Misplaced Pages

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

• /Archive 01 — March 2002 to January 2006
• /Archive 02 — January 2006 to August 2006
• /Archive 03 — August 2006 to April 2007

I would like to say that, in general, this article constitutes a serious violation of NPOV. Two salient examples of this can be found at the beginning of the article. The first is "intelligent design creationism", a term that directly contradicts the definition given to "intelligent design" by its advocates. The citation cannot prove that the term is correct because it is a matter of definition...no peer-reviewed paper or other form of "authority" can determine the meaning of a word as it is used by another. If the advocates of intelligent design define the term in a certain way, that definition must be accepted.

A second salient example is the unbalanced presentation of the arguments for ID with regard to the bacterial flagellum, which also appears near the beginning of the piece. ID advocates have answered the criticisms placed here, but they are presented as if no answer has been given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewHoffman (talk • contribs) 13:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, no doubt ID proponents object to the term being identified for what it is, but their view is in the extreme minority in the field they make their claim, the scientific community is the majority view there. And the scientific community says ID is creationism. As does the courts, educators, etc. Please take the time to read WP:UNDUE. FeloniousMonk 18:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

A) You are acting in what seems to be a very biased and partisan way. You claim the "scientific community" says that ID is creationism, but no source is provided excepta public policy paper, which has nothing to do with a "scientific consensus". B) A term's definition must be understood according to the originators of the term. The opponents of an idea can't change its meaning and then attack it based on their altered definition. ID, according to its advocates, does not assume the existence of God, even though it is certainly compatible with such a belief, and such a belief may be the motive for promoting ID. You need to answer these objections according to Misplaced Pages policy. MatthewHoffman 18:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting to watch someone who presumes enough knowledge on a subject to decide to edit an encyclopedia article would not know that the scientific community, in general, understands that "intelligent design" is creationism in a new guise. Would you also presume to tell us that you possess no bias, as well? We can, of course, produce significant commentary from accredited and respected members of the scientific community that would certainly satisfy any objective observer, and you would, no doubt, dismiss that commentary as "biased," while never addressing or acknowledging the obvious religious bias of ID advocates. I would add that it's not correct to claim that "a term's definition must be understood according to the originators of the term." The English language, being what it is, provides myriad examples of terminology etymology that is determined far more objectively and, over time, objective evaluation will expose the true nature of many original terms. While ID advocates, being the political creatures that they are, often try to distance themselves from God, I've debated a few of them over the years and have yet to get any one of them to answer a simple challenge, and that is to deny the existence of God or to provide detailed explanations for the responses and rebuttals of the scientific community. I also find it interesting that such a new editor seems to presume to know so much about Misplaced Pages policies. Are you enjoying your trip to the Creation Museum? - Nascentatheist 00:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow! To admit such bigotry is brave! You challenge ID supporters to deny God. I'm glad you're unbiased. Unsigne 00:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't suppose it would do any good to ask someone posting from an IP address about bravery, but the issue is not one of bravery but to establish the bias of ID people. If ID doesn't require the intervention of God, such a denial would be easy by at least one of them. It's never happened. Do you understand why that's relevant? Can you explain why such a question represents bigotry? Is it bigotry to challenge an ID person in such a way? - Nascentatheist 06:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You are engaging in multiple violations of Misplaced Pages policy. You are attempting to turn this forum into a debate about ID's merits, and attacking me personally. I refuse to return fire and dishonor myself. The only topic of discussion here is whether or not it is a violation of NPOV to use a public policy paper by opponents of ID to prove the definition of the term. My question is: why haven't you, or anyone else, responded to the citations I gave of Merriam-Webster, the Columbia Encyclopedia, and even an article by Slate that ran in NPR and was based on interviews with scientists on both sides of the controversy?

The non-responses to my points, personal attacks, accusations against me, etc, are all the sign of systematic abuse of this Misplaced Pages entry. Simply answer my points and avoid personal attacks and debate over ID, because we are not here to debate it. --Matthew C. Hoffman 16:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It is well established that over 99.9% of the relevant scientific disciplines reject intelligent design (see level of support for evolution). This is about as close to "unanimous consensus" as the scientific community gets.

Even the originators of the term make references to God and religion when addressing their base and in fundraising operations. There are multiple references to this by the originators of the term in print. There is copious other evidence to support this. It was also the finding of a US federal court that this is true. These have been answered over and over and over in Misplaced Pages. If another reference or two is necessary here, that is a trivial matter and can easily be addressed if it is needed.--Filll 18:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Your first paragraph responds to nothing I wrote. I have written nothing about people rejecting or accepting ID. So that is a red herring and doesn't belong on the page.

How people use ID arguments when they fundraise doesn't affect the definition of the word. I already acknowledged that people may use ID to show the consistency of their theistic beliefs with the natural sciences. That is not the issue. The issue is, how is the word defined by its users? ID is strictly limited to arguing that there is evidence of design in biological systems, and its opponents are constantly trying to claim that this is the same as creationism, but that is part of the debate. You are injecting one side of the debate into the article, which violates NPOV.

If you wish to create a subheading with information about both sides of the controversy, that would be appropriate. But citing a public policy paper by a partisan organization opposed to ID is almost a dictionary definition of NPOV rule violation.

Also, the issue I raised earlier about both sides not being included (such as responses by ID advocates to arguments regarding the flagellum, has not received a response. MatthewHoffman 19:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewHoffman (talk • contribs) 19:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I would beg to differ. I believe that I answered your points A) and B) above. I described how the scientific community feels and why this is stated in the way that it is. Perhaps you might want to try to read it again if you did not understand. The originator's definition of the term is of course included in the article on intelligent design, as appropriate. However, this is a minority viewpoint, and because of WP:UNDUE, the views of the mainstream scientific community must be given the dominant weighting. This was confirmed by federal judicial rulings. If you want to spend a few million dollars and get this federal judicial ruling reversed, then there might be a WP:RS and WP:V source that could be included in the article stating something different. Those are the rules of WP. You do not seem to understand WP:NPOV and I would suggest you review this policy carefully. As for the flagellum, I would rely on those more knowledgable than me in this topic, and so I will defer to them. Thanks. --Filll 19:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me, or would anyone else scoff at the idea that a federal court is the last say on the issue? Do issues go beyond legality as decided by lawyers fortunate enough to become federal judges? Judges are no smarter than you or I. Why defer to them to make our decisions? Were judges right when slavery was decided Constitutional? Or were they right when they reversed themselves? Unsigne 00:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If things were that simple, yes, we should scoff at the idea. Things are not that simple. - Nascentatheist 07:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You can keep claiming to have answered my points, but you didn't. I never said anything about any scientific consensus on the truth or falsehood of ID, and any reader of this page can verify that by just looking at the text. A single federal court judge who believes that teaching ID would be tantamount to teaching creationism is not proof that that is what its advocates mean when they use the word, and it certainly proves no consensus. And you have not responded to my point that a public policy paper cannot be used as some sort of neutral, scientific source. That is very obviously an abuse of NPOV. You are the one who does not seem to understand NPOV. I suggest that you reread the material yourself.

I am not going to let this go. It seems very obvious that you and FeloniousMonk are using the page to advance your own point of view, and not to explain both sides of this controversy. This violates Misplaced Pages policy. I simply want an accurate description of the controversy presented, with both sides. MatthewHoffman 19:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note that NPOV is not SPOV (sympathetic point of view) - we're not going to apologize, for example, for stating up front that Albert Fish is known for being a serial killer and cannibal, and we're not going to try to "balance" that with "positive" information about him, because he simply isn't notable for anything positive. Please read WP:NPOV carefully, especially WP:NPOV#Undue weight. KillerChihuahua 20:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Or that he killed people, but described it as culling instead. You know to confuse the populace, much like the Intelligent Design folk. OrangeMarlin 21:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Matthew, you are "not going to let this go," and then you want to presume to lecture experienced users and administrators about Misplaced Pages policy? Help me out, here: Your first edit occurred on September 15th and your entire purpose seems to be to address this specific article, using a style (and arrogance, especially when trying to declare that opposing viewpoints violate WP:NPOV while refusing to acknowledge his own biases). These traits are common to a banned user] who, coincidentally enough, recently told his "devotional" readers of a trip to North Carolina (from which there was a recent vandalism of the Misplaced Pages user page associated with me) along with a sojourn to the Creation Museum in Kentucky. Yes, my suspicions are raised but now that I've voiced them, I have to ask another question. Where, exactly, is the violation of policy? The information being presented is factual and, though you may not much care for it, as much as ID advocates have tried to distance themselves from what is commonly understood as "creationism," the movement is clearly an evolution, if you'll excuse the expression, of the creationism that we saw so loudly proclaimed in the 1980s and 90s. That movement was defeated in the courts (it never stood a chance in the sciences, which is why advocates never tried to engage in debate there), and those of us familiar with the movements even as they started with George McReady Price understand that the evolution of creationism into ID has followed a logical set of steps that are affirmed by the commentary of many of those same advocates. If you want sources in which scientists and philosophers of science put together a coherent argument linking creationism and ID, there are quite a few that can be provided, such as:

• Sober, E. (2002). Intelligent design and probability reasoning. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 52(2), 65.
• Brauer, M.J., Forrest, B., and Gey, S.G. (2005). Is it science yet: Intelligent design creationism and the Constitution. Washington University Law Quarterly 83(1), 1.
• Scott, E.C. (2000). The Creation/Evolution continuum. Reports of the National Center for Science Education See this link.
• Coyne, J. (2001). Creationism by stealth. Nature 410, 745.
• Scott, E.C. and Branch, G. "Intelligent Design" not accepted by most scientists. Reports of the National Center for Science education See this link.
• Raff, R.A. (2001). The creationist abuse of evo-devo. Evolution and Development 3(6), 373.
• Fitelson, B., Stephens, C., and Sober, E. (1999). How not to detect design - Critical notice: William A. Demski, The Design Inference. Philosophy of Science 66(3), 472.

I can do this all day. Reputable sources from within the scientific community overwhelmingly see ID as an evolved creationism or some form of creationism adapted to the modern day and designed to circumvent previous legal decisions barring the teaching of creationism as it was previously labeled. ID is the cynical attempt of creation "science" advocates to get around those previous sanctions and get religion in the public schools.

Complaints that invoke dictionary definitions are simply disingenuous. Dictionaries are histories of word usage, not the final arbiters of how a word or combination of words must be used. But that history does provide some insight. The American Heritage Dictionary defines intelligent design as "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." Of course, this is what creationists have been trying to pass off as "science" for decades, with the associated attempt to distance themselves from the Bible, even if that tactic failed because of the clumsiness of advocates such as Henry Morris and Duane Gish. Creation "science" also asserts that "physical and biological systems...result from purposeful design by an intelligent being."

Complaints that we must adhere to the definitions provided by advocates are also disingenuous. While it sounds very reasonable, on the surface, to allow persons to define themselves, there is good cause for caution in many cases. The official name of the country of Cuba is the Republic of Cuba. By our understanding of what constitutes a "republic," does Cuba qualify. When East Germany was calling itself a "democratic republic," would we say that this was a fair representation of their system of government? We can certainly consider how ID advocates wish to present themselves or, perhaps, how they may see themselves; but that doesn't mean that they aren't subject to objective scrutiny and that others won't see through obvious rhetorical or political spin. ID advocates want to distance themselves not because they are not creationists. Most of them are creationists. They want to distance themselves because creation "science" is a losing cause, as proven many times over.

The scientific community has rightly identified ID as a form of creationism, obviously evolved from previous incarnations. The literature is consistent and the conclusion is valid. Attempts to distance from creationism are rhetoric and politically based, in an attempt to cynically exploit a general misunderstanding and lack of attention by the general public. Perpetuating that tactic in Misplaced Pages is being rightly opposed. - Nascentatheist 11:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Your personal attacks and accusations against me are more abuse of this forum, and very clear evidence that the editors and administrators involved in this article are trying to use it to push their agenda. This is not the place to engage in that. I am not any banned user. In fact, unlike you sir, I am here under my real name. Are you? Your name, rather, like your tactics, points to an agenda that you seem to be pushing on Misplaced Pages. Also, I have every right to begin editing wherever I wish. Anyone can edit a Misplaced Pages article, and the very modest edit I tried to do was very very legitimate.

Your responses are a complete failure, and in fact back up what I was saying. You even admit that the American Heritage Dictionary also gives the same definition of ID given by the Columbia Encyclopedia and Merriam-Webster. Slate magazine and NPR, which are not "conservative" by any stretch of the imagination, also have a story in which they clearly state that ID is not creationism. Even creationist websites acknowledge that creationism is more than ID, because the designer in creationism is explicitly identified with God in creationism. Creationists have always been somewhat critical of ID, another fact that is without controversy and can easily be verified by reference to the many creationist websites on the internet.

So we have multiple references now from both sides showing ID is not creationism: Merriam-Webster (the most authoritative American English dictionary), the American Heritage Dictionary, the Columbia Encyclopedia, and a Slate/NPR article that references Nick Matzke of the National Center for Science Education (see an earlier response I wrote below with all of the URLs).

All of this proves that the definition is indeed a matter of controversy. Your citations look pretty on paper, but have no quotes. What do they actually say? Do they say that irreducible complexity arguments have a historical association with the creationist movement? Do they say that ID type arguments are used by creationists? All of that would be true, but that is not the question. The question is: is ID a theory specifically about God, or a theory that is very compatible with creationist arguments"

You claim "Attempts to distance from creationism are rhetoric and politically based, in an attempt to cynically exploit a general misunderstanding and lack of attention by the general public. Perpetuating that tactic in Misplaced Pages is being rightly opposed." Stand by what you said... do you therefore claim that Merriam-Webster, the American Heritage Dictionary, the Columbia Enclyclopedia, National Public Radio, and Slate are all politically biased sources that are "cynically exploiting a general misunderstanding and lack of attention by the general public?"

Please answer my points directly, without personal attacks. Please adhere to Misplaced Pages policy. If you continue to attack me personally and bring up issues that are not related to the topic, you will only prove that you are guilty of what you have falsely accused me of: an attempt to use Misplaced Pages to further your own personal agenda. --Matthew C. Hoffman 16:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

<undent>We can include a large number of citations, which I suppose we might be induced to do. Is this what we will be forced to do?--Filll 22:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It would seem to me that using "consensus" in this manner -- that is, "the majority say that's the definition, so it doesn't matter how its adherents actually define it" -- would be akin to saying that "since the majority of Americans are pro-life, then the definition of "pro-choice" in public policy papers by partisan organizations opposed to abortion (that it is actually "pro-abortion" or "pro-death") must be the correct definition."

No, the correct way to define a term, especially in a truly encyclopedic article, is to define it as its adherents -- and, for goodness' sake, its creators -- define it. And clearly, beyond dispute, ID adherents specify within their definition of ID that it is not creationism.

The only way someone can claim that calling it "intelligent design creationism" is not NPOV is by being blinded by their obvoius (to everyone else but them) POV. MH is correct here. --profg 03:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The declaration that ID is not creationist is simply that: a declaration. Like most of the other claims made by the ID movement, it is easily contradicted by the facts. The only people who deny ID's creationist nature are its proponents. On the other hand, scientists, historians and philosophers of science ((not just Forrest, but Numbers, Ruse, Pennock, and many others) who have studied ID have clearly stated that it is creationist. The Judge in the Dover trial ruled that ID is creationist.

Funny, but anyone who understands science knows there are no facts. All rules and ideas are constantly being tested. Prior to modern physics, Newtonian physics was "law," but it was later discovered that Newtonian physics was only an approximation, although it was a VERY good approximation. And as far as the idea of concensus? Can 99.9% of scientists be wrong? You betcha.

It is complete and utter nonsense to claim that "anyone who understands science knows there are no facts." Science is loaded with facts. Facts are usually represented by the data with which we deal when engaged in experimentation and observation. Yes, rules and ideas are tested. Theories are tested. They are all tested against the data - the facts as we have gathered them. It's a fact that people don't rocket off into space when they jump up from a trampoline. Theories about gravity serve to explain that fact. It's a fact that organic life on this planet is interrelated and evolved over billions of years. The various theories of evolution explains that fact. - Nascentatheist 11:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Simply repeating talking points isn't the way to write an encycopaedic article. The declaration that ID is not creationist is simply a talking point, which is unsubstantiated by any facts. In fact, when Pandas was written, the phrase creation science" was simply replaced with "intelligent design" and "creation scientists" with "design proponents" - most famously, creating the hybrid "cdesign proponentsists".

You write an encyclopaedia article by relying on secondary sources, ideally the word of scholars who are experts in the field. Forrest is one of the foremost experts on ID, as is Pennock. You do not write an encyclopaedia article by simply repeating talking points put out by the organisation in question. That assertion is just silly. Guettarda 04:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I would submit to you that there are two errors in your contentions. The first, and most fundamental, is that the definition of a word is a matter of "science" (by which you mean the natural sciences). All of the scientific research on earth cannot create a definition, because a definition is decided socially by those who use a word. The phrase "intelligent design" could mean what we mean in English by the word "coffee table" if common usage so determined it.

In the United States, the most authoritative source on the meanings of words is without a doubt, the Merriam-Webster line of dictionaries. Merriam-Webster is the oldest dictionary company in the US, and is actually credited with determining the particularly American spellings of certain words, such as "center" instead of "centre". It defines "intelligent design", "creationism" and "creation science" as follows:

http://m-w.com/dictionary/Intelligent%20Design Main Entry: intelligent design Function: noun

the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence

http://m-w.com/dictionary/creationism Main Entry: cre·a·tion·ism Pronunciation: -sh&-"ni-z&m Function: noun

a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis -- compare EVOLUTION 4b

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/scientific%20creationism Main Entry: scientific creationism Function: noun

a doctrine holding that the biblical account of creation is supported by scientific evidence

As you can see, creationism and intelligent design have two different definitions. Intelligent Design is a theory that some sort of intelligence determined the design of some life forms. Creationism agrees with Intelligent Design but goes further and asserts that the designing intelligence, the creator, was God, and usually the God of the Bible.

The Columbia Encyclopedia agrees, explicitly stating that the two are different:

http://www.bartleby.com/65/in/inteldesgn.html The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05.

intelligent design

theory that some complex biological structures and other aspects of nature show evidence of having been designed by an intelligence. Such biological structures are said to have intricate components that are so highly interdependent and so essential to a particular function or process that the structures could not have developed through Darwinian evolution, and therefore must have been created or somehow guided in their development. Although intelligent design is distinguished from creationism by not relying on the biblical account of creation, it is compatible with a belief in God and is often explicitly linked with such a belief. Also, unlike creationists, its proponents do not challenge the idea that the earth is billions of years old and that life on earth has evolved to some degree.

An individual scientist who is opposed to ID may give good reasons for his position of opposition, but he cannot simply determine what his opponent means by a word. He is not a linguist, who determines definitions of words, either.

Slate Magazine, after interviewing scientists who are opposed and others who are in favor of intelligent design determined that that creationism and ID are different. This article was also run on National Public Radio as an audio piece (http://www.slate.com/id/2118388/).

I have not seen any text quoted from the federal judge who ruled on the school board case, but he is a single federal judge making a ruling that applied to a specific legal case. He is not a linguist who can determine the socially accepted meaning of a term, nor the meaning attached to the term by those who originate and promote it.

I want to note that some who are opposing me on this are using the forum to attack ID proponents (saying that practically everything they say is false, etc), comments that are not appropriate. Other comments about people murdering others, etc, have no place here...but the admins are not removing the comments. It seems that there is an air of confidence among the obviously anti-ID people here that the rules simply don't apply to them, or will always be conveniently interpreted in their favor...is that correct?

I am waiting for a rational, clear, and direct response to the evidence and arguments I have placed above, without editorial comments about ID itself, which is not appropriate for this page.

Matthew C. Hoffman 01:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You're in the wrong place. Yahoo forums is --> thataway. KillerChihuahua 01:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you really going to force me to put a bunch of peer-reviewed references that prove this? And every other single statement in here?--Filll 02:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be the idea of wiki: A bunch of people gather their knowledge together. Is it really so difficult to place references to material? Isn't that the idea of wiki? If it's oped, what good is it? --Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.111.22.21 (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You do understand the difference between an "oped" piece and a position paper that is sanctioned by professionals in the appropriate fields or issued from either a single professional organization or a group of them, don't you? - Nascentatheist 07:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Nah, just ignore him. He obviously doesn't understand what he's talking about. Guettarda 02:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

So you will just "ignore" Merriam-Webster, the Columbia Encyclopedia, the American Heritage Dictionary, National Public Radio, and Slate, all of which contradict you? Do you think they all have a sinister agenda to promote ID? I really hope that the level of discourse on this talk page improves... --Matthew C. Hoffman 16:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, sure. Dictionaries are very bad sources for encyclopaedia articles. And one columnist on Slate/NPR doesn't trump academic experts on the subject and court rulings. But mostly I was saying to ignore you - if you can't be bothered to click on the link and read the intelligent design article (which answers your question), why should anyone waste time trying to explain to you what you can't be bothered to read for yourself. Anyway, the issue should be dealt with at Talk:Intelligent design, not here. Guettarda 19:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)