Misplaced Pages

Is it scientific to attribute an event A, to cause B, where cause B was deliberate designed, with some sort of intelligent intent? Yes. If you always connect event A with intelligent cause B, then it is empirically sound (ie. scientific) to say that B causes A. David Bergan 15:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Any truly observable, testable cause will be natural by definition and hence it would be subject to scientific scrutiny. If it is observable and subjectable to repeatable tests, then it's scientific.

But unfortunately, the ID conjecture has yet to produce any observable, testable cause. That's a major flaw in all ID conjecture; any intelligent designer capable of the task imputed will be supernatural by definition. Which brings us to that "wonderful gray zone" ID exists in. It is not by accident, but by design as the cites I've provided clearly demonstrate. So by insisting the issue of supernatural remain outside the question, you again present us here a contrived question that has no useful relation to actual ID.

When you say "we're not here to counter the DI," I assume that you're addressing me. While I agree that we're not here to counter the DI, and that we're here to write an article, I must add that we're not here to do the DI's work for them either. Since analysis happens to be one of your strong points as you say, you'll agree that if the leading ID proponents carefully cultivate ambiguity around ID to mask their intentions, such a fact is material to the topic of ID and necessary for a complete article. FeloniousMonk 15:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't disagree. The readers have to be informed however, that their definitions of "design" "intelligence" and "intelligent design" may be divergent to how the article uses it. I'm not addressing you, I'm addressing a lot of people by the way. Anyway, but your first statement, I assume that you agree that finding the sign of an intelligent designer for standard uncontroversial object A, is perfectly emperical?--Tznkai 16:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Empirical evidence is evidence derived from direct observation and sense experience. So if your question is talking about the only objects that are known to have "designed" i.e.: man-made objects, then yes it meets the standard for empirical evidence. If we are talking about life, nature, the universe, then no, it does not meet the standard for empirical evidence. That's why this analogy and any other such analogy that ID is founded on falls apart; Life, nature, etc. and not comparable to any actual designed objects. FeloniousMonk 16:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Thats what the clause "standard uncontroversial object" implied. Ok, we're getting somewhere. Now, as I understand it, it isn't under contest that finding a supernatural causation will always breach empiricism. If I'm wrong, please inform me. Second, for our "standard uncontroversial object" does specified complexity or irreducable complexity hold any water? Remember, just keeping in line with our inorganic, manmade, unimportant and uncontroversial device.--Tznkai 17:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

By definition, any "supernatural" cause that is actually found would cease to be supernatural now, wouldn't it? That's the real brilliance of the ID conjectures; it gets all this very tangible consideration and credibility while undermining that of science without ever having to make verifiable, testable hypothesis. And when called on not doing so, ID proponents can then gnash their teeth and yammer about "dogmatic Darwinists and scientific naturalists" misrepresenting intelligent design at every step, charging that its critique of Darwinism (and naturalistic theories of evolution more generally) is utterly misguided and groundless."

The mainstream scientists who've critiqued irreducible complexity and specified complexity have found both concepts to be wanting to the point that they are not used as hermeneutics within science. Indeed, they are promulgated almost exclusively by ID proponents. Neither irreducible complexity or specified complexity are common or useful hermeneutics here except as background on the claims of ID proponents. FeloniousMonk 19:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

FM? Can you pretend for about thirty seconds that I'm asking a simple question with a simple answer, because I want to know?

Do the ideas of specified complexity and irreducable complexity have any value when determining an intelligent designer when not referring to organics. When it is used to refer to a bike, and only a bike. Its a yes or no question.--Tznkai 19:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

No, neither specified complexity nor irreducible complexity have any value for determining an intelligent designer for indisputably designed and manufactured things, i.e.; man-made objects. Both are built on flimsy premises and neither can return a meaningful statement such as the identify the designer, or his nature, method, etc. Used as they are presented, they are ultimately vacuous. FeloniousMonk 00:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Is it scientific to attribute an event A, to cause B, where cause B was deliberate designed, with some sort of intelligent intent? Don't answer the questions beyond that

Well, the problem with not answering beyond that is that your example is completely rigged. There are several major fundamental problems here. FuelWagon 17:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree it's rigged. I pointed that out too. This is a theme I'm finding. FeloniousMonk 19:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

It isn't rigged, because I don't want anymore information beyond that. You're sounding a great deal like a conspiracy theorist, I am NOT OUT TO GET YOU. I am not here to disagree, or sabotage the article. WP:AGF!! I am asking the question because I honestly not sure of the answer. Sheesh.--Tznkai 19:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

First, you completely fail to mention the fact that the intelligence behind ID is quite literally not of this earth. Natural science might look at a honeycomb, see it is built by bees, and then find an odd looking fossilized honeycomb, and theorize that it was made by odd looking bees. That is fundamentally different than saying it was made by something not of this earth. ID has at its core the notion that something OUTSIDE the system we can observe is at cause here. This is not science in any sense of the word, it is mythology. When Paul Bunyan was having a wrestling match with babe his blue ox, they kicked up so much dirt they created the great lakes. No evidence of paul and his ox remain. i mean, really. FuelWagon 17:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Second, natural science takes an approach to knowledge that nothing is known scientific law unless it is irrefutable. Theories must have heavy supporting empirical data to back it up. ID turns this on its head and does an end run around knowledge and plays games with "probabilities". If no one can say how flagella on bacteria could have formed naturally, how in the hell can ID proponents come up with any sort of mathematically accurate PROBABILITY of flagella naturally forming on bacteria? If you don't understand it, you can't do statistics on it. ID jumps right over that hurdle and takes anything that doesn't have a complete, detailed, natural explanation and jams in their own statistics that say "well, it's so improbable for this to happen, that someone MUST have designed it". This is such a perversion of science. You can't assign probabilities to something you don't understand. ID is just making up their numbers. FuelWagon 17:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Finally, your example has A->B, where B was deliberate design. that's all well and good for a rigged example, except that with respect to life on earth, "B" is unknown. Your A->B example might qualify as forensic science, if "A" were a dead body and "B" were a bullet in the heart. You see a bunch of dead bodies with bullets through the heart, the next time you see a body with a bullet through the heart, you can probably figure that's what killed him. You don't have that with life on earth. You have ONE scenario, "A", and you have no other cases to observe or test. So, in that sense, A->B is not scientific if you've never actually observed "B". (btw, B is teh intelligent designer, which has NEVER been observed). So, in that sense, no, it isn't science. FuelWagon 17:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon, I am not trying to defend ID here. You're going far up and beyond what I'm asking, implying, or doing. I never said anything about not of this earth, or whatever. I'm really not understanding why you seem to feel the urge to jump down someone's throat for asking a question. Whether or not thats what you intend, its certainly what you're doing. Easly enough to scare newbies to this article off. Remember, not everyone who believes in ID has an agenda, some are misinformed, not everyone who questions the logic, has an agneda, some are misinformed, not everyone here who asks questions, has an agenda, some are misinformed. Just humor me and play ball for a little.--Tznkai 17:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

OK. Since finding a designer is not inherently unscientific, did any of the ID theorists/proponents actually add anything new? Or did they just apply the same principle to life, the universe and everything else? I find it hard to believe that Dembski was the first to theorize that its possible to point at something and say "thats designed", although his mathamatical model is new.--Tznkai 17:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

"Since finding a designer is not inherently unscientific"

More accurately put as: Concluding a natural designer for designed items is not inherently unscientific. It is only scientific to posit a designer as if the designer is naturalistic and the evidence of design is indisputably designed.

Wells made the first modern ID arguments, Dembski only built on them and added to them. Well's work was influenced by Paley's argument, which in turn was influenced by Aquinas, and so on. Thus, ID proponents have added little that is new other then a repackaging of familiar reasoning in modern scientific terms. Any designer responsible for the origin life will be supernatural by necessity. For this reason and others I've presented it's no stretch to show that ID is a continuation of creationism. FeloniousMonk 19:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

"Concluding a natural designer for designed items is not inherently unscientific. It is only scientific to posit a designer as if the designer is naturalistic and the evidence of design is indisputably designed."

Before Dembski, did anyone try to create a mathematical criterion for this? And for that matter, what is the scientific criterion for finding a natural designer?--Tznkai 19:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Sort of. Dembski mentions them in The Design Inference. He talks about Cicero concluding that no great literary work could be the result of random letter-drawing. And something similar from LaPlace. Then in the 20th century Emile Borel (I think that's his name) made some sort of mathematical requirement that anything with a random probability of 1/(10 to the 50th) would never happen on its own given the time and space of the universe. Then Dembski updated that with his own calculation of 1/(10 to the 150th) based on the Plank moment, age of the universe, its size, etc. (I could look it up if you're interested... or send you a copy of The Design Revolution if you email me your address.)

The main new thing about Dembski is the difference between complexity and specified complexity. Take a coin and flip it 10,000 times and write down the pattern. That sequence has a probability beyond 10^-150 and thus should be impossible. Yet it happened. Borel doesn't take this into consideration. Dembski's new insight is requiring that the sequence be specified in advance. If before the flipping you say, "I am hoping to get 10,000 heads in a row" you'll never get it (provided you have an honest coin). If before the flipping you say, "I am hoping to get this particular sequence of 10,000 H's and T's" (which could be the last 10,000 flips you wrote down) you'll never get it (again). Analogously (and I know that at least 2 editors here loathe my analogies), the difference is like an archer hitting 10,000 bulls-eyes on 10,000 different targets, versus an archer shooting 10,000 arrows randomly and THEN painting bulls-eyes around the places the arrows land.

So the intuition that there is a way to tell if something's designed goes back to Cicero or Plato... Dembski et al is trying to cash it out in terms of specific empirically knowable signs of intelligence. Lots of philosophers talked about "Object X seems to be designed." Our boys are stepping up the conversation to "Empirically, we know object X is designed." David Bergan 20:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you misundstand Dembski's work... he's never offered a mathematical model or criterion for a designer that is naturalistic that addressed evidence that is indisputably designed. Have read any of his work? FeloniousMonk 19:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, Dembski defined a probablilty bound for intelligent causation, i got momentarily confused. What exactly are his criterion for determining intelligent causation? --Tznkai

Dembski's primary claim is that specified complexity is a reliable marker of intelligent design. Dembksi criterion for qualifying as sufficiently complex and specified is if something has only a small probability of occurring, hence it must be designed. The problem with Dembski's specified complexity, other than the obviously subjective nature of what is actually probable, is that Dembski conflates his terms. Biologists Orgel and Davies coined the term 'specified complexity' in 1973 for that which distinguishes living organisms from non-living objects, and physicist Paul Davies used the term in a similar way. Dembski re-coined the term for a rescaled measure of improbability, something quite different. Dembski also conflates the word 'complex'; if an object has only a small probability of occurring, Dembski labels it "complex", regardless of whether it is simple or complex in the usual sense of the words. So Dembski conflates his own usage of the term "specified complexity" with that of Orgel and Davies, although they are quite different. Most biologists would agree that living organisms exhibit specified complexity in the sense of Orgel and Davies. They do not agree that living organisms exhibit specified complexity in Dembski's sense, since they would not accept that he has given compelling reasons to think that any biological structure could not have evolved naturally. FeloniousMonk 20:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Proposed direction for this article

Using my own LGM rules and WP:NPOV and WP:NOT as guidelines, I can safely determine what this article should not be.

• An apologetic for ID
• An attack on the scientific method
• An exhaustive collection of crticisms.
• A foil to the Discovery Institute's agenda.
• A defence of the sceintific method

Whether by design or conicidence, this article has been pushed in those various directions many times. I will not name names, I will just leave that as an observation.

Things this article must be:

• Informative
• Within context
• accurate and comprehensive
• readable

The frequent editors here (us, especially Dbergan, FelonousMonk, FuelWagon, myself and Ghost, sorry if I forgot anyone) have a bais we all share and we are all forgetting: we know more than the average reader. We have more context. Not every reader will have any idea what the bicycle analogy is, and what it has to do wit hthe price of tea in China. We need to remember that, and put things in context.

Things that I think are missing:

• Clarifcation of what ID is and Is not, and common misunderstandings. (Theistic Evolution is a personal favorite)
• A clear organization.

How I think this should be fixed:

Massive reorginzation:

Introduction: What is ID, who made it, who said what, is it science, what ID are we talking about, what might you actually be looking for. Important to note that ID is not commonly accepted by the public at large or the scientific community 1 paragraph, maybe two

History of ID How did it come about. Longish 3 paragraph section, we can point out motivations here.

Break into the ID movement here.

What is ID in detail

Point by point defence and criticsm: ID is not a stable accepted theory, it is under heavy context. This isn't POV, this is accuracy, so long as we justify doing so in the introduction. Be sure to represent both sides fairly, refrences are good, paraphrasing is also good (because of length and clairty)

NO ADDITIONAL CRITICSMS. Everything said currently in this section should be in another section. The section gives the apperance of POV, and is stylisticly, to me anyway, abhorrent.

Modern developments: Current events in ID.

I havn't made all the subpoints here, but I think this is a better organization. Thanks for reading, feel free to discuss.

Declaration of Agenda/POV: I am a future educator. I have no desire to teach ID in my science classes, but perhaps in my social studies class. I don't give a rats ass about the Discovery Institute, but I suspect I wouldn't like them much. I want a comprehensive and accurate article so the average reader will be able to walk away with the facts. I think the fact is that ID (as a whole) is politically motivated, and is very bad science.--Tznkai 15:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

While trying to avoid being or appearing contrarian, I have to say I more than somewhat disagree with your assessment, method, and proposal. For your assessment, the article is the most complete and concise it been in the year or so I've been looking at it, perhaps ever. There's always room for improvement of course, but as it stands, it's largely factual and complete. Regarding method, I'm sure you'll understand that none of the other editors here are required to follow or even defer to your personal LGM rules. As a matter of course I abjure parallel policy. As for your proposal, considering the current better-than-ever state of the article, I'm inclined to not get into a massive re-org without first seeing a stronger case made for why one is necessary. Lastly, a point that needs to be made, since you repeatedly say you're not interested in the Discovery Institute and have tended to minimize their role in ID in your writing here and in the article. ID as a concept and as a movement arose out of and has been driven by largely one group; the Discovery Institute. As a fact, it's not even in in dispute. That the DI has a anti- science orthodoxy, anti-evolution, pro-Christian creationism agenda is also a material fact. As is that almost all promotion of ID is guided by the DI. So ID conjecture cannot be divorced from the Discovery Institute any more than the Catechism of the Catholic Church can be divorced from the Vatican. Each colors and directs the other. These facts are necessary for a thorough understanding of intelligent design and a thorough intelligent design article. FeloniousMonk 16:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

No one is required to follow my personal LGM rules at all, those are just ways I describe my personal editing prefrences. I suppose I didn't make this clear enough above, so I will state it here: I have NO PROBLEM with the content of this article. It is pretty fantastic. My problem is with the organization and the missing context. I understand your perspective that this article has improved rapidly over the last year. However, being new, my perspective is that its been rapdily improving, and it can still do so. As this article stands, it provides lenghty criticism, without explaining why. It talks about the Discovery Institute, without explaining why. My LGM rule was derived from an english teacher of mine, wh ofirst used it, it reduces to this: Context, context, context.

I am in no way proposing to remove Discovery Institute from the article. Rather, I'd prefer if we provide them within the proper context. I feel, as the article stands, it lacks coherency, partially because we've been moving parts around. We, the editors, understand what says what and why, but the readers may not. I'm afraid the article will be confusing to virgin eyes, and we have been criticized several times in the time I've been editing here for intense POV one way or the other, Aside from inherent stances, I think that part of it is because the information exists, but isn't coherent enough. I think better organization will fix that.--Tznkai 16:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I see no justification for a complete rewrite. I don't know why you keep bringing the idea up. Context can be inserted where needed without throwing the whole thing in a blender. FuelWagon 16:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Not really a rewrite, a reorganization. I'd like to change the section headings to something (IMO) more readable, change the introductory and final sentances to make transition sentances, then copy paste the rest. When did Ibring it up before?--Tznkai 17:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

You hinted at it here FuelWagon 17:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

That diff is your edit, and that section I think I propsed an addition to the introduction, possibly a rewrite of the intro. How did the article fit in?--Tznkai 17:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. Let's start answering those questions:

• What is ID? A theory that says we can empirically know that an object (organic or inorganic) is designed by examining the object's physical properties. Certain physical properties have only been observed to be caused by intelligent beings, therefore we inductively know that whenever we see those properties, there was an intelligent cause. David Bergan 17:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree with you here. Thats part of ID, certainly, but what most people will associate ID with is a competing theory with Evolution. ID is an extrapolation of finding design in man made objects and taking it to very basic times, (aborgenesis). We can't remove the context of the evolution-creationism controversy here, even if you and I prefer the limited ID ideas.--Tznkai 17:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Good point. Here is how I see it. Intelligent design is as I described it above (Dembski's definitions agree, and I can cite many), but by far the bulk of the discussion/research is in regards to evolution. I'm not trying to remove the controversy, just trying to say that no one is using that as part of the definition. The over-riding principle applies to all objects, but all the interesting research is trying to figure out if it applies to life. So I would keep the definition as I wrote it, but make sure the sentence right after it is something like: "The vast majority of ID's consideration is in regards to biological organisms, questioning whether or not natural selection alone can explain the existence of life and its diversity." David Bergan 18:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Or possibly "ID has since become about applying that principle to life and the universe, seeing if natural selection and randomness is an adequate explanation." or some such. Felonous Monk would probably be able to give us the horse's mouth answer as far as what the Discovery Institute thinks ID is.--Tznkai 18:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Who made it? There are some historical roots that go back to Plato in the teleological argument, but ID in its current fashion was born out of controversy with the theory of evolution. The Pandas book, and Phillip Johnson had influence... but by far Behe's book Darwin's Black Box did the most in terms of starting a movement. Darwin's Black Box was the first to offer a sign of intelligence (irreducible complexity) which was the first positive step. The books beforehand (Darwin on Trial, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis) were exclusively negative - they only picked at perceived holes in evolutionary theory rather than constructing a way to systematically recognize design. David Bergan 17:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• What ID is not It is not attached to any specific religion or belief, and therefore it is not scientific creationism (although creationist arguments were a motivating factor for the main design theorists). It does not make claims about the age of the Earth/universe. It does not dispute that natural selection (and other evolutionary components) do operate on the populations of species (ala Darwin's finches, bacteria resistence, etc.). However, many design theorists think that parts of living organisms show signs of intelligence (irreducible complexity, information mechanisms), and thus these parts could not be produced by natural selection alone. ID also does not claim that any object is optimally designed. Whether or not the human eye has flaws is irrelevant. Things can have flaws and still be designed. My Pontiac Bonneville was designed even though it is inferior to a Lambourghini. David Bergan 17:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I was more concerned with diffrent defintions of ID, the 'limited' one you're talking about, theistic evolution, the movement, etc.--Tznkai 17:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I disagee about removing the additional critisism section. not all appropriate criticisms fit elsewhere, since ID avoids talking about these issues due to the fact that they have no argument against them. IreverentReverend 17:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Thought about for a little bit, and I sort of agree. I think the majority of so called "additional criticisms" can be rolled into other sections (argument from ignorance, what designed the designer, Hypothesis of the designer) I think are all better served in a diffrent section. I havn't girued out what to do with Peer review yet though. Still, we could use a better section title than "additional criticisms"--Tznkai 17:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced your proposed re-org is necessary or organizes the information most logically. FeloniousMonk 20:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. 17:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Sign your post please if you want it to count toward consensus. FeloniousMonk 20:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Additional Criticisms

in case you havn't figured it out yet, I like keeping discussions well organized.

Anyway. I'd like to roll as much of the additional criticsms section into other sections as possible:--Tznkai 17:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Scientific peer review

Can't figure out where else to put this, so it can stay.--Tznkai 17:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Hypotheses about the designer

I'm sure this can be reduced to a single sentance along the lines of "Intelligent Design proponeents have never given a coherent picture of who the designer of life is, making it difficult to falsephy. (I can't spell!)--Tznkai 17:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

"What designed the designer?"

I think this is fine under irredducable complexity (which is, I udnerstand it, complexity which requires a designer, which is inherently irreducably complex)--Tznkai 17:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Argument from ignorance

I think this goes to specified complexity (at the very least, using specified complexity to assume a god is an argument from ignorance)--Tznkai 17:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Myself and several others here are not yet convinced that a re-org is necessary, or that your proposed org is the correct one. Consensus should be reached first. FeloniousMonk 19:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Uh. Its only been a matter of hours since I put up the proposal, and whether we do a large reorignization or not, there is always improvements that can be made. I am not required to ask permission here before I make changes, I am doing it to get input and as a courtesy. Don't misunderstand.--Tznkai 20:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it needs it. It still comes off as biased (note, I am using bias and POV differently than standardly) and could use a lot of polish. While it does a decent job of NPOV, it still allowes ID to come out better sounding than it really is, due to its bias, namely ignoring anti-ID information and not presenting a whole picture. what is their is fairly nuetral, if a BIT more pro-ID than it should. It is the ommissions that flaw the article. Reworking completly allows for some of this to be corrected. IreverentReverend 22:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Dembski's quotes & recent related reversions

DB claims his reversion is justified by the the context of Dembski's quote; he claims Dembski is defining theism in the quote. But the entire passage for the quote actually shows something quite different:

"Naturalism is the view that the physical world is a self-contained system that

works by blind, unbroken natural laws. Naturalism doesn’t come right out and say there’s nothing beyond nature. Rather, it says that nothing beyond nature could have any conceivable relevance to what happens in nature. Naturalism’s answer to theism is not atheism but ben ign neglect. People are welcome to believe in God, though not a God who makes a difference in the natural order. Theism (whether Christian, Jewish, or Muslim) holds that God by wisdom created the world. The origin of the world and its subsequent ordering thus results from the designing activity of an intelligent agent—God. Naturalism, on the other hand, allows no place for intelligent agency except at the end of a blind, purposeless material process. Within naturalism, any intelligence is an evolved intelligence. Moreover, the evolutionary process by which any such intelligence developed is itself blind and purposeless. As a consequence, naturalism makes intelligence not a basic creative force within nature but an evolutionary byproduct. In particular, humans (the natural objects best known to exhibit intelligence) are not the crown of creation, not the carefully designed outcome of a purposeful creator, and certainly not creatures made in the image of a benevolent God. Rather, humans are an accident of natural history. Naturalism is clearly a temptation for science, and indeed many scientists have succumbed to that temptation. The temptation of naturalism is a neat and tidy world in which everything is completely understandable in terms of well-defined rules or mechanisms characterized by natural laws. As a consequence, naturalism holds out the hope that science will provide a theory of everything. Certainly this hope remains unfulfilled. The scandal of intelligent design is that it goes further, contending that this hope is unfulfillable. It therefore offends the hubris of naturalism. It says that intelligence is a fundamental aspect to the world and that any attempt to reduce intelligence to natural mechanisms cannot succeed. Naturalism wants nature to be an open book. But intelligences are not open books; they are writers of books, creators of novel

information. They are free agents, and they can violate our fondest expectations.", pages 8&9.

Viewed in full Dembski is using theism as a justification for excoriating naturalism for being atheistic... the old evil atheist conspiracy argument. Now DB would have us believe Dembski's own Christianity is something akin to a coincidence and a non sequitur in this case. Nothing could be further from the truth, Dembski not only makes the case that his religion is concordant with ID, but preferable to actual science:

"Within naturalism, any intelligence is an evolved intelligence. Moreover, the evolutionary process by which any such intelligence developed is itself blind and purposeless. As a consequence, naturalism makes intelligence not a basic creative force within nature but an evolutionary byproduct. In particular, humans (the natural objects best known to exhibit intelligence) are not the crown of creation, not the carefully designed outcome of a purposeful creator, and certainly not creatures made in the image of a benevolent God. Rather, humans are an accident of natural history.", page 9.

Further, DB has insisted that Dembski's words ("Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God") to Church & State Magazine be attributed as a "personal belief." Considering that Dembski's preface to his book The Design Revolution quoted above is very personal polemic not just advocating ID while impugning science but does so while touting theism, and that Church & State Magazine is a nationally distributed publication intended for public consumption, I don't see there's a distinction between context. DB argues for context in one case and ignores it when it's inconvenient. I've literally dozens of other quotes from Dembski stating that God is the designer, ID opens the door for the Christian God as creator to be taught in science classrooms, etc., ad nauseum. Will it take working every one of these into the article before the Dembski apologists admit that Dembski advocates for specified complexity out of one side of his mount while touting God as the designer with the other? FeloniousMonk 22:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

In no way do I object to your information. I fully agree that Dembski is a Christian and that his personal beliefs are that ID opens the door for Christianity. However, I also can provide dozens of quotes where Dembski says that ID itself is free from religious affiliation and that if ID of biological life were proven it would be up to each individual to interpret for himself (or herself) who or what the designer is.

The quotes you provide might be relevent to ID the movement, but not ID the theory. Consider the lines immediately before your quotes and the context it puts the theism/naturalism debate in:

Simply put, intelligent design is the science that studies signs of intelligence. Stated this way,

intelligent design seems straightforward and unproblematic. Yet depending on where the intelligence makes itself evident, one may encounter fierce resistance to intelligent design. Archeologists attributing intelligent design to arrowheads or burial mounds is not controversial. But biologists attributing intelligent design to biological structures raises tremendous anxiety,

not only in the scientific community but in the broader culture. Why is that?

C. S. Lewis, in his book Miracles, correctly placed the blame on naturalism. According to

Lewis, naturalism is a toxin that pervades the air we breathe and an infection that has worked its

way into our bones.

And once more for emphasis: Simply put, intelligent design is the science that studies signs of intelligence.

Everything you quoted thus is in response to the cultural/political debate, where Dembski flies his flag for theism. But we all knew that his personal belief was theism. So in the preface of his book he took a step aside from ID theory and wrote a few paragraphs of theistic apology. That in no way commits ID theory to theism. He even says as much DIRECTLY 4 pages later (page 12-13):

Intelligent design is not an evangelical Christian thing, or a generically Christian thing, or even a generically theistic thing. Anyone willing to set aside naturalistic prejudices and consider the possibility of evidence

for intelligence in the natural world is a friend of intelligent design. In my experience such friends have included Buddhists, Hindus, New Age thinkers, Jungians, parapsychologists,

vitalists, Platonists, and honest agnostics, to name but a few.

It really isn't that hard to seperate Dembski's personal beliefs from his definitions of ID. David Bergan 15:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The above sentence is a very strange case indeed. Dembski may be careful in his wording of ID's definitions but that doesn't mean that his personal beliefs are "seperate" from his definition of ID. He has stated as much saying that ID has the potential to serve as a powerful evangelical tool. If his personal beliefs were separate from the definitions this wouldn't be the case. Joshuaschroeder 16:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

There are two things going on: (1) Dembski contributes towards the theory of ID, which is theologically mute. And (2) Dembski considers ID to be reaffirming to his particular beliefs. Scientists publically apply their research to their personal beliefs all the time. Consider Richard Dawkins. (1) Dawkins contributes towards the theory of evolution, which can be interpretted for many different theological purposes (ie. Process Theology) or none at all. And (2) Dawkins considers evolution to be reaffirming for his atheism, and writes long books about this. But that doesn't mean that evolution itself is atheistic. Some evolutionary biologists are Christians. Some are deists.

And this is relevant to the ID article... you don't find Dawkins's (anti-)religous beliefs on the evolution article, but you do on the Dawkins page. Just for us to consider. David Bergan 16:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't find that reasoning compelling. You don't find Dawkins's polemics on the evolution article because he is not central to evolution research and his personal views are irrelevent. But in ID research, Dembski is an outspoken central player who makes his personal religious views and polemics justifying it part and parcel of his reasoning; see the quotes below, read the preface and first few chapters of his book The Design Revolution. And Dembski's own words show that his personal religious beliefs are driving his participation in the ID movement, not an irrelevant side note:

"My thesis is that all disciplines find their completion in Christ and cannot be properly understood apart from Christ." William Dembski. Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology, Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press, 1999. p 206.

"If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of Chalcedon (i.e. the doctrine that Christ is fully human and fully divine) and view Christ as the telos toward which God is drawing the whole of creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient." William Dembski. Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology, Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press, 1999.

"The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from coming to the knowledge of Christ," Dembski said. "And if there's anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.... It's important that we understand the world. God has created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world." William Dembski. National Religious Broadcasters, 2000

"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." - William Dembski. (A., Kushiner, James M., editors). Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design, Brazos Press, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2001.

"Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners do not have a clue about him." William Dembski. Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology, Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press, 1999. p. 210

DB, you're the one who insisted on inserting numerous Dembski quotes in the article, particularly in the religious subsection as a refutation that ID proponents are motivated by religious fervor. The problem is, you chose one of the most outspokenly religious ID proponents next to Johnson. Your selected quotes imply a very different thing than the fact that Dembski is outspokenly religious and views ID as a means to an end not an end in and of itself. My quotes are meant to correct and balance that selective use of quotes. The article would tangibly benefit if neither set of quotes appeared but in their place refs to footnotes. But since you inserted your Dembski quotes first I've chosen not to delete them but to correct them with some context; please show me the same respect. Experience has now taught me that your are unlikely to view this evidence I present objectively, so I don't expect this to convince you. But others do and will find it compelling. And so I must insist that you cease your incessant reverting and stop this specious defense of Dembski. We are all here to write an accurate and complete article, right? FeloniousMonk 17:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we are here to write an accurate and complete article. Is it relevant to mention any of the design theorists' personal religious beliefs in an article about the concept of intelligent design? David Bergan 19:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

You'll find the answer to your question in Dembski's quotes above. FeloniousMonk 19:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

More relevance in movement article, but still can be mentioned in main. Not a question of IF, but of how much. I'm on psedowiki break, so everyone play nice while I'm gone. Without me it should be easy! >.>--Tznkai 20:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm really stupid. Can you explain to me in simple concepts and tiny words why we are putting religious motivation in the ID article? Isaac Newton was religiously motivated when he went to study physics, but that's not in the physics article. But you can probably find his religious beliefs in the Newton article. David Bergan 20:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Direct and significant causal relationship. I think its fair to say that much of ID was deliberatly constructed because of religious beliefs, not "inspired" by them in the case of Newton.--Tznkai 20:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

TZ's got it. Temporarily ignoring the point that leading proponents are concurrently pushing a larger agenda to gradually alter the legal and social landscape in the US, many ID proponents, Dembski being one, make their religious pov central to their arguments. Consider: "My thesis is that all disciplines find their completion in Christ and cannot be properly understood apart from Christ." and "Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners do not have a clue about him." Can Dembski be any more explicit about his religion driving his ID research/advocacy? And consider the title of his book from which these quotes are drawn: "Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology" (emphasis added). Approaching it another way, there are at least 31 instances of "God" in Dembski's The Design Revolution, a book putatively about the nominally secular topic intelligent design. FeloniousMonk 21:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your arguments. I am convinced... religious motivation should be mentioned. Now, is there any legitimacy to Dembski's claim that ID theory has no logical grounds for guessing at the identity/method of the designer? Or is that a total smokescreen? David Bergan 21:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The claim appears to be pandering, but the motivation is vague at best. Dembski and other ID "theorists" are carefully trying to avoid the pitfalls associated with the earlier creation science endeavor, abandoned because the Supreme Court ruled the "theory" religious belief that should not be promoted by governmental bodies. They have said as much in books, articles, and interviews on the subject (though Dembski is not as aware as Johnson of the history of creationism). I don't think that the claim is a smokescreen because it is clear that IDers really believe that ID is the future of science, but it is more an admission of ignorance on the subject. The idea is that if enough "scientific research" were done in the ID field science would eventually discover the Christian God. Dembski has said as much. Joshuaschroeder 00:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms of CSI: original research?

In the section on criticism of specified complexity are the following sentences:

• "First, specified complexity, as originally defined by Leslie Orgel, is precisely what Darwinian evolution is proposed to create. It is not enough for Dembski to take a property of living things and arbitrarily declare it to be a reliable indicator of design; he must also provide compelling reasons why no natural processes could create such a property. According to critics of ID, by taking this burden of proof on himself, that is, to prove a negative, he must show not merely that there is no explanation currently accepted, but that no such explanation is possible within the framework of genetics and natural selection."

• "Dembski would need to show that a biological feature really did have an extremely low probability of occurring naturally by any means, an enormously difficult (perhaps impossible) task that would require definitively ruling out all potential theories, i

ncluding those that may not have been thought of yet."

This is exactly what Dembski attempts to do in his explanation of CSI! One might argue against his statements about what law and chance can do, or try to disprove his mathematical analysis of what their combination can do. But saying that Dembski "must provide compelling reasons why no natural processes could create" CSI is a nonsequitur.

• "Further, some mathematicians have argued that Dembski's information theory is flawed, that many of his examples that he claims cannot be compressed further, in fact can be. For example, the 10 byte phrase "I love you" can be written "luv u"; or, in context, even the three bytes of "ily" will convey the same message; and the ASCII art "heart" symbol "<3" even conveys the same message in two bytes."

This argument also doesn't seem to make any sense, at least as written. To represent the phrase "I love you" by "luv u" or "ily" or "<3" is not compression. It's displacement: the reader needs more information in their mind to decode the alternate phrases.

By whose reckoning? Has someone measured how much information is needed to decode Dembski's sentence versus the other encodings? I have seen this argument published in critiques of Dembski and I haven't seen his rebuttal to it. Joshuaschroeder 11:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The phrase "I love you" has a certain meaning to users of standard English. While "luv u" is the same phrase, just stylized, users of that stylized version, in practice, all already know standard English, and more. That they need to know more than just standard English is shown by the greater liklihood that a non-native speaker would not understand what's meant by "luv u". Similar and worse considerations apply to "ily" and <3. This is just my informal reckoning regarding what appeared to be an invented criticism. Googling for "specified complexity" +"I love you", etc., I haven't found refence to such a criticism, just a few mirrors of old versions of the Misplaced Pages article. Please supply references to the published critiques if you've got 'em.--Johnstone 02:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Clearly your "evaluation" of the critique is not even close to being based on anything more than your own feelings about "standard" and what people need to "know". You haven't shown any reference that there is a "greater liklihood" that a "non-native" speaker would not understand. The criticism is found in Shallit's review which is currently not available on line as far as I can tell. Joshuaschroeder 12:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Here's another way of saying the same thing a bit more technically: "luv u" is simply an encoded form of the phrase "I love you". So, at the very least, you need to know the original "plaintext" for reference, plus you need to know the encoding scheme. In stating that "ily" and "<3" need to be "in context," the removed material even implied as much. Plus, it's simply not true that "luv u" and "ily" and "<3" convey the same message as the phrase "I love you". The latter has so many cultural and historical references that it conjures, whereas the others conjure up associations of "teenager" or "text message" or "cheap way of saying 'I love you'" or "suit in a deck of cards."

That was hardly the point being made since the context is required for the written word to be understood in the first case. There is just as much context required to develop the latter phrase as any of the former. Joshuaschroeder 13:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about that. One knows that the phrase "I love you" means that the someone is expressing their love for someone else, regardless of whether it's placed in context. But without any context at all, could one really be sure that "luv u" isn't short for "Love, Ursula" instead? "ily" could be someone's initials, or the ending of an adverb. The heart could mean "I love" (as in 'I NY') or simply "heart" or (again) "a suit in a deck of cards". If you're saying that they all need to be parts of a language to be understood, then of course you're right. But that's just an instance of a truism: Without language (used in the broad sense), nothing could be understood. That can't be used to make a valid argument!

But this is all moot now. It's agreed that the example doesn't belong.--Johnstone 00:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

No, there is a lot of context for the phrase "I love you", the biggest one being the English language, but also an assumption of a uniformity of emotions, a recognition of first and second person, and a sentence syntax that is agreed upon linguistically. These are all claimed to be part of the specified complexity that gives the short sentence meaning, but there is no optimization that is done that determines this particular arrangement is the one that contains the most information or least information. You claim that a person needs more information to decode "luv u" than "I love you" but provide only your own assertion to show this. Dembski falls into the same trap in Design Inference all the time. It's the old story of not being clear about your priors and assuming a uniformity of meaning (as though "I love you" can only mean one thing). The example is crude and ridiculous and Dembski's use of it is actually quite shameful. Joshuaschroeder 03:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

But as I clearly indicated, mine is not a formal argument, only an informal reckoning relative to material that appeared to be original research removed from the article. Take it or leave it; In the end, whether or not the material in question deserves to be in the article doesn't depend upon any arguments for or against it that I, personally, can think of on the spur of the moment, only on whether the material corresponds to an actual argument made by a non-editor, and sufficiently pertinent and important to be included, as judged by a consensus of editors.

Anyway, thanks for the reference. I suppose its the same one mentioned by FM below (the dead link)?--Johnstone 10:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is. I don't think the "I love you" point should be made in the article at all as it is oe of the worst referenced one that Dembski makes (but tends to be one that many Christians like to hear for obvious reasons). Anyway, I'm pleased that it doesn't appear in this article anymore. Joshuaschroeder 13:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• "The space sampled by an evolutionary process is a restricted set of the total possible genetic combinations. Only genetic sequences which result in reproducing organisms and are connectible through small deviations to other reproducing organisms are possible. This is a significantly smaller set than the total possible genetic combinations, which places significant inaccuracies in arguments which use the total possible combinations."

Dembski's argument for CSI makes reference to the "total number of specified events throughout cosmic history", not the "total possible combinations" of genomes. They are completely different, and so this argument is another nonsequitur.

All of these sentences may very well reflect "original research". They seem to be someone's arguments against their own misunderstanding of CSI. If that's not the case, and they are actual arguments made by non-editors, they desperately need references so that it can be decided if they're by individuals with suitable expertise and, if so, so that their descriptions can be (greatly) improved. I've removed them all for now since keeping them in the article in their current state would be a disservice to the readers of Misplaced Pages.--Johnstone 01:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Several of the above criticisms I recognize as being similar to Elsberry's, Shallit's, and Wilkins' criticisms of specified complexity, found here: (PDF), or

They may not express the criticisms exactly, fully or precisely, but I don't think they are original research. Then again, it's been awhile since I've read those critiques. FeloniousMonk 04:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the references, especially the first. I plan to add a summarizing sentence or two to the article once I've read it. The second seems to be a dead link. I previously read the third. It's primarily a critique of Dembski's "explanatory filter". Its criticism of specified complexity doesn't seem to add anything not still in the article.--Johnstone 02:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

"Further, some mathematicians have argued that Dembski's information theory is flawed, that many of his examples that he claims cannot be compressed further, in fact can be. For example, the 10 byte phrase "I love you" can be written "luv u"; or, in context, even the three bytes of "ily" will convey the same message; and the ASCII art "heart" symbol "<3" even conveys the same message in two bytes.""

Not sure if that in particular is salient criticism. You can't attack a concept based on its examples. Perhaps I missed the point. Either way this needs to be fixed. I'm pretty sure the majority of these critiques are not breaching WP:NOR but could use rewriting to make it more understandable. Certainly a change in definition doesn't require us to refrence a critique saying such, we just compare the before and after.--Tznkai 13:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

For a topic as controversial and potentially confusing as ID, I think it would be a good idea for all particular arguments and counter-arguments mentioned to have references.--Johnstone 02:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I am a pretty strident defender of clarity over citation. We've had this problem in the past with such articles as creationist cosmologies where certain editors insisted that every "claim" be backed up with a reference when oftentimes the references to such obvious points (such as the point about light-created-in-transit supernovae being only artifacts) cannot be found. Encyclopedia articles as a general rule do not include a footnote to every claim, fact, item, or analysis included and while it is absolutely necessary to have references while writing an article, I don't think a tight citation is required. Joshuaschroeder 13:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that for widely known things, no citation is needed. But ideas and assertions that are relatively obscure to the general public should have them, especially for a controversial topic like this one. If clutter is a concern, then there should be a way of making references hidden by default. This is one of those problems that has a relatively easy technological fix. For controversial subjects, many more people will want to be able to do their own research to see if they agree with the arguments. By including references, we are making a more useful article, and one that is less likely to be subject to questionable edits and reverts. But that's just my opinion.--Johnstone 00:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, but are we actually getting anywhere here? All I see in this sections are critiques and apologietics of Dembski example that we've decided is irrellevant. Or something like that. If you're still on topic discussing changes to the article, great. If not, I move to archive this and go onto more relevant things.--Tznkai 17:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't this page be merged with creationism?

Shouldn't this page be merged with the existing page on Creationism, with a redirect from Intelligent Design to Creationism? I mean, other than the names there is very little, if any, difference between the two concepts. Indeed, the more insightful people on both sides of the debate will readily agree that "Intelligent Design" is just a euphemism for creationism. Furthermore, both Intelligent Design and Creationism consist solely of attacks on accepted evolutionary theory with little (if anything) to replace it that's supported by real scientific research.

There are many different forms of "Intelligent Design", just there are many forms of creationism. Many in each are mutually contradictory, and the two subjects overlap to a substantial degree. Shouldn't they be merged? -- User:Karn 19 July 2005

The whole point of Intelligent Design in some sense is to provide an alternative to evolution other than creationism. This is evident from the writings of Philip Johnson. We have tried to indicate as much in the article, but as the Discovery Institute has been able to amass some fringe scientists to support their claims of this being separate from the debacles of creation science we have to include it as a separate article. The most technical arguments of the creationists have been subsumed into intelligent design. We continue to list it as a form of creationism, it's just a different kind. Joshuaschroeder 21:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I think they're sufficiently different. Creationism claims that the universe was created specifically by a deity. ID claims that the universe exhibits evidence that it was designed with some completely unidentified intelligence. Close, but not the same thing. In particular, Creationism does not necessarily use alleged proof of intelligent design inherent in the universe as a basis for Creationism. Of course, there is no discernable difference between the "unidentified intelligence" in ID and the vaguely defined deity of Creationism, but, technically, the ID designer could be intelligent life from another galaxy, while the Creationist deity cannot be. --Serge 21:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Read creationism, and you will see that this is a particular form of creationism, of which there are many kinds. Putting all of this (and it is a lot) into the creationism article would bias that article towards ID. You may want to see Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Creation science. Dunc|☺ 21:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I read the Votes for deletion page you mentioned, and I can see both sides of the merge/keep debate. Probably the best argument for keeping things the way they are is that both the creationism and ID pages are quite long. Yet the two articles arguably cover much of the same territory; if you take the Creationism page, omit the direct Bible quotes and globally replace "God" or "Deity" with "Intelligent Designer" you get something that looks much like the ID page. Well, okay, that's a bit of an overstatement but I think you get my point. There's no question that the major proponents of Intelligent Design are highly religious, and in their less guarded moments they will freely admit that Intelligent Design is just creationism wrapped in a scientific veneer in a transparent attempt to get around an unbroken string of court decisions against them. Again, the arguments of the creationists and the IDers consist primarily of nitpicking evolution without providing any falsifiable theories to replace the basic tenets of evolution, and in this respect they are really the very same thing. --User:Karn

Unintelligent design

Copied from slashdot:

"Wave two pencils in front of a person, about 30cm apart. Then, have them cover one eye and step away slowly, while looking at one pencil tip, until they can't see other due to their blind spot.

Now, ask a squid to do the same thing.

Guess what? Squids have no blind spot, because the optic nerve and blood vessels connect to the eye without interrupting the potosensitive cells.

An intelligent designer (when hypothesizing that the designer was the same for both) would not have produced a defective eye for humans when they designed it properly the first time (only the day before).

Of course, not only humans have a blind spot; all vertbrates do. Likewise, many creatures other than squids do not suffer from blind spots-encumbered vision.

You can easily disprove intelligent design, because both "intelligent" and "design" (not to mention the other attributes of the particular designer that most folks seem to have in mind) imply certain conditions that their designs would have to exibit relative to other designs by that same author." 4.250.168.186 08:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Arguing that because the eye has a blind spot therefore it wasn't designed is like saying that my watch isn't designed because it has an analog display and not a digital one. Heck, we know my watch is designed even if I take the battery out and it doesn't function at all... seeing the intricate interlocking parts is sufficient, even if they aren't moving.

Something can be intelligently designed without being optimally designed. My rusty '88 Bonneville was designed even though it is inferior to a brand new Lambourghini. Moreover, I challenge User:4.250.168.186 (and the slashdot folks) to make a new eye that is better than the ones we have, blind spot and all. It is always easier to be a critic than a writer. David Bergan 14:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

WP:NOT

This is not the place for advocacy of any kind. This kind of critique of ID has been brought up repeatedly, and has been explained as both questionably notable, and missing the point. We are not here to discuss our own opinions on ID, but to discuss the article. This will be archived in 24 hours unless I receive objection

I object. Quoting from your own link: You can chat with folks on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. This discussion can easily qualify as "resolving problems with the article on the talk page" rather than "advocating". Whether or not this is a valid point of view that should be represented in the article is a matter for discussion. That other editors weigh in with their opinions is part of the discussion. killing the entire thread because you call it "advocacy" is overreacting. Discussing opinions on the talk page isn't advocacy, it's how editors work stuff out, come to consensus, etc. Asking editors to answer a poll is specifcally asking them their opinion. As long as those opinions remain off the talk page, it is part of teh process. Some discussions may be more appropriate to take onto a user's individual talk page. But this is discussing something that may qualify a legitimate criticism of Intelligent Design that deserves representation in the article. FuelWagon 15:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I agree that I was a hasty on this point. I will instead note that this sort of criticism has been discussed to death in the archives in the short time I was here, nevermind before, and is of questionable relevance and notability. Obviously if I see a refrence, esp. in peer review, I will have no grounds to object on notability.--Tznkai 15:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree, this point has been discussed to death. But our new IP friend probably didn't sift through the archives before copying his remarks to this page. His intent seems to be to deep-six the entire ID movement with one remark on a wikipedia talk page (witness: You can easily disprove intelligent design), rather than actually contribute toward the article. I just wanted to point out to him that the subject is more complicated than a simple "We have blind spots, Therefore there is no intelligent designer. QED". Since the main editors have already take his argument into consideration, I agree with Tznkai's that this thread serves no purpose to shaping the current form of the article. Keep it visible for a week or two in case 4.250.168.186 comes back to see what we think of his post, but the rest of us should just move on. David Bergan 16:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The argument isn't perfect, but it does seem to have validity at least against the popular version of Intelligent Design. Polls indicate that the vast majority of those who believe ID describe the designer as God. At least in this context, the idea that a perfect God would create an imperfect design is, at the very least, unexplicable (god works in mysterious ways) or on the far end, irrefutable proof against that flavor of ID (perfect God creates imperfect design, poof, God is no longer perfect. ID argument crumbles.) As to the motives of 4.250.168.186 for posting this, I dont have sufficient information to form any sort of empirical judgement. In any event, the argument would seem to have some applicability. Whether or not it is insufficiently represented in the article, whether it should be in teh article, is a matter for discussion. FuelWagon 16:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

It is an argument against omniscient, or highly intelligent design, or perhaps against recent intelligent design unperturbed by eons of evolution added complexity. But other than this mis-understanding, anon-IPs view is common and notable. It was probably a tactical mistake for the ID community to call it "intelligent" design rather than just design, as "intelligent" raises the whole issue of where on the intelligence scale the designer or designers fall. Of course, criticisms of design also usually assume things about purpose and attentiveness. An inattentive designer might of course have produced flawed designs. An less than omniscient designer might have had a reason to produce and evaluate alternative less flawed or unnecessarily compromised designs.--Silverback 08:09, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

It was probably a tactical mistake for the ID community to call it "intelligent" design rather than just design The intelligent in intelligent design serves to distinguish ID from two other arguments regarding design: (1) apparent design and (2) optimal design. Apparent design is something that looks designed when in fact it is not. Dawkins, for example, considers life to have the appearance of design... thus it was not intelligently designed, but only apparently designed. In one sense you can say that evolution does design things... but it certainly doesn't add intelligent input. Optimal design, on the other hand, is the question of whether or not a given object is ideal. When one argues that humans have a blind spot, they are only saying that humans seem to be less than perfectly designed. However, many many things that are less than optimal are still designed. I mean you could have a calculator built such that you needed infared glasses to read the display... and that would be less than optimal... but people would commit you to an asylum if you argued that the IR calculator was a product of mere chance and natural laws.

Intelligent design only asks if a thing is designed. It is silent on all questions about the identity, purpose, skill, or mastery of the designer. David Bergan 14:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps in some of its pure abstract formulations this is correct, but it is notable that most intelligent design proponents do have a designer in mind, and by proposing instances as evidence of design, also imply not only that the designer had certain capabilities, but also was available with implementations of designs at the various times and places in the past when they made their appearance.--Silverback 04:53, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

So prove it! Refrence! if this is such a notable opinion it should be easy to find a notable person who's said it!--Tznkai 08:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Google on "Intelligent Design by God".--Silverback 22:07, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Its never fair to force others to do your fact checking and refrencing for you. Just because some bloggers say it, or google has people who say it, doesn't mean its sufficiently notable. Remember, peer reveiw is the golden standard.--Tznkai 04:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It is fair when there is a book by that name on the first page. The number of links with that phrase add to the notability.--Silverback 05:52, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Notability! We can argue about the relevance of criticzing an omnicient god later, first we need to establish notability!--Tznkai 17:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

argument that the irrelevance of junk dna reduces the net complexity of the genome

My original modification:

Critics also note that there is much redundant information in the genome, which makes its content much lower than the number of base pairs used. It is, however, becoming largely recognized that the number of base pairs that actually encode proteins do not comprise the whole of the information encoded in DNA. So-called "Junk DNA" is often comprised of incorrectly copied once-functioning encodings of proteins, but it also appears to exhibit regulatory and structural influence on the expression of nearby exons.

I note that reference to this is included in at least one other Misplaced Pages article Noncoding_DNA, the contents of which should either be amended or accepted in this article. Additional reference to the function of junk DNA can be found on numerous sites, and is taught in universities. A brief selection of sites that include citations from reputable universities and other publications follows:

• ]
• ]
• ]
• ]
• ]

For a non-internet source, you can check "genes" VII by Benjamin Lewin, ]. A comment from a reviewer, who I don't know, but gives some sense of credibility: "Because of its high quality, this book will no doubt continue to be one of the canonical texts in genetics to be used now and in the future to prepare students and researchers in genetics." I know that this book is used in many universities such as Simon Fraser University as a textbook. Chapter 25 (Catalytic DNA) explains the chemical details of how Group I introns exhibit enzymatic activity and alternative splicing methods. It's worth noting that the edition of the book that I have was published in 2000, and is largely intended for instruction, so it is less likely to contain far-fetched theoretical material.

If so-called "junk DNA" does encode additional information (which has been experimentally proven in some cases by removing that junk DNA with corresponding differences in expression in the resulting animal), this doesn't prove or disprove anything with respect to Intelligent Design. It merely provides additional information with which to examine the purely numerical argument for Intelligent Design by specified complexity.

One view which supports evolution is that the effect of non-protein-coding genetic material actually provides greater strength to the evolutionary argument, by adding an entire new class of mutations which organisms can exploit to optimize their interaction with their environment. Whereas most mutations that directly affect a protein coding gene are fatal or produce radical variation, increases or decreases in the amount, form, or location of introns could provide a fine-grained balancing of production of proteins to more specifically and exactly adapt. This new class of potentially exploitable mutations is especially interesting, as it is known that mutation rates within exons and introns occur with the same frequence when measured across an equal span of base pairs (according to a Poisson distribution), however, introns comprise a greater fraction of the total genetic material than exons do, resulting in far more mutations occuring within the introns.

--User:Unknown

I recall reading about how we're finding out more and more how useful the so called junk DNA is. This I think is mainstream science, or atleast up and coming science. I think this brings into question the complexity of DNA and how relevant it is to ID more than anything else. Thoughts?--Tznkai 03:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The particular argument that I was clarifying a criticism of was that the required degree of complexity to qualify as Specified Complexity is bounded, and the criticism was that DNA as a system does not meet the required degree of complexity due to redundancy within the system. Whether or not the contention that junk DNA has uses that increase the amount of complexity in DNA proves or disproves the assertion that complexity of DNA is relevant to ID, I think that within the context of the article itself, the criticism using DNA complexity is still relevant as it is an active belief that is being brought forth from both sides of the camp. "Teaching the controversy," if you will :-) If there aren't any objections in the next day or so, I'd like to reinsert my addition. Unknown 04:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The Young and Hammock study is cited in the third and fifth links is the same study. That study and the those cited in the first link offered would qualify as emerging science, considering the number of other works that cite the studies offered, which is nearly none at this time according to both google scholar and ERIC. Reinserting the content phrased to note that 'recent developments in emerging sciences may suggest... etc.' would be appropriate here, I think. FeloniousMonk 06:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

My only concern with these passages is I feel we're arguing about the examples, all the while circling the real issue. We already have a lot of back and forth between each camp on the main points, nevermind individual examples.--Tznkai 17:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Fair point. Call it 'example creep.' FeloniousMonk 17:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Something to consider. So far, the section on Specified Complexity is discussed in an abstract mathematical format. It isn't directed toward biology, much less a specific part of biology: DNA. But then in the criticism section, we have this defense based on junk DNA, when there never was a case made that DNA is CSI. For the sake of consistency, either we need to add a case for DNA being CSI in the explanation of specified complexity, or we take out the junk DNA rebuttal. Otherwise, it just doesn't flow. David Bergan 17:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm against "example creep" as FM put it so I'm of the mind to remove it from the ID article. That having been said, Unknown, you should be sure to put this info in the DNA related articles.--Tznkai 21:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The section on Specified Complexity includes this quote: "He states that details of living things can be similarly characterized, especially the "patterns" of molecular sequences in functional biological molecules such as DNA." Checking out Specified_complexity, we find "Thus far, Dembski has made only one attempt at calculating the odds for the natural occurrence of a biological structure -- the bacterial flagellum of E. coli -- in his book, No Free Lunch." If we take the fact that Dembski has only attempted to use Specified Complexity to prove Intelligent Design once, and that sole example involved probabilistic calculations taken from the number of possible arrangements of DNA, then it seems that there is no case for CSI other than DNA. Unknown 05:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

What's your suggestion, Unknown? Are you advocating a full fleshed-out case for DNA as CSI just to keep your rebuttal in? David Bergan 14:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Easy on the tone David. I think if we cut this down a little and say something along the lines of "Dembski's example is DNA. While critics pointed to the redunancy in DNA, emerging sciences may suggest so called junk dna may be useful". Better prose than that obviously, but try to cut it down to a single paragraph, so we have the example, but keep the back and forth to a minimum--Tznkai 17:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that the CSI argument so far as it relates to ID is only connected through the DNA argument (actually proteins, in the original work, which are effectively generated from DNA in this context). Saying that the complexity of the sole example for the entire section is not actually as complex as would be required to be CSI seems like less than a minor comment. It is, in my opinion, a completely irrelevant comment in the face of the larger question which is "does Dembski's so-caled Law of Conservation of Information" actually hold, but it is also a disputable and likely incorrect comment. What could be a reasonable solution, is to remove that entire sentence about redundancy and create a detailed subsection in Specified complexity

Scientism critique

But the critics themselves can be critiqued for their scientism, their narrow-minded contention that the only kind of thought (i.e., the only kind of theory) that counts is thought that produces testable hypotheses. Science can be defined this way for the purposes of setting up axiomatic definitions. But the concrete evidence of centuries of human thought shows that other forms of thought are possible and are meaningful.

Dripping with POV and of questioable relevance, certainly not in the lead. Probably can be pointed out somewhere in the movement article, after being cleaned up. The accusations of scientism are relevant to the motivations and rehtoric of the ID movement however.--Tznkai 12:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I consider this relevant info for the scientism article, but not for ID. I mean, we could literally add dozens of "Group X thinks this about ID" sentences if we covered every little special interest group. David Bergan 18:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The only kind of thought (i.e., the only kind of theory) that counts for science is thought that produces testable hypotheses. If ID chaps want to be scientists, they should behave like scientists. No scientism here. --Hob Gadling 11:52, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Removing the section on criticisms of the design. Again.

First off, notability has not been proven. (FYI: Scavanger hunts are disengenous Silverback, thats not how we do shit 'round here). If ANYONE wants to point out a good refrence for it, go right ahead.

Second thing is relevance. As per the scientism critique above, we have a massive article where lots of extraneous issues are related. This does not mean they are salient, relevant, and pertinent to Intelligent design. In fact, I would suggest they are not. If ID is a recylcing of bad pseduoscience, these critiques of "flawed design" are recycled bad philosiphy. Most trained aithiest debaters don't touch this stuff, cause it gets no where. Trust me, been on both sides of that one.

I don't trust you on that one, because you are wrong. Much of the interest and momentum of the ID movement comes from believers in the omniscient, omnipotent God. What pointing out the problems this hypothesis poses does, is remove any illusion they have that they can preserve this hypothesis scientifically. They have to resort to assumptions about the unknowability or unfathomability of omniscience, i.e., they once again are appealing to mystery and faith. Getting them back to this point is not getting them no where, but rather gets them to the long standing consensus of religious apologia.--Silverback 19:39, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

The section lists a number of flaws with various designs. All from a human perspective (questionable already), and also we are lead to ask are they really flaws? By who's definition? Every improvment has its cost. Humans can't stick to walls. Is this a design flaw 'cause flies can? O.o These are questions we've been asking for ages in our elementary science classes, I'm not really sure why its come back here.

See, "human perspective (questionable already)", you are already appealling the mystery of "greater" intelligence. However, as a compromise, instead of calling these flaws, how about just calling them "issues" that need explanation.--Silverback 19:39, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Third is quality. This article, at last check, was still over the 32k suggested "limit". This suggests to me that we can start being picky on what we choose to include. The best written, most salient, most convincing and most major arguments are best.

As far as I can tell, and feel free to chime in here, the major criticsms and defences of ID lie around: The "flaws" of science in general, the specific group of hypothese (CSI, IC, etc etc etc.), the supposed flaws in evolutionary theory (I don't think they are flaws at all, but thats my POV). There are also a few parting shots at the big wigs on both sides about them trying to "destroy science" and "destroy faith." And finally, the peer review bits, the distinct failure to describe what the hell the designer is, and the argument from ignorance.

These are all unquestionably salient. Criticsing an unidentified God (singular) with qualities not proven needed (omni-ness), with criticisms about supposed flaws from an unprovenly notable perspective, does not belong. If you think it does, find a refrence, clean up the prose. We'll even help, but only after you find the refrence.--Tznkai 17:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Many science articles also venture into the political, see Global warming. Whether omni-ness is "proven" or not, believers in omni-ness are an important constituency and driving force behind the theory, and this alone can make it notable, despite the weak grounding of their omni-ness beliefs.--Silverback 19:48, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I vote for irrelevant. Silverback, assuming your argument is accurate, the BEST it does is show that the designer was not omniscient. It doesn't prove there was no designer... thus it doesn't faze ID. Dante's Peak was a crappy movie loaded with flaws, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a designer. I think your criticisms would be more relevant on the omniscience page. David Bergan 20:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

OK. Proves our designer is imperfect. Assuming we have an agreement on what perfect means. If that was to work, that implies there IS a designer. If proving a designer existed for the universe is questionably solid science (which I think it is), determining qualities of that designer based on his will, intent, and capabilities is equally unscientific. In fact, its so unscientific that I don't think theres a good structure for arguing about it.

But forget all that. The first thing we need to do is find some refrences.--Tznkai 23:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

a "new" hypothesis about the designer?

Recent AP articles about Bush's position that ID should be taught in the schools present this definition of ID: "The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation." Perhaps we need a section on the "higher power" hypothesis, although, perhaps the AP is assuming that even humans or some other intelligent species is a "higher power" than evolution. Of course, that might be the human perspective, evolution might have a different perspective about which is "higher".--Silverback 19:44, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

This week's Economist Magazine and introduction

Some interesting excerpts from the article that would be topical.

Intelligent design derives from an early-19th-century explanation of the natural world given by an English clergyman, William Paley. Paley was the populariser of the famous watchmaker analogy. If you found a watch in a field, he wrote in 1802, you would infer that so fine and intricate a mechanism could not have been produced by unplanned, unguided natural forces; it could have been made only by an intelligent being. This view—that the complexity of an organism is evidence for the existence of God—prevailed until 1859, when Charles Darwin's “Origin of Species” showed how natural selection could indeed “explain so many classes of facts” (as Darwin put it).

Proponents of intelligent design are renewing Paley's argument with a new gloss from molecular biology. Darwin himself acknowledged that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Intelligent designers claim that living things are full of such examples at the molecular level. Blood clotting is one: ten proteins have to work together in sequence for the process to occur. So-called eukaryotic cells, which digest nutrients or excrete waste, are another: these cells contain an elaborate “traffic system” which directs proteins to the right compartments.

In both cases, argues Michael Behe, whose book “Darwin's Black Box” is one of the bibles of intelligent design, you have complex systems that will work only if all the components operate at once. He argues that you could not get such a thing from “successive, slight modifications”. Hence the molecular machines inside living beings are evidence of an intelligent designer—God.

Intelligent design asks interesting questions about evolution, but since all its answers are usually “God”, scientists have rejected it. As the National Academy of Sciences has said, intelligent design “and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life” are not science because their claims cannot be tested by experiment and propose no new hypotheses of their own. (Instead, intelligent designers poke holes in evolutionary theory.)

In addition, biologists point out that the intelligent designers' favourite examples of “irreducible complexity” often prove not to be. Some organisms, for example, use only six proteins to clot blood—irreducibility reduced. In other cases, single parts of a complex mechanism turn out to have useful functions of their own, meaning that the complex mechanism could have been produced by step-by-step evolution. When the Discovery Institute, a promoter of intelligent design, came up with a list of 370 people with science degrees who backed their ideas, the National Centre for Science Education responded with almost 600 scientists called Steve or Stephanie who rejected them.

Second, though there has been no big increase in opposition to evolution, there is enough to be going on with without it. Two-thirds of Americans think humans were directly created by God (as opposed to 22% who think people “evolved from an earlier species”). Half do not think apes and men had a common ancestor.

With its claims (however spurious) of scientific respectability, intelligent design promises to reconcile mass anti-evolutionism with science. Strict creationism has been long discredited and, since the Supreme Court decision of Edwards v Aguillard (1987), may not be taught in state schools. But intelligent design is a different matter. Its proponents accept that the earth is billions of years old. They agree that gene mutation and natural selection occur within species, though not necessarily between species. They concede that scientific method, not biblical authority, is the arbiter of truth. Proponents do not even demand that intelligent design should replace evolution in the classroom, merely that schools should “teach the controversy” (which they themselves have created). In short, religious Americans who find evolution distasteful are jumping at the chance to teach an alternative that claims to be science.

Whichever way the argument over intelligent design is finally resolved, it is likely to damage science teaching. This is not because bad science standards will necessarily be adopted but because—as Diane Ravitch of the Brookings Institution showed in “The Language Police” in 2003—the biggest threat to high standards is the unwillingness of state Boards of Education to offend any sort of pressure group, whether right or left. Instead, they avoid controversial topics altogether. In 2000, a survey by the Fordham Foundation found that only ten states taught evolution fully, six did so skimpily and in 13 the treatment was considered useless or absent. (Kansas received an F minus, and “disgraceful”.) These failings shame American evolution teaching, and the manufactured controversy over intelligent design will do nothing to make them better.

So essentially intelligent design tries to find holes within evolutionary theory that have not been fully researched and explained with science and fills those holes with the philosophy of intelligent design? And the widespread support for this philosophy in America may be caused by poor evolution education?

Philosophy in the introduction

Philosophy is such a broad category that to say that ID is a philosophy says nearly nothing. In one sense, all of science is a branch of philosophy (the philosophy of science is a very exciting subject). So anyway, it's not wrong per se to call ID "philosophical".

However, my guess is that the edit was made to call ID "philosophy" as opposed to the "science" of evolution. Most readers, then, would be confused as to the intent of ID wondering if it could legitimately oppose evolution, when they seem to be in different domains. But since there is no doubt that design theorists intend to oppose evolution on its own grounds, ID is therefore science or pseudoscience. So, because calling ID "philosophy" is confusing, I reverted to the earlier version. David Bergan 21:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Do they intend to oppose evolution "on its own grounds", if their position is as stated here in this quote from the article "challenge the principles of philosophical naturalism and uniformitarianism that are "dogmatically held beliefs" of the scientific mainstream". This looks like they are trying to change the grounds, by questioning the philosophy of science orthodoxy rather than merely focusing on the evidence.--Silverback 02:49, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know intelligent design is not a science, it is a philosophy. If intelligent design advocates were trying to challenge the science of evolution they would need to do it thru the proper scientific avenues such as expirements and so on. But the truth is they cannot because their arguments are philosphical. At least this is what I gather from all the mainstream scientifc channels. 70.57.82.114 04:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Ordering of the article's footnotes

I don't know if anyone has noticed that the numbering and ordering of the footnotes does not correspond to the article. You probably all have and were smart enough to wait for someone dumb enough to make mention of it. Fine. Anyone want to tackle this thankless task? Anyone aware of a numbering ordering method to avoid this in the future? Steinsky, where are you? This was your idea. Help us out. FeloniousMonk 23:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

What is the size of the article now?

How do you find out the size of the article? Many of the petty back and forth of proponents and opponents were being reproduced in unnecessary detail. I have whittled it down some.--Silverback 00:06, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

That's real cute. Out of petty spite you've managed to undo in less than 20 minutes three months worth of hard-fought compromise of many regular contributors, not to mention all the cites and refs in the footnotes that are now orphaned, all to save 6kb! What you call "petty back and forth" others call making a case for their position. Now do you revert it or do we? BTW, WP:Point FeloniousMonk 00:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

More to the point (ignoring the personal attack). How do you know I saved 6kB? -- thanx in advance.--Silverback 01:49, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

You're dodging the issue and flouting convention. You're edits were against consensus, undid months of debate, and invalidated the recently completed peer review. Judging by the facts I can only conclude that you're being disruptive in the article out of spite because your content you repeatedly insist on reinserting has failed to gain consensus here.

I should note that I was intimately involved in peer review earlier this year, and the text that the supposed consensus keeps deleting survived that peer review.--Silverback 05:57, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

But since you insist, the article size is displayed over text box when editing an article that is over the recommended optimum article size. I do not support your recent edits. And any goodwill I may have had toward your previous content offered, has been removed by your actions here today. The article should be restored. FeloniousMonk 02:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, if we are concerned about "paring" the article down to size, my changes do so without significantly reducing the information content. Also, note that several sections I deleted or modified, were not documented, but just original content summarizing what "many" or "most" argue. I seriously doubt there are supporting polls. Furthermore I am surprised the "supernatural" references were allowed to be portrayed as intrinsic to the theory despite the clearly stated intent of the theories proponents. Documentation is needed here. It is interesting that you cite consensus and compromise, yet, have been unyielding on the text I was restoring that was itself the result of months of compromise. Given the concern for "paring" and keeping the article within size, that is usually expressed when text opposing one's viewpoint is proposed, the type of hard paring, that I craft with great care and without bias, should be welcome --Silverback 02:34, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

While being bold is all fine and good, the article's current state represents the results of a delicate compromise between strongly pro and anti ID writers, minimalists (like myself), and completests. We are concerned with paring the article down some, but we're not sure exactly how to do it yet. After all, ID is a hot issue, so there is a LOT of notable issues out there.--Tznkai 03:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

You seemed sure about how to pare it down earlier. You also just did a mass revert, of legitimate changes that had informative edit summaries. Apparently you did not consider the merits of the changes.--Silverback 05:59, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

OK, let's try this again

In my lecturing Silverback about consensus, I've failed to mention that I'd like to see him get what he considers a fair bite at the apple here, and as many as the rest of us have had in months previous. Perhaps we've all gotten off to a bad start, and starting with a clean slate/white board/etch-a-sketch/whatever is a good idea. SB is clearly intelligent and knowledgeable on the topic, and obviously he'd like to participate here. I'm certain that the article could benefit from his efforts if we all choose to work together and not ignore the necessary role consensus plays here. We've all had tough time earning our respective places here, so lets give SB the opportunity start afresh.

SB has proposed two things for the article... his oft suggested content addition, discussed above, and paring the article down further. I'm not dogmatically opposed to either, but I do strongly feel the only way to construct a robust article is that any substantial additions or subtractions represent consensus. Which first? FeloniousMonk 05:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)