Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:38, 13 March 2006

Nobel Prize winning physicist and ID believer says definition is misleading

His name is Charles Townes. Here are his qualifications:

• PhD (Physics)
• Professor of Physics emeritus (Astrophysics) University of Berkeley
• Nobel Prize, National Medal of Science, among other awards he has received.
• Templeton Prize (2005, for "Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities")
• Has written extensively on the relationship between religion and science.
• Believes "Intelligent design is real."
• Describes himself as a Liberal Protestant Christian.

"I do believe in both a creation and a continuous effect on this universe and our lives, that God has a continuing influence — certainly his laws guide how the universe was built. But the Bible's description of creation occurring over a week's time is just an analogy, as I see it..."

"...People are misusing the term intelligent design to think that everything is frozen by that one act of creation and that there's no evolution, no changes. It's totally illogical in my view. Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real... Evolution is here, and intelligent design is here, and they're both consistent."

"People who want to exclude evolution on the basis of intelligent design, I guess they're saying, 'Everything is made at once and then nothing can change.' But there's no reason the universe can't allow for changes and plan for them, too. People who are anti-evolution are working very hard for some excuse to be against it. I think that whole argument is a stupid one. Maybe that's a bad word to use in public, but it's just a shame that the argument is coming up that way, because it's very misleading." — Charles Townes.

I believe his view is important and should be mentioned in the article. --Ben 20:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, this is really not a very pro-ID statement at all for most defintions of the word ID. He seems to be using ID here in the more general sense of theism. All he is really saying is that evolution and theism don't necessarily conflict with each other. Or am I misreading this? JoshuaZ 20:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Possibly. The link at the end of the quotes provides context (it is from an interview). I can add the interviewer's questions above each of the quotes if you want. The question preceding the second quote is important if you are concerned about the context. The interviewer asked "Should intelligent design be taught alongside Darwinian evolution in schools as religious legislators have decided in Pennsylvania and Kansas?" So Townes is speaking to that particular intelligent design (the one the DI has been pushing to be taught in schools) when he says the argument is misleading and intelligent design is not anti-evolution.

Considering the number of editors who come to the talk pages who have this view, or ask about it (wondering if ID and evolution are diametrically opposed, as presented in the article currently), and that editors have in fact been asking about this for at least 5 years (seriously, see Talk:Intelligent Design Theory), and that there are numerous examples of this usage on the Internet, I think it is very important to include this view to contrast the advocacy group's definitions.--Ben 21:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Townes' opinion of ID is not notable in that represents that of a very small minority within the spectrum of beliefs that comprise ID, nor is Townes widely recognized as a promintent or influential ID proponent. His opinion on the matter hardly warrants a footnote much less a sentence or a paragraph. The discussion at Talk:Intelligent Design Theory represents the viewpoints of some editors poorly read on the topic; that is the primary reason why that article now redirects to this one. FeloniousMonk 21:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Um. Read the article carefully. The interviewer is pushing the question of ID, and Townes is carefully setting out theistic evolution in response, giving no comfort to the position taken by the DI. His position is similar to that of the Roman Catholic church, and though he's more careful than Shönborn, his words could also be misrepresented as support for the anti-evolution ID. Might be worth a brief paragraph setting this out. ...dave souza, talk 21:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Really? He seems qualified enough to comment on intelligent design, it's definitely in his realm of expertise. Plus he personally believes in intelligent design too, just not the version the DI wants taught in schools. The way he sees it, their argument, the idea that intelligent design is inherently anti-evolution, is "unfortunate" and "misleading." I think he's qualified to make that opinion and it should be included in the article, if only to contrast the DI's treatment of ID. Like I said before, a lot of people approach the concept this way and I think they would appreciate Townes' take--both on ID as he sees it (not inconsistent with evolution) and on ID as the DI sees it (misusing the term, and the argument is misleading)--represented, if only in a short paragraph. --Ben 22:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Physics makes him qualified to discuss a biology topic? Jim62sch 23:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

He is not discussing biology. --Ben 01:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Townes' qualifications are a non sequitur; the notability of his viewpoint is the only thing that is relevent here. I didn't say he wasn't qualified, I said his opinion is a very minor position. If indeed a lot of people did view ID this way, then there'd be more evidence for that. This viewpoint is seldom invoked or cited by the leading ID proponents, and does not come anywhere near being regularly found in the majority of primary published sources on ID. BTW, that's a nice appeal to authority in the heading for this section. How's it working? FeloniousMonk 23:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

As good as or better than your appeal to the people. Here is something for you to think about: Why are Dawkins' views included in the article? Is it because he is an authority on the subject? Or is it because you think he is notable? Or because people other than you think he is notable? By your line of reasoning, the only notable people are the most vociferous advocates and people on television and in the newspapers. This is opposed to, say, academics and scientists. --Ben 01:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Appeal to people? Please. What FM is challenging is the lack of citations, sourced material, or published work that put forward this extremely weak definition of ID. Just because he says 'ID' does not mean he knows what ID is.

That he claims the term 'ID' is being abused, and that his own opinion of ID is at odds with the leading authority's definition is a extremely strong indication that he does not understand what ID actually refers to.

As for Dawkins, it is fairly obvious that he is a leading authority in biology and evolution, the subjects that ID has been contrived to disprove; his books, talks, published works, and peer-reviewed studies are abundant and well-respected in the field. Tez 10:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, Dawkins may be a poor example since, while you might make a case that he is authoritative, he is also quite a vociferous advocate. I guess if only Charles Townes jumped into the fray and started a blog and made a television series, Religion: The root of all evil?, he'd get a mention as you'd then consider him notable (rather than authoritative, which is bad encyclopedic style). Is this right? It seems to follow your line of reasoning. --Ben 01:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You've learned nothing during your month off, have you? Still the same old Ben.

And yes, Townes is discussing biology. To the best of my knowledge, no one has proposed teaching ID in physics, chemistry, geology, math, art or any other class, only in biology class. Besides, to what other field does evolution (which Townes mentions four times) belong? Jim62sch 01:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You are being insulting. Please do not talk to me this way. Furthermore, Dr. Townes was clearly not discussing biology in any capacity. --Ben 02:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Dawkins IS a biologist, and Ben lost the question mark in the title of his two programmes (series?). Calling Townes an ID believer in the heading is misleading, perhaps mischievous. It's not ID as we know it, Scotty. ...dave souza, talk 01:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not ascribe mischievous motives to me. That is insulting. This is what Dr. Townes said: "Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real." Dr. Townes believes in intelligent design. Also please address me, not the peanut gallery, because I find it offensive when I am right here and you are talking about me in the third person. Also please do not focus on trivialities like forgetting the question mark, because that is disrupting our discussion. --Ben 02:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification that you were being misleading rather than mischievous. The question mark is significant because the programmes pose a question rather than making an assertion - have you seen the programmes or listened to the radio interview about them? ..dave souza, talk 03:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

There. Fixed. :) I hope that now, at least, you think I am not trying to pull something on you. Otherwise, I got nothin' and you will just have to keep assuming bad faith for no reason. --Ben 03:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ben, refering to someone in the third person is not insulting. Many people read these pages (in fact, some people might find repeated foci on "you" to be disruptive and insulting). Also, sarcastic comments about "packet corruption" are unnecessary. Now, if you read the entire section, in context, it appears that Townes is talking about theistic evolution. Furthermore, his stance is not very relevant compared to your example of Dawkins. While I strongly disagree with Dawkins, the fact is that he is much more read and more influential on this matter than Townes is. Thus, under wiki policy Dawkins is in. Townes is not notable or influential in this matter and therefore does not go in. JoshuaZ 02:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I find that talking about me in the third person is insulting. I'm sorry you don't understand why. Yes the comments about packet corruption were unnecessary, that is why I erased them. It appears to me Townes is talking about intelligent design, because that's what he said, and he is far more of an expert on the subject than you or I. It appears to me that the current article is talking about Christian Creationism, would you redirect this article to Christian Creationism? That would probably be ok with me, and I'm guessing Dr. Townes as well. Townes goes in because he is a scientist and this is his area of expertise. It is regardless of his notability or influential-ity, as it is his credibility which is the matter at hand, and he is quite credible based on his qualifications. I believe scientists are covered as authoritative under wiki policy.

Apparently in deference to the kind of objections stated above, the reference to Jon Stewart has been deleted. I personally do not have strong feelings whether it is appropriate to offer an example of the numerous parodies of the most widely publicized forms of the ID argument.

What gave rise to this kind of parody and lampooning (of which there was much) was that it was obvious to many millions of reasonably intelligent people that something was amiss about the intelligent design assertion as put forth by the DI affiliates-- a fundamentally theological, religious, or at a minimum non-scientific, assertion was attempted to be passed off as scientific and non-religious. The judge in Kitzmiller came to the same conclusion in a far more articulate way, with the weight of federal law and volumes of testimony in front of him. And what led to all this controversy and anger was a demonstrably duplicitous stance advanced by the Discovery Institute and its affiliates in attempting to implement their agenda of broad academic and sociopolitical change in the US.

Personally, I would want to offer my respect with a measure of sadness about the situation to persons such as Charles Townes who use the term ID in good faith as a philosophical and/or theological term of art, of which there are a number. Unfortunately, the use of the term 'intelligent design' by others in duplicitous and contradictory ways, in a disguised attempt to force creationism on the public schools in the US, has worked its way too far into the public consciousness as something sneaky, a political maneuver or even a con job, for it to be successfully resurrected as a theological or philosophical term of art. I would be extremely surprised to hear someone, today or in the near future, say, for instance, "In what sense are you using the term?" At this stage in time, for the vast majority of folks it doesn't any longer matter whether a user of the term 'intelligent design' chooses to involve literal Biblical creationism, dynamic evolutionary creationism, or any of a wide range of non-Biblical speculative approaches-- the term is kaput as a term of art because it has been so badly corrupted.

Having said that-- it would still be interesting to see if a broad enough sampling of editors, after further discussion, saw fit to include a brief section outlining several of the approaches where it is used as a philosophical or theological term of art today. To me, thus far they appear to be just a new set of slants on the teleological argument. This is already dealt with extremely well in the existing article.

Kenosis 02:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

RFC regarding opinion of Dr. Townes

Editors with an outside view opinion on this matter please post here. Outline of concerns is included in the section above.

Kindly clarify what an outside view is?

Non-regulars of course. And no cabalism please. I know who's who. ;) Put it in the above section if you frequently talk to the regulars about stuff like this. --Ben 03:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You can't limit an RFC to "non-regulars." Every RFC is open to the entire community. I've corrected the language above to reflect this. FeloniousMonk 03:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Not notable. The opinion of the guy is just that, an opinion. If one of the key player would say this, that would be notable, but he is not a key player. As such, his remark has no place in this article. --KimvdLinde
• Not notable, as I've said before. FeloniousMonk 03:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• No. The issue is credibility. Many people have notable, non-credible opinions about topics. These go in along with the rest of them. His notability is a red herring. From WP:NPOV "NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view." and "One important task for encyclopedias is to explain things. In the case of human beliefs and practices, explanation encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but an account of how such beliefs and practices came to be and took shape." and "Misplaced Pages articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts. But Misplaced Pages articles on history and religion also draw from modern archaeological, historical and scientific sources." So it's about being an encyclopedia, drawing from scientific sources, credibility of the scientific sources.--Ben 07:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• The credibility of sources is not a central tenent of WP:NPOV, but of WP:RS. From WP:NPOV: "All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one." ... "A solution is that we accept, for the purposes of working on Misplaced Pages, that "human knowledge" includes all different significant theories on all different topics." ... "To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly, and not assert any one of them as correct." See a pattern? "All significant points of view are presented", "includes all different significant theories", "present each of the significant views". Townes credibility is the red herring here. FeloniousMonk 07:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Is this a newspaper article or an encyclopedia topic? Significance is important when writing a newspaper article. Significance and credibility are important when writing an encyclopedia topic. The reader expects research, not just reporting. This includes the opinions of credible scientists, not just significant and notable advocates or detractors. Otherwise the article can end up solely feeding off of media reports about celebrity opinion rather than providing the reader with an expert opinion. --Ben 09:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• I think he is notable enough to have a paragraph devoted to him abakharev 03:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Not notable on this issue. I'm inclined to somewhat agree with his position. However, he has had no signficant influence on ID controversy and therefore his opinion on this matter is simply not relevant. JoshuaZ 03:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Not notable. Hundreds of scientists have idly passed comment on their own idiosyncratic definition of the term 'intelligent design'. Ashmoo 04:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ben removed the bolding around notable and non-notable of most of the above comments. I have added them back in. Ben, in the future, please do not edit others peoples explicit formating decisions. (If you want such editing to occur you'll be losing a lot of bolds and that thing in red will be a nicer color). Thanks. JoshuaZ 04:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I've also removed his "notes" about editors following their comments. Either he's trolling us, or they're meant to discount the comments of those who comment here and contribute to the article. Either way, they are not constructive but disruptive. Benapgar, you should genuinely rethink such behavior. FeloniousMonk 04:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Not notable on this issue - I think Ashmoo sums it up pretty well. Guettarda 04:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• The issue here is credibility, not notability. Dr. Townes is both a highly accomplished physicist and a qualified expert on the relationships between religion and science. As such, his comments regarding the Discovery Institute's concept "Intelligent design" are credible and are pertinent to this article, in consideration of accuracy, comprehensiveness, and readability. This is especially pertinent considering the number of editors who come to this article sharing his view. Editors like them are a quantifiable representation of what readers would expect from an article entitled "Intelligent design." --Ben 04:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• No. The issue is notability. Many people have credible, non-notable opinions about topics. JoshuaZ 04:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• JoshuaZ is correct, the issue is notablity. His credibility is a non sequitur. WP:NPOV: "All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one." and "A solution is that we accept, for the purposes of working on Misplaced Pages, that "human knowledge" includes all different significant theories on all different topics." and "To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly, and not assert any one of them as correct." So, it's about significance, notability. FeloniousMonk 04:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Not Notable His (minor, unsourced) personal view of ID is at odds with the leading authorities'. Tez 10:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Not notable Were he discussing quantum physics, it might be a different story. Jim62sch 18:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Not notable. My quick search fails to find any significant amount of discussion of his slant on the issue in theological or philosophical circles to date, and he certainly has not affected the public discussion noticeably.Kenosis 02:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Yes. If certain editors deem it acceptable to shunt out every view that does not fit their prejudice by decrying them as not significant or notable, then this wikipage is nothing but propaganda for the anti-ID side. It's easy enough, just decide who is notable by whether or not they say what you want shown. Then you can define the issue to suit your tastes. I also find it interesting that mentioning Townes's credentials was regarded as an appeal to authority in one comment, and then slammed for not being the right credentials (they, however, are, since ID is an interdisciplinary study and involves physics) in another. Having it both ways? Nice racket y'all got going on. Izuko 15:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Townes' view of ID (normally called theistic evolution) is totally compatible with current, mainstream scientific understanding. And that he has the qualifications to rationally determine such are not being undermined. Fine: put the quote in the theistic evolution article. If the point you're trying to support with this quote is that a different interpretation of ID belongs in the article, or that there is widespread belief that the term 'ID' is being abused, you're going to need more than one quote of the kind like Townes' to make that argument. Tez 20:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to have them discarded as "not notable"? Sorry, but I don't have the patience for games. All that will happen is you guys will raise the bar as high as you need to, in order to keep out dissenting opinions. Izuko 22:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

A modest proposal

This topic is already mentioned in the last paragraph of Intelligent design controversy before the Defining intelligent design as science subsection. The paragraph could be expanded to mention Townes along these lines:

Many religious people do not condone the teaching of what is considered unscientific or questionable material, and support theistic evolution which does not conflict with scientific theories. Their faith can include belief in creation and continuing intervention by an intelligent deity without looking to pseudoscience for material evidence. Examples include Cardinal Schönborn who sees "purpose and design in the natural world" yet has "no difficulty... with the theory of evolution the borders of scientific theory", and Charles Townes who responded to questions by saying that "People are misusing the term intelligent design to think that everything is frozen by that one act of creation and that there's no evolution, no changes. It's totally illogical in my view... Evolution is here, and intelligent design is here, and they're both consistent."

In addition, the Intelligent design in summary section could begin "Intelligent design is presented as a scientific alternative to purely naturalistic explanations for evolution, using an older term evoking religious faith in divine creation." Comments and suggested amendments welcome. ...dave souza, talk 09:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

But your suggestion places Townes in an entirely different capacity: as a "religious person" rather than an expert who has studied things like this. Please be careful that you do not discriminate against Dr. Townes for his beliefs, which it looks to me like you are getting very close to doing. You seem to me to be completely ignoring Townes' credentials and entire body of work and treating him as just another "religious person." As a religious person he is not notable, that's clear even to me, and I don't know why you would represent him in that capacity. I don't think this is the right way to go about it at all. --Ben 21:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ben, your new statement above that Townes is not notable as a religious person is odd, since you linked to an article that describes him as a 90 year old who, throughout his life, has sought to advance ideas and/or institutions that will deepen the world's understanding of God and of spiritual realities and was recently given a prize for this work. It does seem to be an aspect not yet reported fully in his bio on Misplaced Pages. Anyway, his statements in the article are clearly from a religious perspective. ..dave souza, talk 21:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You are referencing him as a "religious person," i.e. a "believer" rather than someone who has studied this from a scientific standpoint for most of their life. It's very denigrating. When it comes to the Templeton Prize, 2004's winner was George Ellis, who wrote The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time with Stephen Hawking, and, according to Misplaced Pages, is "considered one of the world's leading theorists in cosmology." --Ben 21:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm astonished that you find his religious beliefs "very denigrating" - are you saying that only atheists can be proper scientists? ..dave souza, talk 22:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to be astonished at your own misinterpretation, as it seems to imply that I am an idiot, and I'm sure the peanut gallery finds it hilarious. In the unlikely event that you actually misunderstood both my original response and the next: I am saying you are denigrating a substantial part of his life's work on the nature of religion and science by ignoring it and focusing instead on his religious beliefs. "Religious person" instead of "Scientist who has studied religion extensively." I think it's unlikely you misunderstood, so if you can't conduct yourself appropriately and continue to be sarcastic like this, I'm not going to respond to you anymore. --Ben 23:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I will definitely support a concise addition or two in this appropriate place in the article. Thanks, Dave, for pointing it out.Kenosis 13:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Dave's solution is reasonable, although I'm still highly unconvinced that Townes should be mentioned. JoshuaZ 15:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Schonborn's quote better represents the viewpoint and is more informative, and Townes is not notable. This is more accurate, informative, relevant and concise:

Many religious people do not condone the teaching of what is considered unscientific or questionable material, and support theistic evolution which does not conflict with scientific theories. Their faith can include belief in creation and continuing intervention by an intelligent deity without looking to pseudoscience for material evidence. Cardinal Schönborn sees "purpose and design in the natural world" yet has "no difficulty... with the theory of evolution the borders of scientific theory."

In Dave's other proposed change to the Intelligent design in summary section the phrase "using an older term evoking religious faith in divine creation" is confusing and ambiguous and needs to be better defined. What exactly are we trying to see with it? FeloniousMonk 16:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the above comments, I was hoping for a Swift response. FM, the point I thought should be made early in the article is that ID proponents began claiming scientific status for an older term which to many people still denotes religious faith in creation. The Origins of the term subsection covers this more fully, though not explicitly. I'd quite like a link to the Townes interview, perhaps in a footnote to the section, but it's so confused it's difficult to summarise concisely. Could say "Townes who explained how he thought people were misusing the term, as in his belief both evolution and intelligent design were real and consistent with each other." Part of the difficulty is that he seems to conflate ID with YEC, understandably considering the misinformation the DI puts out, so it's fair to say that he provides an example of the misunderstandings around the term, but the interview may need more interpretation than it's worth. ...dave souza, talk 17:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

A footnote on Townes' opinion would be fine in my opinion. What exactly did you have in mind? FeloniousMonk 17:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

For a footnote to your suggested paragraph, "Another example is Charles Townes who who explained in an interview his belief that creationists were now misusing the term intelligent design." hopefully covers the important points. ..dave souza, talk 19:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I meant some variation of "Another example is Charles Townes who who explained in an interview his belief that creationists were now misusing the term intelligent design." is appropriate in a footnote, not in the article. FeloniousMonk 19:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, thought you were inviting suggestions for the wording, Fully agree. ...dave souza, talk 21:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've provided below some more references on this perspective. Perhaps you could draw from them. For example, former Discovery Institute fellow Jeffrey Schloss. --Ben 00:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

More information on this perspective

I will add more as I find it. --Ben 21:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Sarcamento Bee, October 3, 2005 Some find middle ground in science-theology clash (PDF)

Article which includes many professional views--of biologists, physicists, ministers, on ID and the ID debate.

The article writer, on PhD biology professor (at Westmont College), Jeffrey Schloss, a former fellow of the Discovery Institute: "Schloss said that while he supports science applying its tools to the question, he disagrees strongly with the institute's stance against evolution. "I think evolutionary theory is compatible with faith." Schloss said."

• New York Daily News, March 12, 2005 Another quote from Townes, upon receiving the Templeton Prize:

"I think there's real evidence of intelligent design," Townes said, "but I don't usually use the word because it has been corrupted. I believe God created the universe over time and that evolution is part of God's progress. To say that intelligent design discredits evolution is completely crazy."

• National Catholic News, March 2, 2006 Creationists Hijack Intelligent Design

This one talks about it from a Catholic point of view. Some quotes:

"Intelligent design doesn’t dispute evolution if all it means is gradual change over time," said Chapman."

"What worries Miller about intelligent design and creationism is that they are playing into the hands of those who contend that evolution invalidates the case for God."

• Godandscience.org Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe

Various quotes from scientists. I'm guessing here, but I think a great many of them think evolutionary theory is perfectly sound. They are mainly from the fine-tuning perspective and have nothing to do with evolution--and before you argue about it, fine-tuning is included in the Misplaced Pages ID article as a "key concept of intelligent design."

• Science and Theology News, November 8, 2005 Disrupting the design debate: Taking the ID debate out of pundits' playbooks

"Along with the vast majority of members of the Abrahamic faith traditions, I believe in a created cosmos. Thus, I believe in an intelligent Creator and Designer of the universe. I have said that I therefore believe in intelligent design, lowercase 'i' and 'd.' But I have trouble with Intelligent Design — uppercase 'I' and 'D' — a movement widely seen as anti-evolutionist."

Benapgar is just another theist with an agenda

It is clear to me that this RFC is simply an attempt by a single contributor and ID-supporter to use the quote mining technique to led more legitimacy to ID as a subject in an article that is trying to be as neutral as possible toward the subject. To wit, Ben is not asking that we include the opinions of all Nobel Prize winners in science on the subject of ID, just the one who applies to most accolades to the subject. I find this kind of advocacy disingenuous, to say the least, and something of a waste of time. --ScienceApologist 14:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like an attempt by a single contriubtor to give a more accurate picture of ID. It also looks to me that there is a strong attempt by ID-opponents to use the "moving the bar" technique to exclude things that would give a more tempered, rational, and accurate view of ID, so as to better fit their prejudices and points of view. I find this kind of advocasy disingenious, to say the least, as well as disgraceful. Izuko 23:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No, ScienceApologist pretty much nails it, especially when one considers the particular history here. FeloniousMonk 00:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

After looking at Banapgar's history and behavior, I am inclined to strongly agree with ScienceApologist. JoshuaZ 04:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I tried to erase this as a personal attack, but your friend JoshuaZ says no. So, you say I am an ID supporter. Interesting. I have a question for you: What intelligent design do you think I support? The Discovery Institute's take on it? Townes' take on it? And what do you mean by "ID as a subject?"

Wait.... are you, someone who says I'm disingenuous and an advocate and that all my points are a waste of time, actually using "intelligent design" the same way Townes does? Now THAT would be ironic.--Ben 06:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

So you are obviously aware that Townes' view of ID in the quote does not tie up with the definition in the article. Fine - so what point are you trying to support with this quote?

If you're trying to say that there are a significant number of people who use the term 'ID' to mean theistic evolution, can you not see that one quote (with a very vague outline of a fairly generic, non-literalist religious view) of someone's personal opinion will not suffice? At best, with this quote, you could make the point that one Nobel laureate thinks that the term 'ID' refers to theistic evolution (which is already linked to in the article). That is hardly encyclopaedic.

You would need more quotes to get anyone to believe that there is significant use of 'ID' in this way, or possibly a reference to some site/newspaper article/textbook/study/legal proceeding that uses 'ID' in this way. Or a quote from someone speaking in the capacity of representative of a religious/scientific/academic/goverment organisation using 'ID' in this way. Townes' quote above is strictly one person's opinion. At the very least, you could find a quote that actually gives a fully-fledged definition or description! Tez 10:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even arguing that there is significant use of 'ID' in this way (though there is, both significant use of the term this way and a significant understanding of the term this way). I am saying Townes is an expert and until you find someone with the same expertise who disagrees with him about the same thing, his view goes in the article. Why? The article says ID is "pure pseudoscience," and scientists agree, and on Misplaced Pages we represent the scientific view as the majority, not the minority. It is nothing to do with notability or opinion. The scientific POV is considered ONE point of view, and in this article it should be represented as the majority. Townes view is a scientific point-of-view, not his own, and he is a credible source for this scientific point-of-view.

But you know what? That's not even my main point. You might argue Townes' view is academic, not scientific. Sort of like what Holocaust deniers argue on the Holocaust page--history, like definition, is not science, therefore you have to be notable and Ernst Zundel is more notable plus he is a notable representative of an organisation "researching" the Holocaust. It's a point I've been forced to make because of the refusal of editors to write within the bounds of the article. In the article ID is treated both as singular body of work, and as a subject unto itself. It is however, presented as a singular body of work. There is a constant back and forth recontextualization of intelligent design in the article.

Consider the critiques of the philosophy contained in the article. There are critiques of fine-tuned universe, critiques of teleological argument, more critiques, and then... even more critiques. If ID is "pure pseudoscience," why are there critiques at all? On the water divining page do you have critiques of water divining? Do you have critiques of Extra-sensory perception? Or you do just say "science says this is bullshit, and this is why?" Because that's not what this article does.

The article is not criticizing "the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection," the article is using the DI's body of work as a jumping off point to recontextualize ID into Townes' interpretation and then start criticizing the Existence of God, and it's going straight for the throat. It is no wonder there are so many critics of this article.--Ben 21:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Ben is being bad again

Hey, all. Benapgar's been adding spurious WP:OR notices to a variety of articles on atheism, either without explanation in Talk or with a misleading explanation. Given the lack of proper explanation and his track record here, I felt that the best response is to simply revert these additions. Just wanted to kee you all in the loop. Alienus 22:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that's the right move, thanks. FeloniousMonk 22:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Last I checked you've argued exactly the same thing.--Ben 22:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

And why are you lurking here if you don't even want to participate in the discussion (which clearly you don't)? Just so you can make comments about me? --Ben 23:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

What? I posted an explanation on talk on all three pages, and not only that, I also directed the talk to my concerns on the primary page (here). And why is what I said "misleading?" You think I'm trying to pull something on you? By all means, tell me what it is on that talk page. -Ben 22:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)