Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 57

What does it mean to be a "leading proponent" of ID?

In the context of this article, this will generally be somebody who has either:

• Written a prominent book promoting/advocating ID (e.g. Of Pandas and People, Darwin on Trial or Darwin's Black Box);
• Created one of the concepts buttressing ID (e.g. Specified complexity, Irreducible complexity); and/or
• Has a significant track record in promoting the idea that ID is legitimate science, that it is a legitimate subject for public school science classes and/or participating in Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns‎.

Generally, it will not include somebody who, although famous for things other than ID, has on occasion mentioned that they favour ID.

AFAIK, there is nobody unaffiliated with the Discovery Institute that meets this, or any similar, definition. If anybody can point to anybody who has a significant body of prominent leadership on ID unaffiliated with the DI, we'll reconsider the statement in the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

How about Chris Buttars? Marginal, I grant, but might be argued to qualify.—Kww(talk) 19:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Very marginal. (i) He's not that prominent (being only a state senator). (ii) His advocacy of ID is only part of a scatter-shot advocacy of a wide range of religious-right/far-right positions. There are probably half a dozen to a dozen state senators/reps who regularly introduce pro-ID legislation. I don't think this, on its own, raises any of them to "leading proponent" status. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 20:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

My preference would be "is described as such by a reliable source". If I had to come up with a list, it would probably match Hrafn's pretty well. I would consider someone a leading proponent if they had (a) written a book or paper that had shaped the "theory" of ID; (b) written a prominent popular work promoting ID; (c) had done a speaking tour (at prominent venues, outside of his/her local area - country or region) promoting ID, or had done so repeatedly over the course of several years; had served as an adviser to legislators drafting pro-ID bills in several states, or (e) was employed full-time to promote ID. Something along those lines. Guettarda (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

By Hrafn's criteria, the obvious example would seem to be Percival Davis, first-listed co-author of the very first book he mentions, and as far as I know unconnected to the Discovery Institute. TSP (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Evolution Vs. Creationism, Eugenie Carol Scott, Niles Eldredge, p xviii would appear to indicate that the DI has some form of relationship with Davis -- as it acted as his agent in refusing to give permission to reprint material of his. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 21:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Pandas is also sold through the [Access Research Network], of which the Discovery Institute is a corporate member. The ARN also hosts this defence of Pandas. Certainly in Kitzmiller v Dover School Board the defence entered this plea thereby demonstrating their belief that evidence about the DI and the drafts of Pandas would harm their case.LeadSongDog (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

By that definition of 'affiliated' it is a rather unsurprising fact. In a shock move, most of the people who are heavily involved in advancing this position can in some way be circumstantially linked (even if it is by going via some other organisation) to the main organisation advancing it. I'd have thought we'd need something a bit better than that to make an assertion like this. (Depending on exactly what Hrafn's source says, admittedly, but LeadSongDog's connections all appear to be desperately thin.) TSP (talk) 02:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If I co-author a book in which my co-author, the chief editors and publisher are all fellows of a certain institute, I think it's reasonable to say I'm associated with that institute in some fairly close way (almost no matter how loudly I might protest that "to the contrary, I'm independent!"). Percival Davis' co-author Dean Kenyon and his publisher's "Director of Curriculum Research" Charles Thaxton, are fellows of the DI or the CSC. . It's hardly a stretch to say he is associated with the Discovery Institute even if his name can't be found in a list of DI or CSC or ISCID fellows. More importantly, six different reliable sources are given that accurately support the use of the words "[i]t's primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute". Barbara Forrest's testimony alone that "all the leaders [are affiliated with the Discovery Institute]" ought be adequate. But others are given as well, using language such as "the ideological and strategic backbone", "the engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute", etc. It's clear that ID is not the product of independent competitive research but rather is the product of a single organized effort with a legal and sociopolitical agenda in the United States, all of the leaders of which are connected to the Discovery Institute. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Pandas was written in 1989, second edition 1993. The Discovery Institute was founded in 1990, and became interested in intelligent design and Pandas in December 1993 via an article written by Stephen Meyer, and began to be involved in ID in 1994 with the founding of the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. If Meyer had cowritten a book published by people involved in the Discovery Institute, you might have a point. Using as proof that it was written and published by people who later became involved in the Discovery Institute feels more like Red Scare; and the position that Intelligent Design is the product of a single organised effort by an organisation that didn't exist until some time after books had been published on the subject doesn't quite seem supportable.... TSP (talk) 11:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If the first version had been touting "intelligent design", you'd be absolutely right. The timing of the rewrite weakens your position, but doesn't destroy it. There's a cause and effect problem: did the Discovery Institute mastermind ID, or did everyone masterminding ID eventually align themselves with the Discovery Institute? I think it's closer to the latter, but in the end, what difference does the temporal order make?—Kww(talk) 11:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing different rewrites. "Intelligent Design" was in from the first published edition of Of Pandas and People. It was only unpublished drafts up until 1987 which used "creation" instead. TSP (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The main point, with respect to the article, is that we have a statement that can be attributed to a number of organisations, that was made by Forrest in her Kitzmiller testimony, and that doesn't appear to have been challenged by any major player. Trying to figure out how Davis fits into all of this is clearly original research. It's interesting, it may be useful, but it's not something that we can use in the article. As for the role of the DI, yes, of course it came after the issue. Ahmanson didn't invent intelligent design. What the DI did was to gather the major players together and paid many of them salaries. If you said that "all major basketball players in the US are associated with the NBA", you wouldn't be saying that the NBA invented the game, or that the NBA caused these people to play basketball...but you would communicate the pivotal role the NBA has in shaping the sport. (And now my mind wanders off into thinking about the difference between the role of the NBA in basketball, and the ICC in cricket...) Guettarda (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, we do have a solid sourced fact - that, in the opinion of Barbara Forrest and various others, all the leaders of the intelligent design movement are (or were in 2005) associated with the Discovery Institute. TSP (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, no. It's a little more than that. We have sworn testimony by a leading academic expert on the subject, testimony that was subject to cross-examination. As far as I know, no one associated has questioned that statement. And there are no new "leaders" of the movement that have come about since then that are not associated with the DI. So it's sourced, it's solid, and it hasn't been questioned. It may change in the future, but we're still on solid ground thus far. Guettarda (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Splitting the Article

I do thank you for pointing out my errors, but there exists no doubt in my mind that this article currently discredits Intelligent Design where it should simply describe. The main thrust of the evolutionist arguments is that no viable scientific alternative exists. Thus, supporters of evolution try to make a connection between the positions of Intelligent Design and the religious condition of its supporters. However, the fact that intelligent design advocates often are (though not always) Judeo-Christian or Muslim does not affect the validity of their science. Steven Weinberg wants to destroy religion with his work in physics-- he says so himself, since he considers it a worthy motive. His work in physics is not disqualified by this aim. I suggest that the religious or political stance of Intelligent Design supporters do not bear upon their scientific theories. I must confess my desire for a balanced perspective made me counterbalance statements which I believe do not belong in this article.

However, I don't believe the information included about the Discovery Institute should be discarded. I would propose splitting the article-- a move already suggested by much more seasoned wikipedia members than myself. The article might be split into two, one treating Intelligent Design, the other dealing with the political controversy surrounding it. Information regarding the Discovery Institute and other advocates of "ID" could be transferred to this political article.Aleitheiophile (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It describes intelligent design and says the scientific community doubt it. Thaty's not discrediting.--Patton^t/c 23:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, that was not the general purpose of my comment. I would ask you to read more than the first sentence. We could then discuss splitting the article, a topic better suited to this talk page than the larger concepts involved. P.S.-- I apologize to anyone who finds the term evolutionist pejorative. I've heard it used by atheists, agnostics, and theists alike, so I was unaware of a specific group usage.Aleitheiophile (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

ID is pseudoscience; it is reported as such in the vast majority of reliable sources. We don't section off criticisms in order to make the subject sound more valid than it actually is. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 23:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

ID is part of the Wedge strategy and as such it is discredited. ID is a self-evident type of propaganda movement. ID has already been exposed to the world for what it really is. The treatment of the article is well balanced if you consider that it should really treat ID as propaganda. ID has nothing to do with science apart from trying to pass itself as science. The article is supported by citation and references. The ID proponents disingenuously portray their motivations for the development of ID as the advancement of science invoking a false controversy within the scientific community about evolution. This controversy has been shown to be false. Now it is known how, by whom and for which intent ID was unleash to the world. Your suggestion, while well meaning, is detrimental to the article's quality as it will portrays ID as a proposed scientific theory that is criticized by many for scientific and political reason.--LexCorp (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the overview article, and ID has been closely intertwined with the DI since they first became involved by founding the CRSC. Detail is already split into sub articles, as listed in the infobox. What's been proposed here would appear to be a POV fork, presenting ID as a "theory" which in some way can be divorced from the political controversy that it was born out of, and which continues to shape it as it interacts with political campaigns and court decisions. . dave souza, talk 23:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• [T]here exists no doubt in my mind that this article currently discredits Intelligent Design where it should simply describe [it]

  Intelligent design has been discredited. We can't pretend otherwise.

• The main thrust of the evolutionist arguments is that no viable scientific alternative exists. Thus, supporters of evolution try to make a connection between the positions of Intelligent Design and the religious condition of its supporters..

  I'm not quite sure what you mean here, so I'm going to take a guess. Apologies if I guessed wrong.

  The argument that intelligent design is not science is independent of the religious motivation behind ID. ID is obviously non-science. The point is that ID can never be science unless and until someone comes up with a new philosophy of science, one that allows a scientist to falsify the supernatural. The current model of reasoning - which is used not only in science, but also in the legal system - is incompatible with supernatural actions. If you allow for supernatural actions, then you must allow for them in all cases. If you go to the doctor and she says "either you have a bacterial infection, or you've been possessed by a demon", the doctor has to have some way of determining whether it's bacterial (in which case she should give you antibiotics) or demonic (in which case she should send you to a witch doctor). If you have no mechanism for determining which it is, then you should assign either option equal probability. As a result, she would probably have to flip a coin - heads you get meds, tails you get an exorcism. As long as you have no way to assign a probability to a supernatural occurrence, you can't include the supernatural in science. Perhaps the only "paper" which seeks to use ID as a scientific paradigm is Jonathan Wells' "TOPS" paper, in which he simply assumes design. ID has been clearly shown to be non-science. That's not an argument, it's simply reality.

  The religious motivation of ID proponents is a separate issue. This has been demonstrated - for example, in the Kitzmiller trial. This is important when it comes to attempts to introduce ID and other DI-driven stuff into school curricula. Any action like this has to pass the Lemon test. The simple fact that ID proponents are (mostly) evangelical Christians isn't in itself evidence against ID. But taken in combination with the Wedge document and the fact that most of the major ideas behind ID are lifted out of earlier creationist works, and you end up with inescapable conclusion that the motivation behind ID is at attempt to use the government to promote religion. These are distinct issues.

• However, the fact that intelligent design advocates often are (though not always) Judeo-Christian or Muslim does not affect the validity of their science.

  True. But, the question is "what science?" In DBB Behe said that is the ID movement did not come up with its own research agenda within a few years, it would lose its credibility. And yet, 13 years later, there has been no research into ID. Nothing. There aren't even positive hypotheses.

• I suggest that the religious or political stance of Intelligent Design supporters do not bear upon their scientific theories.

  There are no scientific theories related to ID. There are some hypotheses that are so poorly constructed that they are useless. But there are no scientific theories related the ID. Not even close. The accuracy or inaccuracy of your suggestion is impossible to determine, because the ID community has produced no scientific theories.

• The article might be split into two, one treating Intelligent Design, the other dealing with the political controversy surrounding it.

  This is the main article. Detailed sections have already been spun off into sub-articles. There are several articles that deal with the political controversy - the main one is probably the intelligent design movement article. Other daughter articles include Timeline of intelligent design, Irreducible complexity, Specified complexity, Fine-tuned Universe, Intelligent designer, Teach the Controversy, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Intelligent design in politics, and other articles covered in Category:Intelligent design and its subcategories. Guettarda (talk) 06:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The teleological argument has long been around for consideration by any teacher or student of philosophy or religion. Where "intelligent design" became a topic unto its own was when advocates of teaching creation science in biology curricula began a movement to turn a teleological argument into "intelligent design", incorrectly branding it as biological science, and it became part of a sociopolitical, educational and legal controversy in the United States in response to the Edwards v. Aguilard Supreme Court decision. After which, a group of leading proponents clustered around the organizational and funding sources of the Discovery Institute and engaged in their "intelligent design movement" and "Teach the Controversy" campaigns and such. Without this there's no big issue, just a variant of the teleological argument that's always available for discussion in philosophy and religion classes without any real complaint by anyone. Thus, there's no legitimate way to split the topic without distorting the real issues involved in the topic-- such a split would constitute an inappropriate POV fork. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

My apologies once again to all of you. I was not aware that such vehement feeling could exist concerning a purely objective subject. I would like to answer the (rather lengthy) objections to ID that you've all posted, but that exceeds the purpose of this talk page.Aleitheiophile (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to be objective? dave souza, talk 19:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand, Aleitheiophile. This isn't about anyone's feelings, except perhaps yours. This is about the simple fact that describing the facts of intelligent design is inevitably going to discredit it, for the simple reason that the vast majority of experts reject it. We simply cannot describe an unsupported concept without making clear that it is unsupported. See WP:WEIGHT. (Similarly, the article on phlogiston tells us about the 'demise' of the phlogiston theory while describing it. Would you advocated splitting that article as well?)

I suspect that you have personal reasons for promoting intelligent design, seeing as you refer to non-existent scientific work done in support of it. As you can read in the article, no scientific work supports intelligent design. The arguments in favour of intelligent design tend to be wholly unscientific, and aimed at scientifically illiterate people. The populism of intelligent design is also evident in the simple fact that most people who support it have no formal education in science.

Do you? -- Ec5618 (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Vehement feelings? I'm not sure what you mean. I was simply trying to fill you in on the background of what's going on. If you would like a more complete explanation and a venue in which to ask further questions, you are more than welcome to use my talk page. Guettarda (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Aleitheiophile, you started your involvement with this page by been WP:Bold and WP do encourage that. You were politely directed to the Talk Page to discuss things. Multiple editors have engaged you with reasoned arguments and WP:AGF from you. If you read a bit of the archived talk page discussions you will find that ALL of the suggestions you make aren't new and considerable work by a few editors have been done for years to address them in this talk page. I and many others thank those editors for their work and sometimes I personally get a bit worked up when a new editor does not take even an iota of time to read the archives.--LexCorp (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Um... perhaps a Freudian slip there, LexCorp, I don't think you meant to type "exalted". Feel free to delete this post (LexCorp only, thanks) KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Funny but no freudian slip. It is just mixing a bit of invented Spanish-English there Exaltado = Worked up not Exalted. Sometimes the brain is lazy. Thanks for pointing it up.--LexCorp (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps I'm obtuse, or perhaps I missed in in all the verbiage, although I certainly tried to read it all carefully, but has Aleitheiophile specified what two articles he thinks this one should be split into? Intelligent Design, Political controversies of Intelligent design, is that correct? KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Aleitheiophile suggests "one treating Intelligent Design, the other dealing with the political controversy, but as a main article giving an overview this has to cover both, and there isn't really any "theory" separate from the political controversy. However we do already have detailed sub-articles on intelligent design in politics and intelligent design movement. . . . dave souza, talk 21:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts precisely - we already have the asked-for articles. So, why the huge discussion here? They already exist. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, if I'm reading it correctly the request is to confine intelligent design to the "we don't actually have a theory as such yet" hypothesis, and move all the unkind stuff to another article. Or as we say in the jargon, a POV fork. . dave souza, talk 22:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Well. That would indeed be a POV fork, and is strictly against policy. I suggest we close this thread. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

That seems sensible to me. . . dave souza, talk 00:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the phrase

The article is doubtless correct in stating that the phrase "Intelligent Design" did not become the canonical name of a field of study until 1987. However, the article goes too far in stating "Before the publication of the book Of Pandas and People in 1989, the words "intelligent design" had been used on several occasions as a descriptive phrase in contexts that are unrelated to the modern use of the term." (my emphasis) Of course one has only to read the examples given in the article to see that many were quite closely related. Here is another:

He is also very hard upon those persons who refuse to see proofs of intelligent design in the movements of protozoa : and as a general rule, he is ready to accept any grotesque conclusion rather than abandon a little of his dogmatic hypothesis. This is the more curious as he can chide Mr. Darwin and others for what he imagines to be similar one-sided blindness on their part. He entirely overlooks, or rather he denies without reason assigned, the immense influence of mere accidental variation, which in the case of domesticated animals and plants, has been used with so much effect by Mr. Darwin to account for the changes and adaptations in nature. — Mind, vol 4, no 15, 1879, p441 (from review of an anti-evolution book by Samuel Butler).

Here is another one, perhaps even closer:

Lord Salisbury adopts the hypothesis of organic evolution, but, like Lord Kelvin, declines to regard Darwinism as a full exposition of it. Against it he appeals to the evidence of intelligent design to be seen in the organic world. — The American Naturalist, vol 28, no 333, 1894, p782.

It is clear that the meaning of "intelligent design" in these examples is hardly distinguishable from the modern one. So I think that "unrelated" is untrue and should be replaced by a weaker claim. McKay (talk) 06:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

lol. The modern use of the term is intended to bypass the 1987 United States Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Aguilard, which held [essentially] that creation science could no longer validly be forced by law to be foisted upon students of biology. The Edwards decision said, in part, that: "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."
..... In Kitzmiller v. Dover plenty of evidence was presented in support of the notion that the words "intelligent design" were used by "creation scientists" to circumvent (or, er, lol, adapt to Edwards v. Aguilard, and it was held by the court in Kitzmiller to be quite convincing enough to rule consistently with the assertion that the modern use of the words "intelligent design" came into being this way. Plenty of other reliable sources have agreed, and other sources which disagreed with the Kitzmiller court have been shown to be wholly unreliable, at least insofar as goes the teaching of intelligent design as science rather than as theological or philosophical speculation. In the potentially ongoing Bizarro World of the future, who knows what evidence will be presented and what reliable sources will say about "intelligent design" and the origins of the term such as the world encounters those words today. But, for now, the reliable sources indicate that the words "intelligent design" were what was used to replace the words "creation_" and "creationis_" in drafts of the book Of Pandas and People immediately after the Edwards. v. Aguilard decision. ... Kenosis (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You didn't reply to my point. I entirely agree that the creationists adopted the phrase in 1987 for a particular political and propaganda purpose. But adopting a phrase is not the same as inventing it. They adopted an pre-existing phrase, as copious evidence shows. Can you honestly say that the 1894 example I brought is from a "context ... unrelated to the modern use of the term"? McKay (talk) 07:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The context clearly differs in that all the prior examples, including even earlier ones shown in the article, use the words as a descriptive phrase, while as the sources cited show, "intelligent design" was introduced as a term for "creationism" or "creation science" in its post-1960 sense. The context clearly differs, and the history of the fundamentalist anti-evolution movement that adopted the term "creationism" does not support any direct relationship with these earlier discussions. Possibly a descriptive phrase in contexts that are unrelated to the modern use of the term might be better phrased as a descriptive phrase as distinct from the modern use as a label for "creationism". – using the description from Matzke (2006). . dave souza, talk 08:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, your suggested rewording is good and avoids my objection. I propose we adopt it, ok? McKay (talk) 08:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The modern use of the words "intelligent design" is as a term intended to describe a field of inquiry (replacing "creation science" and other variants on the word "creation__" -- this is clearly stated in the section on "Origins of the term". Thus the prior uses as a descriptive phrase are unrelated to the modern use of the term, i.e. in a different context. That said, I support the language proposed by Dave Souza, which better expresses the difference between the modern use of the words and the occasional prior uses of the words as a descriptive phrase. Thanks, McKay, for bringing up the point. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Article length

FYI, I was updating Wikipedia:Wikipedia records and found that this was the 104th longest article on Wikipedia and the longest featured article. Raul654 (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Some thought should probably be taken to shortening summaries of material covered in other articles and/or moving lengthier discourses to them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Extra words in the lead

I just noticed that somebody added the words "Intelligent design is the term used for the assertion that...", here. They mean the same thing as the words "Intelligent design is the assertion that...". I understand, I think, what the user who changed it was trying to say, but the extra words appear to me to be wholly unnecessary. OTOH, if LeadSongDog and/or others feels strongly that the extra words help to clarify the specific type of entity that the words "intelligent design" are (i.e., a reference to something or some set of things), I have no strong complaint either. But, every linguistic entity is a reference to something, so it seems unnecessary as might be the case, e.g., if the words were a term ordinarily used by a certain fairly specific set of folks. For instance, we might say "X is a term used by astrophysicists to describe [insert definition here]"-- but ordinarily even in a special application such as that we would just say "X is [insert definition here]", having established that it's an astrophysical term in another place in the writing. In this article plenty of contextual information is given to the reader. I also think it's giving the words "intelligent design" a bit too much implicit technical validation to call them a "term". Just my thoughts on a relatively minor editorial matter. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Terminology is a significant part of the discussion. "Intelligent Design" is used by one group for what another group considers "Creationism". While the former argue that the terms denote different ideas, the latter group argue that the terms are different nomenclature for the same idea. Hence, while in most cases Kenosis' argument would make sense, in this case the history of the terminology is so loaded as to be a key part of the discussion.LeadSongDog (talk) 02:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough w.r.t the additional twists of the topic, which was part of the point I was attempting to make regarding adding unnecessary additional twists. Some people, often for good reason IMO, want to see controversial things as accurately described as possible. And the use of the words "X is a term used for Y" have their place in the overall scheme of writing done in good faith and as accurately as possible. But here, beyond saying "X is equal to Y" or "X is Y" or "X means Y", the additional descriptor "X is the assertion that Y" was already used. Expanding this previously long-existing syntax to "X is the the term used for the assertion that Y" is, IMO, totally unnecessary. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that "Intelligent design is the assertion..." is bad English, sort of like "Newtonian Gravity is the assertion that things fall downward". The structure fails to distinguish between the name of the claim and the content of the claim. It would be more accurate to write "Intelligent design is a name given to the assertion that ..." or "Intelligent design is a theory which asserts that...". McKay (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree with both your claim that it is bad English and the aptness of your counter-example. I would see nothing wrong with the claim that 'Newtonian gravity was the scientific theory (later replaced by Relativity) of how things fall downwards'. The 'name given to' bit is superfluous and clumsy. Would we say that 'indigo is the colour between blue and violet in the visible spectrum' or 'indigo is the name given to the colour between blue and violet in the visible spectrum'? I would suggest the former. Such definitions are by their nature equating a name to a meaning, so stating that it is a name is superfluous. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

All fair enough, and a minor issue IMO, but if "X is the assertion that Y" is bad English, then "X is the the term used for the assertion that Y" is worse. Just my thought at the moment. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"Glossy" digital image

I've removed the non-free "Pandas" cover image since it wasn't really improving the sole comment about the book cover: the piece saying it is "glossy". A digitalized version of the cover really can't convey that information.

Luckily enough, readers don't need to see a picture to understand what a glossy cover is (unless they don't understand English). --Damiens.rf 20:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Which is why we show the image to clarify the "glossy presentation" which you perhaps have misunderstood. . dave souza, talk 21:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I make no sense of your reply. Do you agree users don't need to see the image to understand what the article means when it says the cover is glossy? Do you agree that image doesn't really shows the cover is glossy? Are you saying the image is there for those who can't understand English? --Damiens.rf 23:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there a loooong debate regarding the covers just upthread? I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like to avoid rehashing it so soon. Quietmarc (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

There was. A long and heated debate. Suggest Damiens.rf reviews the archives. TheresaWilson (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I've read the whole debate but haven't found no argument dealing with how this image can show that the book cover is glossy. I'm starting to become disappointed about seemingly every question posted on this forum is followed by a "You're new. We've discussed this before. We won't change our article" argument. For instance, do you think this discussion was conclusive to use this image? --Damiens.rf 00:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

You've read a debate, there are four years of archives. If you have a couple of days you may want to read them. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

2 days without edits?

Not only has this article survived for two days without any contentious editing, but it's been two days since any edit. And this article isn't protected! Cool. What happened, did everyone finally get tired? :) ~Amatulić (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

From my part, I'm still reading the thousand of archived discussions I've been pointed above. By the way, so far, I have found no discussion about why do the article feels the urge to link to criticism of the Pandas book in a section that just mention its the first book to use ID as a modern term. Anyway, still reading.... --Damiens.rf 02:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Amatulic, I think you might have jinxed the article. [1]. ;-) ... Kenosis (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Bad, Amatulic. We're certainly doomed now. LOL. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

How can pseudoscience be refuted by science ?

Compare this :

Intro : "they are not testable by the methods of science".

vs : "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large"

I don't understand what kind of "refutation" is implied : scientific refutation (in the popperian sense of falsifiability) or refutation grounded on ineffectivity of the concept ? 92.129.183.192 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC).

As the Kitzmiller judgement explains, the overwhelming majority of the scientific community consider ID to not be science, not least because the supernatural is inherently untestable. Behe has claimed that certain phenomena can't be explained by science, these claims have been tested and refuted. His claim that a lack of explanation means supernatural design is a religious concept, as demonstrated during several court cases on creation science. . dave souza, talk 15:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I fully understand (and personnally adhere to) the argument that what is untestable is not science. What I still don't get is what kind of "claims" have been "tested" (eg : some/all of the things Behe deemed unexplicable having finally been explained ?). One cannot say at the same time that his theory is untestable and that it has been refuted by testing something ??? 92.129.183.192 (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Behe claims there is a designer outside of the laws of nature. There is no way to test this. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Behe has in the past claimed that a number of things were the products of irreducible complexity. Off the top of my head, these include: the human eye, the human blood clotting mechanism, the immune system, and the human immunodefeciency virus. All of these statements have been debunked - that is to say, in all of these cases, clearly less complex pre-cursors have been identified. For some of these claims (the eye) took a bit of work to debunk; but in most cases (like AIDS) his statement was obviously wrong based on evidence that existed at the time he made his claims. In the Dover trial, Behe got on the stand and on direct exam expounded on how the human immune system could not have evolved. On cross, the ACLU attorney piled a small mountain of books in front of him about the evolution of the human immune system (See this and this) while all the time Behe maintained that it couldn't have happend. Raul654 (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, as this decision also points out (p72), IC is not a positive argument for ID, but a negative argument against evolution. Therefore refuting IC does not refute ID (it merely removes part of the camouflage hiding ID's vacuity). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, now I think I understand. Thanks, both of you.

I suggest to reformulate the sentence to make the distinction clear : "Examples provided by Professor Behe on support of his theory of irreducible complexity have been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and the theory itself has been rejected by the scientific community at large".

as you will have noticed, English is not my native language, and I'm sure my suggestion will have to be amended ! sorry ! 92.129.183.192 (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No, that's perfectly good language. I would just say "...in support of..." (instead of on). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It does cover things better, and "in support of" gives a better idea than the Kitzmiller quote itself, so it's a reasonable paraphrase. One point, best not use the word "theory" which isn't in the original. That could be phrased as ""Examples provided by Professor Behe in support of his claims of irreducible complexity have been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and the concept itself has been rejected by the scientific community at large".

We also need to sort out the reference, as it's cited to p. 64 but it's actually related to pp. 72–79, with the quoted sentence appearing on p. 79 "We therefore find that Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large. (17:45-46 (Padian); 3:99 (Miller)). Additionally, even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not support ID as it is merely a test for evolution, not design." Might be worthwhile paraphrasing the last sentence as well. . dave souza, talk 22:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Article is severely flawed and biased

Initiating editor has stated that they are unwilling to provide sources, so this thread is not "relevant to improving the article", and so is archived per WP:TALK
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The bias in this article is that it takes as certain institutions as being the sole definers and arbiters of what Intelligent Design is. These are the same institutions that propose a very specific view along with the concepts listed in the text box (such as irreducible complexity). But these do not necessarily define Intelligent Design. For example, there are many varieties of Christianity. Would an article that presented Christianity from the perspective of just the Seventh Day Adventists, be fully authoritative? Suppose we had an article of Christianity and in the text box we had the elements of "[[2]]". That would be a biased presentation of Christianity. Also I cannot tell from a quick read that Intelligent Design is older than Phillip Johnson -- or older than about 1986. But it actually comes from the early 19th century. The article is severely flawed.--Blue Tie (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC) The use of the phrase prior to that date were very sporadic and tenuously related to each other, let alone to its current usage. There is therefore no reason to give WP:UNDUE weight to this fragementary usage. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC) In a quick read, Blue Tie appears to have missed the origins of the term section. Perhaps the objection would be met if the second sentence were changed from "The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science." to the more accurate description, "The term was adopted by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science." Of course, as Hrafn says, passing mentions of the "intelligent designer" as a phrase referring to the Christian God don't make that the specific modern meaning of the term, any more than does use of the term for kitchen fitments. I'm sure descendants of the Lord of the Isles are equally offended by our article on the almost unrelated McDonald's, but at least the ID article gives a disambiguation for alternative usage of the phrase. . . dave souza, talk 09:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC) see Intelligent_design#Origins_of_the_term it clearly defines what the page is about, the modern/most popular usage of the term. You will need some sources that the organizations listed and the usage described on this page is not the most popular/ modern/common usage of the term but I think you will have a hard time. Nowimnthing (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC) The words "intelligent design" weren't a term for anything prior to 1987 when, as the article says, "a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science". Today, the words are famous for this reason and only for this reason. It's their only notable use in today's world, despite protestations from some that intelligent design can be differently defined and differently used. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC) If I were to write about (say) "convoluted hypocrisy", as I might, then it would be a phrase I used. If in the 22nd century a political movement "Convoluted Hypocricy" were to exist, would my prior use of the phrase invalidate its being defined by the then current usage? Not very well put perhaps, but you get the drift? TheresaWilson (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC) Exactly. If one were to choose to only use English words in their first-recorded meanings we'd find that he'd be speaking quite a different language than are we. For example, King James II was reported to have said that St. Paul's Cathedral was "awful, artificial, and amusing." Sounds none too nice to modern ears, but Wren was delighted, as the king had mmeant that the cathedral inspired awe, that it celebrated the work of artisans, and that it reflected the inspiration of the Muses. :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 19:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC) Try going into, say, for example, the article on shock and awe, having found the prior uses of the words, and then arguing that they can be defined differently and used differently. Presumably many of the prior uses are entirely valid in their own right, and many proposed alternate uses are perfectly valid in their own right, but the article discusses their only manner of use that's adequately notable to have an article about. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC) That's certainly an interesting bit of knowledge! On a seperate note, could we get this article protected? It has to have been vandalised almost five times in the last few days and it is getting really annoying.Prussian725 (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC) Too low a level. Talk to me when its 5 times per hour for at least several hours. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC) Welcome to the world of entrenched debate a.k.a. religious wars, where each side feels that anything other than an espousal of their own POV is "biased", where each side views the other's position as "indefensible", and where each side may or may not be tempted to indulge their baser instincts by stooping to making personal attacks. Perhaps we should concentrate on improving the article and leave that job - making those we disagree with look ridiculous - to the professionals. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC) I started this section, and I want to add more information later. There are several things stated above that I do not agree with: The use of the phrase prior to that date were very sporadic and tenuously related to each other (subjective and untrue) Blue Tie appears to have missed the origins of the term section (not the basis of my concerns) The words "intelligent design" weren't a term for anything prior to 1987 (this is false) I am not coming at this with some POV. I am simply interested in the article being correct. Presently, it is not correct. --Blue Tie (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Please cite sources demonstrating an ongoing pattern of usage (i.e. usage that was not "very sporadic and tenuously related to each other") prior to 1986. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC) The words "intelligent design" have only one notable use in today's world that's worth writing a WP article about, which started in 1987 when the word "creationism" and variations thereof were replaced with "intelligent design" in then-current drafts of the book Of Pandas and People. Prior to 1987, the phrase "intelligent design" was used in something like a dozen different published sources over a span of about a century and a half. Since 1987 it's come to describe a particular religious and/or philosophical approach to biology, a now-famous socio-political movement to include this approach in school biology classes, and [purportedly] a field of "scientific" inquiry. The phrase has been used in writing many millions of times in this context, virtually all of which refer to the same issue. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Without sources this is a waste of time as irrespective of whether an editor "agrees with it" or not, it is sources that determine content. And regards the title, the only thing flawed and biased about intelligent design is the appreciation of science from its advocates. Considering the wikipedia policies on neutrality, undue weight, pseudoscience and reliable sources, it's virtually impossible to write an article that is anything but critical of ID. Blue Tie, if you've sources that say ID was used for anything else before 1987, present 'em. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC) please don't use wp:NPOV as an excuse for writing critical articles. Wikipedia itself is not supposed to be critical (or supportive) of specific positions; it is simply supposed to represent such criticism it finds in reliable sources without passing judgement. Without supporting Blue Tie's specific points (since I haven't read this argument carefully enough to evaluate it), I can say that this article suffers from a certain degree of editorial bias. I can say that simply by looking at the number of otherwise reasonable editors it pisses off on a weekly basis. Neutral article don't piss off reasonable editors. --Ludwigs2 18:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC) How long have you been here? Still haven't come to grips with NPOV and Undue Weight, I see. To repeat for the thousandth time: the scientific community has panned ID (especially that part of the scientific community that best understands the processes involved, e.g., biologists, geologists, etc) and support has come only from the DI and its associates, the religious right, and alleged scientists in such unrelated and irrelevant fields as engineering and astrophysics. Hence, WLU is correct. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 19:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC) and how long have you been here, Jim? I don't have any interest is explaining (yet again) the difference between a critical assessment and a sucker punch. Nobody here is arguing that ID was a good theory, a usable theory, a scientific theory, or anything other than a somewhat hare-brained attempt at manipulating the political system; mostly the large numbers of people who complain here are just trying to add a bit of balance to an otherwise mean-spirited article. You can justify it with all the references to policy that you like, but everyone with common sense knows a bitch-slap when they see it, and it's clear that a good number of editors here consider ID to be their own personal bitch. it does seem to have gotten a bit better since the last time I looked in, though, so I'll give that much credit. --Ludwigs2 22:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC) My goodness, Ludwigs, you do use peculiar and rather graphic imagery. Which does suggest a failure of agf on your part. Do please study NPOV with more care. . dave souza, talk 23:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC) yeah, I'm literate, sorry. and I'm also observant. I noticed, for instance, that you didn't say I was wrong. . I'll tell ya, Dave, I always assume good faith. it's just that part of assuming good faith is being able to recognize that people do bone-headed things for what they think are good reasons. the fact that there's a good reason doesn't make it any less bone-headed, of course, but it does make it a little more understandable. I'm just (unfortunately) as honest with other people about that stuff as I am with myself. deal with it, or don't. --Ludwigs2 23:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Oh yes, Ludwig, you're wrong. As usual, entirely in good faith. . . dave souza, talk 17:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Undent. Indeed, there is absolutely no way wikipedia can in any way portray ID as anything except intellectual swill without violating it's core policies. Intelligent design is not a scientific issue it is a cultural phenomenon that should be reported only as a flailing attempt at religious fundamentalists to claw some credibility from the scientific community in order to cover their own scientific nudity, in the clearest, most unambiguous example of pseudoscience that could ever be raised. And this is why editors get so incredibly frustrated when Joe Random Account pops up on the talk page, bleats about "fairness and equal time", then expects to be taken seriously. The talk pages of intelligent design, creationism and all its various proponents are one of the few areas where WP:IAR applies to WP:CIVIL because there is no merit to being friendly to anyone willing to give any credibility to the creationist account. There are not two sides here, there is a bunch of POV liars and everyone else. Universally, unambiguously, clearly, vehemently, repeatedly and ad nauseam creationism in all of its incarnations has been rejected by every biologist with integrity who has had the misfortune to deal with it. The ideas haven't changed since William Paley and it's aggravating to have to pretend there's any merit whatsoever to them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC) WLU, be fair. Paley had pretty good scientific credentials for his time, and the present bunch of buffoons present much poorer arguments. Also, I think we're jolly civil to the poor credulous folks who pop up here having fallen for the various ID wedgie con tricks. One must be kind. .dave souza, talk 22:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC) ...and that Philip Johnson hasn't developed the argument since Paley is just sad. I would say the arguments are no poorer, except for the fact that science has moved on and intelligent design has not. Seriously, Johnson was using arguments that Darwin refuted. DARWIN!! We are kind to those who support ID. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC) But wait, the intelligent designer could have been a spaceman from Nibiru (so whence he/she/it?) or a time-travelling scientist (who apparently invents abiogenesis, defeating the initial argument, not to mention creating an interminable time loop -- unless we all go *poof* in which case he died before he went back in time and we never existed...but if we never existed...). Seriously, though, the few scientists who latched on to this mess weren't exactly Albert Einstein- or Steven Hawking-like. Even Dembski's allegedly deft use of math has been ripped apart as being far to presumptive and flawed. So it goes. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 19:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC) As I said, the article is flawed. I told you I will bring more information later (sources). I am busy right now. But even one of the people who objects recognizes that the term is older than 1987. In fact, I think it is older than 1887.--Blue Tie (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC) See a comment I made a while back -- it's irrelevant how it may have been used in the past. An ode was originally a poem written to be sung, that's not the case any longer nor has it been for quite some time (except in specialised cases). Languages change; nonce words and phrases are just that: ephemeral terms that fade quickly. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 21:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC) ID is a term that, in current usage, refers pretty much exclusively to the ideas being promulgated by Behe, Dembski, and their intellectual companions. While someone may well have put the terms together in the past, and obviously it can be related to Natural theology, what it means now is much more limited. If you want an article on the Argument from design, it already exists (redirecting to Teleological argument. This article is about the modern use of the term. Agathman (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC) RE "In fact, I think it is older than 1887". This statement indicates to me a high probability that the person making this statement hasn't closely read the statements in the article about uses of the phrase, let alone having looked at the citations that have been provided. But that aside, indeed the argument goes much farther back than 1887. The argument from design (for the existence of God), or teleological argument, goes back at least to Aquinas (13th Century CE), with many reliable sources tracing it back at least to Augustine of Hippo (4th Century), and Cicero (1st Century), with a number of reliable sources dating it as far back as Plato's Timaeus (4th Century BCE), and a few reliable sources tracing it back even further. Not surprising, then, that the phrase "intelligent design" has occasionally appeared in some very roughly dozen-or-so notable published writings over the century-and-a-half prior to 1987, essentially as an expression of the argument from design. Where the words "intelligent design" become notable as a self-standing phrase or "term", according to countless contemporary reliable sources, starts in 1987 very shortly after the US Supreme Court handed down the Edwards v. Aguilard decision w.r.t. teaching creationism in biology classes. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC) I consider further discussion a waste of time until reliable sources come up. I hold very little faith in the sources actually having a chance of affecting the page beyond perhaps the history section. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC) --- Comments like these make it appear that you folk are closed minded: it's irrelevant how it may have been used in the past. pretty much exclusively to the ideas being promulgated by Behe, Dembski a high probability that the person making this statement hasn't closely read the statements in the article This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA article. It is not a blog. It should be accurate. It should be correct. But I have seen this story before. Even if I were to list 200 references discussing "intelligent design" prior to 1987, they would be rejected - probably because you have some sort of agenda in the Article. But I shouldn't have to list that many. I should only need some good reliable sources. I think no matter how much hard work and expense I put into it, you guys would quash it. You are so eager to demonstrate that I.D. is somehow bad that you don't want the article to be accurate. This kind of dishonest crap is the reason I left wikipedia. I work my butt off, I spend hundreds of dollars in research and it all gets rejected. What's the point?--Blue Tie (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Yes, this is an encyclopaedia article. Asking for sources isn't "closed minded", it's standard practice. All the more so when the claim (a) contradicts existing sources, and (b) coincides with the latest DI talking points (which happen to contradict the pre-Kitzmiller talking points, according to Matzke). I'm sorry that you have had such a bad experience here. But that's no reason to accuse people of "dishonesty" when they ask you to provide supporting citations for extraordinary claims. Guettarda (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Maybe you didn't notice. I said I would bring sources. But the comments since then have been so negative. I would have been fine if people had said "well until you bring sources, we need to leave the article as it is" or "Maybe, but I need to see sources". But instead they are rejecting the issue out of hand before even seeing sources. No open minded, intellectually honest thinking there. I have seen this movie before -- I can spend hours doing research. I can spend tons of personal funds. I can find sources -- TONS OF SOURCES.. and they get rejected. I'm fed up with that crap. And it is not an extraordinary claim that Intelligent Design was used as a term prior to 1987, pretty much as it is now. Even people who object to my point admit that, they just say it is a minor thing. The ONLY difference between 1987 and before is that after 1987, SOME I.D. people organized to create some sort of scientific/social/political action of some sort. What has happened is the article has taken THAT organization's efforts and turned it around to make THAT be Intelligent Design. They are not the same thing. But I do not see the point of fighting it. I could spend two solid weeks researching and bringing information -- information that would fully and completely meet wikipedia guidelines for the basis of the article and still these things would be rejected. I have seen it too many times. I recognize the signs when I see them. I am not going to invest my time fiddling with this. If wikipedia is intent on being a biased blog sort of thing... then so be it.--Blue Tie (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Blue Tie: if you are not interested in supplying reliable sources to back up your claims then this thread is not "relevant to improving the article" but rather simply a "platform[] for [your] personal views", and thus in violation of WP:TALK and subject to removal. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Has it crossed you mind that, over the last few years, we've heard this before - people claim they can provide sources that prove that ID is an old idea...but never do. That most of us are fed up with people who show up, throw out a slew of insults at "closed minded" people, and then leave...but that never provide a single source. That many of us have read everything we can get our hands on about ID, but haven't seen any sources supporting the assertion that it's an old idea. There are a handful of older instances where "intelligent" and "design" was used in the context of the teleological argument prior to the mid 80s. And the strain of creation science adopted by Davis & Kenyon in Pandas shows up around the time of the McLean trial (1981) and is developed through the early drafts of Pandas. But the idea that there was such a thing as "intelligent design" prior to Pandas is an extraordinary claim. It contradicts existing sources. The idea that there are "tons" of sources is equally perplexing. Why, if there are all these sources, have they not turned up in my own research? Why has no one else presented them here in the 3+ years since Kitzmiller? I'm sorry that you feel so hurt by the process, but you can't claim that there are a "ton" of sources while refusing to provide even one, and use this as an excuse to insult your fellow editors. That's just not acceptable behaviour. No matter how burned you feel by Wikipedia. Guettarda (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Reminds me of the tons of sources supporting the claim that the earth is flat, or that the universe is geocentric -- nay, actually, it's worse than that. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 19:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC) On top of everything else BlueTie, frankly there is nothing, nothing that can be done or said to make ID an actual science. Nothing. Read any actual science, and any acutal scientists analyses of creationism, and you will see that every single point made by its advocates are fundamentally flawed, and more often than not intellectually dishonest. Quote mining, failing to acknolwedge refuted arguments, wilful misinterpretation of scientific findings, it is all standard. Intelligent design is worthless and there is no "giving it a fair chance" because they are cheating and have been cheating for decades. I stand by this, not a single source can be presented that will cause the page to be adjusted in any way. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Now be fair, WLU, all they need to do is pray for a scientific method of testing whether G_d exists, carry out these tests as supplied, and get them scientifically peer reviewed and published. Think the Babel fish would suffice? . . dave souza, talk 17:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Dave: what an absolutely horrifying idea. You do realise that such an event would immediately cause a holy war as to whose supreme deity had in fact been proven to exist, along with any religions whose specific supreme deity was disproven by this test immediately denouncing the evidence as the work of the devil. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC) True, the HHGTTG does indeed suggest that sort of outcome, but would we be able to tell the difference? dave souza, talk 19:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Clearly we would need a differential test for Zeus, Odin, Ra, Shiva, Yahweh, Allah, etc. Maybe a test for whether theistic supremacy comes with lightning, poetry & prophesy, sunshine, destruction, burning bushes, etc. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Don't taunt the fundies - the talk page is for suggesting improvements to the main page. Slackers. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC) <undent> Nothing against fundies, more often than not authors of The Fundamentals were explicitly open to the possibility that God created through evolution: Forster, Roger; Marston, Dr Paul (1999), "Genesis Through History", Reason Science and Faith (Ivy Cottage : E-Books ed.), Chester, England: Monarch Books, pp. 41–43, ISBN 1-85424-441-8 . . dave souza, talk 21:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ever Been Disproven/Criticism

Has it ever been completely disproven? Also, I think we should add a "Criticism" Page. It is very controversial, and I think a look at both sides would be fair.

D33PPURPLE (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)D33PPURPLE

What do you mean by disproven? It's been found almost as valid as FSM theory. We do look at both sides, in accordance with WP:WEIGHT and other policies listed at the top of this talk page. Separate "Criticism" Pages are unacceptable as WP:POV forks. . dave souza, talk 23:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In order to disprove ID, it would have to make predictions which can be tested - which it doesn't. Raul654 (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No sources, waste of time, Christian trolling. I say done here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You CAN disprove ID, because it does indeed make predictions. For example, the irreducible complexity hypothesis makes very explicit predictions about physical structures. These predictions can (and have) been refuted. It is counterproductive to try to disqualify ID as a science by claiming it isn't testable or falsifiable. Arjunsi (talk) 05:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

IC is not a positive argument for ID -- see above thread. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The Question here is incorrect. The Question should be: "Has it ever been proven?" The burden of proof is on the progenitor of the "scientific" hypothesis. And as someone said earlier, it has as much credence as FSMism. BFritzen (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Pandas and ppl.jpg

An editor is dispute-templating this file (again). Editors may wish to weigh in. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the deletion notice and dropped a note to the two people who added it. It may get raised at IfD, but I think it's fairly clear the image itself should not be deleted. J Milburn (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty straight up fair use statement, why would it be deleted? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Now at IfD. Interested parties are welcome to comment here. J Milburn (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Question Could someone explain what the big issue about this picture is? Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

See the navbox at the top of this page, under "Points already discussed", item 22. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You can also review the looong discussion from January of this year as points 7 through 12 in the current Table of Contents. The first little bit has a lot of people saying "this has already been discussed before," but eventually the discussion really gets going (and my eyes glaze over). My understanding is that because this picture is not free content, it does not have a place in this article as per Wikipedia guidelines. The counter argument is that the guidelines allow for such use if it can be shown to be beneficial to the article. Since the book (and its cover) are mentioned in the article (to show the efforts some people have gone to present ID as "legitimate science", among other reasons), it was thought that the photograph helps illustrate that point. Quietmarc (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, also, other related discussions are in points 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, 25, and 28 of the current table of contents.Quietmarc (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I didn't mean about if it should be allowed to be used on WP. I meant why is a picture of a book cover considered to be important?Steve Dufour (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Steve. You can see the very start of the discussion, when the cover was eventually added to the article, at the navbox, under "Points Already Discussed," item 22, as Amatulic pointed out just upthread. The gist of it is that the book itself is rather central to ID, is quite significant to ID historically, and that the presentation itself (as a glossy-covered, professional-looking, text-book calibre publication) is important in the sense that ID was doing a lot to present their message as a legitimate science, which makes an image of the book somewhat beneficial to the article.

Some people do disagree over the relevence, but quite a few editors put a LOT of work into making sure that the image is justified, cited, sourced, etc and it will be an uphill battle for anyone to argue for the image's removal. At the very least, it will take a very compelling argument against to topple all of the arguments FOR inclusion. Hope this helps.Quietmarc (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I also don't understand what the objection to the picture is. It seems to me that merely telling people that the book exists and describing it in words should be good enough, or the picture could be shown without much difference in readers' understanding of the topic. When the AfD of the picture was brought to my attention I voted to delete it since it is copyrighted, but not because I have a position in the ongoing debate on its use -- which I don't understand anyway. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I don't have much of a head for this sort of disagreement, either, which makes me a bit short of patience. There are rules for deciding whether a copyrighted image can be used for any given article (they're listed early on in the relevant Points Already Discussed section), and so long as it follows every rule, it's allowable. The disagreement comes down to (if I recall correctly) point number 8, which is whether the image is relevant and adds to the article. Because this point can be subjective, there can be a lot of room for debate.

I'm baffled, too, as to why this particular image is so contentious, but I do know that articles like ID and other pseudosciences are lightning rods for controversy, so these articles tend to see all kinds of editors.Quietmarc (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You could go ahead and merge the two projects, Intelligent Design and Creationism, since they are said to be the same thing. That would probably result in less work for the editors. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Who said that? ID is creationism, but creationism isn't necessarily ID. As for the image issue, fair use images can be used on more than one article with justification, there's a disagreement over the sufficiency of the justification. . . dave souza, talk 18:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

My bad. If ID is a subcategory of creationism, then the WP project for it could be merged into the other project resulting in less work for interested editors. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Everything is a subcategory of Life, the Universe and Everything. Which means that the only article we need is 42. dave souza, talk 19:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I only suggested the idea since a couple people mentioned how much work the article required. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkpage size & bot-archiving

I would like to note that the talkpage is now over 400k, making it increasingly difficult to load (often the connection drops off part way through) & navigate. I would like to suggest that we put it onto bot-archiving (anybody an expert at setting this up, or do you wish me to make an amateurish attempt?), at least for the mean time. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I say we manually move everything up thru the end of Feb-the bulk at that time related to image use and I think that discussion is dead. A bot is great, but how long would you say the discussions should sit before they're archived? Professor marginalia (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I have set up bot archiving so that thread that have no messages for over 30 days are archived automatically. Feel free to adjust the parameters (instruction key), or even revert in toto. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!! Professor marginalia (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

While I am at it ... I have also added a searchbox to the "Please read first" section of the talk page. That way, it is easy to find the 37 previous occasions, "Of Pandas and People" has been discussed previously, instead of starting from scratch each time. :) Abecedare (talk) 05:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

While testing to make sure that I had set up the search correctly, I found that "leading proponent" has been discussed 47 time! Even a cat has only nine lives. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid to look for "assertion". KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A winner? 68 hits.Quietmarc (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Rethinking School's opinion

The section "Origins of the term" mentions the "Pandas" book and explains how it was the first publication to use the term "Intelligent Design" in its modern use. So far so good. But next, the text follows to mention a criticism of the book by Rethinking Schools Magazine. How is this criticism relevant to the subject of the section, the origins of the term? I think it doesn't fit this section and makes the text go off-topic for a while. Shouldn't it be moved or removed? --Damiens.rf 20:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The book is central to the introduction of ID as a term, the critique in a magazine for professional educators describes the book. There's a lot of discussion earlier about this, and I've reinstated the image and description. . dave souza, talk 20:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, what do you mean by "critique in a magazine for professional educators describes the book"? In what is relevant to that section, the book is described when the article says it's the first book to use the term (in the modern sense). I fail to see how is that respectful magazine's opinion on the book relevant to that section. Can you point me to the "lot of earlier discussion" about the role of this criticism in this section? I'm curious about what the rationale was.

In a side point, I think it was a bit ungentle from your part to reinstate the image, since you didn't really addressed my concerns, neither pointed me to the previous discussion about the matter. I'm not going to remove it again because it would be pointless. I'll like to read those previous discussions before touching the article again. --Damiens.rf 00:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Your concerns are addressed in the FAQ, point 22. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to this FAQ? I can't find the "point 22" there. What am I doing wrong? Thanks, --Damiens.rf 15:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think he was referring to the "Points that have already been discussed" in the archive box. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I mis-typed, Point 22 above the FAQ. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I have read the talk history and the FAQs but completely failed to find a discussion about the need to put Rethinking School's opinion right after the mention of the Pandas book, in a section about the origins of the term. Can someone provide me a direct link to where this point "have already been discussed? Or maybe we could actually discuss it here? Thanks. --Damiens.rf 01:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussions concerned the use of the image, not the Rethinking Schools opinion. I take it Damiens.rf objects to the image caption referring to the Rethinking Schools commentary about the book. Or is the issue merely whether it's been specifically discussed? ... Kenosis (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Kenosis. Thanks for your interest. Please, read the beginning of this section to understand what my point is. It has nothing to do with the book cover image or its caption. Your opinion on the matter is welcome. --Damiens.rf 08:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The Rethinking Schools view is critical commentary on the book that's of additional interest to readers about the manner in which the book that introduced the phrase "intelligent design" (as a substitute for "creation__") is presented to its intended audience. The book cover image needn't necessarily be in that section because other portions of this article also involve commentary on the book, but it's a completely reasonable place for it. ... Kenosis (talk) 10:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

But still, how is this criticism relevant to the subject of the section, the origins of the term? You say it's "of additional interest", but I see it as a distracting and unnecessary negative propaganda. This section is not about the book and should not contain criticism about it, let alone unbalanced criticism. Wouldn't you agree the criticism belongs the article about the book, where there's enough space to cover positive and negative reviews? --Damiens.rf 14:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I see. So, to Damiens.rf, the issue is not whether it is reasonably included in that section, but rather whether the image and related commentary belongs in this article at all. Sorry, I'm not in favor of balkanizing the content of this article. But heck, I'm just one WP user. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC) As to positive reviews of Of Pandas and People, I'd be interested to see reliably sourced favorable commentary, presented either here or at Talk:Of Pandas and People in order that it might be duly considered by participating editors. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you talk directly to me instead of talking to some imagined audience? Avoid these "...so, to Damiens..." and "...I take it Damiens.rf objects to the image caption..." constructs. They are annoying. Back to the issue here, I think you're going over the top when you characterize my questioning about the suitability of a given passage as "Balkanization" of the article. As of your interest in favorable commentary about the book, you may find some at Of Pandas and People#Reception. But just like it would be off topic to put Michael Behe's opinion on Panda's in the "Origins of the term" section, I also don't see the point of using Rethinking Schools's opinion. What was the criteria? --Damiens.rf 19:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe I've already said my piece, in the manner I intended. Just so my position is clear, my position is that the use of the cover image of Of Pandas and People is wholly appropriate in the section on Origins of the term, and that the Rethinking Schools commentary is wholly appropriate in the image caption, no matter where in this article the Pandas image is placed. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I get what you're saying, Damiens (though I disagree). Your objection is that the origins of the term section should state that P&P was the first major use of the term, and then stop there. You're wondering about the relevance of criticism in regards to that piece of the article. I do think it's relevant, because it demonstrates the "tone" of how the term was introduced. The term didn't just evolve (pardon the pun), it was chosen deliberately to present creationism as a realistic alternative to standard science, and was packaged in a glossy, professional-appearing textbook. The criticism of this presentation is important, because it shows how the book (and the term) was received in the relevant communities.Quietmarc (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes Raul654

Unrelated to article content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yes Raul654, my quote was indeed harmful to the religion of Darwinian evolution because it’s the truth. For example, the reason why no one believes in the Miller’s spark chamber any more is because we know the truth regarding Oxygen. Among the many flaw of his experiment, leaving out Oxygen is one of top screw ups. And why did he do that? Because Oxygen has this nasty tendency to short out organic chemical processes. Yes, I would agree that truth can be harmful to bad experiments and bad science. Raul, your edit violates the "No Original Research" policy. Please change the quote back or tell me how I can bring in a moderator. AnalystsAreUs (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC) No Original Research The previous initial citation falls under the term, "No Original Research". The corrected quote does not. AnalystsAreUs (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This Article Is a Joke

Off topic rant that is not "relevant to improving the article", and so is archived per WP:TALK
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have tried to edit this article on a few occasions, to make it honestly reflect what those in the Intelligent Design camp truly believe. However, I have been censored every time. Although Wikipedia espouses certain guidelines, it's apparent that some of those in charge do not have to follow them. For example, articles are supposed to follow the No Original Research policy. In other words, back up what you are saying by linking to relevant source material. However, one of the first quotes in this article does not do that. It states: Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." No one that I know of from the Intelligent Design School of Thought has any problems with natural selection(slight changes in existing structures). So I decided to read what the source material said for myself. What they actually said was, Intelligent design is a scientific theory which holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution. What those in the Intelligent Design community have a problem with is not natural selection, but Darwinian evolution, that species can change from one to another and become more complex in their basic design. I also tired to make it less biased. For example, the first sentence says, “Intelligent design is the assertion...” Dictionary.com has this as the definition of assertion : a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason. To say that the Intelligent Design community has no support or science to back them selves up is absurd. I understand some people may not agree with their conclusions, but that does not give you the right to lie and say that they have no support. Dr. A.E. Wilder Smith wrote a book called, The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution. It's full of science. In the beginning, he takes you through the organic chemistry of why the Miller amino acid forming spark chamber is a failure and gives you a number of reasons. The first one being that one of the byproducts of the condensation reactions is that it gives off water. That last place that chance amino acid will form is presence of copious amounts of water because the condensation reaction is reversible. All you need to short it out is uncontrolled access to other organic chemicals like water. Another one is Oxygen. http://www.wildersmith.org/ Biochemist Michael Behe wrote a book called Darwin's Black Box in which he stuffs if full of science detailing why you can not go from simple to more complex with out intelligence. http://books.google.com/books?id=7L8mkq4jG6EC&dq=Darwin%27s+black+box&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=TF8QSpPsNo7YMI2IxcEG&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4 Biologist Keneth Poppe wrote a book called, Reclaiming Science From Darwinism where he takes you through the basic biology of life and demonstrates why it could ever have formed as the result of blind chance. http://books.google.com/books?id=rv5QAAAACAAJ&dq=Reclaiming+Science+From+Darwinism I have only reference 3 of dozens and dozens of books on the topic(and if you claim to have an open mind, you should read few for yourself and not just rely on someone's biased and often unfounded opinion). So if you use the word, “assert” you are either ignorant, being intentionally deceitful or you are a lunatic. I tried to change the word, “assert” to a more neutral term phrase like "school of thought" and one editor showed his non-neutral bias when he said that he didn't want to give Intelligent Design any “credibility”. This is in direct violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Was I able to change it? No. Was I able to debate it? No. They censored that too. And this is only the beginning of problems of this article. So to say 2 days without edits is misleading at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnalystsAreUs (talk • contribs) 19:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Need to correct Quote

The introductory sentence says: Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2]

If you follow the link to the PDF, it says something different. Please correct the first sentence to read:

Intelligent design is the assertion that “certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution.”

No one that I know that I know of in the ID camp has any problems with natural selection. What they have problems is with chanced based biogenesis.

If you are going to quote someone, quote them accurately and leave your bias out of it.

Did they get tired of editing the article? No, I think they just gave up becasue they realized that Darwinists have pretty much hijacked this article and are willing to put thier own biased spin on it and everyone else be dammed.

AnalystsAreUs (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If you had actually read the first citation, it says, "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection"; it is a direct quote, just not from the PDF. Simply because you don't know anyone who has a problem with natural selection doesn't mean it isn't part of ID — I've seen many "experts" on ID, and several have problems with natural selection, some only with natural selection in regard to humans; nonetheless, no matter what your personal experience, original research has no place on Wikipedia. Also, you can only edit something for so long...eventually you arrive at an article that somewhat resembles the facts surrounding the issue and unless new events arise, the only thing left to do is prevent vandalism. And "darwinists" haven't hijacked this article, it simply reflects available information on ID, which includes contradictory, well-informed, scientific information based on evolution. If the article competes with your own beliefs, then it isn't biased, it's simply doing its job. DKqwerty (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The existing quote matches the source. Your alteration does not match the source, and is ungrammatical. Guettarda (talk) 05:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

There are two footnotes at the end of that sentence, citing 3 (!) texts, only one of which contains the quote. So what are the others doing there? PiCo (talk) 06:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

"ODES Other Demensional Eneties and TTTLRS Trans Time Travelers not mention in article. Recent Ufology research indicates that Beings from other demensions and even beings from future time may be involved with the UFO event! Thanks! (Dr. Edson Andrfe'J)" (Fomr the talk page at Unidentified Flying Objects This is one of the best talk page comments I've seen - can I ask the good Dr Edson to come and edit Intelligent Design?) PiCo (talk) 06:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Picture of a Watch?

Why is the lead picture for this article (and the rest in the topic) a picture of a watch? As intelligent design primarily deals with biology, wouldn't a picture of a plant or an animal be much more appropriate? Cool3 (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

See watchmaker analogy. The analogy is the epitome of the argument from design in modern times. J Milburn (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the image would be more appropriate on the watchmaker analogy article and not this one. - Steve3849 ^talk 09:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Poor Introduction

The first sentence is emotionally laden and inaccurate and therefor needs to be changed.

It states: Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2]

Intelligent design is not an assertion, but a highly disciplined and well thought out point of view. The term “assertion” implies that the person making the claim only has an emotional argument.

The definition of asset form http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assert says, “and often forcefully or aggressively”.

This is simply not the case. Therefore, this sentence needs to be changed so it adhears to the Netural Point of view.

A much better sentence would be:

Intelligent design is the school of thought that proposes "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2]

AnalystsAreUs (talk) 12:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Your assertion that "Intelligent design is... a highly disciplined and well thought out point of view." is blatantly inaccurate, it's a rag-bag of creation science assertions that scientific findings must be wrong as God exists, therefore God exists. The term “assertion” does not mean that the person making the claim only has an emotional argument, though in this instance ID is indeed an argument from faith, often put “forcefully or aggressively” as was seen at Dover. Whether faith can be equated to emothion or not is an interesting question, but it sure ain't science. Proponentsists of the "school of thought" present themselves as "design scholars", not as "intelligent design", so verification is needed of your assertion, not a synthesis based on your reading of a dictionary. dave souza, talk 13:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Although a reasonable phrase, "school of thought" implies an academic or scientific legitimacy which this pedagogical strategy lacks, according to the reliable sources on the topic. W.r.t. the use of the word "assertion", it's been discussed before at length. There are countless examples of assertiveness by its proponents, many of which can be found simply by reading the article and looking at the numerous sources already provided. American Heritage Dictionary also uses the word "assertion" to describe the class of things to which intelligent design belongs. Previously, the word "concept" had been used in this article, until sometime in 2007. One of several prior discussions concerning the use of the word "assertion" in the opening sentence can be found here. There were other discussions about this as well-- perhaps someone can link them for convenience. ... Kenosis (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point about the undue implication of legitimacy – the poor dears are so paranoid about "Slaughter of the Dissidents: The Shocking Truth about Killing the Careers of Darwin Doubters" that they've apparently brought another book out.[3] Interesting that the publisher is allegedly behind ARN. . dave souza, talk 15:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, interesting how many "design" references there are in the images in this essay. . dave souza, talk 16:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't "intelligent design is the belief..." be best? Belief carries neither the pejorative sense of "assertion" nor the legitimacy of "school of thought." A belief is exactly what it is, for both proponents and opponents. The OED uses belief: "intelligent design n. (the appearance of) design or creation in nature or the universe by an intelligent entity, adduced by those who believe that life is too complex to have evolved solely through by the action of natural processes (cf. DESIGN n. 4); (in later use) such a belief or theory, proposed chiefly by opponents of the theory of evolution by natural selection." (bolding added) Cool3 (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The proponents claim that it is science, not a belief, for the obvious reason that beliefs can't be taught in science classes. It also has the same problem as "concept", their definition (and it is their definition, not a definition provided by critics) is wooly enough to include belief in theistic evolution. Many people holding that range of religious beliefs will agree with some or all of the defined concepts to some extent, without viewing ID as having scientific validity or being appropriate material for teaching in public schools. See, for example, this statement from someone whose self description is "a Republican, both fiscally and socially conservative, and attend a local church with my family." . . dave souza, talk 17:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The other problem with "belief" is that many ID proponents are YECs and their actual belief is in Young Earth creationism, and for them ID is merely a strategic wedge as a means to gaining admittance for such beliefs. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I am in favor of the word "belief," as the same term is used in the Creationism article and would place the two in a properly analogous light while still presenting them as separate articles. It would be more logical and manageable, however, to simply merge the two articles and present ID as a subset of the creationism, as the latter already heavily references the former as a subset. Ninjasaves (talk) 03:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

ID is indeed a subset of creationism, and like the other subsets it has its own specific article giving more detailed information than the main article. Unlike creationism in general, ID proponents claim that it is science rather than a belief, so the term doesn't work in this article. . . dave souza, talk 11:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Francis Collins, Eugenie Scott, call it a "movement". Mainstream, social commentary-type references don't shy away from calling it a "theory". However, since many creationists have raised the "just a theory" as an issue in their advocacy, sources sensitive to that aspect of the controversy are generally (though not universally) careful not to call it a theory lest they add to the confusion over what aspects are required for an assertion to qualify as a "scientific theory". Scientists DeSalle and Tattersall called it an "explanation". Chomsky, along with many others, have called it a "notion". And many sources writing from a more philosophical perspective call it an "argument", as in "argument from design" and "teleological argument". I haven't seen any distinguish it as a "belief"-from all angles, including critics, ID is characterized more as a "conclusion" than a "belief", even though most would say that "beliefs" motivate the conclusion. There are two main thrusts with ID-the premise that there is evidence of design in nature, and the anti-evolutionist movement to retool origins-related science practice and science education. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, previously (from 2005 through early 2007) the word "concept" was used in the first sentence of the article to denote the class of entity to which ID belongs, followed by the quote of the Discovery Institute definition. In early 2007 the word "proposition" was tried for awhile but was essentially deemed too oblique by participating editors. The words "... is an argument for the existence of God based on the premise that [Discovery Institute definition quoted]" were tried but soon changed to "proposition based on the premise that [DI definition quoted]", then soon changed to " is the assertion that [DI definition quoted]". Also, the word "claim" was used for awhile. IIRC, a couple other options were also briefly tried, but "assertion" has by far generated the least complaints from users with various POVs about this topic. It's a neutral word that denotes, well, nothing more than an a proclamation or affirmation of a given proposition-- something put forward with the intent to influence the perception of others-- inherently devoid of judgment about whether the proposition is "true" or not. That's about as NPOV as one can get with a topic that has been shown in a federal court of law and in numerous other reliable sources to be an intentionally deceptive tactic to get religious or philosophical views into school science classes.
..... For reference, here are several other archived talk threads about the issue: [4], [5], [6]. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you read through(not just skimmed) the literature on Intelligent Design? Have you read Dr. A.E. Wilder's Smith book, The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution? He was around before Behe came on the seen. No, well let me summarize it for you(sorry, but I have included my own engineering spin on it):

Machines, be they organic or inorganic, are designed by directed intelligence and directed energy over time(hopefully this observation has not escaped your professorship). The more directed intelligence and directed energy you use, the less time you will need(that's why we use computers these days). Therefore, if you have an infinite amount of directed energy and an infinite amount of directed intelligence(hopefully you have taken calculus and are familiar with the concept of taking limits), you will need zero time to create the most complex of machines, man. And of course if you use zero directed intelligence and zero directed energy(Darwinism), you will need an infinite amount of of time to create the least complex of machines, a tool.

Have you read through Behe's book Darwin's black box? Have you see the “Unlocking the Mystery's of Life” DVD? If so, please point out were their thinking is inaccurate using your own words, not emotional rhetoric(“blatant”). The burden of demonstration is on your part.

Just because someone comes to the wrong conclusion or answer does not mean that their thinking was not well thought out or that it was undisciplined. Let me give you an example. I have written a number of highly complex computer applications with hundreds and thousands of lines of code. Given the fact that they worked and did not crash is evidence of that. However, during the course of development, my code did have errors. What does it tell you? That my thinking on occasion was off, but for the most part was dead on. Therefore, when you say that their thinking is not well disciplined, it appears to me to be without merit because I have read what they have to say for myself and I think it's very good.

I do think the term belief would be more neutral than assertion. However, I also understand that while some people have a religious motivations when discussing Intelligent Design, not everyone who espouses that term is religious. Because of this, belief is not the best choice because it's not all inclusive. In addition, Wikipedia's definition of school of thought is: A school of thought is a collection or group of people who share common characteristics of opinion or outlook of a philosophy, discipline, belief, social movement, cultural movement, or art movement. The concept of legitimacy is found no where in the text so your concerns are ungrounded. Because of this, I would appreciate it if you used the phrase, school of thought.

Although Intelligent Design can have religious implications, as a point of view, it is religiously neutral. How do you not know whether or not I believe in SETI's E.T. Or God? Let me give you another example. If you look at the equations E = MC * C and E = I * R, what could you tell me about them? If you are not familiar with them, the first equation comes from physics and the the other comes from electronics (although my MIT programming teacher would argue the latter is just a subset of the former). The answer(s) should be obvious. First, both equations some up the fundamentals of their respective fields of study. Second, they are too simple. Way way to simple if we indeed came about by some kind of massive explosion. Seriously, the math is child's play. Therefore, they have Intelligent Design implications because it looks like the math was reverse engineered and someone because someone wanted them to be discovered. Although they have implications, that does not mean they have to be religious in nature. It all depends on your point of view.

In short, your concerns are not neutral. Your concerns are not about what the folks of Intelligent Design believe or don't believe. Your are hitting the panic button because you don't want to give their point of view legitimacy and is therefore out of scope. Let me give you an example. I don't believe in Islam but I have read and studied the Koran. If I were to write a Wikipedia article on their beliefs, I would not include my arguments(although easy as it would be) against it simply because that's not the purpose of Wikipedia. AnalystsAreUs (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who you're speaking to but everyone involved would do well to refrain from debating the legitimacy of views given in primary sources of proponents of ID. I've seen this happen a thousand times, and it's important to nip it in the bud early. Debating the strengths and weaknesses of Behe or any tenet of ID is not what the talk pages are for- and they waste everyone's time. Back to the issue raised, I think this is too contentious a topic for us to resolve the dispute by running down words in the dictionary. Dictionary definitions aren't useful here - we don't need a source for "school of thought" or "belief", we need sources for "intelligent design", and the more independent and scholarly these sources are, the better. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC) Addendum-if "assertion" is the result of so much hard work, I think you need to make a stronger case to change it than suggesting it's not NPOV. Assertion is not such a loaded word as you suggest, not in the context used here.Professor marginalia (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A. E. Wilder Smith (according to wikipedia) is a YEC. While his TNSKNoE book appears to touch on ID concepts (infinite intelligence and energy allows spontaneous creation of anything), and have been co-opted by ID-proponents under their "big tent" philosophy - it appears to be more creation science/YEC materail than core-ID literature. Back on the issue the appropriateness of "assertion" has been discussed, and should continue to be open for discussion. feel free to propose alternatives. I would recommend you peruse previous discussions - words like "beliefe" are definitely not appropriate. "School of thought" is a bit vague. "Highly disciplined" pertaining to ID is just ridiculous. I also think you'll find many editors here would think that "emotional" along with "forceful and aggressive" aptly describes many of DI's actions.--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Survey of words used by others

This is a brief, admittedly rather unscientific survey of how dictionaries I could find quickly define ID. Please feel free to add more entries from other encyclopedias, dictionaries, etc.

Dictionaries

• "the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity." New Oxford American Dictionary
• "a theory that nature and complex biological structures were designed by intelligent beings and were not created by chance; abbr. ID" Websters New Millenium Dictionary
• "The assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes." American Heritage Dictionary
• "(the appearance of) design or creation in nature or the universe by an intelligent entity, adduced by those who believe that life is too complex to have evolved solely through by the action of natural processes (cf. DESIGN n. 4); (in later use) such a belief or theory, proposed chiefly by opponents of the theory of evolution by natural selection." Oxford English Dictionary
• "the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence" Merriam Webster Online Dictionary
• "the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity." Oxford Dictionary of Phrase and Fable

Encyclopedias

• "argument intended to demonstrate that living organisms were created in more or less their present forms by an “intelligent designer.” Encyclopedia Britannica
• "theory that some complex biological structures and other aspects of nature show evidence of having been designed by an intelligence" The Columbia Encyclopedia

Mainstream Media

• "Intelligent design is the belief that living organisms are so complex that the best explanation is that they were created by an intelligent force of some kind." The New York Times. [7]
• "The theory of intelligent design says that life is so complex that it must have been designed by a higher intelligent being, and not evolved by natural selection" The Guardian [8]
• "the idea that some forms of life are so complex, they show the distinct hand of a designer." USA Today [9]
• "the argument that aspects of life are so complex as to require the hand, subtle or not, of a supernatural creator" The Washington Post [10]
• "the idea that some aspects of the natural world are best explained as designed by some unnamed intelligence rather than as the products of purely naturalistic processes." Salon [11]

Journals

• "the idea that an intelligent creator shaped today's organisms." Nature [12]

Other sources

• "The non-scientific argument that complex biological structures have been designed by an unidentified supernatural or extraterrestrial intelligence." [13] (reliability questionable, appears to be from PBS, but no authorship information is given)
• "an anti-evolution belief asserting that naturalistic explanations of some biological entities are not possible and such entities can only be explained by intelligent causes." The Skeptic's Dictionary (again reliability is uncertain, but appears to have been published as a book, which is something)

Other ways of doing it

• A common theme in many sources is to not use a noun, and just go with a verb. For example: "Intelligent design holds that nature is so complex that random natural selection, as argued by Charles Darwin in his 1859 theory of evolution, is an inadequate explanation for its evolution." [14] and many others. In general, this seems to be a preferred style in the media.

Adding up the words used:

• Theory: 7 uses
• Belief: 4 uses
• Assertion: 1 use (and one use of verb form)
• Argument: 3 uses
• Idea: 3 uses

Make of it what you will, but basically the consensus usage in other dictionaries and encyclopedias is "theory" and certainly not "assertion". Cool3 (talk) 01:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Oddly enough, this topic is #1 on our list of things that have already been discussed. I skimmed the arguments, and while I agree with the outcome (that "theory" is misleading, as ID is categorically not a scientific theory, and many readers will not be aware of the distinction), I would have liked to see a few more sources for "assertion" (or whatever else gets used). I will say, though, that we can't rely too much on dictionary interpretations, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and of those, the results are divided. Quietmarc (talk) 02:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia's a bit more sensitive to uses of the term "theory" than most encyclopedias, although I want to stress no sources I've seen agree ID is a scientific theory in the way "scientific theory" is defined today. Even ID's proponents, most notably Johnson, acknowledge this in effect- they object to that definition, and they would like to broaden it, but in doing so accede that the definition in use today excludes design theory. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I agree that theory is probably not the right word to use, but I think an obvious point above is that there is little RS support for assertion. I'll try to track down some more sources, but belief is in a solid second place among those so far. Cool3 (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

How would it be to replace "assertion" with"statement"? Can't argue with that, I think.TheresaWilson (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd say it's more than just a statement; statement it too simple. On the other hand, what about "view"? View carries broader significance than "statement" with the same neutrality, and without the baggage of theory, school of thought, etc. Cool3 (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with "view", which I'm pretty sure was considered earlier, is that many people can hold a view along the lines of the statement without subscribing to ID. The modern usage of ID as a specific ideology masquerading as science is much more specific than an all embracing "view". . dave souza, talk 16:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well on the basis of that statement, I'd say you can't really call it an "assertion" either as some people would subscribe to the assertion without subscribing to ID. In that case, we'd really have to begin with "Intelligent design is a movement..." or "Intelligent design is a group of ideas..." or perhaps, though surely I will be shot for this, "Intelligent design is a research program..." Cool3 (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to change "assertion" because it isn't widely used by sources, it doesn't make sense to choose another word that isn't in the sources either. Maybe though--this might be more the case of "editor oversensitivity" than anything else. The average reader isn't going to form "the wrong idea" from "assertion" or "theory" or "school of thought" or "argument" or most of these suggestions. But I still think "belief" is the weakest of the lot-the encyclopedias above which do use it (just 2, right, not 3?) only do so in conjunction with other terms, eg "assertion or belief" and "a belief or theory". Professor marginalia (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right on all counts there. I did miscount, there are only 2 for belief, not 3. I further agree that we should pick from options already used by RS rather than inventing our own (thus ruling out some of my suggestions above). The more I think about this, the more I think that the word has to be "theory." We don't get to choose what to write on the basis of our own opinions, rather we write what the reliable sources are saying. The reliable sources call it a theory, so Wikipedia is obligated to do the same. I spent an hour this morning poking around for other places to get a concise definition of the word, but I can't find much to supplement the above. Unless several reliable sources can be found which support an alternative, I think we have no choice but "theory" after all. Cool3 (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not a scientific theory, a point that Stephen Johnson admits. That other sources imprecisely call it that, conflating the scientific and vernacular meanings of the word, is most certainly not an reason that we should follow suit. Raul654 (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether it's a scientific theory or not (which is a subject of dispute) is immaterial. What matters is what reliable sources call it. They don't call it an assertion, by and large they refer to it as a "theory" or a "belief". Rather than basing this on our own opinions, we should focus on what the sources say. I'm perfectly happy to use assertion if someone can point to others doing so, but I don't know of a better place to look for definitions of words than dictionaries, and the dictionaries I've looked at are defining intelligent design as a "theory". Cool3 (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources that refer to ID as an assertion:

• "They assert the complexities of the Earth must be the work of a designer." - http://www.arn.org/docs/news/lifesintelligentdesign050701.htm
• "Unlike traditional creationism, which posits that God created the earth in six days, proponents of intelligent design assert that the workings of this planet are too complex to be ascribed to evolution." - http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/feb/07/evolution.schoolsworldwide
• "Intelligent design" is an assertion that an intelligent, supernatural entity has intervened in the history of life. - http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/IDpa.html
• "Intelligent design" is an assertion that an intelligent, supernatural entity has intervened in the history of life. " - http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/23158prs20051220.html
• "Intelligent Design (ID) is the assertion that the universe and living things show signs of having been designed by an intelligent agent. " - http://www.islamonline.net/english/Science/2005/07/article05.shtml
• "Proponents of intelligent design assert that Darwinian evolution is only a theory and that their theory is an alternative and equally valid explanation of the same observed phenomena. Tilghman, however, said the approach lacks the substance of a scientific theory." - http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2005/12/09/14090/

Note that the last one explicitly describes "theory" as an inaccurate label. Raul654 (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I openly admit the methodological flaws in what I am about to present, but still consider the following google searches. Assertion: 279,000 results. Theory: 3,910,000 results. Belief 1,740,000 results. Although the numbers here don't mean that much, Google is sufficient to show that belief, theory, etc. are far more commonly used terms than "assertion". Also, several of your sources above use the very "assert", which isn't quite the same thing as "assertion". Assertion is not the wrong word here, I'm not sure what the right one is, but I'd much prefer any of the following: belief, concept, idea or argument. Frankly, I'd even say that "theory" is better, but only in it's vernacular rather than scientific usage (which of course is problematic). Cool3 (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

First, you don't get invent out of whole cloth new reliable sourcing rules when other people cite articles that you happen to disagree with. So (1) If someone asserts something, they are making an assertion. There is no difference, your own claims to the contrary not withstanding. (2) The Princeton review article is quoting the president of princeton university (Tilghman), and she's a molecular chemist and certaily qualified to comment. (3) Nor is there any requirement that the people commenting have a phd in a relavant field (The New York Times reporter you quoted in your above description most certaily doesn't; in fact, unlike the Islamonline article I cited, I doubt he has a phd at all). (4) There is no requirement that we use the most common term used in the popular press. So even if "theory" is the most common term, that doesn't make it correct, or mean that we have to use it, especially when we have a perfectly good alternative already in the article. Raul654 (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

1) Yes, if the article read "proponents of intelligent design make the assertion that" then you would be correct. That is not what the article says. 2) The Daily Princetonian article (I assume that's what you mean by Princeton review) isn't quoting Tilghman, it's paraphrasing, and only for the second part of that statement. You'll also find that in the same quote you present, the "reporter" (college student) refers to Intelligent Design as a "theory." 3) Yes, my New York Times reporter doesn't have a PhD but his article doesn't have a disclaimer telling you it's his personal opinion. His article has been vetted by the editorial staff of one of the world's leading newspapers, not submitted to a website "as a critique of Intelligent Design (ID) based on his readings of pro-ID articles posted on IslamOnline.net" (see the difference? Just maybe?) 4) Sure, we don't have to say what the press says, but we really shouldn't just make up a word that we like and then source it to press releases and college newspaper articles when dictionaries, encyclopedias and major newspapers are all picking other words. Cool3 (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

We can't go by the number of uses for many reasons, one of them being that so many of the ID hits you get with google are written by very partisan sources. The lead sentence needs to go towards how it is characterized by the more neutral sources. ID proponents presumably will dispute the "belief" label, science watchdogs will surely dispute the "theory" label and predictably either term will be so divisive the resulting disruption will simply create another exhausting time-sink. I can put myself in the shoes of those objecting to "theory" or "belief", but I guess I don't understand how "assertion" doesn't work for everybody. It's sourced, and it appears pretty neutral and to-the-point to me. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not sourced. Not a single one of the "assertion" sources above is reliable except the definition, from the American Heritage Dictionary, "the assertion or belief." Assertion is a much worse word than belief. An assertion is "a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason" (Random House Dictionary, bolding added). Intelligent design advocates certainly have a "reason" for what they believe, even if those reasons often do not stand up to rigorous scientific standards. On the other hand, "belief" carries no judgment about whether what is believed is true or false, justified or unjustified. I really see no reason for an ID-advocate to stand in opposition to the "belief" label. If we're really looking for the most neutral term, though, it would be "argument" or something similar. Cool3 (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

They're not reliable, according to you, because you made up a whole bunch of new reliable sources rules and claimed they didn't meet them (such as claiming "assert" and "assertion" are not the same thing). Using the actual reliable sources rules, most if not all of them are reliable. Raul654 (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it a bad time to suggest "propaganda tool to further the wedge strategy"? Yes. Oh ok I will wait for a better time then. :) --LexCorp (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sssh! That's supposed to be secret!Quietmarc (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I use a somewhat higher standard than the regular RS rule, but that's only because all of the sources I cite above are of irreproachable quality. They are: major dictionaries and encyclopedias, leading newspapers such as the New York Times and Washington Post, and one of the leading scientific journals of the world. In contrast, you came up with Princeton's student newspaper, some press releases from groups that "have an axe to grind", and what amounts to an editorial from a graduate student (who isn't even studying a related field). There's something of a difference here.

As for assert vs. assertion there's a most definite difference. Compare Assert:

"1. to state with assurance, confidence, or force; state strongly or positively; affirm; aver: He asserted his innocence of the crime.

2. to maintain or defend (claims, rights, etc.).

3. to state as having existence; affirm; postulate: to assert a first cause as necessary" (Random House)

Assertion:

"a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason" (Also Random House)

Yes, there is a difference there. Or would you prefer to offer definitions based on press releases and student newspapers rather than dictionaries? Cool3 (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent)I'm not comfortable with "theory" at all (not the least of which is where the "It's 'just' a theory" sits in that), and I'm not all that sure about using a dictionary as a source for the term. Dictionaries and encyclopedias are very different things, which very different purposes, and while a dictionary is a good resource, I'm not confident in it's use as a -source-. I'm happy with "assertion" provided the sources hold up, and in my opinion, they do.Quietmarc (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

<ri>"Belief" isn't acceptable because it supports one side of the argument over the other - it fails NPOV. There's a widely held conclusion that ID is a denialist position, not an evidence-based belief. There's Johnson saying that he couldn't trust God if the Bible wasn't literally true. There's Dembski insisting that he won't believe that complex features could have evolved unless he was given every step. And most notably there's Behe in the Kitzmiller trial rejecting a stack of research on the evolution of the immune system, despite his admission that he hadn't read any of it. Sure, one can take ID proponents at face value when they say that they believe what they are saying, we cannot endorse that opinion. "Argument" has the same problem. ID proponents may claim that theirs is an argument, but many opponents have rejected that the idea that ID has put forward anything like an "argument". IDIDNTHEARTHAT isn't an argument. There's no need to get into the merits of the issue. The simple fact is that calling ID an "argument" means accepting one POV over the other. As for the idea that ID proponents have a "reason" for supporting ID...sure they do. But if you read the Wedge document, you could easily conclude that their "reason" is unrelated to the merits of ID. I'm not saying that "assertion" is the best term here - it's just the best that anyone has been able to come up with. Guettarda (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Belief really doesn't endorse any one's view. I think you'll notice that even the Skeptic's Dictionary calls it a "belief". Similarly, argument doesn't really present the POV problem you seem to think it does. Calling ID an argument doesn't grant it any sort of legitimacy it doesn't deserve. Thus, Britannica calls it an "argument" as does the Washington Post. Cool3 (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean assertion "isn't sourced". Didn't you provide a source for it yourself? American Heritage? Professor marginalia (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did. That's only one source, though, as compared to the many sources for alternate terms. It seems like a bit of undue weight, though, to use that one source (which doesn't even commit itself exclusively to the word "assertion") while ignoring the majority of published, reliable sources that choose to use other terms like "argument", "belief", or "idea." Cool3 (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I'd sort of forgotten about idea until just then. Does anyone object to using "idea". It's the only term I've been able to support with a decent citation to a scientific publication (Nature) and it's also appeared in the USA Today and I'm confident I could dig up plenty more cites. Perhaps some one will find a convoluted way of saying that "idea" carries a POV, but I really can't see any case for it being non-neutral. Cool3 (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

As usual, the idea may not be original but the assertion is the cdesign proponentsists "definition" of a specific modern usage. . dave souza, talk 21:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, then, how about "proposition". I can source that to the New York Times [15] and if it starts gaining some support, I can certainly find some more sources. Proposition avoids neutrality problems, and properly conveys the specificity. Cool3 (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

We're going in circles I think. You've said "As for assert vs. assertion there's a most definite difference" but the same dictionary you cited for your objection to "assertion" also gives the 2nd definition "an act of asserting". Why again does assertion not work? And is one mainstream dictionary "undue weight" while a newspaper or magazine article isn't? What are we after? I have no problem with "proposition" but I know that one was raised several times in the past and lost out to assertion. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The 2nd definition is clearly not the one being used in the article. The opening sentence doesn't refer to an "act" but rather a "statement or declaration." To get to that 2nd definition of assertion you need a sentence like "Jones made the assertion that..." There may be some undue weight involved with proposition, but any wording other than "idea", "argument" or "theory" or "belief" will raise weight concerns (and people seem to be very opposed to any of those 3). So, if we're forced to choose among weighty alternatives, I'd prefer one that doesn't have POV problems. Cool3 (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I must be thick today because I just don't see any difference there. Moving on,-I have no problem with proposition but as I skim the archives it looks to have been rejected because it was too passive, it didn't capture the advocacy aspect involved in ID. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok I will yield for a compromise. Why not "propaganda tool and a proposition"? It certainly has a whiff of advocacy thus it balances nicely to just "proposition". On a serious note. I feel this discussion is going nowhere. Cool3 even if you where to suggest an alternative it is doubtful that a consensus will be achieved for the change to take place. Not because "assertion" is better but because it attracts the least number of objections.--LexCorp (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Since its inception, ID has been a political tool. It's a denial of reality put forth - evidence be damned - advanced to achieve a political goal. Calling it an "idea" or even a "proposition" ignores that fact. It wasn't put forward to explain evidence. It wasn't proposed and allowed to stand or fall on its merits. It's a forceful assertion, put forward despite the fact that it was obviously false. Guettarda (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Belief really doesn't endorse any one's view - sure it does. ID is only a "belief" if you accept that its proponents actually believe what they're saying. Not everyone accepts that. Guettarda (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You really think that no one believes in intelligent design? Assuredly this is why 59% of American adults think that intelligent design should be taught in schools (they're all lying to pollsters in an elaborate deception). [16] (4% say only intelligent design should be taught+55% say all 3). Cool3 (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think that "no one believes in intelligent design". Why do you ask?

BTW, you shouldn't put too much faith in (a) online polls, or (b) pre-Kitzmiller polls. Guettarda (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I took a logical misstep somewhere, but I gathered from your statement that intelligent design is not a belief that you don't think people believe in it, which just isn't in line with the data out there. In the same poll (and yes it may have a certain margin of error), 10% of Americans explicitly said they believe in intelligent design. That's a lot of people (assuming the sampling was decent we're at 30 million people give or take). Something that 30 million people believe is a belief. Cool3 (talk) 03:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Our personal opinions are irrelevant. As I said before, to describe ID as a "belief" is to devalue the opinion that it's denialism or propaganda. Since the latter opinion has supporting fact and is quite notable, this approach fails NPOV.

As for polls - as I said, it's an online poll and it's pre-Kitzmiller. Thus, it's pretty much worthless. But more importantly, the fact that some people say that they believe in something doesn't make it (necessarily) a belief. After all, lots of people say that they "believe in" evolution. That doesn't make it a belief. Lots of people "believed in" Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme. That doesn't mean we should describe it as a belief, rather than a Ponzi scheme. Lots of people believe in Scientology...oh wait, let's not go there. Guettarda (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with the notion that ID proponents all actually believe the words ""certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." "Belief", "concept", "proposition", "assertion", and perhaps any of several other descriptors of the class of "thing" to which ID belongs, are all reasonably NPOV to me personally.
..... Among the subtle traps the words "concept", "proposition" and "assertion" tend to avoid w.r.t. a rather complex topic such as this, with its numerous slants and twists of politics, religion, law, philosophy and science, traps which the word "belief" do not succeed in avoiding, are: (1) Words such as "assertion" or "proposition" or "concept" help eliminate unnecessary debate about whether proponents actually believe the statement 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." fully expresses their belief or is just mincing words to sound more scientific than it actually is in order to teach this in biology classes. (2) Words such as "assertion", "proposition" or "concept" eliminate questions about misrepresentation of one's belief, because "belief" implies in some sense that one can somehow get into the minds of the persons making the particular assertion or putting forward the particular proposition. That is, words like "assertion", proposition or "concept" are inherently neutral about the state of mind of the person making the statement. To even be tempted to use a phrase like "stated belief" is unnecessary or even ridiculous, IMO. (3) Words like "assertion", "proposition" or "concept" avoid unnecessary religious overtones often associated with the word "belief", especially when used in a topic that is almost inextricably intertwined with religion.
..... Beyond this, words like "assertion", "proposition" or "concept" avoid unnecessary overtones of making a judgment about the likely truth or falsity of a given statement-- words like "claim" and "contention" often are argued to carry such overtones of judgment about the merits of the proposition, something we'd like to avoid, I would think. Also, words like "assertion" or "proposition" take at face value the quoted statement of what ID's proponents say ID is, in a way that the word "concept" arguably falls a bit short. As well, these words tend to avoid the confusion that the word "theory" tends to create in this topic between on the one hand an armchair theory or bar-room theory (or, a religious theory) and on the other hand a scientific theory according to modern scientific standards, something that has been well discussed and well settled in prior talk-page discussion on the issue. So, speaking as just one WP user, it appears to me the words "assertion" or "proposition" are the most NPOV. "Proposition", as I mentioned earlier in this now-lengthy talk section, was very short lived when previously tried in early 2007, ostensibly because it was a bit too formal and stuffy. Anybody feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that very roughly speaking, that's pretty much how we ended up with "assertion"-- in the end it seemed to attract the fewest edit wars of the various attempts at classifying this intractably contentious topic. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Two Final Ideas

Alright, I'd like to make two final proposals for a better word, and if these meet two much opposition, I suppose I'll just resign myself to the imperfection of assertion. The two ideas are: "Intelligent design is the position that..." and "intelligent design is the suggestion that...". I vastly prefer "position" personally, and I present the case below:

• Position: Relevant definitions: "10.Mental attitude; stand 12. Something that is posited." Advantages: Advances no point of view one way or the other, just puts it simply without spin. The word position also does not presuppose any attitude from the proponents (whether or not they believe what they are saying), and it does presuppose whether or not the attitude of either proponents or opponents is justified. Furthermore, we already use the word position in the article: 1. "Intelligent design proponents believe that this can be equated to materialist metaphysical naturalism, and have often said that not only is their own position scientific, but it is even more scientific than evolution" 2. "He has conflated Discovery Institute's position with that of the Dover school board" 3. "the court ruled that intelligent design was a religious and creationist position". Also, citable to reliable sources: " intelligent design - the position that life was created by a higher intelligence" (Philadelphia Inquirer) Cool3 (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The first and second examples refer to ID proponents and not ID specifically thus irrelevant here. I am all the way with you if we implement position as in the third example. Thus "Intelligent design is a religious and creationist position that...". Also position is defined as: the laying down of a proposition or thesis. Proposition is defined as "something offered for consideration or acceptance". As the relevant (scientific and legal) authorities have already taken ID for consideration and shown it lacking justification I will also be happy with "Intelligent design is the failed position that...". err "suggestion" is just plainly wrong and a bit uncyclopedic. --LexCorp (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't science practised in order to better mankind's understanding of the universe? Calling ID a "failed position" is a bit extreme, don't you think? After all, who knows what scientific advances we may come across? Dismissing ID is like dismissing Leonardo DaVinci's early design sketches for the helicopter or subway system, you can't call it a "failed position" until it is proven false, which will (most likely) never happen, at least not in the next millennium. BrenMan 94 (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Read the article. Epic fail. . . dave souza, talk 20:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly the extreme view here is to suggest ID is science. Even ID proponents agree that a change of the definition of "science" to include supernatural phenomena is necessary in order to classify ID as science. If that is not extreme I don't know what is.--LexCorp (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no resemblance to "Leonardo DaVinci's early design sketches" in ID -- I do however see more than a passing resemblance to Time Cube -- same lack of substance ineptly obscured behind conspiracy theories of persecution and suppression. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Title Change to Creationism

This article only accurately applies to the biological design argument. The physical design argument put forward by ID is widely accepted by eminent scientists Stephen Hawking & Francis Collins (among others). Its logical form is the Teleological argument put forward by Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, & William Paley. I am a Philosophy Professor and I guarantee this a matter of simple literacy in philosophy. This article is an embarassment to Wikipedia regardless of which side of the argument you fall on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.144.202.68 (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a separate article on Creationism. Is that what you're looking for? Dawn Bard (talk) 16:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You are, of course, welcome to improve the article by adding pertinent facts that are supported by reliable sources.Sjö (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I should have mentioned that in my reply above - feel free to improve the article (using reliable sources) if you think it's needed. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

New image

I've added this image to the section on Of Pandas and People. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Why? That is a terrible image that adds nothing to the article and doesn't explain anything in and of itself. Unless it is a direct scan of the text (which I don't think it is), it is hardly a "very revealing image". It is also redundant because what it is trying (and failing in any meaningful way) to demonstrate is already thoroughly discussed in the article text. I know we Americans love pictures, but a created picture of words is hardly revealing. I really feel that image should be removed from this article as it adds nothing, and you really should have discussed this before adding it. DKqwerty (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, unless this image is a scan of the actual books, I think there's little point in having an image. What's wrong with just using quotes in the text? Cool3 (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

A scan of the manuscripts would be possible, which is what the earlier version of the image showed. However, that was objected to on copyright grounds (see discussion). Tim Vickers (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted to the original version, which is an image of the two manuscripts. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that it adds nothing to the article by being totally redundant to the text. DKqwerty (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Since it now shows the original documents, I don't agree that it is completely redundant. The text discusses the point, the figure illustrates it. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The figure illustrates it in such a minute way that it simply doesn't add anything to the understanding. If you were to quote longer passages, it might illustrate it "better", but to put it in a figure with truncated sentences and single usages is absolutely redundant. It also isn't even floated against the paragraph that deals with the subject, nor are the use of "a" and "b" addressed in any fashion. And before you do it, changing what I just said in the prior sentence won't make me change my mind.

I vote to strike it from the article (especially since we didn't even discuss adding it). Unless there is some outright support by someone other than Mr. Vickers, it needs to be removed. DKqwerty (talk) 04:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you now agree that it isn't completely redundant, and that it does make the article "better". We only differ on if this improvement is significant or not. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you not read what I wrote? "Absolutely" and "completely" mean very much the same thing in this case. And I never said your image makes the article better, I said what would make it better is lengthy quotes in-text, but not as an image. Maybe you should reread what I wrote... DKqwerty (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so that's what you meant. Sorry, I misunderstood you. In response to your comment about "a" and "b" I've changed the image to say "before" and "after", which is more intuitive. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It definitely is an interesting addition to the article. The only question is whether you can really justify fair use in this case. On the other hand, I'm not sure if you can really assert copyright over plain text. PNAS's copyright policy on submissions suggests that, unlike many other journals, PNAS doesn't demand that you sign over copyright. The question then is whether the copyright belongs to FTE or to Nick Matzke. I would suggest sending Nick and email and seeing if he will release the figure under a suitable copyleft license.

I clearly see it as a valuable addition to the article, one that helps the reader's appreciation of the topic. Guettarda (talk) 05:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, since the PNAS authors had no "creative input" beyond quoting somebody else's work, this does not count as a derivative work, the copyright on the text therefore remains with the original authors - who I would expect would be unwilling to release their draft to the public domain. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The image does make the issue much clearer, and is worthwhile. While I'd expect the original authors to have copyright in their work, they didn't publish it: the original publication was at the Dover trial and by the NCSE article "Evolution Education and the Law" "Missing Link discovered!" November 7, 2005, which no longer seems to be loading as they've not updated the link to their new servers. Clearly fair use of an image of historic importance. . . dave souza, talk 16:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Hmm. Looking further, scans of the originals are available online here. The link Cdesign proponentsists takes you to the relevant section, where we've formatted the info as text in text boxes. The National Academy of Sciences illustration we're discussing works well in the context of this article, but comparing it to the originally published scans it seems at the least to have been cleaned up. dave souza, talk 17:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like images of the last two examples without the jpeg artifacts on the NCSE web copies, I'll use this article to date the versions in the figure description. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

There's absolutely no good reason to turn that text into an image. It's completely pointless, screws up our style guidelines, interferes with text to voice software, complicates the layout, and the text in the image can be too small to be readable or too big for what it deserves depending upon individual browser settings. Just quote it as normal text. DreamGuy (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Alternative image

Casting about for an alternative, I realised I could generate my own version of Forrest's text analysis, since although the presentation is copyrighted, the data itself is not. Would this image be preferable? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that the graph there is preferable and not just for copyright reasons. Whereas the image before just showed one instance (thus seeming rather anecdotal), the graph shows the whole book, making for a clearer and fuller representation (and of course it's a free image). Cool3 (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The graph is greatly preferred. Clear and concise. DKqwerty (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Michelangelo

Suggesting removal of Sistine Chapel painting from article. It is not the original ad (banner) described and its appearance overstates the importance of the movement. Michelangelo's painting is not related to the movement and his painting has been used in thousands of ads for a variety of marketing devices completely unrelated to ID. To overstate my POV, we might as well have a sound clip of the Beatles "Helter Skelter" on the Charles Manson page. - Steve3849 ^talk 00:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree that showing the painting on which the banners were based is a little odd. I imagine it's being done because "The Creation of Adam" is a free image, whereas the banners would require a fair use claim; however, I think that we would have a very solid fair use claim on the banners themselves and it would be preferable to have an image of them instead (if anyone has one). Cool3 (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fine. It draws a nice correlation between the Discovery Institute and Christianity in its most pure form. DKqwerty (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You're stated rationale is precisely why I think they should be removed. "Nice" and "pure" are both a matter of debate and non-encyclopedic. They tamper with NPOV. - Steve3849 ^talk 00:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Far be it for me to support POV. DKqwerty (talk) 03:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the current image caption explains the reason for including the image. Using the actual banner would be better, but this is a good compromise between informational content and copyright concerns. Guettarda (talk) 05:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As the cited source shows, the image was specifically used in a way that accurately reflected the organisation's explicit aim "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." Our caption indicates that this was an image they were using, and fully meets the requirements of WP:NPOV and specifically WP:WEIGHT. There's extreme sensitivity about fair use, and in this instance the generic image used as the basis of the banners meets the article's needs as an illustration, desirable as it would be to replicate the original banners as shown in the cited source. . . dave souza, talk 16:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting the issue of WP:WEIGHT can be interpreted both ways. I see WP:WEIGHT as why the image should be removed. Show me a credible neutral article that mentions the use of the Sistine Chapel image and I will lose interest in this topic quickly. The mention and use of the image in this article is undue weight. As I can see it is only promoters of ID and wikipedia editors that are drawing a connection. - Steve3849 ^talk 01:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Read the cited source. "The original banner of the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture — the institutional home of "intelligent design" creationism — featured the familiar picture from the Sistine Chapel of God touching Adam", according to The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) which is a recognised reputable source for the majority view on ID and creationism, amongst other issue. It is not a promoter of ID or a Wikipedia editor. . dave souza, talk 06:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. - Steve3849 ^talk 07:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I advocate that it remain. Using the actual logo would indeed be better, but due to WP's very stringent restrictions on "non-free content", the choice was to use a relevant "free" (actually "public domain") image to illustrate the point about the kind of imagery chosen by the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. The actual images used as logos by the CSC can be seen here. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Faq

Under the question "Is intelligent design science?", it is written "Further, ID represents a fundamental reversal of the scientific method, in that it begins with a conclusion (a "designer" was responsible for complex living structures), and seeks to find evidence that fits with that conclusion."

Question: 1) Whether ID really starts with a conclusion?

It is sometimes pretended that ID start with honest evidence. ID is supposed to steam from the "fact" that the level of complexity observed in nature may not come from randomness. The point is not so much that it is a conclusion, but more that this particular conclusion does not have any possible/preliminary factual reason(evidence) to believe. From the view point of science it is a totally random statement.

2) A strong reference is needed for "fundamental reversal of the scientific method". Many times a scientific experiment is actually started with a definite conjecture in mind. Through the experiment it is verified whether the conjecture has any evidence for it or not.

I think what authors like to say is that "ID selectively choose evidence which may tally with the conclusion neglecting any evidence against it" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pallab1234 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Science does not attribute the level of complexity observed in nature to any random process. The premise from which ID supposedly stems from is a false premise that implies a false dichotomy between a random process vs a designer. Science acknowledges and shares the skepticism of ID proponents in stating that it is doubtful a random process is responsible for the observed complexity. The Theory of Evolution, which is neither a random process nor a designer, explains the observed complexity of biological organisms and thus also shows the false dichotomy in the supposedly initial premise of ID.--LexCorp (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Broken links (missing sections) in FAQ

The FAQ links to WP:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Making_necessary_assumptions and WP:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Giving_.22equal_validity.22. Neither of these sections exist. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I fixed them with WP:MNA and WP:GEVAL.--LexCorp (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, the link for "Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington" at http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html isn't working, but maybe the server is just temporarily down. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It results in a blank page rather than an error message, so I doubt if its the server being down. I've waybacked it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

New resource - NCSE makes available online the Creation/Evolution Journal

NCSE makes available on-line the Creation/Evolution Journal running from 1980 to 1996. I guess a good resource for all Creationism/ID/Evolution articles--LexCorp (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

and the Reports of the National Center for Science Education running from 1997 to 2009.--LexCorp (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Users being able to edit

Users need to be able to edit this page, as not all of the information on it is correct. Who ever made this a protected page was wrong in doing so. If this can not be edited, another almost identical titled page will be created with changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by L -Lawliet- L (talk • contribs) 22:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Have posted a reply on your talk page, please post at the bottom and sign your posts. Also, WP:POVFORKS not welcome. . . dave souza, talk 18:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested changes may be discussed here on talk and an admin can post those where there is consensus on factual corrections or more substantial changes. That is the purpose of page protection. If you go off to create a copy with what you believe is "right", then that will be taken as an indication you are unwilling to work to build consensus. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  17:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Explanation for unintelligent design?

I understand that high quality aspects of life like the eye are explained by asserting that some smart guy did it (possibly god). But does ID also have an explanation for unintelligent design, like toe nails? I'm confused by the first sentence that says ID only explain "certain features", not all of them. Are toe nails just a prank by the designer, or did the designer only designed the cool stuff, while the rest evolved or was done by the devil/ungood designer? 124.171.129.94 (talk) 06:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:TALK, this talk page is for discussing specific edits to the article. I think you're looking for WP:RD. Gabbe (talk) 07:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No, see, I think this is missing in the article. The article should either explain how ID explains stupid design in nature, or that ID simply ignores things that contradict the "A smart guy did it" explanation. 124.171.129.94 (talk) 08:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

To include that in the article we'd need verification that a reliable third party source had made that argument about ID. Probable answer is that the Ways of the Intelligent Designer passeth understanding, but we'd need a source. . dave souza, talk 08:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

ID might not make any special claims about "unintelligent design" such as toenails. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

PNAS paper on "reducible complexity"

• Clements, Abigail (2009). "The reducible complexity of a mitochondrial molecular machine". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 106 (37): 15791–15795. doi:10.1073/pnas.0908264106. Retrieved 2009-09-18. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

An excellent paper that is directly relevant to this article. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Too bad there is no official free web version of it around.--76.199.103.112 (talk) 08:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Serious American bias on this article

Reading through this article it is very clear that this article primarily deals with Americans opinions, polls and studies. This is of coarse, not giving a world wide view on the subject, and as such I don’t think this article is worthy of FA as a result. Please try and correct this, this is Wikipedia, not Americapedia… --Frank Fontaine (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This is because the phenomenon was almost entirely confined to America. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

See Intelligent design#Status outside the United States, and if you have evidence of any other notable ID activity outside the US please provide verification so that it can be added to the article. . . dave souza, talk 16:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I was just referring to Polls and surveys...Is Richard Dawkins mentioned in this article? I cannot remember and I'm too tired to search the entire article at the moment...I have to agree the term “Intelligent desighn” is not much used outside the USA, it’s generally “Is there a God or not”-Except when it comes to Dawkins. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I just realised I got not one, but TWO admins replying to me. I am honoured! --Frank Fontaine (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, no worries, its no big deal. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Can I recommend the key combination Ctrl-F? Not enough to tax even the most uncertain of constitutions, yet it lets you search an entire article for key words. 22:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Make that *three* admins. (And I'm Australian, so no US bias here). ID is overwhelmingly an American issue anjd the article reflects that. What outside-US significance it has had has been thoroughly addressed. Manning (talk) 05:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You Aussies aren't entirely out of it: see here an Australian Creationist site that is fairly pro ID. & Ken Ham was Australian born. TheresaWilson (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Whilst ID, and creationism more generally, exist outside the US, the big difference is that in most other places, rather than being a vote-winner, it tends to be highly politically disadvantageous (possibly even to the extent of being political suicide). This means that it doesn't tend to enter into the public square. Add to this the fact that the lack elsewhere of formal separation of church and state, that forced ID's neocreationist strategy, and ID does not get a high profile outside the US. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that is the reason. The Australian Constitution prohibits the Establishment of any religion, thus forcing the separation of church and state. Sure we have our own nut jobs as TheresaWilson (talk) points out but the big difference is that we lack a large basically fundamentalist pollitically powerful group such as exists in the USA. There really is no equivalent in other countries that I am aware of (outside of some of the more fundamentalist Islamic countries) for the US mid west and so-called bible belt. It seems to me that it is an accident of history that Europe basically exported their religious nutters to the US over the last couple of hundred years or so and they proliferated across much of the continent. This did not happen in Australia, despite it being a continent roughly the same size as the USA, most likely because we are a lot further away from Europe than the US and also the majority of our continent is incapable of supporting more than a very few people. Thus we have remained a very urban people and the corresponding mixture of new ideas as new waves of immigrants arrive has meant that the ground was not fertile for the kind of narrow minded religious thinking that appears to be so dominant over large swathes of the US. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The latest on evolution from the Vatican

The latest on evolution from the Vatican: Plenary Session on "Scientific Insights into the Evolution of the Universe and of Life" (31 October - 4 November 2008)[17] Part VI (pdf) conclusion pp. 209–212 includes "The participants unanimously accepted as indisputable the affirmation that the Universe, as well as life within it, are the products of long evolutionary histories. They rejected as objectively untenable the so-called ‘creationist’ view based on a literal interpretation of the biblical account of Genesis, a view not to be confused with the belief, legitimately held by many,in a creator God...... Many discussions were devoted to the origin and evolution of life. It was generally admitted that all known living beings, including humans, descend from a single ancestral form of life that appeared on Earth several billion years ago. How this form originated is not known but is believed by a majority of experts to have involved special chemical reactions that were rendered possible, perhaps even imposed, by the physical-chemical conditions under which they took place..... There was also wide agreement on the central role played in biological evolution by Darwinian natural selection, defined as a natural process that obligatorily brings out, from a collection of accidentally produced genetic variants, those most apt to survive and, especially, to produce progeny under prevailing conditions. A number of contributions did, however, underline the need to refine some of the conceptual bases of this theory in the light of recent findings. ..... On the other hand, no one, at least among the scientists, defended the recently advocated theory of ‘intelligent design‘,according to which certain evolutionary events could not have taken place without the intervention of some higher influence, of which no evidence can be found in nature. Several of the arguments cited in support of this theory were shown to ignore recent findings. In particular, the theory was rejected as intrinsically non-scientific, resting, as it does, on the a priori contention, neither provable nor disprovable, that certain events cannot be naturally explained. These views did not satisfy some theologians who stressed the role of design in creation, an affirmation which, in turn, raised the questions of where and how design is manifested. The issue was not settled during the meeting." . . . dave souza, talk 18:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot of good stuff in the Proceedings, including an address by the Pope. I think some of the information could be added to a number of articles if it has not been added already. We must be careful to note, however, that, as written near the beginning of the book, the contents of the Proceedings are those of the individual presenters, not the Vatican's.Desoto10 (talk) 05:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Article Title is Severely Misleading.

I compared the article on evolution to this article, and I must say, this is absolutely unfair beyond words. This is completely against what Wikipedia stood for regarding neutrality.

[Added] For the evolution article, it was all about evolution and no criticisms. For the ID article, it was mostly against ID.

An honest evolutionist would have to agree with me that this is a very unfair attack on ID. Like the other posters here said, this article has to have its name changed to "Criticisms of Intelligent Design," because plainly, that is exactly what this article is. COMDER (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I've dropped a note on your talk page about policies including civility and NPOV, see also the header boxes with advice and links at the head of this page. p.s. any relation to Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells? ;) . dave souza, talk 20:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I'll try to be more civil if I see extremes... I changed the subtitle. Yes, it's related to Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells. :/ Ok, off to study. COMDER (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should see WP:DUE? Evolution is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community, while ID is rejected by the vast majority of same. Therefore, it makes sense to include criticisms of this very unscientific idea, since it tries to make itself out to be a valid scientific theory. There is an article on objections to evolution, though. Mkemper331 (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the title of this article is inaccurate.

I came to this page looking for information on Intelligent Design. What I found instead was a (in many ways well-written) critique of intelligent design. The article seems to be falling over itself to punch holes in the theory/philosophical stance/call it what you will. There is so much refuting and rebutting going on that it dwarfs the actual content dedicated to the actual description and exploration of ID. There is a place for all of the arguments within this article, but might they not be better put under a section 'Criticisms of Intelligent Design?' At the moment, you could rename this very article so, and it would make better sense than simply 'Intelligent Design'. ````Jonathan A —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.21.154 (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:WEIGHT & WP:CSECTION. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

If you are looking for background, the proper article to read is Creationism. The central thesis of Intelligent Design is the presentation of creationism as science or as competing with science on an equal footing—a completely different topic, and the subject of this article.

   Personally speaking, I reconcile my faith with science every day and find no difficulty in doing so. It is when when people of faith seek to violate the separation of church and state in the name of faith, when faith is foisted upon others in the guise of science or as an equally "scientific" alternative to science (an oxymoron in itself), that both faith and science are diminished. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  17:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The central thesis of this article seems to be that ID is creationism under another name. In particular it states that ID opposes natural selection. Since ID is sometimes argued as guiding natural selection, by arranging for the variation with each species to include individuals adapted to environmental changes in the near future, is it correct to say that ID is in opposition to natural selection? Would it not be more accurate to say that ID proposes an alternative mechanism of variation than the random action of genetic variation, namely an intelligent designer guiding that variation? --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 01:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The hypothesis you describe still isn't science. Saying "God (or an Intelligent Designer) did it" or "God made it happen" ends all debate because it can neither be proven nor disproven. --TS 01:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Who said anything about ID being science? I was objecting to the characterization of ID as opposing natural selection. I don't see anything scientific about ID, but I also don't see every proponent of ID contradicting natural selection (though certainly some do---I think of them as proposing "dumb design" because their God is too dumb to exploit natural selection). An article on ID should characterize ID accurately and fairly, not in some biased way by those seeking to discredit it by painting it in the most negative light they can come up with. The latter undermines your own arguments by exposing them as driven by dogma and bias instead of logic. Atheism is just as pseudoscientific as theism in that it is based on dogma instead of scientific method. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think your comments starting with "...the most negative light they can come up with..." took you out of Wikipedia territory and into a mode of argument I'd rather not encourage on Wikipedia. I'll address your comments up to that point.

Your point is that Intelligent Design does not oppose natural selection. However you also state the natural selection is said to be "guided". To me this seems to undermine natural selection completely. Natural selection is simply the massed stochastic outcome of many competitions for resources by competing individuals. It is not guided, by definition. If an intelligent design proponent says natural selection is guided, he's opposing natural selection even if he thinks he isn't. --TS 02:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that would be incorrect. Atheism has no dogma, and it can't be considered pseudoscientific since it doesn't assert anything whatsoever, as it is merely a lack of belief. There are no positive assertions in atheism whatsoever, though many do assert something, it is not atheism itself. Theism does assert something and is inherently dogmatic. I'm not sure you quite comprehend what lack of something is as opposed to having a positive belief in something and asserting something. Atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of, and not even technically a theological position, but a position on what is commonly asserted by theologians. Though we're getting into off-topic territory, ID advocates are also from a deist background, as well. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 02:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean that NS is guided, I meant that there is nothing in the concept to preclude a designer stepping in and adjusting the population statistics to favor one outcome or another. Personally I don't believe that's what's going on (so I'm probably on your side as far as the actual facts go), but this article is not about fact, it is about ID, whatever that is.

Your conception of NS as the "outcome of competitions for resources" is not what is customarily understood by NS. What you're describing is a situation in which there are competitors A and B, they are ranked somehow, and the fitter wins. That scenario makes sense when there is only so much of some resource to go round and A beats out B for it, but that mechanism is a minor driver of evolution, and is not what the first sentence of Natural selection says. NS is not about competition but about survival. A much bigger driver is when changes to the environment put the entire population at risk. The species may die out, or there may be some individuals whose characteristics suit them to the new environment. In a competition the winner is the best adapted individual, but this is not a competition because individuals are not ranked in the way you envisage. Instead each individual is judged independently according to whether they are suited to the new environment, there is no ranking. If none are suited none survive, if all are suited all survive. That's not competition, that's natural selection. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That's fair. Yeah, I didn't word NS very well and didn't think it through very well, but we're in agreeance. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

<ri> Vaughan Pratt, please remember WP:NOTAFORUM: comments should propose improvements to the article, and while musings on NS are interesting, ID as an antievolution religious view is inherently opposed to the scientific basis of natural selection theory that heritable variations are not prearranged to anticipate new environments. That formed a part of theistic evolution, but was found not to be viable as a scientific approach. ID is distinguished from modern theistic evolution, which it opposes, by its claims to be a scientific rather than a religious view. All of which is well supported by citations in the article. If you want the article to reflect another view, please provide sources giving verificaction of your proposals in accordance with WP:TALK. . . dave souza, talk 09:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the initial challenge of this section: the title of this Wiki article is misleading at best and lacks accuracy based on the actual article content. Please be intellectually honest enough to rename it for what it is. 68.160.143.23 (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

See WP:AGF and WP:CIV, and please comply with WP:TALK in proposing improvements backed by verification from reliable sources. . dave souza, talk 18:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with the initial challenge. This article seems, at the very least, very close to violating Wikipedia:Attack_page principle, if not actually doing so. I would suggest, among other things, that when claims would likely be denied by Intelligent Design proponents, that those claims be more explicitly tied to their sources. For example, the following line: "But in fact, there is no such controversy in the scientific community; the scientific consensus is that life evolved." (Followed by references) could be restated as: "But in fact, worldwide, many prominent associations of teachers and scientists have issued statements supporting the theory of evolution contra intelligent design." (Followed by the same references) The second statement is more informative, more true to the references, more useful for understanding the debate, and is more fair to intelligent design proponents by not overstating the case against them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alweth (talk • contribs) 00:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to overstate the case against them? The fact is that if it weren't for the social and political "controversy" (generated by ID proponents anyway), ID would barely even merit a footnote in the scientific community. Out of the countless scientific papers published in reputable journals each year, I'd be surprised if one were even slightly sympathetic to Intelligent Design.

I much prefer the original wording, as it's succinct and accurate, and supported by the sources. Your re-wording is less clear, and has less of an impact. It would be ridiculous to preface a straightforward statement with all that preamble ("In fact, worldwide, many prominent associations of teachers and scientists have issued statements supporting the theory that the sky is blue...").Quietmarc (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Your attitude, expressed in the statement, "Is it possible to overstate the case against them?" and the phrase "the theory that the sky is blue..." seems entirely counterproductive to maintaining a neutral point of view. It is possible to overstate the case against almost any position. If you really need examples, I can give them. But that's a tangential issue.

So what if Intelligent Design wouldn't merit more than a footnote in the scientific community? That is true of most of the article topics on Wikipedia--Wikipedia is not a scientific journal, and Intelligent Design notable for its influence on politics alone.

While the example I give is succinct, and in a sense it is supported by the sources, it is not an accurate representation of the sources. I am all in favor of a wording that is more clear than mine, but to sacrifice accuracy and information for the sake of making an impact? Wikipedia exists to inform, not persuade.

Alweth (talk) 06:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

(i) ID purports to be scientific. (ii) That being so Wikipedia gives WP:DUE weight to the overwhelming consensus scientific view on the matter. See also WP:FRINGE which requires that "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community." The level of "acceptance" puts ID on about the same level as used toilet paper, and the article should accurately reflect this. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that Intelligent Design be given undue weight, or that its current level of acceptance in the scientific community be downplayed. I am suggesting that: (a) Generally, nothing about WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE require that the article be structured like and read like an Attack_page, so it should not. (b) Specifically, one way to accomplish this is to accurately represent the sources. (And this has the added benefit of making the article more informative for someone who wants to learn from the article.) Alweth (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'm having trouble seeing how this is an attack page, even after reading the wikilink you provided, and I'm not seeing how the sources are being misrepresented. Quietmarc (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Second paragraph of the lead section.

I think that the second paragraph of the lead section is really poorly worded, or at the very least not fitting for a FA. The problem is that, to me, it feels more like it's ramming the fact down our throats that ID is not science, instead of explaining it. (This seems to be a problem with FRINGE articles, even FAs; for a long time, the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion article was triply redundant by describing it as "a forgery, a fraud, and a hoax". In our quest to ensure something is definitively stated, we tend to go too far in doing so). I think that we could do better by merging the first three sentences of the paragraph with the fourth paragraph to look something like this:

Advocates of intelligent design argue that it is a scientific theory, and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations. The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science due to [the prevailing opinion that] "claims of supernatural intervention" such as intelligent design "are not testable by the methods of science." In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, a group of parents of high-school students challenged a public school district requirement for teachers to present intelligent design in biology classes as an alternative "explanation of the origin of life". U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Obviously, this wording is not perfect, but a wording like this would feel less like it's ramming down throats and more like it's explaining the reasons why it's not science, neither scientifically nor legally. And personally, I don't think either wording will convert people away from ID anyway. I just don't want to feel like we're smarmy for being right. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

We have to give due weight to the scientific response and the current paragraph is carefully attributed to show where the opinion is coming from, in accordance with WP:PSCI, WP:GEVAL and other relevant parts of NPOV policy. It's not just a "prevailing opinion", it's important to show the strength of the majority view and that we're quoting a reliable source that ID is pseudoscience. Your proposed wording actually appears less explanatory than the current quotation from the NAS. It's not clear if you're suggesting moving the very important aspect of Edwards v. Aguillard leading to Pandas, but the Kitzmiller info follows logically from that. Frankly, your proposal gives me the impression of being smarmy for appeasing creationist intervention in science, and we should not be watering down statements in contravention of NPOV. . . dave souza, talk 23:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you're looking at this the wrong way; I'm not arguing there's a NPOV violation, I'm arguing there's a stylistic problem. I'm saying there's no point in saying "A says it's psuedoscience, B says it's psuedoscience, C says it's psuedoscience, suck it bitches" when "D says it's psuedoscience", when A, B, and C are nearly entirely in D. The name-dropping serves no purpose other than to push against a brick wall. We already have shown it's psuedoscience. We don't need to show it any more, especially if it's badly written. We don't give "equal validity" to the DI at all by rewriting it as such. On the same note, "the prevailing opinion" was an optional addition, because I thought that not including it would get NPOV complaints from the other side. Hence why I put it in square brackets. I'm perfectly fine with it not being there at all, believe me; it's more of a fact than an opinion that ID is inherently untestable by the scientific method. And I think that the logical progression is going from Edwards, to the creation of ID, and then to Kitzmiller. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. The second paragraph is there to show that the overwhelming majority of scientific and educational institutions do not consider ID as science. This is in line with WP:GEVAL and the rest of the WP policies. The inclusion of those statements are chosen carefully and wisely IMHO. One from the most prestigious scientific institution. One from the largest organization of science teachers and one from the world's largest general scientific society. Without this paragraph there will be a need to explain more deeply the wedge strategy and particularly the "Teach the controversy" campaign. The third and fourth paragraph deal with the historical motivation and origin of the ID term and the ultimate failure of the ID movement from getting creationism back into the US public education system due to Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.--LexCorp (talk) 01:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, we could get rid of the "Other people in the scientific community agree", as it gives no answers to questions that a reader will ask. In fact, it's a textbook "Some people agree" weasel phrase. We could re-word the second paragraph as such:

Advocates of intelligent design argue that it is a scientific theory,[11] and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.[12] The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is (psuedo|not) science: 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."; and the U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science believe that as pseudoscience, intelligent design should not be taught in schools.

We could also include a sentence about them lobbying "to teach the controversy, thus furthering their aims outlined in the "wedge document" to undermine evolution", but it's not mandatory. There seems to be a worrying trend that not name-dropping in the lead section "gives equal validity". It doesn't. However, as you have argued, there is a reason to include these names; I just don't think the current wording is optimal in doing so. This, and I think the lead section suffers from "over-referencing" (again, a problem with controversial articles); refs 4, 8, 10, 15, and 16 aren't really needed there, as the other references substantiating given provide solid sourcing on their own (quite a few through Kitzmiller). Sceptre ^(talk) 15:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the last sentence

Others in the scientific community have concurred, and some have called it junk science.[19][20]

I think it was thought necessary to include it at the time because there was quite a few objections (by well-meaning but slightly ID-biased editors) as to the previous three examples not being enough to establish what the current scientific consensus is within the scientific community (pretty much teach the controversy within Wikipedia). As far as I know no ID proponent acknowledges the artificiality of the "controversy" discussion and as thus removing the sentence may serve as a "wedge" in the article to re-candle the discussion here in Wikipedia. Having said that I have no problem removing that last sentence. Again I believe the current version is VERY stable and in this article that is quite a commodity. I am not sure we should risk stability in order to improve the lead by a very slight amount.--LexCorp (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The stuff about "teaching the controversy" aren't really second-paragraph material, they're more third-paragraph material, as the Wedge/TTC strategy comprises a fair proportion of the ID lobbying. My second proposal is more of an attempt to make the paragraph more cohesive by making some grammatical changes. I think that the three named organisations are large enough to represent scientific consensus as a whole, especially in a 500-word summary, and that the last sentence in the current paragraph is dead weight. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

un-indenting.

I would be ok with a variation of your suggestion:

Advocates of intelligent design argue that it is a scientific theory,[11] and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.[12] The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science: 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 American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.; and the U.S. National Science Teachers Association considers that as pseudoscience, intelligent design should not be taught in schools.

This is more in line with what the sources actually state. Again I personally don't have a problem with removing the last sentence. I cannot really see that the improvement over the current version is enough to risk stability but that is just me. Lets see what other editors have to say.--LexCorp (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

At first blush this seems like a reasonable compromise, but in my estimation it's not an improvement. The current last sentence of the second paragraph of the article, "Others in the scientific community have concurred, and some have called it junk science.[19][20]", is there for two reasons. Firstly it makes clear that not only the NAS considers it "not science", and the AAAS and NSTA consider it "pseudoscience", but that these are selected examples of the "unequivocal consensus" referred to in the second sentence of the paragraph, with which others in the scientific community concur. Secondly it makes clear that some in the scientific community consider it "junk science" which is not solely characterized by a pretense of being science, but characterized by a hidden agenda, in this case a religious agenda. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I would leave this paragraph alone, except to make the following change--

Advocates of intelligent design argue that it is a scientific theory,[11] by seeking to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.

This is not a subtle change, but I believe that ID proponents want to change the definition of science to include supernatural shenagigans, which would therefore place ID into the scientific realm. I believe that the citations for this paragraph support this.Desoto10 (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Sorry for the formatting; I don't know where the blue box came from.Desoto10 (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Some sources indicate that intelligent design advocates believe ID fits within existing scientific method, while other sources relating to Phillip E. Johnson and those who follow his tack think science needs to be redefined to accommodate supernatural explanations, an approach Johnson coined as "theistic realism". Examples of each are already in the citations in the article. ... Kenosis (talk) 01:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)