include this content. Do the sources say anything about ID? If so, do they draw the connections you are? There have been other concerns as well, but these are the most prominent to my view. Please address them, without simply demanding that every editor explain their position in more and more detail.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Attitude of science towards supernatural claims mentioned in the lead section

I made a new section as the article became difficult to edit and also because user [[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk] misunderstood the reason for edit:

• The central part of lead section brings up a topic of relation between science and supernatural explanations, not topic of New Atheism. It specifically mentions attitude of (perhaps mainstream) science towards such supernatural claims GENERALLY (i.e. regardless of ID: "The scientific community rejects the extension of science to include supernatural explanations" {as such, irrespective of ID}). Thus, article is trying to push a POV that supernatural claims are per se scientific oddity (what might be well the truth, personally I do not know), but at the same time hiding the fact that members of scientific community often regarded as so called (we can removed "so called" if someone does not like it) mainstream, namely New Atheists, commonly declare supernatural claims (AS SUCH, irrespective of ID) for unequivocally a scientific questions, what is then highly controversial as it was also correctly mentioned in the text. This is evidence for a bias in article, IMHO, and make it legitimate subject of NPOV balancing: "When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Rather, balance it with what you think is neutral."
• 1. This content is not in the body of the article, and so is not appropriate for the lead, which aims to summarize the body. It simply cannot be included where you have proposed.

Problem can be easily solved by extending article body with this content if this is the only problem. Agree? If not than I suggest that this is not your real objection worth of spending time with.

• 2. The text includes claims which are unsourced, including "many scientists are investigating the possibility of supernatural causes." We can't include controversial unsourced statements such as this.

This is 1:1 copy from New Atheism. Pls. advise if you could include such controversial statement there in. If the missing source would be found there, I suggest to move it here to satisfy your concerns in this respect.

• 3. The prose includes words which push a POV not presented in reliable sources, namely that there is a controversy about supernatural explanations in science. This weasel wording, and editorializing in the prose must be removed to present an encyclopedic view of the topic.

Again, after your multiple visits at New Atheism page you seem not attack any reliable sources there in. As for controversy, there is eye-striking discrepancy between two claims (question on presence of super-intelligence is unequivocally scientific question, but the very same intelligent agent is suddenly a non-scientific question) that is impossible to hide unless someone would claim that atheist have right to declare anything they like out of supernatural claims for scientific question or not how it suits them and there are no objective criteria for supernatural claims. WP readers are not stupid to notice that, and thus encyclopedic view should be to help them notice this controversy and try to help to explain why it is there and how they should come to grips with it. Moreover, controversially, the same community that seems so strongly and endlessly harping on (term used by JamesBWatson) reliable sources when it comes to obvious claims not in favour of atheism, seem to be utterly tolerable to claims that are completely invented and that attack Christianity in unfair way like one that "Creationists often claim that public support of creationism is a sign of its validity as a scientific theory." Let it be so if they like it that way, I just register this bias, not attack anybody (this is meant to be just footnote in between lines). I just noticed that many people started to regard WP for having liberal atheist bias and it is impossible to disagree with them.

• 4. Your proposal draws a link to New Atheism and atheists generally which is not presented prominently in the sourcing, and not relevant to this article. If it is relevant to a different article, that is not our concern here.

I agree that New Atheist are not relevant to the article which is dedicated to ID, however fact that they are New Atheists is not important whatsoever in my effort to point out that in relation between science and supernatural claims there are groups of scientists (I believe you will have no problem to agree they are mainstream) who commonly regard supernatural questions for being unequivocally scientific questions. Please do not cast red harrings on New Atheism but focus on relation between article claim on relation between science and supernatural claims which only matters in here in my effort to balance it out and explain for common WP reader.

• 5. You appear to be synthesizing sources in order to include this content. Do the sources say anything about ID? If so, do they draw the connections you are? There have been other concerns as well, but these are the most prominent to my view.

ID is irrelevant as in relation between science and supernatural claims it does not play any other role than it belongs to that group of supernatural claims, in the same way like any other supernatural claim regarded by group of scientist such as New Atheists for scientific, what is by all means controversial. If you deem there is objective criterion (with proper sourcing) which makes distinction between ID as supernatural claim and other supernatural claims wrt. their perception by New Atheists who regard supernatural claims for being scientific questions, I advise to include it into article.

• 6. Pls. note the claim "ID seeks to redefine science in a fundamental way that would invoke supernatural explanations, a viewpoint known as theistic science" does not have any citation whatsoever and you seem not to mind it.

Thanx in advance for your understanding --Stephfo (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The article correctly cites and summarises a number of sources, including that the IDM’s goal is to replace science as currently practiced with “theistic and Christian science", and "Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based upon empirical evidence are not part of science." If supernatural claims can be observed or measured then they're open to scientific investigation, which is all that the "new atheists" are claiming. Source: Whether ID is science as cited. . . dave souza, talk 22:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo, you claimed above that when you were reverted, it was "not supported by any explanation". I responded with a list of just a few of the explanations editors had given. That does not make what I said a "red herring"; these are legitimate objections to your proposal, so saying there was "no explanation" isn't helpful. You said above "ID is irrelevant as in relation between science and supernatural claims it does not play any other role than it belongs to that group of supernatural claims" (emphasis mine). This article is about ID. If ID is irrelevant to your proposal, then your proposal doesn't belong in this article. You are trying to make a point about New Atheists and science which simply isn't in the sources, and doesn't belong in this topic. If you want this content included, please find a source which explicitly says what you want to say.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This however I do do not fully understand, please advise why you hold a view that "a creative super-intelligence" has nothing to do with ID, to me the article seems full of references exactly to such subject, referred to there in as "intelligent cause/ intelligent agent/creator" etc..--Stephfo (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Possibly useful in sub-article

• Stephfo rather misrepresented the sources with the proposed edit, these may be useful for a detailed discussion in the proposed article on ID and science, but should not be given undue weight in this main article. The little known Yonatan I. Fishman (not "new atheists") examines Dawkins' arguments against Non-overlapping magisteria which are already well covered in that article. Fishman concludes "Thus, contrary to the positions expressed by Judge Jones, the AAAS, and the NAS, the reason why supernatural or religious claims, such as those of ID/Creationism, do not belong in science classes is not because they have supernatural or religious content, but rather because there is either no convincing evidence to support them or science has debunked them." and subsequently "there is ample justification for the conclusion of philosopher Bradley Monton" that “ID should not be dismissed on the grounds that it is unscientific; ID should be dismissed on the grounds that the empirical evidence for its claims just isn’t there.” That's an interesting argument about religion and science, but a clear misunderstanding of the US Constitutional objection to establishment of religion. As for "many scientists are investigating the possibility of supernatural causes", that's sourced to Stenger who is pointing to the efforts made by nstitutions such as the Mayo Clinic and Duke University to test whether prayer has any effect. Not "new atheists". Stenger is however notes that
  "Philosophers of science refer to the self-imposed convention of science that limits inquiry to objective observations of the world as methodological naturalism. It has worked well and it would still apply to prayer studies since any positive healing effects would be measurable events. The dispute is not over the experimental procedures but rather the theoretical interpretation of the data."
  The issue is not whether supernatural claims can be examined by science, which they always have been, but whether supernatural explanations have any merit as science. Both these authors are arguing against NOMA, and in doing that seem to be misunderstanding that aspect of the Kitz. judgement. . . dave souza, talk 20:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Wrt. "Stephfo rather misrepresented the sources with the proposed edit" I did nothing else just copy &paste of the edit from New Atheism page thus, if the sources are misrepresented, it is weird that many editors visiting that page (incl. for example frequent visitor ♥) have not discovered it yet.--Stephfo (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Your misrepresentation is that any of this has anything to do with Intelligent Design, the subject of the present article. The paragraph in the New Atheism article does not mention Intelligent Design. That association was synthesis on your part. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Funny you're pointing me out. Anyway... the content in the New Atheism article also includes a good amount of context before and after the prose you've picked out. Without that context, and in a completely separate topic area, you're implying things which are both unsourced and inaccurate. You also didn't just "copy and paste from New Atheism". You added your own words and content, which has been widely objected to above. For instance: "Controversially... so called new atheists". We can't use that sort of wording without proper sources backing it up.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I did not add anything else, apart from 1:1 citation from Dawkins, than what was absolutely necessary to point out that there is a direct contradiction between two claims, one in article on ID and other in article on New Atheism. Apart from that, I was only stripping the actual instances of supernatural claims used as examples. If you look at the "Scientific testing of religion" in New Atheism, there is demonstrably no good amount of context before or after the text I took. "The New Atheists assert" is the first sentence both there and in my text, IMHO. --Stephfo (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

For my part, I had never even heard of the term "new atheist" until Stephfo introduced it into this article. So please don't assume that other editors have visited that page. If that page has problems, those problems should be fixed rather than spread to other articles. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

So now when you know that that page has problems that you were able to explain so well, are you going to fix them or you do not bother if there will remain there in? --Stephfo (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The problems, Stephfo, is that you're misusing "new atheist" arguments. They correctly state that supernatural claims can be tested by science. The lead of this article correctly states that supernatural explanations cannot be accepted in science. Spot the difference? The "new atheist" argument at most amounts to stating that empirical tests do not support supernatural explanations, so ID is pseudoscience as it fails to provide any empirical evidence. Both articles appear to be correct in their context. . dave souza, talk 22:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to suggest that ID is not supernatural claim, because if it were, it could be tested by science ("new atheist" correctly state that supernatural claims can be tested by science)? What it is then, scientific claim? --Stephfo (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

ID is a supernatural explanation presented with some claims that there are empirical features which they say science can't explain. Science can explain these features, so to that extent ID has been tested and falsified. However, no-one can ever disprove the non-empirical explanation that Goddidit, or that malaria has been created for the unknowable aims of The Designer. These are religious beliefs that lack any empirical justification and hence are not science. . . dave souza, talk 23:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Jess and Dave. Removed of their context and inserted into this article they represent synthesis not supported by the sources. In the New Atheist article, they are placed in proper context, and do not need to be changed. There is no inconsistency here between the two articles. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Would it be then the correct conclusion that many supernatural claims are scientific claims in nature, except one, namely ID, and there has been unknown objective criteria applied when making such conclusion? Pls. advise.--Stephfo (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo, you said: "I [added] what was absolutely necessary to point out that there is a direct contradiction between two claims". That is the definition of WP:SYNTH. We don't "point things out" on wikipedia. We report what the sources say. Our sources don't say that.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with you, if you look at the Level of support for evolution, the sources absolutely do not say anything about "Creationists often claim that public support of creationism is a sign of its validity as a scientific theory" and the very same people that are willing to lay their lives on battlefield while using far-fetched WP:Wikilawyering as weapons, to put it in humorous terms, are perfectly able to live up with that notion not bothering whatsoever. WP by far does not contain only 1:1 claims from sources but also a great deal of common sense should be applied, if possible, at least sometimes. --Stephfo (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not doing synthesis, but rather bringing attention of WP reader on the two claims that are in mutual contradiction, a fact that can be denied only by denying the rules of logic. I leave up to WP reader to make comclusion for himself/herself w/o proposing any POV that he/she should take. --Stephfo (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

While we use common sense for little things (like that "Intelligent Design" and "Inteligent Design" probably mean the same thing and don't warrant separate articles), we absolutely do not use common sense to violate core principals such as WP:V, particularly when in an effort to make a point. The argument that "another article did it" is not a good one, as has been suggested a number of times now.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I can remove the section on controversy if this is the only your problem and cite Dawkins 1:1.--Stephfo (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're proposing. I (and others) have listed a host of problems above, which all need to be addressed. I'm not sure some of them can be. What "section on controversy"?   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe you have noticed that you counted "a host of problems above" 1-5. To declare "need to be addressed" sounds to me as mockery as this is exactly what I did in the section above. The same cannot be stated about the opposition to my edit, I'm sure you have managed to read my call for answer:

• "Please explain how in your opinion the original context affects the validity of claim by New Atheist Dawkins that in his opinion "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence" that this article IMHO referrers to as "the hypothesized intelligent designer", believed "to be the Christian God", is "unequivocally a scientific question", if you believe so. Are you trying to suggest that he was not honest in this proposition? Do you suggest that there is a difference between "creative super--intelligence" and "Intelligent Designer"? In what sense? The article claim and claims by mainstream scientific New Atheists are in direct contradiction and I believe WP should correctly advise WP reader about this controversy. IMHO, to state "The edit appears to ... imply that Dawkins somehow supports the idea behind ID" after reading "Controversially, although generally rejecting the concepts of ID, so called new atheists assert that many supernatural claims are scientific claims in nature" is clearly impossible, unless a strong bias would be applied against the given edit. We can use stronger wording like "although completely rejecting the idea of ID" if you wish, pls. advise." Pls. advise where is the answer, my fellow collaborating editor.
• As for "What "section on controversy"?" - this one can go out:

Controversially, although generally rejecting the concepts of ID, so called new atheists assert that many supernatural claims are scientific claims in nature.[14] They argue, for instance, that the presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question, even if it is not in practice – or not yet – a decided one.[15] The New Atheists believe science is now capable of investigating at least some, if not all, supernatural claims[16] and many scientists are investigating the possibility of supernatural causes.

• There is no problem with text sources any more as far as I've understood the latest development wrt. objections to this text.--Stephfo (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Likewise, I hope nobody would regard the very same text for poorly written from now on if it is part of New Atheism page.--Stephfo (talk) 01:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is poorly written. I just had a chance to look at that article. I have just removed a weasel-worded unsourced claim ("many scientists are investigating...") and a peacock term from that text. Furthermore, you are still engaging in synthesis to connect any of this to intelligent design. Find a source that does this, then perhaps this proposal can be taken more seriously. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

From where have you removed weasel-worded unsourced claim? "many scientists are investigating..." is still demonstrably present in New Atheism OK it is changed now. --Stephfo (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

And you are still showing a blind attitude towards my claim that I do not attribute this text to ID but to the GENERAL claim about attitude of science towards supernatural claims AS SUCH (which is in direct contradiction to claim of other scientists, coincidently being New Atheists), which is demonstrably present in the article header, irrespective of ID being the main topic in that article. --Stephfo (talk) 01:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Using two sources to write about a novel contradiction not contained in either source is the definition of synthesis. Did you read the WP:SYNTH article, Stephfo?   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not using two sources to write about novel contradiction because contradiction cannot be novel, it is either there or not, and by showing that it is there is a blatant demonstration of article bias. It would be very odd if someone would declare that, for example, a hypothetical backed claim on Columbus confirming alleged theory of Galileo on spheric-ity of Earth should be kept just because it is not specifically rebutted anywhere, even if the verifiable knowledge is that Columbus was living before Galileo.

• By the way, you failed to address my Q on "ID seeks to redefine science in a fundamental way that would invoke supernatural explanations, a viewpoint known as theistic science." is there any source for that claim at all? You see what you like and overlook what you do not like, and keep the very same points that I already have addressed. --Stephfo (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, "need to be addressed" as in, "corrected", not "replied to". Many of those issues were not fixed in this proposal. One (of many) is sourcing. Another is the fact that this still has no direct relation to ID. Based on the conversation so far, it appears that consensus is against this proposal. There has been a proposal to use the sources (but not prose) in a newly forming article, but until then, it seems we should probably move on.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo, have you read this article at all? Are you aware that not every statement in the lead section needs to be sourced if it is fully described with sources later in the article? Such is the case with your argument about theistic science in the lead. Look further, you'll find sources. The lead section provides an overview of the rest of the article. The article contains much background information about Intelligent Design, including how the scientific community views supernatural claims, and these things are described in the lead. Your proposed change does not provide a background or foundation for anything else described later in this article. It's a non-sequitur, a side issue. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

But that's very natural and logical that article does not contain anything wrt. my proposed change because my change contains evidence that article is biased, if it would be in the article I would not have chance to declare such bias as it would mean that article is NPOV-balanced. The absence can be easily solved by including "my change" into article, if that is your only concern.

Please advise: Do you regard claim "The scientific community rejects the extension of science to include supernatural explanations":

• A. to be specifically valid solely for ID, i.e. there is a substitution "supernatural explanations" = ID (and nothing else)
• B. to have a general meaning; "supernatural explanations" = any supernatural explanation

I believe if you want to move on, the answer to this Q would help us a LOT in this dispute, pls. be collaborative. Thakx--Stephfo (talk) 02:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

B. While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science.[7] Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are restricted to those that can be inferred from the confirmable data – the results obtained through observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based upon empirical evidence are not part of science.[8] . . dave souza, talk 09:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, that's my point, this claim seems to have general sense irrelevant of ID and thus all arguments calling for connection to ID make no sense.--Stephfo (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

To put Dave souza's explanation into the context of how "new atheism" (personally I think it's a funny term) fits in here: The approaches of these new atheist scientists and ID supporters with respect to supernatural explanations are totally at odds, in spite of Stephfo's apparent impression that they are equivalent based on a poorly-worded passage from the New Atheism article. According to that article, those scientists view a supernatural explanation as something that can be investigated and falsified. In contrast, ID supporters begin with an assumption that a supernatural explanation has validity, and formulate theories such as "irreducible complexity" to provide credibility to their a priori assumption. Totally different approach.

To include a passage implying that scientists view supernatural explanations as valid and scientific (particularly with the ridiculous assertion that scientists "are investigating the possibility of supernatural causes") not only misrepresents the topic of "new athiesm" but inserts a POV that isn't backed up by the cited sources or any other reliable sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo, I think we've given you plenty of valid reasons for rejecting the specific change you've made, but there have been no suggested improvements to the proposed text. In the spirit of achieving a resolution quickly, I think your changes could be better composed as follows:

“ New Atheists assert that many supernatural claims are scientific claims in nature. They argue, for instance, that the presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question, even if it is not in practice--or not yet--a decided one. ”

I've removed the POV adjectives and unsourced claims, and I think it reads a lot better. This really has nothing to do with ID, so it shouldn't be placed in the lead, but perhaps into the "Defining science" section, which I will be moving to its own article today. If there are no further problems with this proposal and the information isn't deemed redundant, I have no problem with adding it. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

To me sounds reasonable. --Stephfo (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

@MisterDub: There is a little problem with over-generalization in your version. Try "Some New Atheists...." and "Richard Dawkins argues, for instance...". Agree that the statement has nothing to do with ID, and belongs in the new article, not this one. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It sounds reasonable, except for the the following problems:

• It still has nothing to do with ID.
• Taken out of the context of the New Atheism article, the passage by itself contains a false implication that new atheist scientists view supernatural explanations as valid explanations. That is exactly the opposite. As I explained in my addendum to Dave souza's comment above, they view such explanations as being subject to scientific scrutiny for the purpose of falsifying them.
• It's uncomfortably close to a copyvio from the Dawkins source.

Fix those problems and perhaps it could be mentioned. What is needed most of all is a reliable source that connects it with ID. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This position however I do do not fully understand, please advise why you hold a view that "a creative super-intelligence" has nothing to do with ID, to me the article seems full of references exactly to such subject, referred to there in as "intelligent cause/ intelligent agent/creator" etc..--Stephfo (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Pls. also ack your mistake "Taken out of the context of the New Atheism" is actually mistaken declaration, the sentence proposed is actually the only one that was added directly from Dawkins book and that is not present in that article.--Stephfo (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Pls. also note it sound irrational to repeat the same argument on context over and over while at the same time refraining from collaboration and ignoring the requirement for deeper explanation of such argument: "Please explain how in your opinion the original context affects the validity of claim by New Atheist Dawkins that in his opinion "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence" that this article IMHO referrers to as "the hypothesized intelligent designer", believed "to be the Christian God", is "unequivocally a scientific question", if you believe so. Are you trying to suggest that he was not honest in this proposition? Do you suggest that there is a difference between "creative super--intelligence" and "Intelligent Designer"? In what sense?" More collaborative approach is required, IMHO. --Stephfo (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You have been arguing for a general statement not specific to ID, and now you are arguing the opposite?

"Taken out of context" is a correct declaration, regardless of whether I was mistaken about whether it came from the Dawkins book or the New Atheism article.

It is irrational to ignore the explanations of others over and over while at the same time demanding deeper explanations for arguments that have apparently been ignored. Context matters, and your arguments so far have ignored the context of the sources and what they say.

I'm not going to argue semantics, especially if you are going to go about quote mining sources and articles for terms, because many terms in this area have overlapping meanings. The burden is on you to show that Dawkins was referring to the topic of this article, the socio-political movement consisting of repackaged creationism, known as Intelligent Design. I see no source that links new atheism to that movement. Rather, comments by Dawkins et al about a super-intelligence or whatnot appear to be in the context of the philosophy around the teleological argument that has been around for centuries. Until a source can be found that establishes a link somehow to ID, there is no logical reason to include a mention of new atheists in this article. Doing so without proper context would imply a POV that new atheism is a response to ID rather than what it is: a reaction to what they perceive as age-old problems with religion in general. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the proposal isn't really an accurate summary of the sources as they relate to ID. In broad terms, Fishman, Dawkins, Monton, and Stenger argue that it was unnecessary and possibly counterproductive for the Kitzmiller judgment to define science as excluding supernatural claims, as ID is not supported by any empirical evidence and where supernatural claims have been tested, they have been debunked as pseudoscience. Check out the sources and review, but from my reading that's much closer to the overall statement made by the cited sources. We should not be selecting parts of these sources to convey the opposite of what they say overall. . dave souza, talk 19:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

If you would read my points above, we agreed with Dave souza that the claim which is THE ONLY ONE I'm concerned bout in my edit, namely "The scientific community rejects the extension of science to include supernatural explanations" has a general meaning; "supernatural explanations" = any supernatural explanation and thus the link to ID has only a secondary meaning, irrelevant to the topic I'm moving forward, i.e. that this sentence makes false impression as if supernatural claims would not be regarded at least by some scientists for being valid scientific questions, and I call for balancing it out in that direction in general terms, in the same sense as the claim itself has general meaning, i.e. w/o necessarily involving the link to ID. --Stephfo (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Supernatural claims can be debunked by science, supernatural explanations are not part of science. . dave souza, talk 19:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That might/might not be well true, however it is not the topic here. Topic here is whether at least some scientists regard supernatural questions for scientific or not. Anyway thanks for your contribution. --Stephfo (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Whenever the reference is made to "supernatural" claims/explanations, I regard such argument for general, and when to "a creative super-intelligence/the hypothesized intelligent designer"/Intelligent Agent/Creator/Christian God" etc. for specific that pertains to ID.--Stephfo (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Whenever you waffle like that, it's clear that you're promoting original research instead of looking with care for sources that explicitly refer to ID, and you're not showing the sources in proper context. . dave souza, talk 19:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

If I waffle like that, what is your explanation for the difference between a creative super-intelligence and the hypothesized intelligent designer in your opinion?--Stephfo (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Verification from a good quality source: it's the ground rule here. WP:OR isn't permitted. . . dave souza, talk 20:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but this red herring does not answer the Q: If I waffle like that, what is your explanation for the difference between a creative super-intelligence and the hypothesized intelligent designer in your opinion?--Stephfo (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephfo (talk • contribs)

"Topic here is whether at least some scientists regard supernatural questions for scientific or not." That isn't even a coherent sentence. And as it has been explained to you, it is irrelevant, and a misrepresentation of sources to imply that scientists regard supernatural explanations as scientific. The investigation of the validity of supernatural claims may be scientific, even if the claims themselves aren't.

"What is your explanation for the difference between a creative super-intelligence and the hypothesized intelligent designer in your opinion?" Our opinions aren't relevant to the content of this article. Nevertheless, it should be obvious that the former is a general term that encompasses the latter term, which specifically refers to the Christian God in the context of this article.

"The scientific community rejects the extension of science to include supernatural explanations" ... this sentence makes false impression as if supernatural claims would not be regarded at least by some scientists for being valid scientific questions." You are confusing "the scientific community" with "100% of scientists". They are not the same thing. Scientists hold a wide variety of religious and philosophical views. While the overwhelming majority reject the idea that supernatural explanations have scientific validity, some scientists are ardent creationists (Duane Gish comes to mind), and some who hold scientific credentials support ID (they are described in detail in this article) and so would regard supernatural explanations as valid. However, when stating the view of the scientific community, the article has no reason to give WP:UNDUE weight to minority viewpoints. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo, arguing in this manner isn't helpful. If you feel this information should be in the article, please rewrite the passage and account for the valid criticisms your fellow editors have raised (over-generalization re: New Atheists, ambiguity/misdirection re: the "scientificness" of supernatural claims, possible plagiarism re: Dawkins's opinion, etc.). I did this for you once... -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for any inconvenience, but "the presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence" is by all means the very CENTRAL TOPIC of this article on ID, and to come to any other conclusion requires to commit a very rough violence on the rules of elementary logic. (I suggest to approach wp:logic task force for 3rd party opinion) This creative super-intelligence, referred to as the hypothesized intelligent designer, is demonstrably present in every corner of the article. The fact that new atheist Dawkins regards the VERY CENTRAL QUESTION of this article for "unequivocally a scientific question" is not my fault, I can do nothing more that register his opinion. The fact that he opposes ID is well known, and can be demonstrated: ("Any entity capable of intelligently designing something as improbable as Dutchman's Pipe (or a universe) would have to be even more improbable than a Dutchman's Pipe. Far from terminating the vicious regress, God aggravates it with a vengeance." (God's delusion, pg. 146)) but it does not disprove the fact that he regards the Q on presence of creative intelligence alias intelligent agent for scientifically valid. The article here however, IMHO intentionally, avoids acknowledging the Q on presence of creative super-intelligence as being "unequivocally a scientific question", and that's my main point. It should correctly explain that there are non-ID-related scientists that regard such Q for scientific, and that the two communities who accept scientific nature of such Q differ in answering such Q. One community- supporters of ID, declare that they follow Socratic principle to go wherever the evidence lead, other believe science already answered such question even though that at the same time they declare that the Q is not in practice – or not yet – a decided one.--Stephfo (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Repeated unsourced error in text in several places

At several points, the text in the article essentially says or implies that belief in intelligent design precludes any belief in evolution, all unsourced regarding this. Yet, even this article itself establishes that the former does not necessarily mean the latter. North8000 (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This claim is very vague. Please (i) give specific examples of the material you consider to be problematical & (ii) contrast what this material states with what their cited sources state. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

An example of the former is "The intelligent design movement states that there is a debate among scientists about whether life evolved." It is unsourced and incorrect that this is true for the entire intelligent design movement. And one example of many where such a statement is refuted even by this very article is "Another 42% believed that God initiated and guided an evolutionary process that has led to current human beings." North8000 (talk) 12:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Um... it's sourced? It's from a news article cited after the several sentences it verifies.

"Teach the Controversy" is an official campaign slogan of the Discovery Institute in their efforts to include Creationism in school curricula. As is obvious from a name, it claims that there is controversy among biologists concerning evolution when there isn't. And claiming that there is a debate or not is not really the same as a statement that all of them do not believe in evolution at all. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that Obsidian Soul is making/ reinforcing the same point as I am. To put it more briefly, it is unsourced and false that ALL intelligent design folks say that there is such a debate. BTW to save a lot of time / unwarrented discounting, I'm a 100% evolution & natural selection person and don't believe in I.D. But our job here is to make sure that the article does not have such erroneous unsourced statements. North8000 (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

On another point the overall spin / emphasis of this whole article is to present intelligent design as some sort of an clever political plot/tactic instead of a belief. North8000 (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The DI is more-or-less synonymous with the leadership of the IDM (you'd have to go well down the list before you reached one that was unaffiliated). Further many (most?) of the unaffiliated prominent IDers also promote such language. Further, further, I have never heard a prominent IDer oppose this strategy. The DI speaks for the IDM, it always has. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

"Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion." -- WP:NPOV Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

North8000 and Obsidian Soul, please note the first sentence, in which ID is defined by its leading proponents, The Discovery Institute: "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." (emphasis added, source) ID does preclude belief in evolution, not only by definition but as plainly evidenced by the actions of ID proponents. This is why Judge John E. Jones III found that "despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, [the IDM] describes ID as a religious argument," and that "[t]he goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID." (emphasis added, source) -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I wasn't agreeing with North8000.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 16:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I misinterpreted. My bad. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

ID doesn't preclude evolution completely. But the ambiguity about when and where evolution is accepted is a key component of ID; one could say it's intentional, because ID was crafted by DI to be this "big tent" and mean all things to embrace all kinds of special creationism so the issue is played every which way. In Dover ID retained lots of features from young earth creation science, while it was vigorously defended by Behe, who rejects YEC and accepts evolution except to challenge particular evolutionary steps occurring at the biomolecular level. But then few creationists are unwilling to believe in any evolution all-most young earth creationists, for example, accept what they term "microevolution". Yet both ID and YEC creationists attack evolution by name-that's a term they typically use to label what they're opposing. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't see anybody here disputing my main point. Which is (briefly) that statements that say or imply that ALL ID. believers reject evolution are wrong and unsourced. North8000 (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

North8000, to what are you specifically referring? After a quick scan, I don't see anything stating, implicitly or not, that all ID proponents reject evolution. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm also confused because the two examples you cited don't say or imply to me all ID proponents "reject evolution". Could you clarify or provide other examples? Professor marginalia (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

@North8000, I can't see anything like what you are talking about, either. Vague complaints are not helpful. You must be specific. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I already gave one of them. I'll do some minor tweaks on it (which is all that it needs) to see what folks think. North8000 (talk) 11:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss the SPECIFIC changes you'd like to make here on the talk page first. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I made a few tweaks. Feel free to revert (i.e. do BRD) if you do not agree.But that sentences as it was previously would certainly need a tag and is implausible and probably unsourcable....that the entire movement made/makes that statement. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see a reason for this edit. I haven't reverted because the edit is quite benign and I don't want to seem unreasonable, but this is the article about ID as promulgated by the DI (see the hatnotes) and the DI runs a campaign called "Teach the Controversy" whose sole purpose is to shed a more favorable light upon ID by claiming a controversy between it and evolution. Yes, its advocates say there is a controversy, but so too does the movement, spearheaded by the DI. I just don't understand why this edit is beneficial. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the change is better grammatically (I'm not sure how a movement can "state" anything), and I'm fine with it. But I am also confused about the objection regarding "not everybody". Who else are considered members of the "movement" accept "advocates"? Professor marginalia (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Long stringing inline superscripts

This is a pet peeve of mine but any objection to combining footnotes under a single ref tag? These strings with upwards of 4,5, and 6 ref tags are cluttered and disruptive and interrupt the reading flow too much. Where this^[12] says "cite", the tone implied by this^{[12][13][14][180][181][182]} is a little too much like this^{!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!} and that ^{[8][9][10][11][12][13]} right there in the intro is the worst. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it's fine to combine a string of citations provided each one is used only once in the article, and that you are certain each will not be needed more than once in the article. Several sources are cited multiple times, and some are not citations but rather end-notes, so it would make no practical sense to combine them.

I see this has already been done in the case of citation #5, which includes several other citations. I also see some end-notes that are cited together and used only once, therefore they can be grouped together.

[8] and [9] are used twice but they are used together each time, so they could be combined. Same is true for [11] and [13]. Then [8][9][10][11][12][13] in the lead could be compressed by no more than two items.

Personally, though, a string of superscripts doesn't bother me. Combining them would make the article difficult to maintain. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that too many citations is distracting and support their combination where possible. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree combining sometimes makes editing trickier but I think the article's already crossed that threshold with refs grouped elsewhere and all the other daunting markup stuffed throughout the article. Too often doing what works best for readers mitigates against what works best for editors. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I just compressed all that can be compressed in the lead. Someone else take the rest as needed. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

A bit better. Thanks! Professor marginalia (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this about the term or the beliefs covered by the term?

Is this about the term or the beliefs covered by the term? It's probably really about both topics, but the article fails to make the distinction. For example the article says both that it is a modern invention and that it is essentially creationism, which is obviously not a modern invention. North8000 (talk) 11:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:DICTDEF, Wikipedia articles are always primarily about the topic behind the term, rather than the term itself. Like many new ideas, it is a reworking/expansion of older ideas. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking about statements like "Intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings.....". IMHO this article does and inevitably will talk about both and that it should just clarify which it is in each instance. North8000 (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Why? They largely developed the meaning of the term as part of the same process as developing the topic. Unless a term comes into existence long after the topic that its describes (e.g. as was the case with "Social Darwinism"), there's really no need to distinguish the two. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, for example, there are numerous places in the article which essentially say that ID is a new name given to creationism. So you have a relatively modern term applied to a belief set that is thousands of years old. In that case the above-quoted statement is in error and should read something like ""The term intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings.....". instead. North8000 (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

But there's only one ID as promulgated by the DI, so there's no reason to present it here as if there is some confusion. If you want to talk about the teleological argument, it has its own article. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

No. What in fact it states is that ID is a new name given to a new formulation of creationism -- a new formulation that outside observers often refer to as Neocreationism. To state that "the article which essentially say that ID is a new name given to [all] creationism" is a misrepresentation of what the article states. Creationism evolves! Pretending that it's all just the same thing is silly -- and the complete opposite of what the article, in explaining ID's roots in Natural Theology and its evolution from the Creation Science movement, actually says. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• I would suggest that, before North8000 attempts to lecture us on what the article is doing wrong, that they read The Creationists, and Creationism's Trojan Horse, and so attempt to gain some basic understanding of the Intelligent design movement, and its position within the wider creationist movement. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll read the article again to see if I can find cases where the ideas maybe conflated incorrectly. But intelligent design is not a belief in an intelligent designer. Its premise is that science can be used to show there is one; that there is natural evidence to back a scientific conclusion or finding that some natural feature was purposefully designed in its present (or once present) form. It's not a "belief" - but a supposedly scientifically, empirically derived "conclusion". Professor marginalia (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn, please lose the "before North8000 attempts to lecture us" crap. I did no such thing. I asked a question and engaged in a low key discussion. North8000 (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Professor marginalia, I would ask the following three questions, including temporarily positing answers positing answers (do you disagree?) on the first two to lead to the third:

1. Does the the concept that you described ("Its premise is that science can be used to show there is one; that there is natural evidence to back a scientific conclusion or finding that some natural feature was purposefully designed in its present (or once present) form." pre-date the use of the term "intelligent design"? I submit: YES, would you agee?
2. So, what was recently invented as described in the article, the term or the concept described by the term? I submit that it was the term, would you agree?
3. Would that not mean that the sentence "Intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings....." should be corrected to say that "The term intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings.....".

And this is just one example.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Answer first question: the premise is akin to the teleological argument, and the teleological argument pre-dates intelligent design. Second question, intelligent design is a new version teleological argument. Third question, the logic doesn't follow. Intelligent design is more than a "term". Its adopting a particular type of teleological argument, most obvious being the teleological argument in its original, the classic sense explicitly concluded "God created" rather than an "Intelligent being designed". Professor marginalia (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Examples

I have just one so far: "Some have called this approach 'methodological supernaturalism', which means belief in a transcendent, nonnatural dimension of reality inhabited by a transcendent, nonnatural deity." I don't think this is even an accurate definition of methodological supernaturalism. I don't think the source is very strong there either. Was this paper ever published? And it seems like an open and shut case of WP:SYNTH - it doesn't mention or draw connections to intelligent design. Cursory googling suggests it's a fringy term anyway. Without a strong source I'd zap it completely. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that is relevant to the question of whether science can defer to, or even acknowledge, supernatural phenomena. But I agree that it is either a synthesis or something got lost during paraphrase. I don't know anything about that paper, nor have I heard the term before, so unless someone can fix these issues, I say trash it. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

UK program rebutting ID

There was a recent change I reverted due to its lack of really any concrete detail at all. It seems to be a recollection by someone of a video he/she saw on YouTube once. The documentary is not named and, due to the lack of details regarding the content, I could not locate any information about this program from Google. Because of these issues, I simply removed the information instead of fixing the grammar. If anyone has information on this documentary, we can re-add it. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Good call, my suspicion is that rather than a Channel 4 film, it was A War on Science which was on BBC2 but was probably repeated on BBC4. Still seems to be online here. A good programme, worth watching the start for brief appearances of Attenborough and Dawkins, followed by "The Monkey Song". Already covered in List of works on intelligent design#Critical non-fiction films. However, The Root of All Evil? was on C4. . . dave souza, talk 23:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Scientific criticisms campaign

One thing I noticed when I looked up Intelligent Design (ID) in a couple of academic journal databases, was the level of animosity directed at ID by the scientific community. In fact, in one academic journal (published in Georgia, I don't remember the exact name), the academic ended her article explaining the ID concept and history by listing anti-ID organizations and encouraging readers to donate money to the anti-ID campaign! What surprised me about this was that I understood academics or scientists usually try to keep an objective distance from the subjects they cover, in order to, among other reasons, show that their conclusions or research methodologies weren't unduly influenced by personal feelings or biases. Is the scientific/academic campaign, if there is one, against ID worth mentioning in this article? Cla68 (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Verification needed: do you have a reliable published source making this allegation? . . dave souza, talk 23:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You haven't seen anyone in the media make the same observation that I have, that a number of scientists/academics appear to have serious heartburn over this ID idea and are engaged in open advocacy to combat it? Cla68 (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Insomuch as ID is a stalking horse for creationism (not to mention being unscientific and logically flawed) yes, academics hold it in very low regard. With good reason. But such discussion is better situated in Teach the Controversy and related articles. Raul654 (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Right. But there's no reason to bring here or there unless it's for suggesting putting something in the article about it, and for that of course the source(s) must be provided. Neither is a suitable forum for our musing about the strange behavior of scientists or ID proponents. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of subject and other editors, not the article.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sometimes people make assertions that are prima facie so ridiculous that they merit not even the slightest consideration. Flat earth is an example of this as is ID if it's being presented as anything other than religion. This is obvious to people in the relevant fields, i.e. biology. The problem is that some people actually take this shit seriously. This, coupled with the fact that proponents of ID are either liars or idiots (or both) and are still taken seriously is enough to drive even the most dispassionate, objective scientists a bit mad (let's face it, saying "god did it" is a lot easier than teaching biology to people with no background in science). These people are doing real harm to the US and parts of Europe, and so it's not surprising that scientists as well as scientific organizations would speak against it. Most journals open with an article about policy, health, culture, or science in society. If there's decent outside coverage of specific organizations and/or notable scientists that have campaigned in some way against ID it would probably fit into the article, though I don't know if there's any sort of "campaign" as opposed to journals just calling it like it is. Noformation Talk 01:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC) I appreciate the responses but need to ask, are you all aware of WP's NPOV policy? Cla68 (talk) 01:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC) I am. I can understand how my post may seem not neutral because it certainly is biased, but two thing: 1. It was the only way to give you a real answer to your question and 2. The sources may not have said it as...let's say "forwardly" as I have, but there are few if any qualified biologists who would disagree with what I said, and thus it's neutral in that it represents the consensus of the scientific community. Noformation Talk 02:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC) I think the rule that best applies here is WP:TPNO. "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article." Professor marginalia (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Well we are, Cla68 brought up the possible addition of this stuff to the article and had an incidental question; I answered the question and commented upon its use in the article. Noformation Talk 03:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC) We have a *lot* of talking about the "incidental question" and absolutely none yet about the sources or facts involved for any proposed content edits. Professor marginalia (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Wow Noformation, your hate towards people of faith is astonishing. Just because you do not understand it and believe it, doesn't mean that you can attack and ridicule the people that do. Zenkai251 (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, let's see what we have. I found this reference, which I don't know if there is an online version or not: Friedlander, Michael. "Intelligent design and the workings of science." Skeptical Inquirer 30.3 (2006): 16+. In the column, Friedlander calls on his fellow academics to campaign against ID, saying, "That we need to deal with the ID proponents before they reach the school boards and courts. We must not be only reactive. An informed view of science will not become widespread overnight, but if we do not start now, we will be fighting the same battles repeatedly." Cla68 (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That could be something interesting to start with. Do you have that as a hard copy? I don't have online access either but I will see if I can find it in my school library and maybe help you out if you need it. I do have a subscription to Science (Journal), if there's anything in there you think you can use let me know and I'll pull up a copy for you. N^oformation ^Talk 05:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I appreciate that. Then, this article: Gray, Terry. "Intelligent Design Uncensored." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 63.4 (2011): 280+, reviews the book, Intelligent Design Uncensored by William A. Dembski and Jonathan Witt. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 2010. 175 pages. ISBN: 9780830837427, which has a chapter that describes the current anti-ID sentiment among academics and recommends that college professors who believe in ID keep their belief concealed until they make tenure to avoid professional repercussions. Cla68 (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Looks like you have enough to start a section. I'm low on free time but I'll help where I can if I see anything to do. N^oformation ^Talk 05:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I have access to the Friedlander. Admittedly, I've just given it a very quick read, but I didn't see him argue to launch any publicity campaign or some such against ID. It sounded like he was campaigning that scientists wise up about the oncoming ID campaign and making darn sure that they attend in their science classes to explain what science is, what real science entails, so they learn what science is all about from scientists. To kinda close some of the the "ignorant about what means science" gaps, as it were. Nothing shocking about hearing from scientists wanting to educate people about science. I'll look into the second one, but note it is written by Dembski and the allegations coming from DI in the past in this vein have been very much contested, so it can't be addressed as a fact. It's a disputed issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The book is a reliable source for Dembski's opinion, of course. For what it's worth, the review in Perspectives gently disagrees with his statement that professors would necessarily face professional censure for openly supporting ID. Cla68 (talk) 05:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

According to this review: "Ecklund, Elaine Howard. Science vs. Religion: What Do Scientists Really Think?" Library Journal July 2010: 86, of the book named in the article title, a survey of 1700 academics and interviews with 275 more found not a single one who had a postive opinion of the ID concept or movement. Cla68 (talk) 05:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This review: Fleury, B.E. "Rieppel, Olivier. Evolutionary theory and the creation controversy." CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, May 2011: 1719, of the book named in the article title states that it covers the current debate between creationists, as exemplified by the ID movement, and natural science, and ends by recommending, "the need to separate scientific progress from notions of design or purpose." Actually, this book sounds like it would be a good source for a lot of the content in this article. Cla68 (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Certainly there's a campaign against ID/Creationism! What are the Panda's Thumb and the NCSE all about? Read the first paragraph at this fairly recent PT post, which is a reprint from another activist site. One Lenny Frank claims, "Since then, I have also been a regular commentator at the well-respected Panda's Thumb blog, which serves as a nerve center for anti-creationist and anti-ID activists." Right at the top of their page, the NCSE proclaims, "NCSE provides information and advice as the premier institution dedicated to keeping evolution and climate change in the science classroom and to keep out creationism and climate change denial." (NCSE and most RSs define ID as a form of creationism.) We ourselves assert that "the NCSE also opposes intelligent design and other 'alternatives' to evolution because they are misleading euphemisms for creationism." Their opposition is not merely philosophical, but behind the microphone and in print.

Just wondering if we're all clear there's also an ID campaign against evolution? Yopienso (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) @Cla68 are you able to read and consider all these before you share them here? I've now read the book review, and sorry but that's way too weak to use either. Dembski warning ID believers to "keep it under wraps" until they earn tenure is not anything we can use to say there's any kind of active campaign against ID in science. And that's all it said in the book review. The fact is that DI does complain of discrimination in academia, and if it's not mentioned here I'm a little surprised because I've encountered it elsewhere in wikipedia. But these are weak sources to address it and are not affirmative that there is this alleged anti-ID campaign going on. The last (Ecklund) is no reference for the claim either. Sure, none had a positive opinion of ID, probably because they think it is pseudoscience. But scientists do disparage what they deem to be suck science - judging good science from bad, that's their job! Please, let's take it up a notch or two on the quality of the sources offered against the claims we're being asked to use them for here. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Professor, we're currently in the "brainstorming" phase in this discussion, are we not? Once we get some ideas and sources out here, and Yopienso has just added some helpful input, we decide what to do from there. And, I'll advise you right now, after watching this page for a couple of years, I have low tolerance for personalizing these discussions as some of the editors here appear to have become accustomed to doing. It's not acceptable. Agreed? Cla68 (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me if this sounded too "personal", but I suppose I have developed something of a low tolerance for a run-around-to-nowhere soapboxing and tail chasing discussions on the talk page. We've yet to see a decent source! Now we have a citation to an activist blogger's use of the term "anti-ID" - unfortunately his biography reads, "Longtime social activist, labor organizer, environmental organizer, antiwar" - he doesn't appear to be a scientist so how does this verify a claim about what scientists are up to? Good sources for a claim FIRST. Brainstorming what we can say with bad ones isn't helpful. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, me, Yopienso, and Noformation can continue brainstorming, and you can, if you choose, continue to belittle our efforts, but I and others may call you on it. I think you know how to be helpful if you want to be. Now, do you have any of those three books that were reviewed in the articles I posted? If not, let's keep on. Cla68 (talk) 06:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Next article: "Coalition of scientific and teaching organizations issues report on evolution and science education." BioScience 58.2 (2008): 176+. Quote, "AIBS is pleased to be a part of the broad coalition of 17 scientific societies and organizations (representing teachers, biologists, physicists, astronomers, chemists, and social scientists) that wrote the article "You Say You Want an Evolution? A Role for Scientists in Science Education" The article is being simultaneously published online by a number of societies' journals, and can be found at http://opa.faseb, org/pages/PolicyIssues/sciencecoalition.html. The coalition is calling on the scientific community to become more involved in the promotion of science and evolution education. The article argues that "non-science" such as creationism and intelligent design, undermines the fundamentals of science education." That's a fairly clear, organized effort against ID. Cla68 (talk) 06:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Another: Shkliarevsky, Gennady. "The God debate and the limits of reason." Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy 7.2 (2011): 70+, discusses the debate between scientists/academics who advocate peaceful cooperation or coexistence with creationists or ID proponents and those who don't. Cla68 (talk) 06:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

@Prof. Marginalia: I agree Lenny Frank (notice I said "one" Lenny Frank) is not a RS, but he points to one. Surely you agree the Panda's Thumb and the NCSE actively campaign against ID?

I have access to the Friedlander article. It's only 1250 words long and I could paste it in somewhere, but that, I fear, would break copyright law. He presents an entirely rational, calm, intelligent outline "to affect the way in which the general public views science and understands the way in which science actually operates." He does not rant or beat a drum. I think it's OK to paste in the entire paragraph Cla68 initially quoted from:

We can make a start on educating our students so that they may gain a better understanding of the way in which science actually operates-why scientists may accept some ideas and reject others. I believe this effort is necessary. There will surely be other approaches that reflect our different disciplines and preferences, but underlying our efforts should be the recognition that we need to deal with the ID proponents before they reach the school boards and courts. We must not be only reactive. An informed view of science will not become widespread overnight, but if we do not start now, we will be fighting the same battles repeatedly.

Friedlander unquestionably is urging his peers to join him in his effort to combat ID by educating students in the methods of science. Perhaps you are balking at this concept because the word "campaign" conjures up emotional noise instead of scientific rigor. (The Panda's Thumb, however, does get noisy.) He does couch the effort militantly if courteously: "fighting. . .battles." That he says "We must not be only reactive" clearly implies, "We must be pro-active." That's waging a campaign. Yopienso (talk) 07:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

"I think you know how to be helpful if you want to be." /*Smile*/ So much for your "low threshold". Rather than sending me after the three books you apparently haven't consulted yourself, maybe it would be more productive if you'd clarify what it is you think needs to be said here that isn't and what source convinced you of this. What you proposed first was about "the scientific/academic campaign, if there is one, against ID". What kind of "campaign" and by whom did you come across that was so surprising to you? The article now is literally blanketed with details about the pushback against "teaching ID as science in the classroom" by scientists and academics, including their corresponding professional associations, along with exhaustive detail about why they're resisting teaching non-science as if it was science. (If anything it's been pro-ID leaning editors have been trying eliminate much of it, toning it down.) So is there something else that you don't see addressed here? Professor marginalia (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Great! From what I'm seeing in the articles I'm reading, an important facet in the debate about ID is the conflict between creationists and evolutionists. Now, is there an organized campaign by academia against ID and theistic science? Well, yes, there appears to be. Academia is pushing back very strongly against the ID idea. Cla68 (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I truly don't understand what you're getting at focusing on this "an organized campaign by academia" because it seems you've got some image in mind that's very different from what's already self-evident in the article. It's full of unequivocal statements made against ID from scientists and science associations. Scientists are very strong against teaching ID as science, but that's hardly surprising, is it? They want science class to be about science and not see it confused with religion. There are people who are confused because they've been told ID is a science, so they may interpret a "strong reaction against it" as some kind of bias or blindness, but for the experts whose job it is to do science and judge good science from bad or fake science there's nothing surprising about it. What is or isn't taught in science class is normally the purview of experts in science and academia, not some small outside group grassroots lobbying to religious people for a pet new idea that's been rejected by the scientific community to be taught instead. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

@Prof. Marginalia: I agree Lenny Frank (notice I said "one" Lenny Frank) is not a RS, but he points to one. Surely you agree the Panda's Thumb and the NCSE actively campaign against ID?

I have access to the Friedlander article. It's only 1250 words long and I could paste it in somewhere, but that, I fear, would break copyright law. He presents an entirely rational, calm, intelligent outline "to affect the way in which the general public views science and understands the way in which science actually operates." He does not rant or beat a drum. I think it's OK to paste in the entire paragraph Cla68 initially quoted from:

We can make a start on educating our students so that they may gain a better understanding of the way in which science actually operates-why scientists may accept some ideas and reject others. I believe this effort is necessary. There will surely be other approaches that reflect our different disciplines and preferences, but underlying our efforts should be the recognition that we need to deal with the ID proponents before they reach the school boards and courts. We must not be only reactive. An informed view of science will not become widespread overnight, but if we do not start now, we will be fighting the same battles repeatedly.

Friedlander unquestionably is urging his peers to join him in his effort to combat ID by educating students in the methods of science. Perhaps you are balking at this concept because the word "campaign" conjures up emotional noise instead of scientific rigor. (The Panda's Thumb, however, does get noisy.) He does couch the effort militantly if courteously: "fighting. . .battles." That he says "We must not be only reactive" clearly implies, "We must be pro-active." That's waging a campaign. Yopienso (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

As a sometime Science teacher, I will do all in my power to refute and destroy all signs of creationism and ID. It is a destructive force in the world of science education, sowing seeds of doubt and mistrust of teachers in students' minds where no such doubt should exist. It leads to wasted time in class for ALL students and the teacher, refuting inane arguments from students spouting dogmatic garbage brainwashed into them by manipulative Christian nutcases. (Often enough the kids' own parents.) No, I don't like ID and creationism, and will support and endorse any campaign to rid the world of it. HiLo48 (talk) 06:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. Do we need this? No. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the impact of this rubbish needs to be discussed. My comment belongs in the Scientific criticisms campaign section, not separated off. I am part of the scientific community and am trying to show why such campaigns exist. HiLo48 (talk) 07:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you belong to any organizations that have established a formal program or agenda to combat ID? Cla68 (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

@Cla68 Can you read this? I can't tell what non-subscribers have access to or not so if not I can email it to you. It's a letter from a geologist essentially discussing a talking point against ID (i.e. how to argue against an ID proponent) in response to this so it doesn't speak of a movement per se, but perhaps it can be used in a really mild way to support a statement regarding a worry in academia (especially if coupled with other sources). I don't think it's sufficient by itself but it's not a bad start. this might be marginally related, it's a letter to Science from an evangelical biologist expressing his agreement with the second source I posted. Again, weak source but it might have a usable point or two. Check out this search and let me know if anything strikes you. N^oformation ^Talk 07:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe my posts irrefutably demonstrate there is a scientific campaign against ID. This is from 2006, but clearly shows the NCSE's purpose of combating ID.

Now, in Not in Our Classrooms, parents and teachers, as well as other concerned citizens, have a much-needed tool to use in the argument against teaching intelligent design as science. . . A concluding chapter offers concrete advice for those seeking to defend the teaching of evolution in their own communities. . . Not in Our Classrooms is a valuable addition to the personal armory of anyone concerned for the future of evolution education! Yopienso (talk) 07:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This is getting pretty wacky, folks. Who are the authorities to look to find out what is real science? Scientists. Who are the authorities to look to judge whether cancer treatment is real or fake medicine? Medical experts. When you find references that say that there's an "organized campaign by scientists to teach what science is", that's hardly a shocker. Yeah, that's what they do! Since ID isn't science, and there is a documented campaign by to teach science wrong, wouldn't it be more surprising if the scientists said, "whatever you say, have it your way then?" Anyway, yes. NCSE "National Center for Science Education" is an organization that defends the teaching of science in public schools. It opposes attempts to legislate the teaching of ID as science, and helped the plaintiff's in Kitzmiller v. Dover. But the article says this now, doesn't it? Professor marginalia (talk) 08:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yikes, this discussion got long. Professor marginalia is correct that this discussion seems to be veering onto some never-ending path. I think it would be useful to break it down into a few constituent questions and my responses:

1) Do scientists (in general) hold ID in low regard? Answer: Yes, per Cla's reference above (Ecklund, Elaine Howard. Science vs. Religion: What Do Scientists Really Think?" Library Journal July 2010: 86) I don't think anyone would disagree with this.

2) Does there exist a campaign by scientists to discredit ID? Answer: Individual scientists and organizations have certainly taken the position that teachers should do a better job defining science, or should go out of their way to debunk ID/creationism. The NCSE opposes both as unscientific. (No surprises there.) But that's a far cry from being an organized campaign, the existence of has not been established by reliable sources.

3A) Does this belong on Wikipedia? 3B) In this article? 3C) Is it already covered? Answer: I would say yes it belongs on Wikipedia, but that it's already covered (or should be) in the Teach the controversy article, which is referenced from this one. Raul654 (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest adding a section between the present sections 3.2 and 3.3 entitled, "Reaction from the scientific community."

3 Movement

3.1 Religion and leading proponents

3.2 Reaction from other creationist groups

3.3 Reaction from the scientific community

3.4 Polls

The section would mainly describe the founding and purpose and activities of the NCSE, which is the principal and, imo, most respectable organization instituted specifically to combat "scientific creationism." Michael Shermer should get his due, and we would have to at least mention the blogs, including Panda's Thumb and PZ's noisy Pharyngula. Yopienso (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

A section for this would be a fine, but it's not fine to fill it with minor players like PZ Myers and Shermer, whose campaigning is better labeled "skeptic reaction", imo. (Myers is highly critical of the scientific community's reaction in many respects.) With the NCSE we need to stay clear of OR and editorializing. They were founded years before ID came along, and their response to ID followed their pre-existing mission and objectives to a T. It's not an "anti-ID" organization, it's an organization that supports science education, schools and science teachers who're trying to teach evolutionary science in school and help them fight to keep religious creationism from being taught as science in the science classes. They oppose ID in the classroom the same manner they oppose any other kind of creationism. For a better grasp of the full scope of the scientific community's "reaction", see para two in this earlier version, and check the depth of detail given in many of the footnotes that go with it.link That para identifies the big guns in the scientific community. I believe that content was eliminated because it served to emphasize how forcefully and resoundingly the scientific community opposed the claim that ID was science or that it was a scientific valid alternative to evolution that belongs in a science class. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Correction: it appears that it was eliminated from the lead to simplify and reduce repetition.[9] [10] But it may have gone too far, because I don't see that content appearing elsewhere in that revision. If the current version of the article downplays this reaction then that's a problem; it should be made clear. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Here's an idea that needs work but is a start. Sources are easily found; here's one for PZ. I think he's loud enough he must be included, and Shermer is very much in the public eye; he's written a book we have an article on.

Within the scientific community, reaction has varied from quick dismissal to sarcastic rebuttal to constructive public education. The National Center for Science Education, founded to keep religion out of the science classroom, quickly responded to ID as a new form of “creation science” and threw its weight against it in the media and the courtroom.

Skeptic Michael Shermer has spoken and written against ID, and PZ Myers pugnaciously opposes the movement.

Yopienso (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, let me repeat that Myers and Shermer are small fry. The content in the links I've supplied identify the representative scientific establishment's reaction. (See List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design which delivers it on a plate.) If you want "atheist" reaction, look for sources that label those reactions as "atheist reaction". If you want "journalist" or "skeptic" reaction, then representatives like Michael Shermer (who is not a scientist) might do. But if you want to describe "scientific reaction" look to the organizations who, in their official capacity, represent those scientists. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Point taken; pardon my denseness wrt Shermer. Convince me on PZ Myers, he's a loud-mouthed scientist whose blog has been praised by Nature. On second thought, Shermer is an historian of science and fairly influential in the campaign. Does he not speak for the scientific community? Isn't he a good secondary source? Eugenie Scott isn't exactly a scientist, but the NCSE speaks for science.

I'm not arguing here, but trying to thrash this out. I believe you are more knowledgeable than I. Yopienso (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It's okay but I think you're not as familiar with the situation and have misinterpreted the sources as a result. Shermer is a journalist and historian of science who may qualify as a source about what scientists have said or think. But he is not an example of what scientists do, you cannot use him as an example of "scientific reaction". Eugenie Scott is a PhD scientist, and taught evolution before heading this organization. Her speaking "for" science (if that's the best term for it) has the endorsement and backing of these official scientific agencies and associations. And by all means no, Myers is not speaking "for" the scientific community. He disagrees with how the scientific establishment responds to ID. He's a very vocal blogger, skeptic and atheist activist against ID, yes, but even the link you provided demonstrates that he's not the scientific mainstream-he's even getting pushback from others presenting in this panel (which was a panel for a Secular Humanism event, btw, not scientific conference). The mainstream scientific position is better represented by views shared by his target here, scientist Francis Collins, who heads the NIH and has considerable control over how real scientific research is funded and conducted. The NCSE takes a completely different position than Myers. If you can find any cite that shows Myers better represents the scientific reaction than the AAAS, the NCSE, Francis Collins, or the various scientists who've actually testified against ID in court, maybe a case could be made to push his reaction to the head of the line. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Using the text that was formerly here and apparently inadvertently removed from the article completely, and paring down some of the relatively trivial bits from it, we are left with a pretty definitive picture as to the reaction/response of the scientific community against ID. Opinions? Professor marginalia (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Extended content

The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science and has no place in a science curriculum. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science." The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience. Others in the scientific community have denounced its tactics, accusing the ID movement of manufacturing false attacks against evolution, of engaging in misinformation and misrepresentation about science, and marginalizing those who teach it.

Sounds good; where's the text?

As my user page makes clear, I don't like sanitizing. PZ is a scientist and comes against ID effectively enough to get kudos from Nature. Even though I dislike his manner and he is not in the mainstream, he is part of the scientific community and is responding to ID. That's why I think he should be included. We would expect the voices of the sci. comm. to include dissonance.

I greatly appreciate your collegial spirit, Prof. I'll make some slightly off-topic comments at your talk page. Yopienso (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it's in the expand box above your comment. I didn't make it very clear. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for not following this discussion closely, but where would this information go? It seems we have some of this information present in the second paragraph of the "Defining science" section of the article, so I'm wonder if this is a rewrite of that paragraph, or if it's a new addition. I like the content, I just don't want to unnecessarily repeat information. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Please consider my suggestion made 18:55, 1 February 2012. If I weren't such a ditz, I'd have inserted it myself already. Yopienso (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Yopienso. I think the information works well there. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please insert it? I tried and failed; we don't want all those notes up in the article, and I didn't know how to cut them off. Also, at least the first part and maybe all of this from "Defining science" would then have to be deleted: The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience. Yopienso (talk) 07:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll figgle with it (I'm no tech wunderkind so it may take me awhile to do any better). I want to do a double check toward MisterDub's concern first, given the article is lengthy and the volume here and in the edit history. My quick read may have overlooked the content was retained yet in a different form. Professor marginalia (talk) 08:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you shouldn't have to worry about that too much. I found that information in the "Defining science" section, but this is contained within the parent, "Creating and teaching the controversy" section, which I was supposed to move to its own article a few months ago (eke!) per editor consensus. I really dropped the ball on that one. I am working on getting that taken care of today, so don't worry about anything you find duplicated in this "Creating and teaching the controversy" section. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Bravo, Prof. Margi! Thanks for your recent edit. A source that's been in the article for ages is very pertinent to this discussion: "Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action." And thanks to Mr. Dub and all others. Yopienso (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)