Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:30, 3 December 2007

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Intelligent design. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Intelligent design at the Reference desk.

	Intelligent design is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 12, 2007.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 2, 2005 Peer review Reviewed January 21, 2006 Good article nominee Listed October 16, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 9, 2007 Peer review Reviewed February 23, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted July 24, 2007 Featured article review Kept Current status: Featured article

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:TrollWarning

Creationism FA‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

2002–2004 (2002-2003) (2003) (Jan-Sep 2004, 53kb) - Are oppositions/criticisms of ID relevant? (Aug-Oct 2004, 46kb) - Is ID theory falsifiable? (Sep-Nov 2004, 42kb) - Overwhelming majority: POV? What does "scientific" mean? (Nov-Dec 2004) (Dec 2004-early Jan 2005) 2005 (Jan-April 2005) (April-May 2005) (Early - Mid June 2005) - Structured debate; the Pryamid analogy; Article Splits) Archives 11, 12, 13 (Mid-August/Mid-Sept 2005) - ID as creationism; ID proponent's religious agenda; ID as scientific hypothesis (Mid-Sept/Early-Oct 2005) - Computer simulations & irreducible complexity, Criticisms of criticism, Footnote misnumbering, NPOV (Mid-Oct 2005) (Mid to late-Oct 2005) - Mainly involving users from uncommondescent.com and admins (Late Oct to early Nov 2005) (early to mid Nov 2005) (Mid Nov 2005) Tisthammer's and ant's objections (Nov 2005) Enormous bulk of text (30 Nov - 3 Dec 2005) various proposals, peer review (Early Dec 2005) - Mostly chatter concerning the current pool of editors (Mid Dec 2005) - Whether intelligent design is to be upper case or lower case (Late Dec 2005) Two major re-orgs and the Kitzmiller decision 2006 Marshills NPOV objections Reintroduction of Vast discussion Archives 27, 28, 29 July 2006 August 2006 DI warning, DI and leading proponents again 2007 First archive of 2007 January 22, 2007 Jan – early Feb 2007 Feb 9 - Mar 30, 2007 - April 19, 2007 Initial work towards a consensus lead in April 2007. April 19-April 26, 2007 April - early May 2007, including work on lead. May 2007 unproductive discussions Archive 41. Reference formatting and other minor issues. 24 May - 8 July 2007 7 July - 3 August 2007 2 August - 21 August 2007 21 August - 5 October 2007 5 -14 October 2007 Points that have already been discussed The following ideas were discussed. Please read the archives before bringing up any of these points again: Is ID a theory? Fact and Theory Does ID really qualify as a Theory? Is ID/evolution falsifiable? Falsification Falsifiability ID is allegedly not empirically testable, falsifiable, etc. Is the article too littered with critique, as opposed to, for example, the evolution article? Criticism that the Intelligent design page does not give citations to support ID opponents' generalizations What ID's Opponents Say; is it really relevant? Bias? Various arguments to subvert criticism Critics claim ... Anti-ID bias Apparent partial violation NPOV policy Why are there criticizms Critics of ID vs. Proponents Isn't ID no more debatable than evolution? Argument Zone The debatability of ID and evolution Isn't ID actually creationism by definition, as it posits a creator? ID in relation to Bible-based creationism What makes ID different than creationism Moving ID out of the "creationism" catagory Shouldn't this page be merged with creationism? ID not Creationism? Are all ID proponents really theists? ID proponents who are not theists A possible atheist/agnostic intelligent design advocate? Are there any peer-reviewed papers about ID? Scientific peer review Peer-reviewed stuff of ID (netcody) Yqbd's peer-review arguments Is ID really not science? ...who include the overwhelming majority of the scientific community... Meaning of "scientific" Why sacrifice truth Rejection of ID by the scientific community section redundant Intelligent design is Theology, not Science Philosophy in the introduction Why ID is not a theory Bad philosophy of science (ID is allegedly not empirically testable, falsifiable etc.) The "fundamental assumption" of ID Peer-reviewed articles Figured out the problem Is ID really not internally consistent?; Distingushing Philosophical ID (TE) from the DI's Pseudo-Scientific ID The many names of ID? Removed section by User:Tznkai Pre- & post- Kitzmiller, proponents seek to redefine ID Defining ID Figured out the problem "Intelligent evolution" ID on the O'Reilly Factor Is the article too long? Article Size Notes The Article Is Too Long Does the article contain original research that inaccurately represents minority views? Inadequate representation of the minority View The "fundamental assumption" of ID Is the intelligent designer necessarily irreducibly complex? Is a designer needed for irreducibly complex objects? Irreducibly complex intelligent designer Settling Tisthammerw's points, one at a time The "fundamental assumption" of ID Irreducibly complex Irreducible complexity of elementary particles Repeated objections and ignoring of consensus Suggested compromise Resolution to Wade's & Ant's objections (hopefully) Discussion regarding the Introduction: Intro (Rare instance of unanimity) Introduction (Tony Sidaway suggests) Is this article is unlike others on Misplaced Pages? Why is Wiki Violating its own POV rule Call for new editors Archives 22, 23, 24 Is this article NPOV? NPOV Archive 25 Are terms such as 'scientific community' or 'neocreationist' vague concepts? Support among scientists "Neocreationist" social, not scientific, observation Archive 26 How should Darwin's impact be described? Pre-Darwinian Ripostes\ Peer Review and ID Peer review? Lack of peer review Peer Review: Reviewed Discovery Institute and leading ID proponents Are all leading ID proponents affiliated with Discovery Institute? Archive 32 Why is intelligent design lower case, not upper case? Renaming Intelligent design as Intelligent Design Is the article trying to equate ID with Christian Creationism and the Discovery Institute too much? The article discusses the formulation disseminated by the Discovery Institute affiliates

References

Entropy vs. Fine Tuning

Prior to my edits (which were reverted), the paragraph on Sewell's entropy arguments was under the heading Fine Tuning. This completely broke up the logic of the Fine Tuning section. The section was, previously,

Paragraph 1. Fine Tuning
Paragraph 2. Entropy
Paragraph 3. Fine Tuning, anthropic principle, intelligent designer.

Paragraph 2 on entropy totally breaks up the logic. Moreover, arguments from thermodynamics (entropy) have almost nothing to do with the Fine Tuning problem. The Fine Tuning problem relates to fundamental constants of the universe, particle masses, coupling constants etc., set at the Big Bang (or shortly thereafter). Thermodynamics is a whole other subject.

Therefore, the logical location for Entropy arguments is either:

 A. in its own subsection, or
 B. In the same category as Specified Complexity/Information Theoretic arguments.

I am fine with either putting it under A. or B. It should be pointed out that Specified Complexity makes reference to probability distributions, as does the statistical concept of entropy. The statistical concept of entropy, and the thermodynamic concept of entropy, are identical, although expressed in a different mathematcial formalism. The statistical concept of entropy comes out of information theory, and Specified Complexity presents itself as making contributions to information theory. Therefore, they are related, and could conceivably go under the same heading. However, I am fine with putting entropy under its own heading. But not Fine Tuning.

Secondly, I rewrote the arguments about how the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to living things because they're not closed systems. I rewrote so the statements apply to living things in general, not just "people"-- the previous wording did not sound like scientific prose. Frankpettit 01:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

More definite wording than "critics assert..." is needed here. The entropy argument is an ironclad declaration that the proponent is living in a reality-free zone, but it probably sounds convincing and logical to those who don't understand what entropy is. For those who do understand what entropy is, it's as plainly idiotic as stating that gravity is caused by tiny little men pulling on ropes. Raymond Arritt 01:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I wonder about including this sort of nonsense in this article which is long enough already. I think these sorts of comments, which are common with creationism, should be included in Objections to evolution, which already has a section at , and also in Entropy and life. At most there should be a sentence or two in here with an appropriate link to the more extensive articles.--Filll 02:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Jim62sch and Dave Souza are familiar with the concept of entropy, and I am somewhat familiar with it as well, all of us having previously assisted Frank L. Lambert in integrating into a couple of articles some more contemporary explanations of entropy than the traditional model originally related to heat engines. As to the 2ndLOT and its relationship to intelligent design articles, it's mentioned in this article only because it remains part of the debate about the antrhopic principle, which in turn is closely related to the FTU speculations, all of which are more-or-less thrown into the mix of arguments for the existence of God. This is as well connected to FTU as it is to specified complexity. But Dembski's speculations about specified complexity and complex specified intelligence are Dembski's original ideas, so it gets its own section, whereas the other arguments have been more intermixed in the general debate between those who see only chance at work and those who see intentional design or advance planning of some sort at work in the cosmos. The existing mention of entropy is already more than adequate, IMO, and I don't see the need to put the brief mention of entropy and/or 2LOT anywhere else except where it already is. Perhaps Jim62 and Dave have opinions about this? Anybody else? ... Kenosis 02:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

As written in the article, there is no clear connection between 2ndLOT and the anthropic principle (AP). As I pointed out, the 1st and 3rd. paragraphs of the FTU section have a logical connection which is broken by sticking 2ndLOT paragraph between them. If there is a connection between 2ndLOT and anthropic principle, the article as written should hint at what that connection is. The way it's written now, that paragraph appears totally unrelated, and why is it between paragraphs 1 and 3? At the very very least, make the order of paragraphs 1,3,2, and then rewrite the entropy paragraph to hint or suggest what the hell connection 2ndLOT has with AP. Frankpettit 02:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait just a second here. I just gave the connection right above. Dembski's argument is his original argument. The other arguments are at least equally related to FTU as they are to any other ID argument or teleological argument -- they all argue for the existence of God. I gave my opinion, and so have others here. And, it deserves only brief mention because it falls in the mix of teleological arguments commonly used by people arguing for the existence of God. Then, there is a separate question about the difference between science and philosophy or theology about the assertion of the existence of God, or, pardon me, intelligent designer, or pardon me again, intelligent design without any speculation about a designer, or whatever the argument happens to be in order to seek the goal of having this set of ideas taught in high-school biology classes. The section begins appropriately, to wit: "Intelligent design proponents also raise occasional arguments outside biology". That means it's an appropriate place for a brief mention that the nearly century-old 2LOT debate is among those occasionally raised arguments. ... Kenosis 02:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? Did you read the offending paragraph in the article? It does not make any difference whether you connect entropy to initial conditions at the Big Bang HERE. The question is, does the paragraph in the article make a logical connection to the other paragraphs IN THE ARTICLE. It does not. If the logical connection is that 2ndLOT is explained by anthropic principle, that should be IN THE ARTICLE.

Next you suggest the section labelled "Fine Tuning of the Universe" should be a miscellaneous grab-bag of all "arguments outside biology". If so, then label this section Non-Biological Arguments instead. I repeat: this section AS WRITTEN IN THE ARTICLE not the discussion page, draws no logical connection between entropy and FTU, which is the name of the section. The fact that you vaguely remember there's a distant connection to the anthropic principle, and mention it on the discussion page, does not improve the article.

Even in this case, the paragraph is s&*t. "people wouldn't be born and grow up as this, too, would be a decrease in entropy. However, people are able to grow..." This is not scientific prose. I tried rewriting it to sound professional and someone reverted that, too. "eliminating waste"? What does that have to do with entropy? Who's so in love with "people are born and grow up"?

Second, you say "I gave my opinion, and so have others here." The only other opinion is that the whole subject should be dropped, not that entropy belongs under the heading FTU. Frankpettit 00:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Moreover in that section you guys keep batting around, it says:

Victor J. Stenger and other critics say both intelligent design and the weak form of the anthropic principle are essentially a tautology;

... but nowhere in any of the three references made does Victor Stenger say that intelligent design is a tautology. He does say that the weak anthropic principle is a tautology (as does many physicists/comologists) but he doesn't say that ID is a tautology. It's factually incorrect and unsupported, yet when corrected, gets reverted by the owners of the article. Raul, what you say is untrue. Often "good" (i.e. well-supported, factual, and NPOV) edits are reverted and replaced with partisan edits. And often by partisans whose expertise in even the basic science is limited. 207.190.198.130 01:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Raul is wrong. Good, factual, NPOV edits are instantly reverted by the owners.

As for the line about Stenger, it does not follow logically from the sentences before or after. Why is it there? It does not add much to the article. I would be happier with deleting that line altogether. Frankpettit 04:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

See #Fine tuning Stenger below... dave souza, talk 14:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The Intelligent Designer (proposed edit)

I think the logical progression in the lead paragraph to the "The Intelligent Designer" section could be clearer. I've broken the para up into its sentences:

• Intelligent design arguments are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid identifying the intelligent agent (or agents) they posit. (Fair enough as an opening statement)
• Although they do not state that God is the designer, the designer is often implicitly hypothesized to have intervened in a way that only a god could intervene. (This sentence is adding a further dimension to the first, but the link could be clearer - maybe add a "Nevertheless" to the beginning. Also, "they do not state that God is the designer" is simply repeating the information already given in the first sentence and is therefore unnecessary. The sentence would probably read better as: "Nevertheless, the designer is often implicitly hypothesized to have intervened in a way that only a god could intervene." Incidentally, I'm not sure about "implicitly hypothesized" - can one make a hypothesis by implication, or do you really mean "implied"?)
• Dembski, in The Design Inference, speculates that an alien culture could fulfill these requirements. (The sentence is trying to say that Demski tries out the idea that the Designer might be a non-supernatural agent, but ... well, but what? Does Demski reject the idea of a non-supernatural Designer? We're not told in this sentence and the possibility is left hanging).
• The authoritative description of intelligent design, however, explicitly states that the Universe displays features of having been designed. (This sentence is trying to answer the question raised by the preceding one, but it doesn't: the "authoritative description" states explicititly that the Universe was "designed": the crucial question remains unadressed, designed by whom, God or spacemen?)
• Acknowledging the paradox, Dembski concludes that "no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life." (This is the real answer to the question raised in the sentence before the sentence before: Demski speculates that the Designer might be non-supernatural, but concludes (we're not told why) that "no intelligent agent who is strictly physical" etc etc. So the paragraph will erad better if the preceding sentence is deleted and these ermaining sentences are combined, to read: "Dembski, in The Design Inference, speculates that an alien culture could fulfill these requirements, but concludes that "no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life."")
• The leading proponents have made statements to their supporters that they believe the designer to be the Christian God, to the exclusion of all other religions. (This would read better if it were joined to the preceding sentence: "Dembski, in The Design Inference, speculates that an alien culture could fulfill these requirements, but concludes that "no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life," and leading ID proponents have stated that they believe the designer to be the Christian God, to the exclusion of all other religions."

For consideration. PiCo 08:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ownership of Article

Why are certain editors reverting ALL edits that come along to the article? This smacks of WP:Own, which is not allowed. Misplaced Pages's strength is its changability, and edits should NOT be reverted merely because they occur. What is this, a protected page? You guys appear to be making it a de facto protected page through your heavy reversionism. 68.36.214.143 18:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Good edits to the article don't get reverted. (Example: ) The problem is that the vast, vast majority of the edits to this article - including non-vandalisms - are detrimental. Raul654 18:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

A lot of arguments appear to be deemed as detrimental on account of being allegedly POV or by way of WP:IDONTLIKEIT (which appears to be what ConfuciusOrnis used when reverting some edits of mine, which I have reverted back). It would help to explain how allegedly POV edits are POV. And, yes, my edits (I was in anon mode earlier) to the links section were there because the topics of origin beliefs and origin of life were very germane to Intelligent Design as an argument. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

We're not talking about an N dimensional manifold, or the age-area hypothesis. Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. It is not our job to explain basic English words like teleological. Raul654 18:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Remember: People are stupid Raul654 19:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you wikilink materiel? — Rickyrab | Talk 19:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No, that's an inappropriate (unrelated) link. We put an HTML comment in the Yom Kippur War article immediately afterwards explaining that it "materiel" was correct, and not to change it. Which is exactly what was done here with teleological, and yet people still ignore the comment. More to the point, teleological already links to something, and yet people insist on changing it anyway. It beggars the imagination. Raul654 20:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design as a religious argument, as well as Discovery Institute

I want to edit the first paragraph to compromise between those that consider ID to be religious and those that don't necessarily consider ID to be religious; that is why I inserted "arguably religious".

Item number 2. "The primary proponents, who are associated with the Discovery Institute, include people who" Vs. "Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute,"

The problem here is that the second version, which is the one people keep reverting back to, fails to define "primary", excludes the possibility that there might be people outside of the Discovery Institute also participating in the ID debate, and presumes to read the minds of those proponents from the Discovery Institute. Do we know for certain that all Discovery Instituters believe in the Abrahamic God? Also, I am leery of the word "all", because it tempts the ecological fallacy. — Rickyrab | Talk 19:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any compelling need to state that ID is a religious argument, especially because ID's proponents go to great pains to avoid stating it as such. Inserting the word religious into the lead section would bring on more POV accusations, as it has in the past.

Oh, and the word "all" in this context was discussed extensively and agreed upon. Naturally, there are other proponents. The fact remains, however, that the primary proponents are all associated with the Discovery Institute. -Amatulic 19:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless, do all Discovery Instituters necessarily believe in God? Do we know that for sure? Link to the "extensive discussion"? 68.36.214.143 19:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And how do you know for sure that "all" primary proponents are from the Discovery Institute? And what about the word "primary"?68.36.214.143 19:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The talk page archives are linked at the top of this page for anyone to peruse. If you want to re-tread over old ground, it's your responsibility to review past discussions. The word "all" and the ID proponents personal beliefs on the identity of the designer has been discussed to death. Please look through the archives before going further. I don't see how this discussion will result in any improvement to the lead section. -Amatulic 19:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I recommend taking out "all of whom", and inserting simply "who", because that's simpler and says essentially the same thing. 68.36.214.143 20:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC) I looked over the discussions already. Why not say "As far as we know, all"? 68.36.214.143 20:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Everything on Misplaced Pages is "as far as we know", more precisely, as far as we have found it attested in reliable sources. --Merzul 20:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The POV on this article is really poorly done. Look at the talk history if you want to see how the same problems have been repeatedly identified and repeatedly reverted by a group with clear agenda. 216.143.142.68 (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Hmm, possibly that sentence and the one following it could be combined with a different sentence break. For example: "Its primary proponents are associated with the Discovery Institute. While these advocates of Intellgent Design believe the designer to be God, they claim it is a scientific theory, and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations." That's what I'd propose. I'd like some others to weigh in before changing the lead, however. -Amatulic 20:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps needless to say, the first paragraph is important to get in accordance with the verifiable facts of the matter about this topic. I've had a chance to quickly review Rickyrab's edits. 1) "Teleological argument" is important despite that some readers will need to learn more to distinguish it as a particular philosophical argument that has a meaning different from "theological". There's a wikilink to teleological argument for the benefit of those readers who are confused upon first encountering it. 2) All proponents of intelligent design that meet WP:Notability with respect to this topic, plus many more that to varying degrees are further to the periphery of this topic of intelligent design, are either fellows or founders or close associates of the Discovery Insitute -- not some, not most, but all. The association most commonly has been in the form of fellowship grants which have helped fund the main written publications involving intelligent design. In other words, intelligent design, according to the reliable sources, is not the product of separate independently operating individuals at different institutions, but is solely a product of persons all of whom are involved with the Discovery Institute and its progeny, the Center for Science and Culture and the ISCID. As discussed many times before (in now-archived talk page discussion, linked to at the top of this page) with extensive arguments from different perspectives, there is not one significant, leading, primary, or centrally influential proponent who is not directly involved with the DI, CSC, and/or ISCID. 3) There is no need to add "religious argument" to the first sentence because the second sentence makes clear what intelligent design is according to the reliable sources, an argument from design, a.k.a. teleological argument, a philosophical argument which proponents are arguing is a scientific theory that should be taught side-by-side with evolution in high-school biology classes. The article then proceeds to explain in several levels of depth, with numerous citations both as verification and also as points of departure for readers to further pursue any research thay may care to do in whatever level of depth they may choose. ... Kenosis 20:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Very simple style issues

Before I leave this page, I would like to go over two simple examples of WP:WTA-related style issues that IMO would improve the article.

• First, the edit I tried to make... It is only about avoiding the phrase "critics point out". I mean if I could understand the scaffolding objection, and I really suck at biology, then surely all our readers will be able understand it. There is no need to use language that appeals to authority when the argument can speak for itself.
• There is another annoyance in the paragraph before. Behe's "alleged" examples. Obviously, if his arguments are flawed, then his examples can't really be of irreducibly complex entities. According to policy you can make this clear, but in the space where you let him speak, there is no harm in letting him finish his sentence. I would suggest, if you feel uncomfortable saying he presented examples of IC, to just write "examples of what he considered irreducible complexity" (modulo my bad English). Then in the next paragraph, you can clearly state that his examples are disputed, and so on...

There seems to be a certain fear that weakening the language, will weaken the argument. I don't think this is true. In my experience, good scholarly style under-promises and over-delivers, it is more pleasing to read when you don't feel pushed to accept this or that conclusion. That's all I really have to say on this, in retrospect, very minor issue! Best wishes, Merzul 13:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Especially: "good scholarly style under-promises and over-delivers". MisterSheik 18:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Instead of saying Behe presented the following examples of irreducible complexity... I would suggest Behe presented the following as examples of irreducible complexity... which neither states that the examples are IC, nor does it get bogged down in words to avoid. Sheffield Steel_stalk 21:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Very elegant solution. I'm going to edit that one in. --Infophile 22:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This is what you consider a consensus? Meh. OrangeMarlin 00:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

A complete lack of dissent? Yeah, seems like consensus among those who care enough to comment. So, do you have anything productive to add? --Infophile 00:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the first of Merzul's points, the words "critics point out" were used towards being faithful to WP:NPOV. I do see Merzul's second point, in that "alleged" arguably carries a bit too much of a skeptical tone in the second paragraph of the section on irreducible complexity, because that paragraph is not dealing with the critics' view but is dealing with Behe's view. I wouldn't object to changing it to, say, "Behe's argued examples of..." or similar construction. ... Kenosis 01:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You can see the wording I attempted to implement here if you're interested. I'm not perfectly satisfied with it, but I can't think of anything better off hand. --Infophile 21:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Definate article in first paragraph

I agree with Kenosis: it should be "a 1987 United States Supreme Court ruling involving separation of church and state" not "the 1987 United States Supreme Court ruling involving separation of church and state" -- contra to Raul654's edit summary, we do not name this case until the next section, and it is highly likely that there was more than one "1987 United States Supreme Court ruling involving separation of church and state". Until it is named it is just one of many, so it is "a ruling" not "the ruling". Hrafn_Stalk 11:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree that as it was, it should be "a" case. However, it's easier in some ways for the reader to be told the case name at the outset, so in the interim I've changed it accordingly. By the way, an anon edit added " In the 20 years since Intelligent Design was first formulated," no rigorous test that can identify... By my reckoning it's 28 years, the source is actually 5 years old but still stands .. dave souza, talk 13:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I was misreading the wikitext - I thought it was stating the name of the case (it should have). I agree with the sentence as it Dave has currently written it - explicitly identifying the case. Raul654 14:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I had assumed that the anon editor was dating from Edwards in 1987. 28 years would put its origin in 1979, which seems a tad early. Hrafn_Stalk 14:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ben Stein

Shouldn't he be mentioned here. Seems like he is a leading ID proponent and creationist. Dontletmedown 13:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If you look in the history of this page, you will see he is mentioned a few times. And we have already altered his own article Ben Stein accordingly. And we started a new article, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed about his upcoming movie. If this movie becomes more than just a sidelight, it will probably get more mention in the intelligent design article itself. For now, it is just a curiousity; the movie might flop and disappear immediately without a trace, for example.

The problem is, we cannot put all topics in the main article. There is just too much. Some material has to go in subsiduary daughter articles.--Filll 14:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ben Stein is a fairly minor ID advocate at this stage. He may become more prominent if his movie gets much attention, but whether it will is uncertain at this stage. Hrafn_Stalk 14:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

He's both a minor celebrity and a minor advocate. He's published no influential works, and no, Expelled does not count as a influential work. Odd nature 17:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Hitchens

If we include Ben Stein as a noted theist, we must include Christopher Hitchens as a noted atheist, since he has published as least as many non-fiction books.--W8IMP 08:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The suggestion that Stein be included in this article has already been soundly dismissed. Also, this article is not Atheism, so your suggestion is completely irrelevant. Hrafn_Stalk 09:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael Behe

An editor is attempting to contend (without anything in the way of substantiation, and against a stack of contrary evidence) that Behe is not a pseudoscientist. Additional input may be helpful. Hrafn_Stalk 10:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

An operational definition of 'pseudoscience' is needed. Dontletmedown 16:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't. If we decide on an "operational definition" for X, and evaluate objects A, B, C against our definition, all we are achieving is original research. What is needed is a reliable source saying either that Behe is/isn't a pseudoscientist, or that his field is/isn't pseudoscience. Sheffield Steel_stalk 20:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No OR. We find a source that has a good definition. Are you people serious around here? OK get the source that says Behe is a pseudoscientist. go for it. Dontletmedown 20:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's carefully read about what qualifies as original research. The key points are:

• Our original major content policy, neutral point of view (NPOV) encourages editors to add undisputed facts, including unbiased accounts of various people's views. It has traditionally forbidden editors from inserting their own views into articles, and demands that Misplaced Pages balance the relative prominence of differing viewpoints based on their prominence in the relevant field.
• Our verifiability policy (V) demands that information and notable views presented in articles be drawn from appropriate, reliable sources.
• Compliance with our Verifiability Policy and our cite sources guideline is the best way to ensure that you do not violate our NOR policy. In short, the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article; the only way to demonstrate that you are not inserting your own POV is to represent these sources and the views they reflect accurately.
• NPOV, V, and NOR are Misplaced Pages's three principal content policies. Since NPOV, V, and NOR complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three.

Pseudoscience is well defined, there are so many reliable sources, etc. Can we move on? OrangeMarlin 21:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine tuning Stenger

Having had a look at the question of the Stenger references, I've not been able to find in the pdfs Is The Universe Fine-Tuned For Us? The Anthropic Principle (PDF files) support for the tautology argument:

Victor J. Stenger and other critics say both intelligent design and the weak form of the anthropic principle are essentially a tautology; in his view, these arguments amount to the claim that life is able to exist because the Universe is able to support life.

His conclusions seem to be that "The fine-tuning argument and other recent intelligent design arguments are modern versions of God-of-the-gaps reasoning, where a God is deemed necessary whenever science has not fully explained some phenomenon.... The fine-tuning argument would tell us that the Sun radiates light so that we can see where we are going. In fact, the human eye evolved to be sensitive to light from the sun. The universe is not fine-tuned for humanity. Humanity is fine-tuned to the universe." and "theists make two contradictory arguments for life requiring a creator..... In the fine-tuning argument, the universe is so congenial to life that the universe must have been created. But, if it is so congenial, then we should expect life to evolve by natural processes. In the second argument,... the universe is so uncongenial to life that life must have been created. In that case it is too unlikely for life to have evolved by natural processes and so must have been produced by an intelligent designer. But, then life could very easily have been an improbable accident." These points appear to me to be more worth summarising than the tautology argument, but perhaps someone can cite the supporting words I may have missed. .. dave souza, talk 15:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It sounds like not a claim of tautology but rather a claim of self-contradiction, which is quite the opposite. A tautology, in the sense used here, is an empty truth, or a piece of circular definition; what is being asserted here is that the ID advocates contradict themselves by asserting that design is shown both by the hospitability and inhospitability of the universe to life. --FOo 21:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There's both a tautology and a pair of mutually contradictory arguments here. The tautology is of the type that if there's somebody living to argue that life is too improbable to exist by chance, then a posteri the probability of life existing is unity, no matter how low the probability of it coming into existence a priori. Hrafn_Stalk 01:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's an argument against the anthropic principle in general, not specifically its application to ID. --FOo 01:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No tautology. It seems that the universe and the earth specifically seem to be fine tuned as a great place for life to thrive. A great place for the seed to grow. Then there had to be the first seed planted from which all life sprung from. We can have a very fertile field in an area of perfect temperature and sunlight but with out say the perfect grapevine the field will produce nothing without the very high quality seed. You need both. Patonq (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I see problems here:

Userfied -- "Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time." Originator of thread seems far more interested in sparking a general argument than in discussing and substantiating, specific problems in the article. Hrafn_Stalk 16:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If it looks like a troll, if it sounds like a troll, if it whines like a troll, it must be a troll, and they should never ever ever be fed. See Don't feed the trolls. OrangeMarlin 20:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This article seems biased.

The above discussion has already been covered by this header section from this talk page, so please do not rehash it.

I would also direct editors attention to the 'Points that have already been discussed' section in the Archivebox above -- which includes previous discussion on NPOV, differences between treatment in this versus the Evolution article, etc. Hrafn_Stalk 14:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure of this sentence

A derivative of the phrase appears in the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1967) in the article on the Teleological argument for the existence of God : "Stated most succinctly, the argument runs: The world exhibits teleological order (design, adaptation). Therefore, it was produced by an intelligent designer."

I do not like how it is written particularly, and when I look in the teleology article, I do not see the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy.--Filll 01:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I provided that quote, and can attest that is it as written in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on the "Teleological argument for the existence of God". The article on the teleological argument, although I provided much of the material around the same time in Spring, 2006, doesn't cite to the Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Any idea that the quote was referring to the Misplaced Pages article on the teleological argument is a result of someone else having put a wikilink within the quotation. I'll go ahead and remove that wikilink now. ... Kenosis 01:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC) ... I instead adjusted the text to make clear that the WP article is referring to the EoP article rather than the WP article on teleology. ... Kenosis 01:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be good to put in a proper cite as well to this encyclopedia then, with ISBN number and publication information etc.--Filll 01:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

TBH, I'm getting fatigued with the idea that WP:V ever meant dotting every "i" and crossing every "t" and adapting every old citation to a newly developed format. IMO, there are more productive things to do. But, since you mention it: Title = "Teleological Argument for the Existence of God" ; Publication = Encyclopedia of Philosophy ; Publisher = Macmillan Publishing Co, Inc & The Free Press, New York; Collier Macmillan Publishers, London ; Date = 1967 ; Author = William P. Alston ; ISBN = readily available online . ... Kenosis 01:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You are correct: There are many, many more productive things to do. •Jim62sch• 19:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't mind that I'm anal retentive about citations and references? OrangeMarlin 02:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I can understand the desire for good citations. I can understand the desire to link these cited entries as carefully as possible to the relevant pages. I am less enamored with the automated tools everyone seems to love and seem so inflexible and unhelpful to me. I also can understand the desire to have article content that is comprehensible and accessible.--19:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filll (talk • contribs)

They aren't THAT inflexible. And they are very useful for articles that cite one reference over and over again. Moreover, once a reference type is used in article, it's bad form to change it. TBH, references in the articles you write are difficult to use. I guess we can all be anal retentive or stubborn about different things. OrangeMarlin 19:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The intro

I find the third and fourth paras of the intro a little odd. I am wondering if they couldn't be combined down into one, leaving the explanations of the casework below. I'm thinking along the lines of something like:

"Intelligent design was introduced after the Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard that the teaching of creation science in state schools was unconstitutional, as it was seen to be "advance a particular religion". In response, creation science works were changed to talk about "intelligent design" with no mention of a specific intelligence. This helped it to avoid the "particular religion" issue, thereby bypassing the Establishment Clause that had been the basis of the Supreme Court decision. Efforts to have intelligent design taught in schools followed, which succeeded in Dover, Pennsylvania. Another Supreme Court case quickly followed, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, in which the courts stated that intelligent design "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and concluded that the it also violated the Establishment Clause."

This removes some of the history that is better left outside the intro, but leaves a complete story arc about where it came from and where it ended up. Specifics, like the books and dates, can be left below, and much of it already appears. This version also states why ID was introduced as a result of Edwards v. Aguillard. This point is missing both from the intro and the Overview section immediately following. The Overview does contain some information about the decision that suggested ID was a possibility, but again never really comes out and says it. I can't imagine anything more important to understanding the basic concept of ID.

Maury 03:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The third and fourth paragraphs previously were one paragraph, focusing on the legal status of intelligent design. Then it was expanded in March 2007 to include a brief synopsis of the legal history leading up to the current legal status. The demand by several users to further expand the amount of explicit information in the lead led to a compromise that resulted in it being split up into two paragraphs around the beginning of October 2007, which seems to have resulted in a stable consensus for the time being. ... Kenosis 05:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

My main concern is that the article does not clearly spell out why ID came about. It's very good at telling us when, who and even where, but not the only question that really matters, why. There is not a single mention of the actual wording in the EvA case that led to ID being a proposed solution. Maury 12:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the article makes plain in the third paragraph of the lead that the words "intelligent design" were used in response to Edwards v. Aguilard. Similarly, calling intelligent design a scientific theory was in response to the language used by the Supreme Court about what is permissible to be taught in public-school science classes (specifically 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." ). All this is quite plain and verified by reliable sources, both in the lead, and in further depth in the "Overview" and several of the sections that follow. ... Kenosis 03:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree with you in principle, the LEAD is the way it is through tremendous struggles for years. We cannot just change it with so many involved. Of course intelligent design was "created" in response to the legal situation in the US. We might even be able to find a few WP:RS sources that claim this. However, there would likely be many who would fight desperately against this, since it casts creationism and intelligent design in a bad light, and it might take months to change the LEAD in this way. The discussion of the Dover case in this article might be excessive, but the LEAD is supposed to reflect what is in the article, and the Dover case is discussed extensively in the article. Perhaps later it might be pared back and more shifted to its own article, which already exists.--Filll 13:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"it might take months to change the LEAD in this way"

Or it could take one mouse click and a cut-n-paste. We don't know, and there is only one way to find out. Let's at least try!

To date I have received (only) two opinions on this; both appear to agree in broad terms that there is something wrong with the intro, and that the article is missing (what I consider to be vital) information. Yet the same (two) posts suggest any changes should be avoided.

The idea of the wikipedia is to write good articles, not to write controversy-free ones. I would argue that it's the most controversial articles that we need to try our hardest to improve, because the reader likely has few other resources that will even attempt to cover both sides of an issue.

I understand that you're all very tired of flamewars, but these are unavoidable. I say this as a 30 year veteran of these debates (hi wes!) The alternative, doing nothing, is (IMHO) unacceptable. Maury 18:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You have a lot of experience here on WP, although more in time than in actual number of edits, at least on this account. I think it might be prudent to ask a few more people. However, if you make a big change like this, it might get a lot of attention. You better have plenty of cites prepared for any such changes; probably at least 3 in high quality sources, if not more. I would post the suggested change here on the talk page first but you are free to try whatever you want of course.

I personally am in favor of very slender LEADs with minimal detail. However, others disagree with me often. I have lobbied for a long time for a companion introduction to intelligent design article which would have a simple LEAD and less compliicated text, but we have not tried this yet.--Filll 18:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, having read over the Intelligent design movement article, it seems there is ample proof that the points above can be addressed, reach consensus, and stay in the WP article. All of the points I raise above are addressed to my satisfaction in that article. Of course it's LEAD is even longer, and suffers from a similar attempt to encompass an entire field within it, but at least the article isn't leaving out the entire reason for the modern concept. Maury 13:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Should this be included somewhere?

Userfied to User talk:Massachew, as Massachew has not demonstrated any relevance for this article. Hrafn_Stalk 06:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Noetic cosmology link

I, and several other people, have removed a link from the Further reading to an article on Noetic cosmology, which was published in a conference proceedings in 2003. There are several issues: the linked article appears to be in violation of the article's copyright. Furthermore it does not really discuss intelligent design per se, but is only tangentially related to it. Finally, it presents a new view of the rules governing life, which may constitute a original research issue. For myself, I don't think this belongs in the article. I'm bringing it here since the link has been added several times. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker 06:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Archivebox

Given the length of our archivebox, should we change to Template:Archive box collapsible to save space? Hrafn_Stalk 07:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Could we have two archiveboxes (both collapsable). One for archives, and a seperate one for the "points already discussed"?--ZayZayEM (talk) 07:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

My impression is that the heading of the box is fixed as "Archives", so having two boxes would be confusing. If you can find an equivalent box template with an editable header, I can't see any reason why we shouldn't split them. As it's been a couple of weeks since I made this suggestion, and as nobody has objected, I'm going to go forward with it. Hrafn_Stalk 07:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that Talk:Evolution had a customised/non-template one that seemed to fit out needs, so have adapted it. If somebody is a whizz at creating templates, it'd probably be worth creating a standard template to do it. Hrafn_Stalk 14:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice--ZayZayEM (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

cdesign proponentsists

Does anyone plan on doing an entry/article on this transitional intelligent design fossil? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It's covered in Of Pandas and People, and arguably a brief mention in this article is appropriate – it's certainly come to public notice! .. dave souza, talk 16:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

With the NOVA episode bringing this phrase to public attention, do you think there might be enough material to merit an article for cdesign proponentsists? TechBear 17:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It's already mentioned in this article that the changes were made after Edwards v. Aguilard. No need for a new article, I would think. It actually was only an interesting added twist on what Barbara Forrest had already thoroughly documented, which was the mass change of terminology from "creation" to "design" with no corresponding change in meaning in the text. Perhaps it deserves brief mention in the article on Of Pandas and People. ... Kenosis 17:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the phrase is mentioned in "Jonathan Storm : 2-hour 'Nova' reviews Pa. 'intelligent design' trial : Philadelphia Inquirer". Retrieved 2007-11-14. {{cite web}}: Text "11/13/2007" ignored (help), and certainly caught the attention of some viewers, as this entertaining blog by an assistant professor of religion notes: "Exploring Our Matrix: Transitional Forms as Evidence for Evolution: Tiktaalik and cdesign proponentsists". Retrieved 2007-11-14.. I've added a couple of good NCSE references to this article together with a brief mention, and this is also good – "NCSE Resource -- My Role in Kitzmiller v Dover". Retrieved 2007-11-14.. Looks promising, does anyone have access to the Nature review of the Nova programme? At the least a redirect to the Pandas article may be appropriate. .. dave souza, talk 18:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

WTF does "proponentsists" mean? Do we know who created this monstrous neologism? If so, summon Thanatos. •Jim62sch• 23:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Pandas Thumb explains the *joke* well (it's true, does that make it not a joke?). In the rush to change all forms of "creationists" to "design proponents" a copyeditor made a mistake worthy of a grade 10 English assignment - he didn't highlight the whole word (obviously before the days of "Find and replace" function available on most word processors I've used - you guys are old)--ZayZayEM 00:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Just cursious what was the former and latter in the above examples? And this blatant error was actually published? Massachew 21:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Warrants inclusion in Intelligent design#Origins of the term and Timeline of intelligent design. Can't argue with the fossil record on this one.--ZayZayEM 00:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes in warrants addition. And a little of what they were referring to. It is hard to believe they could be so sloppy. Massachew 00:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

ROFL! •Jim62sch• 22:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Link to simple version

I wonder about this edit: . On the evolution article and the Introduction to evolution article and other science articles with introductory articles, the link is given as part of an italic text above the article. If it is relegated to the list of languages, will it be accessible?--Filll (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

How NPOV is this page, really?

How can sentence like "Others have concurred, and some have called it junk science." made it in the article? I'm sure there are some who have called evolution as junk too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.104.99 (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Go to the top of this page. There is a header-section marked "Please read before starting". Read it. This section links to a number of policy pages. Read them. They answer your complaints, which have been made by hundreds of creationists before you. Hrafn_Stalk 12:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"Others" is referring to people of the scientific and education community, you know, relevant people.--ZayZayEM (talk) 13:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, not everyone in the scientific and education community are relevant and not all of them called Intelligent Design 'Junk Science' (only those against it). I still think this article is clearly too biased. You got to be blind not to see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.104.99 (talk) 10:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design Hrafn_Stalk 10:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Article seems biased continued

Userfied to User talk:Hignit -- this has all been covered in the header section & 'Points that have already been discussed'. Hrafn_Stalk 15:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok tell me what I am allowed to post on this page.

The above discussion has already been covered by this header section from this talk page, so please do not rehash it: please read this before posting.

To quote Hrafn "I would also direct editors attention to the 'Points that have already been discussed' section in the Archivebox above -- which includes previous discussion on NPOV, differences between treatment in this versus the Evolution article, etc." Baegis (talk) 03:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the frequency with which this header section is being referenced, I've created an {{anchor}} to it -- #Please read before starting. This means that we can easily direct newbies and/or trolls to it without having to clutter up the talkpage with repeated copies. Hrafn_Stalk 04:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that. I cleaned up my edit to reflect the new link. Baegis (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

A misrepresentation in the article

From the article:

Leading intelligent design proponents have made conflicting statements regarding intelligent design. In statements directed at the general public, they say intelligent design is not religious; when addressing conservative Christian supporters, they state that intelligent design has its foundation in the Bible.

The two statements following the italicized sentence do not conflict. For instance, the legal system prevalent in the US is certainly not religious, but nonetheless arguably has its foundation in the Bible. The italicized sentence should therefore be removed or corrected. My preference is for the former; doubtless the readers can judge the motivations of the cdesign proponentsists adequately enough themselves. Phrenophobia 19:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This is at odds with the judgement of a federal court. If you feel so strongly, why not get a few million dollars together and try to challenge the court ruling? Otherwise, I think this is quite accurate.--Filll 20:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually the idea that the US constitution has its foundations in the bible is nothing but rightwing revisionist propaganda. The US constitution conflicts with the bible far more than it agrees with it. Guettarda 20:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Neither statement implies the falsity of the other. Ideas proposed, inspired or endorsed by religious texts are not necessarily religious in themselves. Ilkali 22:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the sentences could be worded better. However, the truth remains that intelligent design, as a movement, is firmly rooted in religious ideas, motivated by religious beliefs, promoted by religious zealots, funded by religious donors, etc. The connections between intelligent design and religion are pervasive and extensive. Of course, one could in principle envisage an intelligent design movement and theory that was not connected with religion. However, this is not the reality that one observes, and we have mountains of evidence that they are deeply connected and intertwined. The only evidence we have to the contrary originates from the Discovery Institute itself, which then turns around and in the next breath, or in front of a different audience, declares that "of course intelligent design is about a religion /dominionism /injecting God into the public square /creating a Christian theocracy /etc. People in the public are too stupid to realize it" and so on and so forth... So please, give it a rest. We are not stupid, you know. --Filll 23:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying there isn't any hypocrisy in the ID crowd. I'm just saying that the italicised statement is not supported by the claims following it. It should be reworded, replaced or removed. Ilkali 08:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the paragraph is accurate, but needs to be better cited: to prominent IDers saying, in at least two quotes of each claim, that it is and that it isn't religious. E.g.:

The world is a mirror representing the divine life... The mechanical philosophy was ever blind to this fact. Intelligent design, on the other hand, readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.

Here's another good one for "it's religion:

The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that "In the beginning was the Word," and "In the beginning God created." Establishing that point isn't enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message.

KvD would probably be a good source for "it's not religion" quotes from them. Hrafn_Stalk 09:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to be careful to distinguish between "X is religious" and "X is motivated/endorsed by religion". ID clearly isn't a religious claim. Ilkali 10:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The above quotes don't show ID as being "motivated/endorsed by religion" they show it as being founded on religion, to the extent of having no meaning or purpose outside that religious context. Hrafn_Stalk 16:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

'founded on religion' does not entail 'religious'. Ilkali 16:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

"founded on religion, to the extent of having no meaning or purpose outside that religious context" most certainly does entail religion. When something "is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory" it cannot help but be fundamentally religious. Can you tell be how a theology explicitly enunciated in the Christian New Testament is not religious? Hrafn_Stalk 16:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

""founded on religion, to the extent of having no meaning or purpose outside that religious context" most certainly does entail religion". No it doesn't. Whether a claim is a religious one is determined by its content, not its underlying intentions. Additionally, ID does have meaning outside a religious context. It doesn't make reference to any exclusively religious concepts, nor make any religious presuppositions. It makes a plain, perfectly meaningful statement about the universe, which just happens to be unfounded. Ilkali 17:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your bare assertion that "whether a claim is a religious one is determined by its content, not its underlying intentions." ID makes no "reference to any exclusively religious concepts" as part of a Neo-creationist attempt to disguise its religious nature. I would argue that it does make religious presuppositions, specifically a rejection of methodological naturalism in favour of theistic realism. I likewise dispute your assertion that it "makes a plain, perfectly meaningful statement about the universe" -- as any positive assertion that ID may purport to make is vague (particularly on the who/how/when/why of the design) to the point of meaninglessness. Hrafn_Stalk 02:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

So the wording might have to be sharpened to make it more clear what the contradiction is. Obviously for legal purposes, the DI and its supporters claim that the "intelligent designer" is unknown and anonymous, and could even be a race of hyperintelligent space aliens. However, we all know from repeated quotes and other evidence is that they intend the intelligent designer to be God, and not just any God but the Christian God of the Protestant bible. So they are just being coy and possibly even disingenuous when they claim that the intelligent designer is anonymous or unknown or they do not intend it to be God. The agenda, as stated repeatedly, is to promote the literal reading of the protestant Bible and its incorporation into American culture in a more prominent way and even the establishment of a Protestant theocracy. This is why Muslim support for intelligent design is weaker than Muslim support for creationism. The Muslims recognize the covert nature of the movement and the misrepresentation and its true agenda, which they view as hostile to Islam (which it probably is, to be honest).--Filll 15:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that the ID movement is disingenuous, and that this should be mentioned in the article. Ilkali 16:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding a demarcation issue. Some things can be proven, predicted, or indictated by science and others cannot. Let's take the mulitverse theory. Now it does explain a lot but I hope you do not think it can be proven or disproven. We can predict fairly accurately if certain things have been designed without know who designed it. The ID people are openly admitting that their theory can never prove that 'God' did it. They are saying it is matter of faith to believe that 'God' did or 'evolution' did it. I think you are having a problem understanding this demarcation issue just as many do not understand that evolution does not include how life began. I issues can be confusing and it takes some out-of-the-box thinking to get them sometimes. BobLMartin 16:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

1. I dispute that "we can predict fairly accurately if certain things have been designed without know who designed it ."
2. These assertions appear to be both off-topic & WP:OR.

Hrafn_Stalk 16:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

BobLMartin, I have to disagree with you on several points. First, why do you believe that the multiverse can never be "proven or disproven"? Never is a long time, and you clearly do not know much about physics if would you make such a claim. Also, the use of the word "prove" here is a bit problematic, although I know what you mean; if you want proof, go to mathematics or logic. Proof is not part of science. Sorry. And I think your statements about what the ID movement believes and supports are inaccurate and not supported by cites, although one might be able to find some. And the provisional conclusion that evolution is a viable explanatory theory that makes accurate predictions is based on literally 100s of millions of pieces of evidence, from DNA, from the laboratory, from field studies and from fossils. It is not based on faith in any way shape or form. There are axioms in science, but the assumption of the correctness or dominance of theory of evolution is not one of them, and such a claim would only be made by someone who knows nothing about science, biology or evolution.-Filll 16:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I see the point in some of the above discussion. If we visit say a moon of Jupiter and find remnants of ancient buildings and machines but no life forms we do not know who designed them but we would have to assume they were designed. And I think the multiverse theory is not falsifiable. Can we travel outside of our own universe? And I do not see where it has been proven that mammals came from reptiles. Show me the experiment. Showerrug 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Who wants to bet this brand new editor (above) is a sock? Anyone? I'll give good odds. Baegis 02:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You would win that bet. I've indefinitely blocked Showerrug as a Raspor sock. Raul654 02:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Bob L. Martin indefinitely blocked as another Raspor sockpuppet. Raul654 17:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• FA-Class Creationism articles
• Top-importance Creationism articles
• WikiProject Creationism articles