Misplaced Pages

Talk:Intelligent design: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:08, 27 March 2012 editGuettarda (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators63,420 edits fix← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:10, 22 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,709 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 89) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}} {{pp-move-indef}}
{{Talk Header}}
{{talk header|noarchives=yes}}

{{Pseudoscience sanctions}}
{{ArticleHistory|action1=PR
{{Talk:Intelligent design/Notes}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=Yes}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=PR
|action1date=02:18, 2 Feb 2005 |action1date=02:18, 2 Feb 2005
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Intelligent design/archive1 |action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Intelligent design/archive1
Line 49: Line 46:
|currentstatus=FA |currentstatus=FA
}} }}

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|
{{Round in circles}}
1={{WikiProject Alternative Views|class=FA|importance=High}}

{{WikiProject intelligent design|class=FA|importance=Top}}
{{ArbComPseudoscience}}
{{WikiProject Christianity}}

{{WikiProject Conservatism}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy|class=FA|importance=mid}} {{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=FA|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Pseudoscience|class=FA|class=FA|importance=high}} {{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Rational Skepticism|class=FA|importance=high}} {{WikiProject Creationism|importance=Top|Intelligent design=yes|Intelligent design-importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top}}
}} }}

{{maintained|{{User0|FeloniousMonk}}<br />{{User0|Dave souza}}}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K |maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 67 |counter = 89
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(20d)
|algo = old(180d)
|archive = Talk:Intelligent design/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Intelligent design/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{archives |search=no |
]
}} }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
Line 72: Line 81:
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=no |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=no
}} }}
{{archives |auto=yes |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=20 |units=days |index=/Archive index|
​ <center>'''Archives by topic:'''<br />
]</center>​
}}

== Clean up Discovery Institute description at beginning of article ==

This article says that the Discovery Institute '''SUPPORTS''' teaching Intelligent Design in the class room. I do not see '''ANY''' reference in citation 15 about the Discovery Institute explicitly saying they support teaching ID in the class room. They very well could have, but there is nothing that shows that from this particular reference. It either needs to be removed or you need to find the actual reference that says this. For the time being the DI's education policy suggests otherwise. ] (]) 19:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
:Why would ''anyone'' who believes ''anything'' to be true ''not'' want that to be taught? The entire Kitzmiller trial was about ID being taught in schools and DI was heavily involved in that. If the trial isn't already being used as a reference then I'm sure it would work. By the way, their policy on the matter does not say they don't support ID being taught in the class room, it says they don't think it should be ''required''. Of course this is irrelevant since the supreme court has ruled that it ''can't'' be taught. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 20:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

::Pkl728, in addition to Noformation's comments, the lead actually doesn't need any references whatsoever, and should stand as a summary for the entire article. The reference you pointed out supports the direct quote in the same sentence, not the claim that the DI advocates teaching ID in schools. Furthermore, if you read the first sentence of the ] article, you'll see more or less the same claim, supported by six different references. I think we can leave this alone. -- ] (] | ]) 20:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
:::I didn't even realize it was the lede he was talking about otherwise I would have just said that. So yeah, what Misterdub said. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 20:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

::::{{ec|2}} AFAICT, the lead doesn't say the DI support'''s''' teaching ID. It says the DI support'''ed''' its teaching during the Kitzmiller trail. See for sourcing. See also the ]. Given especially their history, we can't use a primary source like the DI to combat reliable ones. &nbsp; &mdash; ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; ]]</span> 20:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

:::::Well that's what I'm saying. Where does the source that is attributed to that line say that DI supported teaching that? All I see is that the school board consulted with them but it doesn't even say about what? I might just be ignorant here, but your sourcing is making it hard to follow where your accusations are coming from. ] (]) 22:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

::::::See the first 6 refs in ]. The main point of the DI is to promulgate the lie that ID is science and that it should be taught alongside evolution in schools. Again, why would ''anyone'' who believes ''anything'' to be true ''not'' want that to be taught? ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 22:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

:::::::@Pk1728, see , , and , among others. The quotes there are clear and direct. I'm happy to answer legitimate questions, but you've now been provided with 8 sources (2 from me, 6 from Noformation) which were readily available in the article. Please read those sources carefully. Thank you. &nbsp; &mdash; ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; ]]</span> 22:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

::::::::@Mann_jess Thank you for attempting to provide me with sources to look at! I followed up and clicked on the links and read through the pages, and none of those say that the Discovery Institute is trying to get ID as a school curriculum. It looks like, as mentioned above, they are saying that the flaws of the Evolution Theory should be taught. Is that a bad thing? I still don't see any source material for this quote that is on the main page. ] (]) 19:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::@ Pkl728, is teaching fake "flaws" to promote a particular religious view a "bad thing"? It's specifically found to be unconstitutional in the Kitzmiller judgement, read through the whole document. Note that they shifted their position during the trialc from teaching explicit ID to ], hence the past tense, but as ID is essentially a negative argument against evolutionary science with a false duality (science hasn't an answer for this specific problem, therefore The Designer, hallowed be his unnamed name, is The Answer) it's still promoting ID. . . ], ] 19:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

::::::::::@Dave souza Well that's a highly deceptive question. If you focus, like they are suggesting, on problems with the theory, how does that promote a particular religious view? If Evolution is false... Supernatural is true? Is that what you are saying? I hope you aren't admitting that if the theory of Evolution has potential flaws that if those flaws are proven to be true then you should accept Jesus Christ as your savior? That is quite the leap. There truly are many things about the theory of Evolution (in terms of abiogenesis and macroevolution) that are highly questionable. Perhaps science will figure something out, but at this point I'm doubting it with all the time that has been available thus far. But once again you are getting off track and making an inference that I don't think is true. Once again I will ask... Do any of these pages explicitly say that the DI thinks that ID should be taught in the class room? The only thing I've seen is that the school board consulted with the DI at one point, but it didn't say in regards to what. You are making a statement of fact with no evidence to support what you are saying. Here is your argument....
::::::::::
::::::::::'''1. The DI believes in Intelligent Design.'''
::::::::::'''2. The DI advocates teaching flaws with the Theory of Evolution.'''
::::::::::'''3. Therefore, the DI advocates teaching Intelligent Design in the classroom.'''
::::::::::
::::::::::This does not look like a sound argument to me. What do you think? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

{{od}}
Pkl728, the dichotomy is not dave souza's, but the DI's. They have a campaign called "]" which has the purpose of discrediting evolution and promoting ID:

{{cquote|Forget intelligent design, argued, with its theological implications. Just require teachers to discuss evidence that refutes Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, as well as what supports it. But what the center calls a compromise, most scientists call a creationist agenda that's couched in the language of science.}}

The DI may not explicitly state they want ID taught in schools, but they are certainly presenting it as the only alternative to biological evolution. This is clear from our secondary sources. Furthermore, the DI is known to misrepresent their intentions in order to push their agenda. Hell! The whole concept of ID is really just a ruse to teach Christianity's special creation in US public school science classes. These facts are also clear from our secondary sources. It doesn't matter what you or I think about ID or evolution--and abiogenesis is not within evolution's scope, by the way--the only thing that matters is what the sources state. The sources are very clear that ID is intentionally disingenuous as to their stated goals and are pretending a controversy over evolution exists for the express purpose of teaching ID/creationism. -- ] (] | ]) 18:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, shows how teaching the controversy using the ''Critical Analysis of Evolution'' model lesson plan is a means of teaching all the intelligent design arguments without using the intelligent design label. The "controversy" is ID, therefore teaching the controversy is teaching ID. This is what the sources say and what must be represented in this article. -- ] (] | ]) 18:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

:@MisterDub This is starting to get ridiculous. If I'm supposed to swallow that many peer-reviewed papers (from the other section ]) that are pro-ID don't count as peer-reviewed papers for ID because they don't explicitly say "Intelligent Design" in the article then you can't make the argument that this statement is valid because you've still shown me no source of where the DI said that they support teaching ID in the class room. You just said it yourself... "The DI may not explicitly state they want ID taught in schools..." but by golly, I'm going to imply that they do. You can't have it both ways I'm afraid. You are still making the same flawed argument with no actual support. You are inferring things based on a bias against the DI. I'm still of the opinion that this needs to be removed.] (]) 21:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

::And you're still wrong. Secondary sources are preferred over primary ones, so we don't need the DI's explicit endorsement of it. Please see below for dave souza's excellent comment containing even more sources. -- ] (] | ]) 22:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
:::] :-) . . ], ] 22:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

::::@Dave souza Once again not a source for what you are explaining. The page you have linked basically states that the DI believes that ID is a better explanation and that they would like to have it supplant Evolution Theory at some point. This still doesn't mean that they are for teaching ID in the classroom as the section in question suggests. ] (]) 18:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::See below, as you don't seem to have noticed phase III: pursuing possible legal assistance “in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula.” . . ], ] 19:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

== They advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula ==

The above section discusses the lead statement that the DI and its CSC "advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula" which they did. They also began denying that, and claiming they just wanted to ] by introducing ID anti-evolution texts in schools, an argument that when they repeated this denial, and were shown a copy of by DI Fellow Dewolf, and CSC Director Meyer.

That book is dated 1999, during a it emerged that the the Discovery Institute was increasingly disavowing any desire to have "intelligent design" taught in the public schools and concentrating instead on "teaching the controversy". However, Dewolf told the board, "I believe that a careful review of the legal implications of this policy would reveal that it is fully consistent with state educational requirements, and that there is no reason to fear that it would violate any constitutional restrictions." He added that even if a lawsuit were to be filed, "there are a variety of organizations who are committed to open discussion in this area and who I believe would agree to defend the board's position if it were to adopt this policy. I personally would volunteer to assist the board in identifying such counsel."

By an odd coincidence, Seth Cooper, an attorney with the Discovery Institute contacted Buckingham of Dover School Board and they "discussed the legality of teaching ID and gaps in Darwin’s theory. Late in the 2003-04 school year, Baksa arranged for the science teachers to watch a video from the Discovery Institute entitled “Icons of Evolution” and at a subsequent point, two lawyers from the Discovery Institute made a legal presentation to the Board in executive session." At some point before late July 2004, Buckingham contacted the Thomas More Law Center for legal advice, accepted their offer of legal representation and first learned of the creationist textbook ''Pandas''. Which was long associated with the DI's leading lights, inc. Behe. However in December 2004 the announced "When we first read about the Dover policy, we publicly criticized it because according to published reports the intent was to mandate the teaching of intelligent design. Although we think discussion of intelligent design should not be prohibited, we don't think intelligent design should be required in public schools. What should be required is full disclosure of the scientific evidence for and against Darwin's theory", a quick backpedal to strengths and weaknesses which despite bravado from DI fellows did not stand up in court.

By 2007 Meyer and another DI fellow were : "A US Supreme Court decision allows teachers to teach biology in a way that incorporates 'a variety of scientific theories…with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.' The new supplemental textbook ''Explore Evolution'', when coordinated with other materials, empowers teachers and students to better fulfill these public educational goals." Once again, a supplemental textbook promoted to schools but oh no we don't want it taught in school. Anyway, the lead statement correctly uses the past tense, detail of their obfuscation can go in the body text. . ], ] 20:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

:The "keep it" arguments I see above seem to be "no source says that they advocate teaching ID, but such can be deduced from what is in the sources" . That is synthesis/OR and not allowed in Misplaced Pages. Second, if it is glaringly obvious from the sources, then shouldn't be glaringly obvious from the sourced material in the article without editors having to synthesize and state it? Or am I missing something? Sincerely, <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 20:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
::Only a moron could look at the DI's ''Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook'' and not conclude, from the title alone, that they want it taught in public schools. I must have missed the part where we are required to put on our moron hats before we edit this article. ] (]) 20:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
::@ North8000, you don't seem to have read the above sources very thoroughly. , from a DI fellow and the CSC director, "teachers should be reassured that they have the right to expose their students to the problems as well as the appeal of Darwinian theory. Moreover... school boards have the authority to permit, and even encourage, teaching about design theory as an alternative to Darwinian evolution-and this includes the use of textbooks such as ''Of Pandas and People'' that present evidence for the theory of intelligent design.<br>The controlling legal authority, the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards v. Aguillard, explicitly permits the inclusion of alternatives to Darwinian evolution so long as those alternatives are based on scientific evidence and not motivated by strictly religious concerns. Since design theory is based on scientific evidence rather than religious assumptions, it clearly meets this test. Including discussions of design in the science curriculum thus serves an important goal of making education inclusive, rather than exclusionary. In addition, it provides students with an important demonstration of the best way for them as future scientists and citizens to resolve scientific controversies-by a careful and fair-minded examination of the evidence." . . ], ] 21:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

:::Furthermore, the supposed OR is not mine. I gave the source equating "Teach the Controversy" and ID, the author of which is ]. -- ] (] | ]) 21:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
:::To Dave Souza. You are right I didn't read them thoroughly. What I DID look at is that, until your last post, nobody pointed out where any source said that they advocated teaching ID. Now you have done that. Sincerely, <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 21:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
::::@ North8000, as Raul654 pointed out; ''Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook'' does rather imply that they advocated teaching ID, sorry you missed the connection and weren't inspired to click the link before commenting. .], ] 21:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::No, but superficial me did thoroughly read the 1,000 words of the talk section, which was the subject of my comment. :-) <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 21:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::Always glad to assist. As a quick and simple source, have added ] which notes how the Wedge Strategy Phase III includes pursuing possible legal assistance “in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula.” . . ], ] 22:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

== Denialism category ==

While the pseudoscience does seem to fit here (widely-used descriptor that is used neutrally), the "denialism" category seems inappropriate and POV. As ID rests on a religious belief to say it is "denialism" in effect says the underlying belief is denialism. The pseudoscience category is more than sufficient. I see no need to pile on with any debunking category editors can come up with.--] (]) 19:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:If independent reliable sources describe it as such, why shouldn't we? ] (]) 19:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

::Yobol, do we have sources that call it denialism? I can understand how ID can be said to be a denial of evolution and it certainly seems to fit the definition of ] from the Wiki page, but do we have sources for this? I've read Richard Dawkin's '']'', which, to the best of my knowledge, was the first and only time such a charge has been issued against ID, but are there secondary sources mentioning this claim? I wouldn't think this one, primary source would be enough to justify inclusion to the category. -- ] (] | ]) 20:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

::Just C&Ping explanation from creationism talk page. Change terms as appropriate.

:::This isn't an article about theism. It's about creationism, a belief that runs directly opposed to evolution. It is, essentially, denial of scientific evidence of evolution. Regardless, categories are there because the article might be of interest to people who are interested in that category. The LGBT category would be appropriate on, for example, the article about Benedict XVI, not because he's gay, but because he has teachings directly related to the LGBT community. By putting this article in the denialism category, we are not saying that creationism IS denialism. Rather it saying that creationism may be a subject of interest to those interested in denialism. ] (]) 20:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
::::I follow your logic, but it doesn't seem compatible with ]. Categorization is so byzantine, however, I may be mistaken. ] (]) 20:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::Also, the Pope is not in the LGBT category, and I guess that wouldn't fly. ] (]) 20:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

:::::Yes, and also "Categorization must be verifiable: it should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories" (]). So, do we have sources verifying this? -- ] (] | ]) 20:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

::::::Source 140 notes the Council of Europe report that notes "denial of evolution of species"; other sources that explicitly link ID and denialism include the , , , ...] (]) 20:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Sources aren't the end-all be-all of a discussion. You can find sources to justify pretty much any position you want an article to state. Sometimes material can be verified, but is still not worthy of inclusion because it is not neutral. Categories don't have caveats about what you mean or where it applies. They are essentially labels for a subject in the editorial voice. As such, care should be taken when using them to avoid NPOV issues. As ID is tied up in the religious belief about a god creating life as we know it, the article is skewed towards a certain point of view when it is categorized as denialism.--] (]) 21:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

::::::::Thank you for the sources, Yobol. It sounds like the category is fitting to me.
::::::::The Devil's Advocate, if reliable sources aren't "the end-all be-all of a discussion," then how else do we decide into which categories to place articles? What other criteria ought we to consider? -- ] (] | ]) 21:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::How about WP:NPOV? I mean, that's a pretty important aspect of Misplaced Pages. That is provided separately from WP:V for a reason. Neutrality and verifiability are not interchangeable. Being able to verify it as a notable claim is not the same as proving it worthy of inclusion.--] (]) 23:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

::::::::Ignoring what independent reliable sources say about a subject to satisfy preconceived editorial biases seems to me to be the very essence of a NPOV violation. ] (]) 21:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::Of course RSs end debate; Yobol's NCSE document is definitive. ] (]) 21:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::@Devil's Advocate: The NCSE is a mainstream source that is considered neutral. Since it is an advocacy organization, I realize that could make a reasonable person call it biased, but for WP purposes, it is neutral because it reflects--and, yes, advocates--the mainstream scientific thought.
::::::::::Also, please post comments in chronological order. If you are responding to a specific editor, you may do so as I just did. Cheers! ] (]) 23:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
{{out}}I was not saying anything about the source being neutral or not. The category is not neutral. Neutrality isn't something that has to be verified since we usually understand what it means. Simply think about what the term suggests. If the suggestion is more of an argument than a statement of fact, it is not neutral. Here it suggests that people who believe the world is too complicated to have been the result of anything but divine intervention are not rational. Maybe you feel that to be the case, but it is no different than saying people who believe in God are crazy. Whether it is what you ''intend'' to suggest is not relevant either. The reader is not going to know what you intend to say.--] (]) 00:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:The article is not about ''"people who believe the world is too complicated to have been the result of anything but divine intervention"''. It is about the deliberate attempt to teach religion as science in US public schools. The sources are pretty clear. {{mdash}}] (]) 00:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
::Denialism is a WP that has already passed muster; neutrality questions do not apply. Creationism and intelligent design ''do'' deny that evolution--the mainstream scientific theory of the origin of species--is true. This fact implies nothing about how rational their proponents may or may not be, but merely identifies their denial of the most widely accepted explanation of the diversity of life. (Some individuals may believe deniers are irrational, but that opinion is not intrinsic to the term.) ] (]) 01:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

:::Like I said, what you intend the category to mean is quite irrelevant. Categories do not come with caveats. It does not say "denialism (with respect to evolution)" but instead says "denialism" and nothing more. ID is first and foremost a claim that a divine being created the universe and life as we know it. So, one could easily interpret the denialism category as saying anyone who believes in some form of divine creation is denying reality. You can say "that's not what it is saying" but you really are only arguing that is not what you ''intend'' for it to say. Whether you intend to say it or not, that it can be easily taken as saying that means the category should not be included.--] (]) 05:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

::::@TDA, Intelligent design is not "believing in divine creation"; intelligent design is the denial of Evolution. That's it. Full stop. We have a plethora of sources indicating this, including proponents of ID themselves, who vehemently deny any attachment to anything "divine". The category fits because sources say it fits, that's the best we can do. &nbsp; &mdash; ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; ]]</span> 05:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::Verifiability is '''not''' the only consideration. I don't know why I have to keep repeating myself. Something can be perfectly verifiable but still unacceptable because of NPOV considerations. You ask any regular person what Intelligent Design is about they will probably respond that it claims the universe/life must have had a divine creator (the lede says this outright). If you then tell them that ID is denialism, do you think they will perceive your remark as meaning it denies evolution? No, they will perceive the denialism label as suggesting that the idea of God creating life and/or the universe is false.--] (]) 14:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

::::::The Devil's Advocate, the lead takes the definition of ID directly from the Discovery Institute: "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, '''not an undirected process such as natural selection'''" (emphasis added). It is therefore, by definition, a denial of the modern evolutionary synthesis over which there is no controversy in the mainstream scientific community. There is nothing NPOV about this; it's a fact. If readers don't understand why this is a fact because they have a different perception about ID, they should read the article and find out what ID actually is. We cannot cover all of people's (mis)perceptions here, let alone with the inclusion/exclusion of a single category... nor must we. Our duty as editors is to represent the sources accurately, not to hold the hands of readers. -- ] (] | ]) 15:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Look at that quote more carefully. It says "certain features of '''the universe'''" and a process "'''such as'''" evolution by natural selection. It was clearly not limiting the definition to evolution, but including other aspects of the universe and science. Also, this wording does not say evolution is wrong, only that it does not believe this was the result of an "undirected process" as opposed to a process directed by a divine being.--] (]) 18:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

::::::::Those "certain features of the universe" are biological, and evolution by natural selection is one of the two undirected processes with which the DI takes issue (the other being ]). That definition, taken in the utmost strictest sense, doesn't limit their scope to evolution, but their '']'', as recorded by many secondary sources, is attacking evolution. Just look at their public campaign to "]," which wrongfully claims that a scientific controversy exists over whether or not evolution is true. Also, ID is not ], which views evolution as a guided process; ID proponents are expressly evolution-deniers. -- ] (] | ]) 18:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::The material regarding the "fine-tuned universe" claim strongly demonstrates it is not just about biology.--] (]) 16:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::Let me get this straight. You're saying they're not denialist because their denial has fuzzy boundaries? {{=)|surprise}} So it denies physics, geology, astronomy, chemistry, etc. in addition to refuting evolution. Big surprise. The disciplines of science are interconnected. The most compelling evidence of evolution itself are from interdisciplinary or completely unrelated fields altogether which themselves have to be refuted in turn. For example, C-14 dating, stratigraphy, plate tectonics, animal husbandry, artificial life simulation programs, astronomy, population genetics, etc. If anything else it only strengthens their being denialist - "various forms of denialism have the common feature of the rejection of ''overwhelming evidence''".

::::::::::That in addition to all the hallmarks of denialism:
::::::::::* Conspiracy theories - Mainstream science and the government are by not allowing Christian creationism to be taught at schools! Think of the children!
::::::::::* Cherry picking - Oh the despite its entire group being presumed to be extinct! That single error naturally proves that the fossil record is false. Or does it? Or how about the Cambrian explosion. Nobody knows what caused it, therefore it must be divine! Proof at last! Completely ignoring the pretty clear evidence of succession in the rest of the Paleozoic, the Mesozoic and Cenozoic besides of course.
::::::::::* False experts - Thaxton is a physical chemist, Dembski is a mathematician, Snoke is a physicist, etc. the closest thing to an actual biologist is Behe, and he's a biochemist. And not particularly brilliant at that.
::::::::::* Moving the goalpost - Show me the transitional groups between tetrapods and fish. Oh you've found ''Tiktaalik''? between ''Tiktaalik'' and tetrapods then!
::::::::::And no. ] relies on ] I'm afraid. It's how you determine due weight in the first place. It's mentioned right in the lead of ]: "These three core policies (including ]) jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Misplaced Pages articles. Because these policies work in harmony, '''they should not be interpreted in isolation''' from one another"
::::::::::Oh, and like what everyone else have been saying, ID is ''not'' theistic evolution. --&nbsp;<small>]</small><font size="3" face =times new roman>†</font><small>]</small> 18:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
{{out}}Sorry, but WP:NPOV is not dependent on WP:V. The policies aren't isolated (I wasn't suggesting they were), but they don't have a tiered relationship either. WP:V does not trump WP:NPOV. Just because you can "prove" something does not mean you can include it if the effect skews the page towards a certain POV, intentionally or unintentionally. Pseudoscience is a perfectly suitable category that already covers all the issues you mention above. Denialism just has the effect of implying the core belief of ID is false, that a divine entity created all we know.--] (]) 17:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

:@TDA, you're not presenting any new arguments, and your past arguments have not gained traction to form consensus. "The category causes offense": ]; "The category isn't representative of ID": ]; "The category isn't neutral": ], ]. You need to present new sources, otherwise this boils down to ], which is ]. It's time to ]. (<small>Unless high quality secondary ] are presented, I probably ]</small>) &nbsp; &mdash; ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; ]]</span> 21:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

:I see you're one of those people who always confuse ] with equal validity. Please read the entire policy again. Do not merely assume that because "NPOV" begins with "neutral", that we automatically give equal weight to every mutually contradictory idea. Skewing is not forbidden nor is it a bad thing. NPOV is actually a policy that dictates how to skew articles ''in the right way'', a way that coincides with weight given to the topic in reliable sources. And reliable sources is ]. If the most reliable sources view it as denialist, it is denialist.

:And how many times must you be told that ID is ''not'' ]? Its "core beliefs" are irrelevant, what matters is its goals and its tactics. One of the most vocal opponents of ID is the ], which does believe that a divine entity created all we know, but also does not deny verifiable empirical findings on specious grounds as ID does. The latter is not denialist, the former is. See the difference now? --&nbsp;<small>]</small><font size="3" face =times new roman>†</font><small>]</small> 21:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
::No, I am not confusing anything. You all are apparently thinking that satisfying WP:V means WP:NPOV no longer applies, but that is not how it works. You can have ''hundreds'' of reliable sources saying one thing, but still violate policy by stating it in the editorial voice. "Denialism" provided as a category does not clarify that it is denialism for denying evolution or whatever else you say it is denying. You are expecting readers to make that connection for you, which is the problem. Readers will make their own connections and some of those connections will be that this category is saying people who believe God created everything are in denial. Saying "well that's not the correct connection to make and surely every reader will know what we are talking about" is not a valid argument. I am not saying that the term denialism should be "censored" from the article, just that the category is inappropriate because it doesn't describe ''what'' aspects of the subject constitute denialism.--] (]) 15:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
::: Advocate, you are talking to a wall. What these people don't at all care about is the ] of the article. It is not an article about ID, it is an article '''against''' ID and it makes no attempt to gloss over that. Specifically adding ] to the tone of the article is just more of the same: '''''Denialism''' is choosing to ] ] as a way to avoid an uncomfortable ].''
::: These editors that ] the article deny that some authors '''outside''' of the Discovery Institute, who might count themselves as theistic evolutionists, have referred to the term and '''some''' concepts of ID as ]. These authors would include ], ], ]. But these editors '''insist''' that '''only''' Discovery Institute defines what the term means and they deny that these other authors are significant. And then since the DI '''is''' in denial about what they are doing, they use that to color the entire term and everyone who ascribes to teleology. It's sorta like racism where some people have witnessed, or been victimized, or have watched on television that some people of a particular race have committed acts of violence, even directed to persons of other races. Then they conclude that all people of that race must be violent or criminal.
::: Not all people who are theists, not all people who believe in teleological explanations of reality, are in denial of reality, but the editors that own this article want to make sure that the reader understands that these people '''are''' in denial. They want to leave no doubt.
::: Even though many people at many times have pointed out the non-neutral tone and ''some'' non-neutral content of the article, these editors continue to deny it. They reinforce their denialism by awarding themselves ] status, thus lifting this article above reproach. They also get rid of any editor that steadfastly stands up to them and the obvious bias in the article. ] (]) 16:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

::::Thank you for that wonderful ], IP. Are we done now?
::::The Devil's Advocate, it is clear where consensus lies. If you don't like the result, you can ]. -- ] (] | ]) 16:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::To The DA and the IP: some of your comments are factual, and I'm thinking particularly of the reference to Polkinghorne, et al, but they don't apply to this article. I had the same misunderstanding when I first here, thinking it was about a broad concept, whereas it is of an extremely narrow subject: ''This article is about intelligent design as promulgated by the Discovery Institute.'' That's right at the top of the article. So, even though other individuals use the term "ID," that's not what this article is about. The DI ''does'' deny that evolution, as taught by mainstream science, is correct: ''Judged by the normal criteria of empirical science, .'' In context:
::::::<small>The actual evidence shows that major features of the fossil record are an embarrassment to Darwinian evolution; that early development in vertebrate embryos is more consistent with separate origins than with common ancestry; that non-coding DNA is fully functional, contrary to neo-Darwinian predictions; and that natural selection can accomplish nothing more than artificial selection—which is to say, minor changes within existing species.

::::<small>Faced with such evidence, any other scientific theory would probably have been abandoned long ago. '''Judged by the normal criteria of empirical science, Darwinism is false'''. Its persists in spite of the evidence, and the eagerness of Darwin and his followers to defend it with theological arguments about creation and design suggests that its persistence has nothing to do with science at all.</small> ] (]) 17:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
::::: These guys are shameless. It's "we like POV very much, thank you." They say what they say, that DI solely defines what the philosophical content of what ID is, and since DI is so dishonest (]) then the teleological concept of what can naturally be labeled "Intelligent Design" is stained by association. What these other well-known physicists and astronomers say about "intelligent design" is simply doesn't count and these editors that own the article are the sole authority of what counts and what does not. They just don't get it. DI and ID are not the same thing. Behe and Dembski are not the only people who get to define or comment on ID. And the fact that '''this''' fact (that other authors have referred to the term independently) is censored from the article is evidence of POV, not NPOV.
::::: They're just shameless. Nakedly biased article in tone and in selection of facts. And has been so for at least 5 years. ] (]) 23:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

::::::IP, see Obsidian Soul's comment immediately below this one: "'Intelligent Design' is not the same as 'the belief that an intelligent being designed life'." The article you want this to be already exists... it's called the ]. The article titled ] is about the supposedly scientific "theory" that a designer created life, not the general, philosophical idea that apparent design implies God's existence. This is why the hatnote at the beginning of the article points you to the teleological argument. Please, feel free to add your sources to that article, where they are appropriate. -- ] (] | ]) 16:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

::::To restate what Yopienso said, "Intelligent Design" is not the same as "the belief that an intelligent being designed life". That is stated right at the top of the article:'' "For the philosophical "argument from design", see ]."''

::::The fact that it is teleological has nothing to do with it being denialist. The fact that they believe in a divine designer has nothing to do with being denialist either. The fact, however, that ID continues to oppose mainstream scholarship no matter what evidence comes their way is the relevant criteria.

::::71.169, that misunderstanding is obvious in what you just wrote. People who believe in theistic teleological explanations are ''not'' Intelligent Design proponents. A cat is a mammal, but not all mammals are cats. Is that clear enough? ID proponents are specifically about the people involved in the ] and the ]. Both are not religions nor philosophies nor the science they claim to be, they are ''political'' organizations.--&nbsp;<small>]</small><font size="3" face =times new roman>†</font><small>]</small> 00:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
:The category "Denialism" is pejorative, and it does give a pejorative POV to certain topics, like this one. "Denialism", however, is a phrase used in reliable sources to refer to certain ideas and philosophies, ID being one of them, so the category is probably accurate and appropriate for this article. That being said, the comment above by the IP that this article is written in a way to discredit ID is true. If this article could be written in a more NPOV way, the amount of objections and arguments on this talk page should decrease. Something to keep in mind. ] (]) 00:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

== Denialism category ==

{{rfc|reli|sci|pol|rfcid=BA28364}}

Should the article on intelligent design be categorized under ]?--] (]) 01:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

=== Comments ===
*'''Oppose''' While some editors have argued that this refers to ID's alleged denial of evolution or other scientific questions, the category does not come with such caveats. The subject as defined in the lede is clearly indicating the view is claiming a divine entity created life and the universe in some manner. By categorizing this article under denialism it implies the latter view is denial. I recognize that may not be the ''intent'' of including it here, but it is the ''effect'' of including it here. This does not preclude the term denialism from being mentioned in the article, even in the lede if it is clearly of merit, but that should be done with the appropriate caveats not in a way that implies all belief in a creator is denial as this category does.--] (]) 01:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Although in some cases I'd prefer a category-like designation be used to point to a more general "See also" group of related articles and thus narrow the scope for sets labeled "category" (and help minimize any tendency to overuse it, as a "Badge of Shame" for instance), per the current guidelines this article clearly qualifies. It may be unfortunate that the term is used in two senses--one of them being the conjectured psychological motivation underlying the "denial" rather than its immutability against all evidence. ] (]) 03:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
::This article is one in a series; for "See also," the infobox has a number of articles that can be accessed with a click of the mouse. Please see ], which ''isn't'' in the infobox :-) for more about how the word is used at Misplaced Pages, and presumably in academia and by the informed public. Here's one sentence: ''In science, denialism has been defined as the rejection of basic concepts that are undisputed and well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a topic in favor of ideas that are both radical and controversial.'' Evolution is a basic concept that is an undisputed and well-supported part of the scientific consensus; ergo, to call it false is denialism. Wells not only calls it false, he titles a whole essay "," defining ''Darwinism'' as "the modern theory of evolution." ] (]) 04:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
:::As defined as in science denialism, ID obviously qualifies. Let's label it "Denialism A". "Denialism B" as defined as some kind of psychological pathology...as a "why?" diagnosis for the "denial", well, that's best reserved for categorizing the "why" theories rather than naming and shaming the "why's" by example. I don't think the "why" business is well enough understood yet to justify taking that angle, even when isolated sources are offered as backup. So to me, ID qualifies as defined, "Denialism A", and WP needs to be careful not to insinuate ID qualifies as defined "Denialism B". imho. ] (])
*'''Support''': this is an typical example of denialism. Actually, I see no reason for RfC here, as I can't think of any valid arguments against such categorization. And as I se from the discussion, nobody can. — ] (]) 11:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Per my comments below. Briefly, the common meaning of the word is POV pejorative. The noted guideline even explicitly lists it as a POV word to avoid. Sincerely, <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 13:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' North8000 makes a good point, it does seem a bit of witch hunt. I'm no fan of ID but feel inclusion in 'denialism' for only a subset of believes categorized in ID is a bit much. Pseudoscience sounds like a better option.] (]) 23:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''', based on these reliable sources which clearly label ID as a denialist philosophy. Again, it doesn't mean that ID or its proponents are really denialists, as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned, it just means that this article is grouped with other topics which have also been labeled as such in reliable sources. ] (]) 04:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': while there are RS that suggest ID is denialism, I do not think the threshold of WP:CAT has been met. I do not see reliable sources commonly and consistently defining ID as denialism. &ndash; ] <sup>(])</sup> 09:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''' ID is denialism at its very core: it is entirely about the denial of science and then denying that it is itself a religious argument. Both propositions have been roundly rejected by any number of RSs. Even the arguments presented here against including the ID article in the category are themselves a form of denialism. Finally, this is not the place to argue whether the category itself should exist. It does, and thus this article sits fairly and squarly within the ambit of the category. - ] ] 13:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - If you look around at how ID is used in the context of discussions of denialism, you'll often see it used as a illustrative example of denialism - like Kalichman does in the source cited below. In trying to explain to his readers what AIDS denialism is, he quotes (better known) examples...like ID. If you do some digging for sources, you'll find several cases of this kind of usage. The idea that intelligent design is evolution denial is fairly standard. ] (]) 14:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - per my arguments in section above, which I don't feel the need to repeat ''ad nauseum'' here. ] (]) 14:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per Guettarda (especially below). Since ID is the ''illustrative example'' used in the literature, it would be a large omission to exclude it from the category. Many arguments to omit it are actually votes against the category existing at all, and if so, this isn't the right venue. &nbsp; &mdash; ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; ]]</span> 18:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - not encyclopedic. Just ensure NPOV article and let the reader form their own conclusions. <small>]</small> 21:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''' ID is just a reformulation of creationism. It is an attempt to circumvent laws preventing the teaching of a purely doctrinal statement. As ID is co-equal wit creationism it is denialism and should be categorized as such.--]<small> ]</small> 06:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
:: <s>Adamfinmo, I think you probably meant to put "oppose" - the proposal is to remove the article from the denialism category.</s> - ] ] 07:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
:::No it's not. The RfC reads "Should the article on intelligent design be categorized under denialism?" &nbsp; &mdash; ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; ]]</span> 08:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
:::: You're right. Must have had a brain explosion or something! - ] ] 13:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''' This seems like a no-brainer to me. Not only is ID clearly within the category as defined, but it is also widely and strongly labelled as denialism by RSs. Several objectors seem to think that we shouldn't label ID as denialism because we'd be implying that proponents of ID are dense or dishonest. This argument doesn't wash with me for two reasons. Firstly, causing offense shouldn't trump facts. Secondly, and more importantly, it's a non-argument because proponents of ID ''are'' either dense or dishonest.] (]) 10:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Inherently POV, implies the premise is false. Categorization is intended to be neutral and uncontroversial, something that does not require discussion, partly since the application of a Cat is not in and of itself cited. ''Should not be categorized, should be discussed and cited in the article as ]''. Should the category even exist under these standards of uncontroversial? ] (]) 19:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I hear the opposes based on it being POV, but please think about it for a second. What's the neutral position for WP to take? That intelligent design is supported by science? ] (]) 01:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
**No, the neutral position is simply to take no position at all, and instead, let the facts speak for themselves, and let the reader decide how to interpret those facts. ] (]) 05:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
***Actually, on articles about pseudoscience and/or fringe theories, the neutral position is the scientific one. Please see ], ], ], and ]. -- ] (] | ]) 16:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - The basic property of denialism ("'' the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality.''") is simply not present in Intelligent Design. They accept all empirically verifiable reality, they just think that there is a plan behind it. (Full disclosure: I don't underwrite any of the ID thoughts.) ] (]) 02:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
**You're confusing ID with ]. ] (]) 03:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - I don't see the point of diluting the meaning of denialism by applying it to every bit of pseudoscience. Keep it for straight well documented denialism like the tobacco companies did or those nazis denying the holocaust. The pseudoscience category describes intelligent design well and accurately. ] (]) 13:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. It's patently denialism. They deny the scientific consensus regarding the origins of life, the species, and the universe. That's a textbook definition of it. ] (]) 14:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per ]. ] (]) 05:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as violating neutral POV... It would follow that all of the Evolutionary Theory articles would also be placed under the category "denialism". That's the faulty logic being applied here. Just because the article quotes someone who describes it, in their '''opinion''', as "denialist", it does not follow that the editorial judgement of the editors should fall into line with that person's quoted opinion and categorize it as verifiable fact. Pick any topic on any subject, you can probably find a quotable source that will label it as "denialism" -- global warming? Global cooling? Do we put everything with a contentious debate connected with it under the category "denialism"? Opinions are like belly buttons, everybody has one. LOL. ] (]) 22:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''' inclusion of the article in the ]. However, it might, maybe, be more appropriate to include either the ] or some other related category, as there seem to be multiple articles relating to the subject. ] (]) 23:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

=== Threaded Discussion ===
'''Comment''': This was already discussed, above, with a large number of editors weighing in. The overwhelming consensus (every editor except the proposer) supported the category. Unless there are other considerations which haven't been addressed, it seems to me this is pretty much settled. Obviously, outside opinions are welcome if so, but please scan the discussion above first. &nbsp; &mdash; ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; ]]</span> 01:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

:This RfC is unnecessary; clearly there's editorial consensus, based on policy, that the category "Denialism" is appropriate for this article. This whole section needs to hatted and forgotten; the two dissenters just aren't listening. ] (]) 01:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
::Agree. It's just a deadhorse argument. Hat it. ] (]) 01:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
:::I did, and he reverted it. ] (]) 01:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
::::Agree this is a case of ], but I don't see any major harm leaving it open. When an editor "isn't getting it", I typically tell them to post an RfC or on a noticeboard to get outside opinions, and TDA should be free to do that if he thinks we aren't representing policy well. That said, he's gotten ''a lot'' of outside opinions already (9 by my count), so when he doesn't get much support here he should be expected to ]. Until then, I think we can just ignore it; no use edit warring, and it's not time for ANI or RFCU yet. &nbsp; &mdash; ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; ]]</span> 01:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
::::: I don't know the history or even the context of the current question, but "denialism" is a pejorative bordering on an attack and should not be a classification. And that is a scientific atheist (me) speaking. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 02:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::From what I can tell, every editor commenting above supporting the cat is a regular contributor to the article. Outside opinion traditionally refers to people who have not been heavily involved in the article and who may thus have a more objective perspective as a result.--] (]) 02:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::I wasn't claiming any categorization for myself, I was weighing in on the question at hand. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 02:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::As already mentioned, please read the above discussion first before commenting. DA is confusing the scope of the article and is assuming that the reader will likewise do the same. His questions have been answered repeatedly and the consensus is quite clear, yet he repeatedly makes the same argument ad nauseam. No recognition of other arguments, no changing of stance, just the same argument over and over again. Classic ].--&nbsp;<small>]</small><font size="3" face =times new roman>†</font><small>]</small> 02:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
{{outdent}}I don't usually edit this page although I do keep an eye on changes and discussions here. On the subject of this RFC, it is blindingly obvious that ID is the very epitome of denialism - if it does not warrant inclusion in that category, nothing does. As others have commented, those opposing inclusion in the category are indulging in some industrial strength ]. The overwhelming majority of editors support inclusion of the article in the Denialism category - a very clear consensus. This RFC is unnecesssary and should be closed and the Cat applied forthwith. - ] ] 04:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
:The cat is still very much there. It is a question of whether it should remain. Were you to look at ] the exact wording there says:
:{{cquote|Categorization must maintain a neutral point of view: categorizations appear on pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate.}}
:Most of the individuals above are arguing that it is acceptable to include because it only applies to a certain aspect of the subject. However, such explanations being necessary is exactly what WP:CAT is talking about. Basically, if you have to explain that the category is only negatively labeling one aspect of the subject then the category should probably not be included even if you have a thousand sources using the label.--] (]) 05:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

::Then this is not the place to be having that discussion. If you want to adopt that line of argument take it to the category talk page (good luck with that). In the meantime it is about time you accepted the concensus here and dropped the stick. The category does exist and it plainly applies to this article. Practically everyone here seems to accept that, I would call that a concensus. Move on now. - ] ] 05:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
:::I think the category itself is perfectly acceptable in some articles. This is just not one of them.--] (]) 06:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
::No. It applies to the defining aspect of the subject. The belief of a designer is the minor aspect of ID, one it shares with numerous other religions and ideologies, only a few of which are similarly denialist.

::And again "need to maintain a neutral point of view" means we do have to follow the thousand ''reliable'' sources using the label. Not avoid anything for fear of offending someone or in the misguided sense of retaining outward harmony. NPOV != equal validity. How many times must you be told to read NPOV in its entirety? And I'm pretty sure I'm still talking to a wall. You'll reiterate the same argument in 3... 2... --&nbsp;<small>]</small><font size="3" face =times new roman>†</font><small>]</small> 06:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
:::If you want to talk about NPOV how about what it says right at the top?:
:::{{cquote|Prefer non-judgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone.}}
:::Again, if you have to explain that it only refers to one aspect of the subject, then you probably haven't satisfied WP:NPOV with regards to the cat.--] (]) 06:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
::::Read the ''entire'' thing, ffs. Right beside the passage you conveniently quoted out of context are two far more relevant passages. Not to mention the first sentence of WP:NPOV itself and entire subsections ], ], ], ], and ]. All of which make it abundantly clear that the category is both appropriate and neutral (in the "this is how reliable sources see this as" kind of neutrality not the "this is how someone who takes everything at face value without ascertaining reliability" kind of neutrality). WP:NPOV is married to WP:V, whether you like it or not.--&nbsp;<small>]</small><font size="3" face =times new roman>†</font><small>]</small> 07:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::Why do people keep citing "equal validity" and "due weight"? I said very plainly that pseudoscience is a perfectly acceptable category for this article (making the PSCI mention odd as well) and that satisfies such concerns. MNA seems to be another odd mention as it does not pertain to the question at all. RNPOV is certainly relevant, but it is more favorable towards removing the cat as causing "unnecessary offense" since we already have the much clearer pseudoscience category.--] (]) 07:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

::::::Why indeed. If you can't even understand that, then we have no hope of ever moving forward from this. What's stopping you from making the same arguments for the removal of pseudoscience category for example? It's also offensive to people who might not realize that ID is not the same thing as teleological argument. Come to think of it, given that Christianity is also an aspect of it, it might be offensive to Christians too! Or religion in general! Or humanity! The very same arguments you are using now is the same arguments that won't work for the removal of the latter category. Context and scope is what you should be looking at, not hypothetical reactions of people who ''might'' misunderstand that the subject of the article actually does not refer to every single religious person out there.

::::::And what's with the sudden U-turn. Didn't you just argue passionately a few hours back that reliable sources don't trump NPOV? Now you're saying something completely different (also don't oversell it, only one book is Misplaced Pages derived actually, lol). --&nbsp;<small>]</small><font size="3" face =times new roman>†</font><small>]</small> 07:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

::::Honestly, looking further I am being way too charitable in suggesting this label is even used very often. While statements that they "deny evolution" do occur a little more than a trivial amount of times in ''opinion'' pieces, the exact label of "denialism" is ''rarely'' applied. Thumbing through the Google Books results reveals even fewer actual connections, save for Misplaced Pages-derived books. Only some of the sources provided in the discussion above this show any mention of this label at all, and those mentions being very trivial or tenuous. This just adds on to the issue of its usage here.--] (]) 07:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

:::::First, if you are worried about my POV, I'm a scientific atheist who 100% believes in evolution thinks that ID and creationism are in error. And I don't want ID taught in public schools. ID might even have a significant "political maneuver" aspect amongst those promoting it. But I have to say that the whole tone here seems like a witch hunt against ID rather than coverage of it. This impassioned insistence on applying a pejorative term to it seems a part of the pattern. A category by that name probably shouldn't even exist, it itself appearing to be a maneuver by taking a term which has a common meaning that it pejorative and using a second supposedly-dispassionate meaning to try to justify its use. There is nothing to say that it needs to be applied here. Manual of Style/Words to watch even explicitly lists "denialist" as a word to avoid. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 11:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

::::::The Devil's Advocate, you said, "ost of the individuals above are arguing that it is acceptable to include because it only applies to a certain aspect of the subject." In this you are wrong. '''There is no other aspect to intelligent design other than the outspoken denial of evolution:'''

{{cquote|Intelligent design was developed by a group of ] ] who revised their argument in the ] to circumvent court rulings such as the ] '']'' ruling, which barred the teaching of "]" in public schools as breaching the ].}}

::::::(from the 3rd paragraph of the lead, see citations there)
::::::ID proponents define ID to specifically call into question evolution; they have a campaign called "]" which falsely claims that the scientific community is divided as to whether or not evolution occurred; they help political organizations draft legislation which requires students to be read disclaimers about evolution (see ]); their only research to date centers on ] and ], both of which are used to suggest evolution could not happen; and, in their most famous court case, ], Judge John E. Jones III wrote:

{{cquote|The history of the intelligent design movement (hereinafter “IDM”) and the development of the strategy to weaken education of evolution by focusing students on alleged gaps in the theory of evolution is the historical and cultural background against which the Dover School Board acted in adopting the challenged ID Policy.}}

::::::()
::::::I hope it is now obvious that ID is nothing more than a political movement to teach creationism in US public schools by denying evolution. Their very essence is denialism, and Yobol has already presented sources which make this connection explicit.

::::::North8000 and Cla68, you should review the policies on ], ], and ]. This is not a witch hunt against ID, nor an article biased against it: '''it is an article giving due weight to a pseudoscientific, fringe "theory," in adherence to Misplaced Pages policies.''' Please try to keep this in mind. -- ] (] | ]) 16:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Pseudoscience, however, is a perfectly acceptable category as ID does commonly get described that way and it is clear to what the label applies. Your response here demonstrates that the denialism category is not nearly as clear in its application to the subject. It is not about whether it causes offense, but whether the message being communicated by the category is clear and objective.--] (]) 19:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

::::::::Hwhaaa??? How the effing eff does my response demonstrate "that the denialism category is not nearly as clear in its application to the subject"??? All that information is in the article... have you even read it? And please stop trying to move the goalposts here: first you claim that it doesn't belong here because ], and now "it is not about whether it causes offense"? You also claimed earlier that ] isn't sufficient justification for the inclusion of this category, but now the sources don't even count? This is just absurd. -- ] (] | ]) 19:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::Your response demonstrates it by going to great lengths to try and explain why you think ID is really just about evolution. If it is so clear you shouldn't need to cherry-pick a court case (another quote from that same case ties it in with general belief in a creator god), rather it should be apparent from how Intelligent Design is commonly defined, but I have already pointed out that the very first sentence of the lede suggests it goes beyond evolution and even on evolution may only address an aspect of the theory. Saying the category violates WP:NPOV for not clearly communicating that it refers to the evolution aspect is not the same as saying it should be removed for causing offense. As to my position about WP:V, that was based more on me deferring to the arguments from editors like you that this is supported by a preponderance of reliable sources. When I looked into it myself I realized it was only supported by a very small number of sources. That is not moving the goalposts, because I still think WP:V would not be good cause for including the category.--] (]) 21:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

{{od}}I wouldn't have had to explain all that ''if you had read the article''. It's easy to say that a subject is incorrectly categorized if you don't know jack crap about it. -- ] (] | ]) 22:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
:Verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, not a force for inclusion. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 23:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
::Devil's Advocate, I agree with you that the article is biased and I believe you when you say that many, if not most, of the followers of the ID philosophy do not consider it to be a denial of the theory of evolution. Nevertheless, it appears that a number of reliable sources claim that ID is a denialist philosophy. We go by the sources. ] (]) 23:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
:::"We go by the sources" is not entirely accurate. It is more like we consult the sources and we don't say something unless it is supported by the sources. Sometimes the sources say things that Misplaced Pages should never say. For instance, we don't say Hitler was evil at any time in his bio and the word "evil" only occurs once in the body of that article. That is certainly not due to some lack of sourcing for the claim, but because we recognize that some things are just not constructive to building an objective encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages is not here to cast judgment on one's opponents, even though it is often used for just such a purpose. Denialism fits in some articles because it is a common description and clearly communicates what is being denied, but this is not at all true in this case.
:::If you want something a little more substantive, we have one occurrence of "deny" and another of "denialism" throughout the entire article with both being '''very''' poorly sourced. One of the instances is about creationism as a whole and neither instance includes a claim that Intelligent Design denies evolution, and one actually specifically says it only denies part of the theory of evolution. Clearly the purpose of the denialism category here is not to categorize it in a way that is helpful or supported by sources, but just to smear the subject based on what opponents think of the idea.--] (]) 00:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
::::If that's true, then the denialism category ''is'' inappropriate. Could someone please list the sources here which support the label of "deniers"? ] (]) 01:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::This article is describing (and evaluating, to be sure) ID as a concept according to ] while TDA is criticizing the Hitler article for not making a judgment value on Hitler's character. Those are two very different things.
:::::A look at the ] article shows an objective description of his deeds:
:::::* ''Hitler is commonly associated with the rise of fascism in Europe, World War II, and the Holocaust.''
:::::* ''Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies resulted in the systematic murder of eleven million people, including nearly six million Jews.''
:::::* ''Hitler's policies and orders resulted in the death of approximately 40 million people. . .''
:::::* ''Historians, philosophers, and politicians have often applied the word "evil" to describe Hitler's ideology and its outcomes.''
:::::* ''He became adept at using populist themes targeted to his audience, including the use of scapegoats who could be blamed for the economic hardships of his listeners.''
::::: ] (]) 02:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::Here's an archived discussion of the ] category. ] (]) 02:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::If no one can show some reliable sources claiming that ID is a form of denialism, then I will be opposing the addition of the category to this article. ] (]) 02:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Here's the one I gave above, Jonathan Well's essay, ". And here's another from Michael Behe's : "One of the most important results of ID theory is that it effectively falsifies Darwinian theory." (A blog is a RS for what the person in question says.) ] (]) 02:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::A quick google scholar search also turns up by ] (pg 8) and by the ]. &nbsp; &mdash; ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; ]]</span> 03:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::I didn't check Yopienso's refs yet, but those two by MannJess clearly label ID believers as denialists. By putting this article in the "Denialism" category, it doesn't mean that Misplaced Pages is saying that ID is denialist philosophy, it just means that we are grouping it with topics that have also been labled, in RS, as such. ] (]) 04:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

::::::::::One of those books makes a very weak connection. It says denialists employ their tactics in subjects like creationism and intelligent design, but that is in a long listing of numerous other subjects including animal rights activists opposed to animal testing. The other source does say "science denialism" and mentions evolution, but it mentions creationism right alongside it. Also, with a bit of digging one finds that the author of that paper is a member of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. In other words, he's a debunker, which is different from citing some regular scientist or academic.--] (]) 04:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::I read through both refs fairly thoroughly, and I'm convinced that they were labeling ID as denialism. It doesn't matter to me what the authors' suspected motivations were, because to me what only matters is that the label is backed-up by reliable sources. What we need to concentrate on here is making this and other theistic science articles more NPOV, so that our readers can read them, check the sources, and decide for themselves if the proponents' and/or critics' arguments have any merit. ] (]) 04:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
{{out}}Any time when the establishment detests an idea or person you will be sure to have little trouble finding an assortment of sources supporting whatever negative wording you would like to insert. The inclusion criteria is not limited to "I have some sources saying this" but whether its inclusion avoids skewing the article towards a certain POV. Were it really just a game of "find the source" then none of the other content policies would exist. WP:NPOV exists for the cases where there is no question that a claim is verifiable, but there is a question of whether it is included in a manner that skews the article.--] (]) 07:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
:Strongly disagree with this conclusion. Yes, one will have little trouble finding an assortment of sources saying which ever supports whatever argument. But NPOV says that '''WP''' isn't to become one of them, lending disproportionate weight to one side or another.
:NPOV does not mean "slap happy face stickers" to hide content that might cause discomfort to a reader of the encyclopedia.
:The "skewing" is addressed in ] - if ''wikipedians'' act as if it's their job to ''correct'' the sources, that's not what NPOV is about. ] (]) 07:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
::Again with this talk about a "cause offense" argument that I have never raised. It has nothing to do with whether it offends people, but whether the category's inclusion pushes a bias.--] (]) 08:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
::@ TDA, your use of "the establishment" indicates that you're arguing against the clear majority expert view. As an aside, as well as denying evolution, ID proponentsists deny that their religious argument is a religious argument: they often remind me of {{bibleverse|Mark||14:30|KJV}}. . . . ], ] 08:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

:::I just want to quickly point out that, when this issue first arose, I asked for RSs to support the connection. Yobol responded with four: , , , . So yeah... sources aplenty. And thanks, Yobol, for your apparently overlooked work. -- ] (] | ]) 15:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
::::If that were a mere sampling it might mean something, but from what I can tell having searched myself those ''are'' the results. So far, I don't think any other sources have actually been presented with these sources being repeated several times.--] (]) 17:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::If one finds some wp:"RS" sources that classify Obama as a socialist, does that mean that someone can put his article in the Socialism category? (And again, sourcability is a requirement for inclusion, not a force for inclusion.) The answer is no, even if it met the verifiability requirement it would violate other policies and guidelines. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 17:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

::::::The Devil's Advocate, how many sources do you want? Aside from Yobol's <del>four</del> five (, , , , and ), Yopienso has provided another two sources from ID proponents: Jonathan Wells (on the ) and the contributors to William Demski's blog ''''. I also mentioned Richard Dawkins's '']'' which explicitly identifies ID proponents as history-deniers for their denial of evolution. This is in addition to the , which states, among other such mentions, that "espite the scientific community's overwhelming support for evolution, Defendants and ID proponents insist that evolution is unsupported by empirical evidence." So, how many sources do we need to find?
::::::North8000, I agree that sourcability is not a force for inclusion. But the facts are that ID was developed to skirt US law regarding the teaching of evolution, that their research and political maneuvers are relegated to denying and attacking evolution, and their definition of ID explicitly states that evolution did not occur. There is no question that they deny evolution, nor is there a question that this denial is <del>a</del> ''the'' defining aspect of ID. I honestly cannot fathom how one could say this doesn't satisfy the criteria for category inclusion. -- ] (] | ]) 17:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::I looks to me like the objections all boil down to 'I don't like it' and the rest of the supposed issues with using that category are simply pretexts for that. ] (]) 17:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

::::::North & TDA: the issue here isn't whether we can find ''some'' source that describes ID as denialism, but rather, that sources which describe denialism broadly are likely to include ID as an example. To compare this with North's example - if scholarly works on socialism used Obama as an example, then yes, it might be appropriate to include him. But your example is usage that lies in opposition to the usual definitions of socialism. In this case, what we have instead is (a) the fact that ID ''is'' consistent with the normal usage of denialism, and (b) scholarly sources using ID as a prime example of denialism. As I mentioned above, Kalichman uses ID as an illustrative example of denialism when he's trying to convince his readers that HIV/AIDS denial is an example of denialism. The key here is the direction in which things flow. ] (]) 18:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::I would ask each person to ask yourself not "what is a basis to trying to assign this category?" but "what is your reason for making such a big effort to assign the word "denialism" to ID?" If it's actually "I don't like what the ID people are doing, they could use a good smack-down, and getting themlinked to this negative sounding term sounds good in that respect" then I would say that you are probably going to inadvertently make a witch-hunt or smack-down article, to the extent that that can be done within Misplaced Pages rules. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 21:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::''"what is your reason for making such a big effort to assign the word "denialism" to ID?"'' - I think you have that backwards. The article has been in the category for years. What we have is "such a big effort" to ''remove'' the article from the category. So maybe you need to ask yourself why you're making "such a big effort" to remove the category ''from just this one article''. ] (]) 22:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

::::::::{ec} North8000, please ]: no one here has said anything remotely like that, and one could certainly make the same statements from the opposite perspective (as has now occurred). This gets us nowhere.
::::::::I have a couple of questions for everyone here: is the Denialism category itself POV? If so, would it be worthwhile to Cfd it? I ask because, as has been mentioned before, it seems like a lot of people are opposing the category inclusion because of the connotation of the word "denialism," which is obviously inseparable from the category title. Also, I'm curious to know, for those of you who think the category should not be deleted but should not include ID, which topics could exist in this category without being POV. -- ] (] | ]) 22:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::To Guettarda, with me being a scientist/atheist who doesn't believe in creationism or ID, and doesn't want them to be taught in public schools, I'm just out to try to help it be a good article. Also, whenever I see what might be something not quite right and lopsided going on I tend to jump in on the side of the "victim". That's about it. MisterDub, I think that the category should be deleted. The common meaning of the term is pejorative, and the guideline even explicitly says to avoid characterizing by that word. But I've said my peace and would be happy to leave this article if not wanted. Sincerley, <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 22:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::I agree that "denialism" is a negative category title and, to be honest, I suspect that at least some of the sources are using it pejoratively in an effort to, perhaps unfairly, denigrate ID and other philosophies. Remember, however, that placing a Misplaced Pages article or topic in a category does not mean that we (Misplaced Pages) is deciding that the label is true, we are just going on the sources. I respect your opinion and hope that you will continue to contribute towards improving this article. ] (]) 23:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

{{od}}
North8000, I think that's a discussion of a different issue then. I'm not trying to take anything away from your opinion, but it's logical that if you think the category itself is POV, then no article should be within it. And I definitely don't want you to leave: this is one of the more contentious articles on Misplaced Pages, and I'm glad we have a diversity in editors to keep each other in check and ensure this article is high quality and NPOV. Discussions here can get frustrating at times, but I think the article would be worse off without the stringent criticism. -- ] (] | ]) 23:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
:In response to your earlier comment Dub, the problem is most of those sources do not actually support the denialism category. You are interpreting most of them like you have with the Kitzmiller trial opinion as meaning this, but that is not an appropriate way of verifying it. Also, the Council of Europe source you mention is only labeling creationism as denialism, which definitely shouldn't be labeled as denialism (guess what category is currently included in that article) because it '''is''' chiefly a religious belief that does include theistic evolution. Now, as to that point about the general category, I have already said I see areas where it can still be applied. Holocaust denial and AIDS denialism are some obvious ones. Other articles where it gets included I am more shaky about, but there are some cases where I think it is appropriate to include. Perhaps there should be a general discussion about its usage, but that can be looked at later.

:My issue here is that the category's inclusion could easily be taken as implying belief in a creator is denialism given ID's broader meaning in society and so far the editors wanting to keep the category have not satisfactorily addressed that concern. Saying "well the category is definitely, definitely referring to its denial of Darwinian evolution and that should be obvious to anyone who reads the article" does not really mean much to me, because I think quite a few readers seeing that category here will read the first sentence of the lede and more likely get the impression that Misplaced Pages is saying "if you think flowers being pretty means there is a god, then you are in denial!"--] (]) 01:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

:: FFS, when you have something new to say, then by all means say it. Until then ]. You have said the same thing here multiple times. That does not improve your argument and if anything makes it less likely that you will succeed in convincing anybody of the correctness of your arguments. Continually repeating the same arguments in slightly different words not only does not work, it is counter productive to your aims because it pisses people off. <s>The more you say the same thing over and over the more I feel like I want to oppose you, ''regardless of what you say''. Please just stfu and allow some others to have their say without you responding to practically every point raised by making the same argument you already have ad nauseum.</s> - ] ] 02:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
:::Nick, an angry diatribe that presumably was posted in response to your comments here has been reverted. I almost undid the revert because I thought if it were removed from the page yours should be, too. You have crossed the line from addressing the article and policy issues to making it personal. Please do not make editorial decisions based on your emotional state toward another editor. Refactoring--as in striking everything but the first five sentences--would be in order. I agree it's good for him to know his style is annoying, but your reciprocal annoyance doesn't help. After that, you're getting personal and repeating yourself. ] (]) 16:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
:::: OK. I don't agree that I have crossed any line, but I do agree that I was repeating myself. Since the thrust of my post was an objection to unnecessary repetition, I have stricken the last part as suggested. - ] ] 05:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::As my grandfather would have said, "You're a prince of a fine fellow." Thanks. ] (]) 08:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
To CLa68 & MisterDub. Thanks. I'll stick around. I'm kind of talked out on this particular question. I gave what I think are solid policy and guideline reasons to not include it in the denialism category. I still stand by them even if I don't discuss this particular item further. Sincerely, <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 15:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

::The Devil's Advocate, you ''really'' need to read the sources before commenting:

{{cquote|'''The theory of evolution is being attacked by religious fundamentalists who call for creationist theories to be taught in European schools alongside or even in place of it'''. From a scientific view point there is absolutely no doubt that evolution is a central theory for our understanding of the Universe and of life on Earth.

Creationism in any of its forms, '''such as “intelligent design”''', is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are pathetically inadequate for science classes.}}
::()
::And, if the current state of the Denialism category is evidence of anything, it's all the more justification to keep ID in there, not less. Articles within this category include ] (ID is creationism), ] (from which ID evolved), ] ("a proposed high school science lesson plan promoting intelligent design"), ] (an anti-evolution law), ] (which includes ID, among other topics), ] (which has no direct tie to ID, but also denies evolution), and ] (which describes some, though not all ID proponents). Your arguments boil down to "people don't know what ID is, so we can't make statements of fact that would contradict their misconceptions." That's why this article is here, so people can learn about the subject. If they don't know why it's in the Denialism category... they can read the article! You wouldn't try to get AIDS denialism out of the category because "aids" can be interpreted as "helpers," would you? -- ] (] | ]) 15:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
:::] applies to more than deletion discussions. Saying "these articles are included in the category" does not mean much. Creationism and YEC should not be included in those categories because they '''are''' focused on the religious beliefs. The others I am more hesitant about. "Politicization of science" is a very problematic article that should be refocused, for instance, so the category's placement there is one thing that would probably get tossed out as a result of such refocusing. Some of those, however, have a clear focus that will allow the denialism category to be understood as referring to the specific claims about evolution.--] (]) 17:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

::::Perhaps you've forgotten already, but ''you'' brought up the ]: "... guess what category is currently included in that article...". My response, on the other hand, was prefaced with, "... if the current state of the Denialism category is evidence of anything...". So let's just agree that this information has nothing to do with the discussion at present and drop it, yes? -- ] (] | ]) 18:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::I never claimed how one article is treated should determine how this one is treated so that does not apply to my comment.--] (]) 22:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

'''Patent denialism.''' Just checked my inbox and found an article in '''' about Springer publishing--or maybe not--an ID book, ''Biological Information: New Perspectives'', edited by R. J. Marks II, M. J. Behe, W. A. Dembski, B. L. Gordon, and J. C. Sanford. A link there goes to the ; I'll paste in an excerpt here:
:''Sanford testified that he believes the earth is between 5000 and 100,000 years old, that he rejects the general principle of common descent and the idea that humans are descended from prehominid ancestors, and that he agrees that "the teaching of science as is currently practiced is an indoctrination in naturalism."'' ] (]) 05:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

===Show me the empirical data ===
'''Caution: ''' Un-involved editor, saw the RfC and took the time to read the article. My concern is the "denialism" is a pseudo-scientific term in its own right. It is utterly subjective in its application. Moreover, it assigns nefarious motive to supporters of the concept. From the article, it looks all the world like a politically motivated movement to me, but I have no way of assigning such motive to any specific individual involved in it.

As a theologian, by profession, the lay-proponents I typically encounter excited about ID are in denial of nothing other than that due to a presumed simplistic view of both science and of faith. Most can easily integrate a more complex view of those two studies, once prompted. It is not usually denial which must be overcome, but laziness.

To the Fundamentalist, who claim the Bible as the primary authority for all things, I would say, "Show me in the Bible where it says the Creation story cannot be interpreted spiritually."

To those who support using the "Denialist" brand, upholding scientific method above all, I ask, "Show me the empirical data supporting that proponents of ID are in denial."

There, I have talked myself into a decision: '''Oppose.'''--] ] 06:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

:I'm curious why your decision is based on "show me" rather than on sources. After all, isn't our operational principle ]? As for the issue of "show me the empirical data"...can you explain why you consider the evidence presented in this article (and on this page) inadequate? I mean, take '']'', a key book by an important ID proponent. Every one of his "icons" is a combination of misdirection and outright denial of the facts. '']'' is another case - the book not only denies evolution, it also misleads (like most of ID) by using probability-based claims that not only are incorrect, but that had been shown to be incorrect long before the book was written. In the Kitzmiller trial, ] showed many of the holes in ID - and yet, ID proponents ''continue'' the advance the claims that Behe admitted were false. And this is just the stuff I can come up with in a few minutes (I'd much rather be asleep right now). So what sort of empirical evidence are you looking for? Why do you consider these few random examples inadequate? What sort of information would convince you? ] (]) 06:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

:: Show me? Easy one to explain: The turnip truck off of which I feel was drawn by dinosaurs.

:: "Cherry picking" is reasonably expected on emotionally-charged articles pertaining to ideologies. So, to counter that, I expect empirical evidence that those who support ID do so because they are in denial. The burden of proof will be supported by clinical studies-- not pseudo-science.

:: A biologist's, or chemist's, or physicist's use of the term "denial" as an emotional response to a manifest reality is preposterous-- unless he interviewed his opponents in controlled therapeutic sessions-- in which case, we should have a diagnosis beyond merely "denial."

:: Which Axis? Are there other behavioral factors which are noticed? Are the ID proponents suffering from delusions or hallucinations? Is a type of paranoia indicated? Psychosis or Neurosis? What diagnostic criteria are used, and how many of them must be met? You cite hearsay, and I want sources-- professionally accredited sources using accepted clinical practice to indicate that denial is the cause for one to support ID. Otherwise, it is name-calling, and people who name-call are just stupid.

:: That was an inclusio-- I started with irony and ended with it. Clever of me, for 3 in the morning, wasn't it?--] ] 08:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

:::cregil, you asked for evidence of denialism, but the article has everything you need (as Guettarda already pointed out). First, please read the lead again. From the third paragraph: "Intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the ] to circumvent court rulings... which barred the teaching of 'Creation Science' in public schools as breaching the separation of church and state." Also note that, ], ID proponents deny evolution both by definition ("... not an undirected process '''such as natural selection'''," emphasis added) and in practice (e.g. recommending ''Of Pandas and People'', an anti-evolution text, for classroom integration; running campaigns that attack/deny evolution, such as "]" and "Academic Freedom"; authoring, or assisting with the authoring of, ]). To recap, ID was born of the creation-evolution controversy specifically to skirt legislation that prevented creationism from being taught; it is defined by their proponents in a way that denies empirically verifiable reality; it has a research program whose only output has been attacking evolution; and it's other activities continue to falsely promote the idea that there is a controversy over evolution's veracity (accuracy?) within the scientific community. "In describing the dangers posed to education by teaching creationism, described intelligent design as 'anti-science' and involving 'blatant scientific fraud' and 'intellectual deception' that 'blurs the nature, objectives and limits of science' and links it and other forms of creationism to denialism" (). -- ] (] | ]) 15:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

:::: All of the points you make are exactly why I wrote that I suspected the ID concept was political at base. What I have not made clear, is that the "denialism" is not a scientific term-- but also a political one, and wholly subjective. That being the case, is not reasonable to view the the article with the healthy suspicion that the most appalling and least scientifically acceptable proponents of ID are included?

:::: This is the ONLY wiki article on a controversial ideological subject which I have read, which includes criticism in-line (POV violation) as well as in a separate section (good and necessary). Thus the "Cherry Picking" flag waves smartly in the wind.

:::: I agree with the criticism. What I do not agree with is the moniker of "Denialism." I don't want the agenda of the proponents to succeed, and expect a quick and natural death of the movement-- but that is no excuse to take editorial license (by Cherry Picking), or by criticizing the arguments in the same paragraph in which the argument is made, or by categorizing the entire article as an example of the subjective pseudo-scientific term, denialism.

:::: For example, if a theory is rejected by peer review, one expects that the theory may be re-presented with changes based upon the criticism. That is engaging the criticism-- it is not pretending it did not exist.

:::: Since it is not denial, but persistence, the term denialism seems certain to have no meaning other than an attempt to silence-- and '''that''' is my objection.--] ] 22:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::Actually, your view about criticism sections versus in-line criticism is a bit off the mark. Criticism sections aren't desirable, and wherever possible, criticism should be woven in-line into the article itself. That's why we have ] to stick on articles that have them, although in some cases such sections are difficult to avoid. This article weaves them in where possible, and collects them in a section otherwise. That's hardly a POV violation as you characterize it. See also the essay ], which admittedly doesn't have the force of a policy or guideline but does have a fair level of community agreement. ~] <small>(])</small> 23:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::Sigh. Why is that always brought up. Does nobody actually read the policy page? Contrary to popular perception, NPOV does not mean giving equal weight to every view. See ]. Given the overwhelming rejection of ID by every other reliable source, this is exactly how it should be discussed. It ''must'' be emphasized, otherwise you would actually be violating NPOV by giving undue weight to an unsubstantiated or unreliable viewpoint. And no, plenty of other articles with similar dubious statuses are treated in the same way. See ], ], and ].--&nbsp;<small>]</small><font size="3" face =times new roman>†</font><small>]</small> 23:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::I'm sorry, but I really have no idea what you're saying half the time. Cherry-picking? What do you mean by this? And yes, with science you expect a theory to take criticisms into consideration and either refute or account for them. '''This is not what ID does.''' ID continues to make the same claims in spite of the scientific criticism. Other folks here have given you information regarding the in-line NPOV clauses and the scientific definition of denialism, so I won't rehash those. Needless to say, your reasons for your position are quite befuddling. -- ] (] | ]) 15:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

:::Your comparison to psychological disorders is itself preposterous. The term ] (yes we have an article on it) encompasses behaviors that goes against widely accepted and proven facts in support of a rejected and unproven hypothesis, with the addition that in doing so, they also deny the wide acceptance of the former.

:::And I think you (like so many before you) are again confusing believers of the ] (or creationists in general) with the ID movement itself. You do have a way of assigning motive to specific individuals. "Intelligent Design" is a distinct movement. It's not a church nor a religion, but an agenda by an organization. The leaders of the said organization do not have a simplistic view of both science and faith. Oh no no no. Most of them understand (to a point) the sciences they are constantly attacking. Which is why they're so effective in impressing those who ''do'' hold a simplistic view on science and religion. Whether it's nefarious or not, there ''is'' a (political) motive to ID rather than simply expounding on spirituality. They wish to reinstate Christian creationism in classrooms, and demote modern biology itself to the same level of acceptance as their stories.

:::Calling that "hearsay" is ironically denialist in itself. Tell, me what other activities does ID have other than denying the very foundation of modern biology itself? Do examine their books, their websites and the way they lobby politicians - what's their purpose, their goal? If you can't answer that, then your argument holds. But I bet you can. Very easily. Name-calling is stupid, but refusing to name something by that rationale alone is even stupider. --&nbsp;<small>]</small><font size="3" face =times new roman>†</font><small>]</small> 16:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

:::: I agree with almost everything you just wrote. Where we differ is that I object to the term being tagged to '''any''' article. The article called Denialism, can mention all examples its contributors wish, but to give credence to the branding by tagging other articles with it... is a POV violation.

:::: The construct of the word, Denial+ism suggests that the ID supporters subscribe to a philosophy or culture (or something) of denial. We can say that of them in the article only if they say it of themselves:

Surely we have all seen it done, and know it is wrong:

:::: * Calling Democrats "Socialists."
:::: * Calling a pro-choice supporters "pro-abortionists."

:::: How is this different? --] ] 00:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::@ Crews Giles, you appear to misunderstand categories: they're a navigational index, a way for readers to find articles related to a topic. If reliable sources link the subject of the article to the category topic, then it's appropriate to include that category. Of course calling Democrats "Socialists" is inappropriate as they're far too right wing and reactionary to merit being called socialist, but if reliable secondary sources describe them as being in that category then the category would be appropriate. Just as Republicans, rather more justifiably, are ]. . . ], ] 00:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::Question: have you read the ] article? It says right up front: ''In science, denialism has been defined as the rejection of basic concepts that are undisputed and well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a topic in favor of ideas that are both radical and controversial.'' Are you arguing that for a topic that purports to be about science, a non-scientific definition of the term should carry the greatest weight? Are you saying that we should be coddling the sensitivities of those readers who might be ignorant of the meaning of the term? I can understand where you're coming from, but your politically-loaded analogies don't hold up. If ID is a science, as its supporters claim, then it seems perfectly fair to categorize it according to a scientific meaning. ~] <small>(])</small> 00:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

::*''The turnip truck off of which I feel was drawn by dinosaurs'' - I made a good-faith attempt to engage you in discussion. Not a promising start...
::*'' I expect empirical evidence that those who support ID do so because they are in denial'' - ] and ] are distinct concepts. No one is saying that "ID supporters are in denial".
::* ''The burden of proof will be supported by clinical studies-- not pseudo-science'' - ] is not ]. Did you not bother to familiarise yourself with the topic before you weighed in, or are you simply being ]?
::* ''A biologist's, or chemist's, or physicist's use of the term "denial" as an emotional response to a manifest reality is preposterous-- unless he interviewed his opponents in controlled therapeutic sessions-- in which case, we should have a diagnosis beyond merely "denial."'' - again...are you unfamiliar with the topic, or are you being tendentious?
::* ''Which Axis? Are there other behavioral factors which are noticed? Are the ID proponents suffering from delusions or hallucinations? Is a type of paranoia indicated? Psychosis or Neurosis? What diagnostic criteria are used, and how many of them must be met?'' - Surely you are familiar with ]? Demanding that ''other editors'' engage in original research, primary diagnostic work, before you would deign to support a category which is supported by reliable secondary sources - that is out of line.
::* ''You cite hearsay, and I want sources'' - Sources have been provided.
::* ''Otherwise, it is name-calling, and people who name-call are just stupid.'' - You're seriously calling your fellow editors "stupid" for citing reliable sources? Please remember that ] is policy, as is ]. You can discuss ''sources'' without engaging in attacks on your fellow editors.
::* ''That was an inclusio-- I started with irony and ended with it. Clever of me, for 3 in the morning, wasn't it'' - You started by being rude and you ended with insults and personal attacks. And you filled the intervening space with angry remarks unrelated to the topic at hand. That's not irony, and it's certainly not "clever". ] (]) 18:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

:::: If you cannot see the intended humor in the unexpected (ironic) statement, "name calling is just stupid" than I have no hope in explaining where you went off on the wrong path in anything else you wrote above. And, seriously, a reference to a dinosaur-drawn turnip-truck in an article on creationism is funny. It just is. You are just pretending not to get it. Admit it.

:::: If the intended humor can be seen... We have a new pejorative term, Denialism, apparently leaping into our consciousness circa 2006. I have no problem with that term being used for the HIV and Holocaust deniers-- where it began.

:::: But Thomas Aquinas? Really? Then so is the respected Prime Mover philosophical argument attributed to Aristotle? Asa Gray? No. You mean the ''movement''-- a political organization-- begun with political ties. That has its own article: ]. Go brand it (along with every other political agenda organization-- they all deserve it). I would have suggested that from the very beginning, but I did not know it existed until a few moments ago.

:::: I'm not passionate about defending the science of anyone who believes the heavens and the earth were created 6,000 years ago but to smear the rest with the absurdity of that movement is unfair.

:::: But I fear you are going to do it anyway, and feign being the victim. So be it. But you would still be wrong.--] ] 01:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

::::*''If you cannot see the intended humor in the unexpected (ironic) statement, "name calling is just stupid" than I have no hope in explaining where you went off on the wrong path'' - To begin with, I've seen plenty of insults...intentional insults...around this place that displayed just that sort of lack of self-awareness. Sure, I initially took your conflation of denial and denialism as farce, but given the context of your entire comment, I saw no reason to take that comment at anything other than face value.
::::*''a reference to a dinosaur-drawn turnip-truck in an article on creationism is funny'' - Admit it was funny? I would if I thought it was. Sadly, obscure comments devoid of context aren't funny. People rambling on about denial when the subject is denialism - yeah, that came across as a weak attempt at humour. Until I figured you were serious. Then it's hard to tell whether the situation is really funny, or just really sad.
::::*''We have a new pejorative term, Denialism, apparently leaping into our consciousness circa 2006. I have no problem with that term being used for the HIV and Holocaust deniers-- where it began'' - I see, so suddenly you go from being ignorant of the concept to being an expert. And sources be damned - all that matters is your pronouncement on the topic. So this is another attempt at a joke, right? To begin with, the Hoofnagle brothers took a lead role in popularising the term, and by March 2007 . And that's aside from the sources cited here previously, including one that used ID as an illustrative example of denialism to explain the concept in a book on HIV denialism.
::::*''But Thomas Aquinas? Really? Then so is the respected Prime Mover philosophical argument attributed to Aristotle? Asa Gray? No.'' - You really need to work on you communication skills. I have no idea what your intent was with this name drop. The collection of names suggests that you're drawing from the Standard Book of IDist Spells, Grade One. Yep, I've tried chatting with the undergrads in the IDEA club...some were very bright kids, but others, sadly, often needed you to explain ''their'' arguments to them first. So, quite simply, neither Aquinas nor Aristotle could have argued that "certain elements of the world are too complex to have been explained by evolution"...Aristotle couldn't even have even used that argument for the motion of the planets, with their ] another other contrived motions that ''obviously'' could not be explained by purely "unguided" means. As for Gray - I'm tired of people who couldn't explain Gray's scientific contributions to save their lives try to claim him as a proponent of intelligent design when in fact he could best be described as a proponent of ]...except, of course, that it would be anachronistic. TE is, of course, one of the things that creationists (including IDists) love to rail against.
::::*''You mean the ''movement''-- a political organization-- begun with political ties. That has its own article: ].'' - The ID movement was spun off from ''this'' article. Most of the content there was cut from this one because it got to long. This article, if you bothered to read it, is about the "science" produced by the ID movement.
::::*''Go brand it (along with every other political agenda organization-- they all deserve it). I would have suggested that from the very beginning, but I did not know it existed until a few moments ago.'' - So what you're saying that you never bothered to read this article? Because that's what ''this'' article is about - the thing that the ID movement has created since the 1980s. No more, no less. This is all explained in the hatnote at the top of the page. You don't even have to read the article to figure this out - you just need to glance at it.
::::*''I'm not passionate about defending the science of anyone who believes the heavens and the earth were created 6,000 years ago but to smear the rest with the absurdity of that movement is unfair.'' Now you're talking about ]. Granted, some IDists are, apparently, YECs, and while ID was at its height it attracted some common cause support from them. But the ID movement is (supposedly) a "big tent" movement, one that was going to use the "wedge" of intelligent design to bring down the scientific establishment. One that was dedicated to getting creationism into the science classroom...you know "cdesign proponentsists" and all that? Oh, wait, no, you haven't read the article. Or wait, are you joking now? When I pointed you to ], it was not meant to be an instruction manual... ] (]) 05:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

== Excluded Middle problem ==

Is there anything in the reliable sources that talks about the ] foundation the whole Intelligent design that Evolution has to be only Darwin's version? There have been '''many''' Theories of Evolution (], ], ] and so on) and if Darwin was "wrong" in some respect then why does this have to be "proof" that Intelligent design is the answer rather than some other theory of evolution?--] (]) 07:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
:Could be sparse because the argument that you describe (essentially saying that some flaw in the Darwin-specific items proves the opposite) is IMHO a rare one. IMHO the more common one in this area is a saying that some yet-unanswered gap or question etc. implies that evolution in general has a problem and that that shows that a particular alternate (e.g. creationism) must be true.{{unsigned2|09:54, 13 March 2012‎|North8000}}
::It's addressed to some extent in the ''Arguments from ignorance'' section, where I've added the Kitz finding. At present this and ''God of the gaps'' both give rather undue prominence to the arguments of ]'s '' Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design'' which . The topic is included in discussion by and by , as well as . These could usefully be used as sources for clarifying various sections of the article. . ], ] 10:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

== Rewritting Lede ==

===Lead length===

The lede is too long and needs to be rewritten. Should I apply the template at the top?
I would like to see the lede to be about 300 words.

:As it stands right now, the Lede is only 406 words long. What's the benefit of removing 100 words? The ] guideline says an article of this length should have an introduction of 3-4 paragraphs; I think the length is perfectly appropriate, and gives a good overview of the topic at hand. ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 12:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

===Ascribing motive===

Overall it looks like a pretty good lead to me with an OK length. The one area that I would critique is the first sentence of the last paragraph. It ascribes a motive as fact in the voice of Misplaced Pages. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 14:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
:That sounds fine too. From the cited sources:

:''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District'' ()
{{cquote|As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards, which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards.}}

:''Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals'' p. 7, emphasis added ()
{{cquote|As stated earlier, ID is the direct descendant of earlier forms of creationism. '''After Edwards, a group of creationists decided to adopt “intelligent design” terminology in an attempt to skirt this Supreme Court ruling (Forrest, 2005a, 16-18; 2005b).''' CSC fellow Charles Thaxton, co-author of the seminal ID book, The Mystery of Life’s Origin (Thaxton et al., 1984), chose the term “intelligent design” in 1988 to designate the product of the post-Edwards transformation of creation science (Witham, 2002, 221). Dean H. Kenyon, a CSC fellow who submitted a sworn affidavit as a creation scientist in the Edwards case while he was also co-authoring the ID creationist textbook Of Pandas and People, admitted candidly in 2000 that “Scientific creationism... is actually one of the intellectual antecedents of the Intelligent Design movement.”}}
-- ] (] | ]) 15:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

::First, as clarification, I am talking about where it says that the motive is "to circumvent court rulings", and would argue that the rationale for that misses the mark by two levels:
::#At least with respect to what you have shown, the source doesn't even say that
::#Even if the source did say that, the text is still stating one side of a controversy as fact in the voice of Misplaced Pages.
::I'd recommend dialing back that particular wording one click. I might try it if I can think of something. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 15:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

:::North8000, the bold text in the second quotation quite clearly states exactly what the lead does (circumventing = skirting). You could also continue reading the ''Kitzmiller'' ruling for more snippets like the following: "The weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates, as noted, that the systemic change from 'creation' to 'intelligent design' occurred sometime in 1987, after the Supreme Court's important Edwards decision. This compelling evidence strongly supports Plaintiffs' assertion that ID is creationism re-labeled." It's quite clear from the sources that ID was created when scientific creationists couldn't use ''creationism'' anymore due to the '']'' case, forcing them to adopt the "ID" terminology to continue their political efforts of teaching creationism in public schools. There is no controversy as to the history/origins of the ID movement. -- ] (] | ]) 15:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
::::You are right, somehow I missed that. That takes care of #1. Sincerely, <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 16:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

::@North8000 What's wrong with #2? What leads you to believe there is a controversy about it? ] (]) 20:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
:::It essentially say that intelligent design is just an invention, and that it was invented to circumvent court rulings. Believers in ID would certainly not agree with that. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 20:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
::::The article is about the Discovery Institute's "intelligent design", and this is solidly documented. Are you just acting as devil's advocate or do you have sources that challenge this? ] (]) 21:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
::::::::: But perfesser, the '''title''' of the article is ] not ] nor ]. There are other authors that are significant persons (they are physicists and astronomers of note) that have used the term and have disassociated themselves from the DI. ID≠DI and this article does an injustice to the '''facts''' when it exclusively makes that association. The problem is that the DI has done a bunch of bad stuff for which they have been "caught" in Kitzmiller. But it's guilt by association and the DI has no right to usurp the term for its authority and veracity to rise and fall along with the DI. It's like an article that defines ] solely in terms of a particular party (like the ] or something) and then this party does some discreditable stuff that wrongly reflects on liberalism. Let the DI be discredited, but let the facts and other authors that have made use of the term speak for themselves. Do not let DI stain ID. ] (]) 02:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::Misplaced Pages isn't the place to ]. That this article is about the specific ID movement produced and promoted via DI is explicit (see below the article's title). ] (]) 04:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::@ North8000 , That's reading more into it than is there. It essentially says that ID is a form of creationism, which proponents would deny but which is supported by overwhelming evidence, and that it is a modern form of the teleological argument, which its proponents have agreed. Proponents have repeatedly asserted that it a scientific theory, rather than a religious-based idea. What's the problem? . . ], ] 21:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
::::::My point was simply about the statement of motive, not all of these other tings. Sincerely, <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 21:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::::My question stands. The motivations as laid out in Forrest as well as ''The Creationists'' and ''Where Darwin Meets the Bible'' are cited to documents and statements made by ID proponents. Phillip Johnson's motivations are explicit in ''Darwin on Trial'' making clear those court decisions were a major impediment and emphasizing the openings left to them to introduce special creation as science. ] (]) 21:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

===Grammar fixes===

I think this is a run on sentence:

It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea". <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Grammar looks fine to me: a ] with an independent clause ("It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation...") and a dependent clause ("presented by its advocates..."). What do you see wrong with this? -- ] (] | ]) 16:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

::It is unnecessary. The same ideas can be conveyed:

::It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God. Furthermore, it is presented as a "scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea". <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:::Splitting the sentence is also unnecessary, so why do you want to change it? I prefer the current version because I find it more fluid than reading short sentences like, "It is this," "It is also this," and, "Furthermore, it is this," over and over again. -- ] (] | ]) 14:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

:::: One problem I see is the quote "scientific theory about life's origins." This is redundant also known as tautology because a scientific theory is defined as evidenced based. Why not use the scientific term to express the same idea: "Abiogenesis" or "biopoiesis" the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter ?] (]) 20:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::The problem with using '']'' (or ''biopoiesis'') is that "the term usually refers to the processes by which life on Earth may have arisen." There is at least one other hypothesis as to the origins of life on Earth called ], and intelligent design proponents would argue there is yet another option: an intelligent designer. In this light, ''origins'' seems more appropriate.
:::::Even were it not, the quotations seem to suggest this is a direct quote from someone. I haven't found the source yet, but we can't change the wording of a direct quote. I suppose we could start the quote at the word "scientific," but I'm hesitant to remove information from a direct quote just for the sake of grammar. Otherwise, I'd agree: it is redundant. -- ] (] | ]) 21:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::: The source has been found and added to the lead. -- ] (] | ]) 23:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

== This definition is wrong ==

"It is a form of ] and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional ] for the ], claimed by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea"."

This description is wrong. it needs citation to show which advocates are presenting that idea and it must be proved that this concept is presented as ("an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea"), (an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins) doesn't make sense!?!
I think this statement is compeletly wrong and is presenting wrong information to the readers of this article, so it must be removed. please vote on it because there are users who want to keep this statement there.
--] (]) 21:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

:'''Remove from lede'''' I agree with Neurosys <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:'''Keep.''' What is wrong with it (other than your misspelling "calaimed")? What would you replace it with? A cite for "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" is in the following bullet.
:*{{cite news |title=Not by chance |first=Stephen C. |last=Meyer |authorlink=Stephen C. Meyer |newspaper=National Post |publisher=] |date=2005-12-01 |accessdate=2012-03-24 |quote=Contrary to media reports, intelligent design is not a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins-one that challanges strictly materialistic views of evolution.|url=http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=8f7f51f2-a196-4677-9399-46f4f17b5b61}}/
:&nbsp; — '''<span style="background:Yellow;font-family:Helvetica Bold;color:Blue;">] ]</span>''' 21:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

::Jeff G., where did you find that source? I was looking for it in the article and couldn't find it. If it is not already there, we need to add it to support the direct quotation in the lead. Thanks! -- ] (] | ]) 21:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

::Jeff G. National Post is a news paper. is there any scientific paper published about ID yet to show that it's a "scientific evidence-based... theory"? --] (]) 21:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

:::Per that source, "In February, The Wall Street Journal reported that an evolutionary biologist with two doctorates had been punished for publishing a peer-reviewed scientific article making a case for this same theory." See also ] and ]. I found that source via the "Original Article" link on http://www.discovery.org/a/3059 , which I found with Google. &nbsp; — '''<span style="background:Yellow;font-family:Helvetica Bold;color:Blue;">] ]</span>''' 21:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

:The so-called "intelligent design theory" made its way into scientific sphere in a paper published in the peer reviewed scientific journal "The Proceedings" in 2004 by Stephen C. Mayer who is a member of Discovery Institute, and in no time was criticized for its holding *no scientific value* by several other papers and institutions (http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/03_Areas/evolution/issues/peerreview.shtml). The Proceedings declared later for the said paper that "t was published without the prior knowledge of the Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, or the associate editors. We have met and determined that all of us would have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings". Also, AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) seems to have long resolved on "intelligent design" once and for all in that it is not a scientific assertion, much less a "evidence-based scientific theory" (http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml). I vote for the part of the sentence in question should be simply removed, or modified accordingly. ] (]) 22:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

::Neurosys, we already have that information in the article. The statement in the lead says, it is "presented by its advocates" as an evidence-based theory, which is correct and verifiable. This does not mean that ID ''is'' an evidence-based scientific theory, and you can read further to see how the scientific community and US courts reject it as religion and pseudoscience. -- ] (] | ]) 22:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

:::MisterDub, then, that it was presented as such should either be mentioned elsewhere in the article - not in the leading paragraph for it may cause confusion or inappropriate significance to the claim but not to its refutation-, or immediately mentioned that the said presentation is resolved to be incorrect (by AAAS, "The Proceedings", etc. ). ] (]) 22:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

:::I will either remove the whole part of the sentence in question, or add right after it that the scientific presentation is resolved to be incorrect by the very journal in which the claim was first made, as well as by AAAS. That sentence is simply out of place and confusing, if not incorrect. ] (]) 22:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

::::This article gets enough complaints about ] that I don't think that kind of change will be supported by consensus; personally, I think it's unnecessary to state it in the first paragraph if it's mentioned so closely already. The lead is divided into three paragraphs with differing topics: the first defines ID (first by its proponents, then by the majority view as per ] and ]); the second presents the opinions of the scientific community; and the third presents the history of the ID movement, including the opinion(s) of the US courts. I mean, there is essentially two paragraphs to illustrate how ID is ''not'' a scientific theory, as its advocates present it. The latter two paragraphs are more specific and explain which features of ID lead the scientific community and US courts to identify it as non-science. I think mentioning that it's not science any more is just beating a dead horse. -- ] (] | ]) 22:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::It is already agreed upon that it was not "presented", but "misrepresented" as science. But saying so would be not NPOV. I agree with you to some extent, and stand corrected. However, it should be noted that the average reader only reads the leading paragraph. ] (]) 23:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

::::::Well, you can definitely pursue this change if you want, but as I said before, I doubt it'll pass consensus due to common complaints about NPOV (and, recently, lead length). -- ] (] | ]) 23:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

: ID is '''NOT''' "an evidence-based scientific theory" because it's not falsifiable therefore it CAN'T be a scientific theory, plain and simple. —&nbsp;<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 22:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

::Raeky, please read my previous post. The statement in question makes no such claim. -- ] (] | ]) 22:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

:'''Remove or Correct it''' I think ::Neurosys is right on that, this is very confusing. that sentence should be completed with "the scientific presentation is resolved to be incorrect by the very journal in which the claim was first made, as well as by AAAS." with a citation from AAAS, or be removed.--] (]) 22:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

::Please review my reply to Neurosys: we already have that information in the lead. You just have to read the very next paragraphs. -- ] (] | ]) 23:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
* For info: a couple of previous discussions: . . ], ] 05:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

==I think that I may have found the problem==

I've been mostly a lurker here. My real life POV (an atheist who doesn't want creationism or ID taught in public schools) is opposite my view as a Wikipedian on this article (somehow this article feels like a POV "let's beat up on ID" piece) Probably the best definition of ID is the first line of the dis-ambig page:

:'''Intelligent design is the proposition 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.'''

And that indeed is the common meaning of the term. It encompasses a whole range of specific and vague beliefs (including those of many creationists), not just an invention by the Discovery Institute.

But then this article goes awry right from the start. It basically says that the top level Intelligent Design article is only going to cover the particular invention by the Discovery Institute, and that everything else covered by the above is sent off into obscurity under a different poor name, the teleological argument article. So, the remaining portion is something created by a conservative organization which is much more easily pilloried than ID beliefs as a whole. Further, the error is replicated throughout the article by accepting the erroneous definition of ID (= just an invention of the Discovery Institute) and essentially repeating it as fact. Thus, the article goes awry right from the start, dooming it to be overall POV regarding the broader meaning of ID.

A suggested solution would be to take the disambig line off of the beginning and start writing the other half of the article, resurrecting it from the buried and narrowed coverage under teleological argument. Sincerely, <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 11:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Sincerely, <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 11:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

:The "other half" comes in two parts: as the second disambiguation line notes, ''For the philosophical "argument from design", see ]'', and for the superset (of which ID is a subset) see ], or more broadly ]. While all of these use the words "intelligent design" on occasion, the term ''intelligent design'' specifically refers to the version promoted by the DI. It's both unrealistic and unreasonable to try to shoehorn them all into this one article which would be far too big.<br> As a further clarification, the DI didn't create ID, they bought into it at an early stage as is clearly shown in the article. . ], ] 12:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

::I'm confused. Instead of having an article on the ] and an article on ID, you want two articles about the teleological argument? Doesn't it make more sense to cover each topic within its individual article, linking to the other where necessary? Otherwise we end up with several, disheveled articles repeating the same information. -- ] (] | ]) 14:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

:::It still does not speak to the obvious non-neutral POV in the article because it conflate ID with DI from the beginning. Every suggestion that this article represent ''other'' points-of-view of ID, from ''other'' authors than DI-affiliated authors, where this information is verifiable, every suggestion to do that has been slapped down by wp editors that ] the article. Because of Kitzmiller and because of other evidence of dishonest actions taken by the DI, that conflation consigns this article to being a "let's beat up on ID" piece. It is not NPOV and has not been so for at least 5 years. Despite FA status. ID doesn't look as bad when it is decoupled from DI. ] (]) 16:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


== Shorten the SD ==
::::First off, please no ]ing. ] so if you don't have anything constructive to add, please don't add anything. Secondly, the article of "ID" decoupled from the DI is called the ]. If you have something relevant to that subject, bring it up there. -- ] (] | ]) 16:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


The ] should be improved. One, the overall article is about the creationist argument. With this in mind we can describe ID as an "argument" and thereby give the potential reader the essence of the topic. But two, more importantly, "pseudoscientific" adds unnecessary POV. Would we be happy with an article title of ]? ''No''. But we do have various articles in ] and ]. Would any of the articles benefit from SDs that said "]"? Again, ''no''. Let's just say that ] is an argument and leave out the unnecessary "pseudoscientific" adjective. – ] (]) 01:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
::::: Similarly to the observation of ]: "patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel", ] and ] is the cheap defense of obviously non-neutral POV editing in Misplaced Pages. I am not using Misplaced Pages to promote ID or even to defend ID. I am complaining about nakedly non-neutral editing in this particular article. It is the reason it draws so much complaints from others, some of whom I imagine '''are''' defenders of ID and even defenders of DI. '''I am neither.''' I am a quite liberal NPOV warrior who is as intolerant of naked POV from liberals as I am from conservatives. So, I might suggest that you deal with the issue rather than just denying that it's there. ] (]) 05:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
:"'pseudoscientific' adds unnecessary POV". Can't see it myself. 'pseudoscientific' is used in the first sentence of the lede, so is clearly considered an integral NPOV element of the topic. As such, it merits inclusion in the SD; as ] says "These descriptions ... help users identify the desired article", so including 'pseudoscientific' functions to aid in identifying 'Intelligent design' as the article about the pseudoscientific argument. -- ] (]) 01:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
::I observe that the ] article on the simple English Misplaced Pages treats the subject drastically differently than this one and doesn't even mention pseudoscience. ~] <small>(])</small> 04:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
:::Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source. But maybe someone should change the ] article. I have experience there. Does one replace "pseudoscientific" by "stupid" or "wrong" to change it from English to Simple English? --] (]) 05:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
::::This is not a question of RS for either WP or Simple WP. (No matter what, the Simple ID article must be NPOV. And changes to the Simple article are best discussed there.) I "simply" ask that we remove the POV-laden "pseudoscientific" from the short description in this regular WP article. – ] (]) 05:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|This is not a question of RS}} Yes it is. You were trying to change this Misplaced Pages article based on what another Misplaced Pages article says, so you were trying to use the other article as a source for this one. --] (]) 05:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


::If something is science and looks like science, one does not need to mention that it is science. That is the reason why the "scientific" adjective is not used.
::::'' ID doesn't look as bad when it is decoupled from DI'' - let's start with some high-quality sources about this "ID decoupled from the DI". Then we can figure out what (if anything) we need to do next. ] (]) 17:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
::Pseudoscience is something that pretends to be science, so it looks like science but it is not science. That is the reason why the "pseudoscientific" adjective is used. --] (])
::: My concern is about the POV vs. NPOV tone of the SD. We can describe the article as "an argument about ...." and avoid saying it is "arcane", "former", "inaccurate", "irrelevant", "dismissed in scientific circles", "]", etc. The ] guidance says "avoid 'former', 'retired', 'late', 'defunct', 'closed', etc.." Removing "pseudo" helps us comply with this guidance. – ] (]) 04:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
::::No, it does not. Calling a pseudoscience "pseudoscience" is perfectly NPOV when reliable sources consistently call it pseudoscience. I think you need to actually read ] instead of just saying it. Also ], ] and ].
::::Also, the logic "the rules say we should avoid X, therefore we should avoid Y" leaves something to be desired. --] (]) 05:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::If the words "pseudoscience" or "pseudoscientific" are to be replaced, I do appreciate Hob's suggestion to use the words "stupid" or "wrong" instead. - ]the ] 06:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::@] You've failed to address the point I made in immediate response:
::::::'pseudoscientific' is used in the first sentence of the lede, so is clearly considered an integral NPOV element of the topic. As such, 'pseudoscientific' merits inclusion in the SD; as ] says "These descriptions ... help users identify the desired article", so including 'pseudoscientific' functions to aid in identifying 'Intelligent design' as the article about the pseudoscientific argument.


::::::You don't seem to have any issue with 'pseudoscientific' being used in the article itself, so your objection to it in the SD seems perverse. --] (]) 07:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
::::: I have done that many, many times. I have referred to ] authors, such as ], ], and ], who have referred to the concept and called it "intelligent design" (Gingerich makes sure that the reader understands that it's with a small-case "i" and "d") and who do not associate themselves with the Discovery Institute. I have cited books and from some of them copied quotes. And all of this is on archives of this very talk page. Guettarda, I have no confidence that you are the least bit sincere in figuring out what "we" need to do about that. If I did, I might be motivated to go back the the archives and restate exactly what I cited back then. Then there are authors who refer to the concept generically ('''not''' DI's version of ID) and yet reject it (like ]).
::::: I certainly do not want to see a puff piece on intelligent design, I just want to see an article that isn't so obviously biased in selection of facts and in tone. This article is a ''little'' bit better than it was in 2007, but the tone of it is still very bad, and it was never a particularly scholarly decision to base it totally on DI's ID. That decision was poor scholarship from the very beginning. ] (]) 05:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


:] Can you put the existing SD alongside something proposed ? I am doubtful you will make headway for ], but a definite comparison might at least get a focus back to about being shorter. Cheers ] (]) 07:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
:::Responding to MisterDub. My "other half" was probably an overstatement. My recommendation would be one section at the beginning of the article which discusses the broader common meanings of the term with links to appropriate articles. Then it would segue into the meaning of ID that the whole current article is about. Then a similar change for the lead. Open with 1-2 sentences on the general common meanings, then segue into the DI version. As an aside, "telelogical argument" should probably get renamed. Describing an entire belief set as an "argumnent" is problematic, much less using a non-commonplace adjective for it. Sincerely, <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 17:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
:I agree. The inclusion of the qualifier "pseudoscientific" is superfluous to the point that it reeks of bias.
:I don't think it's a battle worth fighting.
:Yes, the short description is… not short. Especially when you compare it to the length of the rest of the article. Further, some of its content is redundant with the body content.
:But it's not just the first sentence that has a POV problem. The entire short description—nay, the whole article—is marred with bias to the point that it to me looks not salvageable. And even if it were, it seems that it's guarded by a group of ideologues: fanatics who will pile on their fallacious rhetoric until the hope is sucked dry from you by the tyranny of their majority. ] (]) 10:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
::Yup, the tyranny of ]. <sarcasm warning>How sad!</sarcasm warning> ] (]) 11:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
:::Straw Man. I am ''not'' criticizing ]. When I say tyranny of the majority (which I definitely feel is happening on a large scale around discussion of this topic) I'm criticizing use of specific rhetorical devices and fallacious reasoning such as (but not limited to) ] and secondary implications such as ], overconfidence in conventional wisdom and secular orthodoxy, false sense of inerrancy, and myriad intellectual vices such as ] which you just used on me with your sarcasm.
:::I'm not without hypocrisy; I admit my previous comment used blatant ad hominem attack. But just because I indulged in intellectual vice for a moment doesn't invalidate my sentiment.
:::A new article need to be written about what ID really is at a fundamental level—a theory of the origin of life—outside of and disconnected from its social contexts. ] (]) 13:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
::::It isn't a scientific theory. Not even a scientific hypothesis. Because nobody took care to formulate it as a cogent scientific hypothesis. ] died without knowing the hypothesis of intelligent design. ] (]) 13:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
:::::That sounds like an appeal to ignorance. The theory is not valid because there hasn't been a person who has put it in a form that acceptable to you and the consensus/majority? Who is the authority on what constistutes a "cogent scientific hypothesis"? Why would we need Phillip E. Johnson to come back to life and do it for us? How do you know one is not already out there? ] (]) 13:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
:::::Wait you got me on another red herring there; I never claimed it to be a scientific theory. Which is why I think there needs to be a page presenting it without any claims of it being a scientific theory, similar to the page on the ]. Just because I am suggesting the theory—in and of itself—as not scientific does not mean that it is pseudoscience. On the contrary it would arguably call for it to be, by definition of pseudoscience, no longer labeled as pseudoscience. You don't see the ] theory labeled as pseudoscience. As should be the case with ID. ] (]) 13:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
::::::Big Bang, despite your protestations, ''is'' a widely-accepted scientific theory. For the metaphysical correspondent of ID, see ]. That, my friend, is a bona fide philosophical argument, but alas it has nothing to do with ]. ] (]) 13:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
::::::{{tq|That sounds like an appeal to ignorance}} Oh, the irony. ID itself is one huge heap of appeal to ignorance ("I tried to find a way how evolution can make things like X, and I failed"; insert every biological feature for X); it does not have any actual content beyond that. And that is the very reason why ID is no scientific hypothesis. You are talking to people with lots of experience debating "Cdesign proponentsists", and every time one asks one of them for the theory of ID, one gets crickets.
::::::{{tq|How do you know one is not already out there?}} The burden of proof is on the person who claims that it exists. Bring it here, and everybody will be baffled, stunned, and surprised.
::::::Independent of that, this is ]. Your claim of bias is commonplace for every article about any pseudoscience - see ] - and does not impress anybody. --] (]) 15:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
:::Sources are sometimes bias as well. Given that it is a controversial topic we should add further in the article that "it is considered by most scientists a pseudoscientific argument" given the right sources, but not in the opening paragraph. Is like if someone made the opening paragraph of ] to be "The gender pay gap or gender wage gap is the ALLEGEDLY difference between the remuneration for men and women who are working." - ] (]) 23:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
::::The thing is, all pro-Intelligent Design sources are notoriously unreliable, and "unbiased sources" are invariably accused and denounced as being negatively biased due to accurately describing Intelligent Design as religiously-inspired, anti-science flimflam. ] (]) 00:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::I fully agree with you. Since the professional editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica didn't consider it appropriate to apply the label "pseudoscientific" to ID theory, it seems reasonable to avoid that in order to preserve neutrality. The better approach would be to neutrally include the statement by the US National Academy of Science saying that it isn't a legitimate scientific theory. I would argue that the term 'pseudoscience' is appropriately applied to theories like Flat Earth. Because ID has support from a number of scientists with relevant educational backgrounds, I believe it is more accurately categorized as 'fringe science' or 'questionable science' prominent supporters of ID include: award winning chemist Dr. Henry F. Schaefer III, professor of biochemistry Dr. Michael Behe, and Microbiology professor Dr. Scott Minnich. Further, a 2018 Pew Poll of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science found that 2% of members believed humans had always existed in their present form, and another 8% believed that human evolution was guided by a supreme being. ] (]) 20:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::Read the FAQ. --] (]) 12:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
::I created an account just to agree and complain about the rampant and abhorrent bias and POV narration in the article. While I do not subscribe to the belief myself, the rampant author judgments within is disgustingly transparent and, if I can be crass, immature and embarrassing to read to someone looking for information on the subject. When you have editors like Hob Gadling or Roxy the Dog using charged language like "stupid" to describe belief systems, it worsens the content of the site and makes this article read like the tangents of a lonely Redditor upset that they had to go to Sunday school when they were eight, rather than a source of information.
::For comparison's sake, the article on Scientology reserves such personal judgments, attributing labels of ingenuity and falsehood to third parties, not from the author's own original judgments. Similar belief systems are treated with more respect, but this one is marred entirely because of its prevalence in western culture.
::Such impartial author viewpoints are rampant throughout the article. A few keypoints of contention I noticed from a cursory search include the tangent of the Discovery Institution (cited from someone saying they're "a leader" because several members of the movement are "associated," as if there's any other article out there that pulls such vague weasel wording. To air out dirty laundry, it's very apparent that this is for the purpose of associating the article with conservative think tanks as a prelude, rather than as a detail later on in the history of the article, where such information should be placed). The line "Detailed scientific examination has rebutted several examples for which evolutionary explanations are claimed to be impossible." strikes me too (the preceding claims should be included in a summary, with these examinations placed in a proceeding criticism section. Such is the norm for most articles, but this one gets an exception because the editors REALLY want everyone to know their takes on it). "The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court ruling held the latter to be the case." line is out of place and only contextualized by scouring the references and notes before when this should have its own section, the line itself following what reads like original research on the dilemma of what the belief states. The article itself is littered with details that add very little ("A Discovery Institute report says that Charles B. Thaxton, editor of Pandas, had picked the phrase up from a NASA scientist, and thought, "That's just what I need, it's a good engineering term."") There is a separate article for that book; include the information there! In the section on concepts of the belief system, while generally more well-constructed, it still has its fair share of issues. The paragraph of "Critics point out that the irreducible complexity" is vague in referring to whom these critics are, which is embarrassing when the section on Specified complexity does this tactic of citing a vague "scientific community" correctly. The "Fine-tuned universe" paragraph has only one citation, and it doesn't even link to anything! The distinction of the ideology from the movement is made too little too late for how the article presents the relevance of the Discovery Institution...
::I could go on, but I have a feeling the people responsible for the poor state of the article have their heels dug in so deeply that they will refuse to acknowledge the myriad of problems within the article, so I'll abridge my grievances: the article is absolutely filled with author judgments more concerned with refuting the subject rather than presenting a clean, readable text, and as a result the article is filled with poor citations, clunky and out-of-place details, and an astonishing amount of frontloaded bloat. It has been an absolute chore to read this thing.
::I know this is going to be taken in bad faith to be misconstrued as "remove all criticism from the article," which is absolutely not backed up by anything I just said, so let me repeat that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking that the few people with self-restraint here actually structure the article to read like something trying to give an overview of the subject foremost, criticisms debunkings and all, in a clean, readable manner, and not like it was written foremost as a sloppy blog entry wearing the skin of an encyclopedia.
::] (]) 20:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
:::ID is a paragon of pseudoscience, according to ], and we have the website policy ].
:::About Scientology: we don't say that because that is a matter of judging intentions rather than judging facts. ] (]) 21:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
::::I would implore you to actually read the post you're replying to.
::::I do not care about validity of the subject matter (though I do think the "pseudoscience" label could benefit from a citation and end a lot of talk on this page if added, since one thing I keep seeing while reading posts here is that there's apparently a lot of sources calling it one). I'm discussing the poor state in which this article is written because it's entirely from people foremost interested in taking the ideology down a peg thinking they have article ownership and loading it with original research, to a point that it reads worse than other infamous pseudoscience topics. Similar articles have clear and lengthy sections for criticisms and debunkings that serve just fine. This one opts to make a massive mess of the subject. It's a badly written article.
::::You can agree or disagree with the subject, but from an objective point of view the article is a mess. If I find the energy/time, I'll clean up a lot of my grievances myself.
::::] (]) 22:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::The tone can get copy/edited. But the fact that it is patent pseudoscience should remain inside the article, very clearly and unambiguously expressed. In that respect we have no choice, since website policy is binding. ] (]) 22:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{tq|The tone can get copy/edited. But the fact that it is patent pseudoscience should remain inside the article}}
::::::For probably the third time now, I don't give a crap about that label. I would even agree that it should be there if it was sourced. My problem is the article is poorly written. I have given several examples demonstrating this, please actually read those instead of arguing against a point nobody is making.
::::::] (]) 22:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Okay, to the point: criticism sections are dissuaded. Criticism should be spread inside the article, refuting each point being made by the pseudoscientists.
:::::::In other words: the fact that this article does not have a criticism section is a net positive, and the articles which do aren't good examples to imitate. ] (]) 23:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::{{tq|Criticism should be spread inside the article, refuting each point being made by the pseudoscientists.}}
::::::::Do you have a policy you can point to that illustrates that to be the case? This is one of the only articles I have seen on the site whose reading goes out of its way to meticulously try to debunk everything stated within it. This type of writing isn't employed in many other religious articles if at all, and reads choppy and unfocused.
::::::::] (]) 01:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::]. ] (]) 02:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::While I do honestly appreciate the attempt at giving a policy, the subject of this page should fall under an exception mentioned:
::::::::::"For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (Idealism, Naturalism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religion (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) – it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle. Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets."
::::::::::In the case of this article, there are several instances where this kind of information is haphazardly placed about because of the lack of refrain. I listed one in the article trying to link the subject to a conservative think tank, but there are more.
::::::::::] (]) 02:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::ID is propagated by a Christian conservative think-tank. It's not some accidental detail of it, it is so by design. ] (]) 03:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::The section as worded reads like a clear violation of ]. A stronger relationship than "The leading proponents of ID are associated with" should be provided, and this information should be listed in the section regarding the movement. While the information is important to include, in its current state it's not important enough to include in the opening section, much less before the early history of the ideology before YECs.
::::::::::::] (]) 03:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Let me tell you something: the people who hate mainstream science already got the message that Misplaced Pages is against them. So, we're writing for a certain audience, not for everybody.
:::::::::::::Our bias is not concealed. People who love Misplaced Pages, love it for such bias. ] (]) 05:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::This is an open encyclopedia, not your personal blog. I don't give a crap what windmill-tilting you seem to think is being waged against a couple hundred creationist nutjobs, the article is written like crap and I've given several clear examples and policies that showcase very specific examples.
::::::::::::::] (]) 17:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
{{od|::::::::::}} @] Rather than yell at clouds, it'd be better to positively address issues. Here's a small example with a big issue behind it: you say, "The "Fine-tuned universe" paragraph has only one citation, and it doesn't even link to anything!". The reason it (and many pseudo-links like it) doesn't link to anything is the big issue and it needs someone with your energy to address it. -- ] (]) 03:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)


:While I do appreciate the invitation, and will probably take it up when I have more time on my hands, un
::::Our current division of the topic is "''the argument/position/belief, historically to today''" in one article, and "''the DI's formulation of the argument, today, in US politics''" in another. That division makes sense to me. Their respective names are an application of ]. Mention of each article in the other seems acceptable, but we should not be devoting large amounts of content regarding one in the other, nor reformulating the lead such that both articles begin or are defined the same. This article's topic (the DI's political movement) is a large enough topic as it is in just the political arena, enough so that it has multiple full-length articles devoted to it; other issues aside, we shouldn't be expanding it further than it needs to encompass new topics too. &nbsp; &mdash; ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; ]]</span> 17:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
:Judging byIsome of the rather... let's say "brash adamancy" of some of the regulars on this talk page i. I worry that such radical changes such as removing that problematic paragraph and rearranging the criticisms into a cleaner format would be misconstrued as trying to hide or mitigate criticisms against the subject matter. Rather than risk a one-sided edit war, it would be better for the people adding these text to just provide a proper citation and not make the article a complete mess.both carrying the article's current style, I suspect I may need to take your advice regardless.
:::::For those familiar, an analogy would be an article on "Chicago professional baseball teams" and start with the disambiguation: "This article is about the Cubs, for the White Sox, see the ] article."
:] (]) 03:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
:As the article is protected, I'm working at a proposed rewrite that cleans up some of the grievances I have with the page on my userpage. As of writing I have the introductory paragraph glanced at. If you're not being coy, I'd like honest feedback on my proposed changes.
:] (]) 18:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)


::::::It sounds like you don't think the difference between ID and the teleological argument is made explicit enough here. Fair enough, but I don't see how your analogy is different from the hatnote we currently have on the article. Doesn't it already say that this article is about the DI's ID and link to those related articles? -- ] (] | ]) 18:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC) ::The ] of an article contains the summary of the body of that article. So, unless the version you are proposing is very closed from the current version, any new introduction not properly summarizing the '''current version''' of the article is likely to be a non starter. --] (]) 19:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tq|So, unless the version you are proposing is very closed from the current version}}
:::] I left commentary, including two explicit requests for citations.
:::] (]) 19:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
::::You are requesting a citation for "pseudoscience". But no citation is given, according to ]. So, yes, there is a reason why no citation is given.
::::I saw the changes you advocate for: the changes are minor, and often not compliant with ]s. About impartiality, see ].
::::Also, I don't see why ] should be provided for a ''hidden comment.'' ] (]) 00:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|You are requesting a citation for "pseudoscience". But no citation is given, according to WP:CITELEAD. So, yes, there is a reason why no citation is given.}}
:::::I believe the exceptions listed in ] are applicable here, given how contentious the label has been in these talk pages, and from the opening sentence of the article itself having ''five ''citations within it. Moving the fifth reference to specifically address the pseudoscience label adds no new citations to the lead and satisfies my complaint with that particular point. I ask in my suggestions for someone to provide a source since (1) I believe there may be a more readily-available source that could be used in its place, and (2) I typed it on mobile and don't like using the article editor for more than basic formatting.
:::::{{tq|I saw the changes you advocate for: the changes are minor, and often not compliant with WP:PAGs. About impartiality, see WP:FALSEBALANCE.}}
:::::I'm tempted to evoke ] here, as "and often not compliant with WP:PAGs" is possibly one of the most vague and thus irrelevant complaints that could be levied. I ask for forgiveness in being heated for a moment; the idea that a simple cleanup to the article, a cleanup in which I've not added anything to even hint at the validity of ID and attempted to avoid ] by retaining criticisms except in cases where it would be better to move information, is even remotely the same thing as trying to make a false balance is overly simplistic and a tad insulting. Misplaced Pages is not obliged to validate pseudoscience, I can agree and don't think either of us said otherwise, but it's also ] (much less ]) to make it a messy read or use the notion of bias existing to ] in ways that harm the objective tone and pacing of the article.
:::::The thing that really gets me scratching my head about all of this is that the sources and facts are against ID, so making a clearer article helps ID proponents none.
:::::] (]) 06:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::] was a reply to {{tq|more impartially}}. You proposed minor edits, so I don't see those as either cleanup of the article or making the article more impartial. This all debate seems therefore as much ado about nothing. ] (]) 07:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{tq|WP:FALSEBALANCE was a reply to more impartially}}
:::::::I never asked for more impartiality, I described this as a perk of the cleanup. Please follow the conversation.
:::::::{{tq|You proposed minor edits, so I don't see those as either cleanup of the article or making the article more impartial.}}
:::::::I'll ignore the non-sequitur in that and reassert the context of what's happening: I am pulling teeth against a user who thinks ] means an author should argue against the subject of an article, and am being met with resistance for miniscule cleanups in the opening paragraphs. I would go through cleaning up the entire thing for its other myriad issues, but lack any trust that such exhaustive efforts would be met with anything besides someone violating ].
:::::::This debate being "for nothing" can be amswered with one question: what is going to happen if I try to get even those simple cleanups in the lead put in? I hope, in that front, I'd have made a stink for nothing.
:::::::] (]) 07:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Well, friend, I'm only one editor, so I never decide myself the ].
::::::::] is an essay, meaning it is neither policy, nor guideline. ] on the other hand is website policy. So, obviously, website policy trumps an essay. ] (]) 08:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::{{tq|Well, friend, I'm only one editor, so I never decide myself the WP:CONSENSUS.}}
:::::::::I'm really interested in what conversation you're having in which you're debating if ID is pseudoscience.
:::::::::It seriously is grating to read so many replies from you that fail to address even one point being brought up and instead go after some paranoia.
:::::::::{{tq|WP:NOOBJECTIVITY is an essay, meaning it is neither policy, nor guideline.}}
:::::::::That argument is on-par with the "evolution is just a theory" sound bite creationists love. summarizes a policy which reads {{tq|"which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, '''without editorial bias,''' all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."}}
:::::::::Emphasis mine. Meanwhile you're on here justifying an article littered with ] with {{tq|"Our bias is not concealed. People who love Misplaced Pages, love it for such bias."}} I
:::::::::
:::::::::{{tq|WP:PSCI on the other hand is website policy}}
:::::::::Is '''anyone''' here arguing that ID isn't pseudoscience?
:::::::::] (]) 19:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::] requires a certain tone of the article. While you admit that ID is pseudoscience, you seek to soften the tone of the article. E.g. downplaying that it is essentially a movement propagated by a conservative Christian think tank. And that it caters to fundamentalist Christians and evangelicals, since Catholics and mainline Protestants made peace with the theory of evolution. And that instead of seeking to discover new objective facts in biology, it is essentially a ploy to introduce God in sciences, i.e. despite the boundaries established by Immanuel Kant, who said he had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith. ] (]) 21:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{tq|WP:PSCI requires a certain tone of the article}}
:::::::::::I do not believe you are meeting that tone. You are going beyond meeting explaining that the content of the article is wrong and are more focused on a personal mission to debate everything within it with ]. There's several instances where you're barely citing scientific experts or explaining that the counterarguments come from these experts.
:::::::::::* "A sufficiently succinct summary of the argument from design shows its unscientific, circular, and thereby illogical reasoning" '''<-- This is ''your ''conclusion presented without a source'''
:::::::::::* "Whether this lack of specificity about the designer's identity in public discussions is a genuine feature of the concept – or just a posture taken to avoid alienating those who would separate religion from the teaching of science – has been a matter of great debate between supporters and critics of intelligent design. The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court ruling held the latter to be the case." '''<-- Debated by whom? This is the closing paragraph of a section, not the beginning summary. Don't just reference the court ruling in-sentence either, put its verdict at the end and cite the case.'''
:::::::::::* "Variations on the phrase appeared in Young Earth creationist publications (...) there in the first place."" '''<-- Move source 34 earlier, since there's a clear split in the paragraph where it stops referencing material from it and starts referencing material from 33.'''
:::::::::::* "Critics point out that the irreducible complexity argument assumes that the necessary parts of a system have always been necessary and therefore could not have been added sequentially." '''<-- I don't have anything suggesting needing fixed here, I want to point out that this paragraph is mostly good. The vague "critics" is part of the introduction, but even it's cited, and later on it starts giving names with specific arguments. This is good. This is how the article should read. There's a lot of sections that read like this, and I feel as if it would be unfair to leave them unrecognized.'''
:::::::::::* "Irreducible complexity has remained a popular argument among advocates of intelligent design;" '''<--- I say the paragraph is "mostly" good because of this line. This should be reworded or removed. It doesn't help the proceeding explicitly cited debunking, and it is redundant. You are presenting this idea first in the argument list. Narratively, this weight assumes that it's a popular argument (avoid weasel words too).'''


:::::::::::There are more examples, but I wish to move on. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::::@North, either your complaint is with the topic division (historical argument for design and the DI's current manifestation), or your complaint is with our application of UCN ("teleological argument" and "intelligent design"). If the former, please propose a new division of topics. If the latter, please present sources which show that different names are more commonly used for the two topics. &nbsp; &mdash; ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; ]]</span> 18:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


:::::::::::{{tq|While you admit that ID is pseudoscience}}
{{od}}Agree with Guettarda. Nothing should be changed in the current article without coming up with the '''''Sources''''' first. '''''Sources'''''. ] (]) 18:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::This statement reads as if you're proposing that everyone who agrees with the scientific community should be okay with the sloppy article, which is ridiculous. It's entirely possible to be objective about a topic known to be false, and to criticize an article on the subject for its shortcomings.
:::::::::::{{tq|you seek to soften the tone of the article (...)}}
:::::::::::It is apparent you are not reading my posts, and came in here with a preconceived notion that everyone critical of the article's writing and structure must be a proponent of ID, and no amount of reasoning or given examples of the article's shortcomings will convince you otherwise.
:::::::::::Get this through your head. Sit down and read this slowly, multiple times if needed: '''I am not arguing about the validity of ID. I am addressing the writing of a poorly-constructed Misplaced Pages article.'''
:::::::::::It's as if you think not including the sources of these statement would make anyone susceptible to believing ID. When a lot of people see articles like this one, argumentized takedowns that use your own wording more than the scientific community's, they see someone with a personal grudge about the ideology and want to know why it made them so mad, and end up looking into it. Having names behind the statements make the content stronger and more reliable, which hurts ID more.
:::::::::::Instead of squabbling with you further, I'm going to begin making some minor edits to the article to fix some of these myriad issues.
:::::::::::] (]) 14:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)


== Pseudoscience? Creationism? ==
:::::::Responding to MisterDub, that was not my point. My point is that the major aspects of the named topic should be covered in the top level article. In my analogy, the structure basically implies that the Sox are the only Chicago professional baseball team which is both POV and in error. Sincerely, <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 18:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


Sir Fred Hoyle, staunch lifelong atheist - "hard" atheist -in his Omni Lecture at the Royal Institution, London, January 12th, 1982, had this to say:
:Responding to Professor marginalia, do you mean that as a requirement for inclusion of material, or an effort to end a talk page discussion about scope of the article? <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 18:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
“The difference between an intelligent ordering, whether of words, fruit boxes, amino acids, or the Rubik cube, and merely random shufflings can be fantastically large, even as large as a number that would fill the whole volume of Shakespeare’s plays with its zeros. So if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of in pondering this issue over quite a long time seems to me to have anything like as high a possibility of being true.” ] (]) 23:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
::North8000, what additions are you proposing that aren't already covered in the ] section? If you can find secondary sources discussing a broader "intelligent design" then that would be the most likely place for it. Also note the issue is raised in the lead by noting that ''intelligent design'' in its current meaning is "a form of ] and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional ] for the ], presented by its advocates as 'an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins' rather than 'a religious-based idea'.". . ], ] 18:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
:::Now that I did another a slow read for the content, looking past some of the characterizations in the article, I see that there IS material in there about the broader meaning of ID. Probably the first fix would be to take that "disambiguation" statement off of the beginning. Those are often problematic when they include the writer's definition of the scope of the article. And I'd suggest taking / modifying the out the statements that ID is exclusively the DI creation. Even this article itself refutes such statements. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 23:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
:::: The article should be written in such a way that the disambiguation statement at the top would not be necessary. The antics of DI can be a ''large'' part of the article. ] (]) 05:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


: Please read the FAQ at the top of the page. You could also take a look at ]. --] (]) 23:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
::::@North8000: You are in error when you say "And that indeed is the common meaning of the term. It encompasses a whole range of specific and vague beliefs (including those of many creationists), not just an invention by the Discovery Institute." This is not supported by the reliable sources available to us.
::See ] and ]--] (]) 00:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
:::Also see ]. -- ] (]) 00:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
::::And ] and ]. Your own thinking, as any other user's, isn't worth shit here. --] (]) 08:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


::I don't see a proposed edit in IP, but the FAQ does not include Hoyle since the article does not. Seems reasonable to discuss if Hoyle *should* be mentioned as a precursor in this article or at ]. The article does mention Paley which is far distant past and not as direct a link nor related to the ID concepts expressed in this article. I easily found reasonable cites in the history of ID that 'the term Intelligent design appears to have been coined from ', and a prominent criticism referring to specified complexity as a '' (about the probability of a tornado assembling a Concorde) -- so having a mention of the precursor and wikilink to ] seems reasonable. But ] use of probability common in scientific studies (although commonly problematic) is more the see-also wikilink than ] since presenting details of method and calculation is not properly termed "incredulity". So -- mention Hoyle here, in SC, or not at all ???? Cheers ] (]) 16:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
::::When the term ID is used by recognized experts nowadays, it practically always refers to the DI version. The term was rarely used until the DI appropriated and popularized it. ID and the DI are inextricably connected to each other like white on rice. To the point that anything else that anyone may want to call ID (your "broader meaning") has to be disambiguated at the outset so as not to be confused with the DI version.
:::It's important not to conflate the argument from design with intelligent design. The argument from design posits that only an intelligence could have created the universe. Intelligent design OTOH posits that the argument from design is a scientific one and also that it can be bolstered through scientific research.
:::So Hoyle did not endorse ID. ] (]) 16:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
::::To treat ID as a philosophy is a categorical error. It was not developed (and never has been developed) as a philosophy, but as a political and legal strategem. This is where your concept of "broader meaning" falls apart. There is no "broader meaning" of the term of which ID as promulgated by the DI is a subset. The uses you refer to are a completely different kettle of fish altogether, and have to be handled elsewhere, not in an article with such a restricted scope as this one. The best place to do that is in ].
:::: ] - That the article does conflate the argument from design with intelligent design is a different topic than the question of whether to mention ] as a precursor - perhaps in the "Origin of the concept" or the "Fine-tuned universe" sections. And to the contrary, Hoyle is listed as a supporter of ID -- though again the question was whether to note him as a precursor, either here or at ]. To be precise the 'support' means as a precursor he preceded the ] by a few years with his own ideas of ], the argument of improbability and use of ] (similar to ]), his creating the ] metaphor, plus remarks about ], etcetera. His 1983 book "Examines the origins of life on earth, analyzes the Darwinian theory of evolution, and argues that life is the result of a deliberate plan." The 'support' does not mean he was a member of ] and as far as I've googled he made no comment at all about the IDM or court case -- at least nothing as famous as his originating the above concepts. Cheers ] (]) 15:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::It's more accurate to say that ID advocates claim him as a precursor. ] (]) 17:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::] - so to check, are you answering the question with a yes, that the article mention Hoyle and phrase it 'ID advocates claim him as a precursor' ? Cheers ] (]) 20:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::::No, not unless reliable secondary sources routinely mention that ID supporters claim him as a forerunner. And even if they do, it doesn't give us licence to copy the quote above. The purpose of the article is to describe ID based on how it is reported in reliable sources, not to engage in advocating it. ] (]) 20:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::::] - understood, although I hope you mean ] and ]. The ID proponents are obviously RS for what ID proponents say, as 'ID advocates claim him as a precursor' is objective fact. Second-party would be anti-ID such as NCSE and hence not reliable for what ID claims nor for ]. Third-party would be outside reporting such as - though I only see they reporting it as fact, not ‘ID advocates claim’ e.g.
::::::::{{xt|The term "intelligent design" appears to have been coined in its contemporary scientific usage by the atheist cosmologist Dr. Fred Hoyle, who in 1982 argued that "if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design." The term "intelligent design" was also used by non-scientist James E. Horigan in his 1979 book Chance or Design? where Horigan used the term "intelligent design" and framed his argument as an empirical one, "without resort to biblical or other religious references," and without investigating questions about "ultimate purpose."}} Cheers ] (]) 16:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::To assert that is reporting it as fact seems a claim too far. It appears in a guest blog by a creationist who begins his post thus: "Most Darwinists involved in the public debate today have one, and only one goal: To stifle free debate on this subject and thereby discourage you, the public, from scrutinizing the scientific evidence for yourself." -- ] (]) 18:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::] well, among all the googles I had missed that header -- so the quote is showing one example of ID advocates saying Hoyle was a precursor and their mentioning the objective fact that "intelligent design" was a term Hoyle used a few years before. Anyway -- do you have a position about the question of how or if to mention Hoyle in article ? Cheers ] (]) 21:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::ID proponents are not RS for what ID proponents say, because each one is expressing his own opinion, not speaking as a spokesman for the movement.
:::::::::::The fact that Fred Hoyle put the words intelligent and design together in the 1960s doesn't mean he was advocating a belief system that developed decades later.
:::::::::::I don't know why you keep pushing this. Of course some things we cannot explain could be caused by ghosts. But that's beyond the realm of scientific enquiry. ] (]) 06:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::] Clearly what was published and that IDM mentions Hoyle of the 1980s is objective fact, the question was how or if to mention Hoyle as a precursor in article, which you have already responded to. Cheers ] (]) 15:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
{{od}} Hi Mark, you seem to be trolling and/or trying to ] an argument using primary or unreliable sources. Don't. . . ], ] 22:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
::] Hi Dave. I am asking a simple and obvious question — taking note of the IP (which indeed is objective fact and appears fairly commonly mentioned in IDM) to ask if Hoyle should be mentioned as a precursor in this article or at ]. I would prefer if a simple edit question could be easier with simple edit answers, but I suppose any controversial topic has this kind of difficulty of lots of off-question replies. Cheers ] (]) 15:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
:::Per weight, Hoyle only belongs in the article if mentioned in reliable secondary sources about ID. As WP:FRINGE says, "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles."
:::ID proponents would obviously have us believe that Hoyle endorsed their views. If he did, it would give them respectability. We would need a reliable secondary source to comment on that. ] (]) 16:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


:To summarize a conclusion to this subthread: There seems no interest and not much attention to the question, so Hoyle remarks exist and are said by IDM as coining the term "Intelligent Design" they later used, but the conclusion is to not include any mention. The thread question was not whether Hoyle endorsed ID, the question was more whether Hoyle should be mentioned as a precursor. The probability argument quoted by IP and/or Hoyle's use of the term "intelligent designer" seemed candidates for note either here or at ]. Hoyle notably had a probability argument against abiogenesis (]) although that was more generally for advocating cosmic panspermia (]), such as in the 1982 book 'Evolution in Space', rather than an intelligent designer of ]. Anyway, thanks for what input there was and over & out. Cheers ] (]) 18:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
::::As for expanding the scope of this article, I see no justification or practical way to do so. ID as promulgated by the DI is more than distinct enough to be a stand-alone topic. It is more than just a subset of the teleological argument, as it has political and legalistic history that sets it apart. The restrictive scope of the present article is well justified, and disambiguation at the outset is absolutely required. Yes, the term ID was appropriated by the DI, and yes, they have skunked it. However, like it or not, current usage within the scholarly community recognizes their appropriation, and individuals wanting to use the term in other senses are in the distinct minority by any measure. They, and you, may feel that this is unfair, but it is not our role to right great wrongs. ] (]) 06:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::I'm not convinced that ID shouldn't be treated as a philosophy. I can understand placing the view that it is a political strategy in the "criticism" section, but to have the article itself treat it that way means that Misplaced Pages would be taking a side on the debate about it. Unless, of course, DI's proponents themselves have acknowledged that it is a political strategy, not a philosophy. Have they? ] (]) 06:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
::::::We treat the topic as do the reliable independent sources do, and they are practically unanimous that ID is first and foremost a political and legal strategem. Whether the DI agrees or not is immaterial. They have a long and sordid history of misrepresenting ID, themselves and their intentions. See ] and ]. ] (]) 06:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::::I disagree. There are obviously at least two sides to this topic: DIs and their critics. If we take the critics' side, then we are violating NPOV. I take it you have answered my question, DI ''has not'' stated that the idea is a political strategy. ] (]) 07:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Your conclusion is incorrect. My answer to your question was to point you to articles where you could start answering the question for yourself. Also, your understanding of ] is faulty. Presenting the subject as it is presented by recognized experts in reliable independent sources is not "taking sides". ] (]) 07:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::Actually, wouldn't DI's opinions on ID be considered as also coming from "recognized experts" since they are the ones promoting the philosophy? ] (]) 07:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::Not for our purposes, which generally require that sources be reliable and independent. The DI is neither. As for it being a self-published source on itself, it fails miserably as regards to reliabilty. The operative phrase in our policies is "unduly self-serving". Like I said, they have a long and sordid history of lying and weaseling about themselves, their beliefs and their motives, as amply demonstrated in reliable independent sources. Any information coming from the DI should therefore be treated with extreme prejudice, and used with extreme caution, if it is to be used at all. It's best to let that information be sifted, evaluated and interpreted by the experts, and use their interpretation as presented in reliable sources. ] (]) 08:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::Reliable '''independent''' sources. Since the ] are the ones promoting the theory that the earth is flat, should we then use them as the most reliable source and disregard geology and astronomy? And '''recognized''', i.e. corroborated, confirmed widely by various sources unconnected to the subject. The only ones who recognize DI as a reliable source are ID proponents themselves. If I go around telling everyone that I have a 50-foot fire-breathing dragon in my garage with a Martian riding on its back, but no one, not even the neighbors can see it, hear it, or in any way confirm it, will you consider me a "recognized" expert of garage-living dragons? No. Think.--&nbsp;<small>]</small><font size="3" face =times new roman>†</font><small>]</small> 08:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::No, but your statements are a RS regarding what your statements are. For example, they would be an authoritative source for the following statement: "Obsidian Soul says that they have a dragon in their garage" <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 11:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
{{outdent}}I think that it is not correct for the article to mis-state the scope of the term, using an improper disabig statement as justification. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 10:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


== Intelligent design as an argument for Gods existence? ==
Responding to Dominus Vobisdu and others, one need not look far to find sourcing that refutes the "ID is just DI" premise. There is much sourced material ''in this article'' which refutes that. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 11:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
{{atop|The irony has already peaked with the initial comment and been explained with the response. Risking further irony levels would be reckless and might result in injuries as hapless Wikipedians hurt their ribs laughing at this complaint. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 14:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)}}
:Can you please be specific? Which sources? ] (]) 13:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I have to wonder if the people writing this have a hidden agenda. ID proponents have never asserted who the designer is--it could be an Alien for all we know. The introductory sentence is very clearly biased and should be rewritten to be historically neutral. Intelligent design proper is a (pseudo)scientific theory that attempts to demonstrate that certain biological systems can be more adequately explained by theories of design. It is false to say that the theory is meant to prove God's existence--that is the philosophical argument from design. While I doubt the editors here are intellectually honest enough to change this, it is the truth. This article serves as proof as to why Misplaced Pages is an unreliable source for unbiased information. ] (]) 12:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::Well, to start with, everything in the article about ID that pre-dates the DI version refutes the "ID is just DI" premise. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 13:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
:] did not do a very good job of hiding ''their'' agenda, trying to mask the teaching of creationism in US public schools behind a facade of "intelligent design". See ] for how a US federal court dealt with this "breathtaking inanity". ] (]) 13:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Not really. It just indicates that that material is out of place in this article. I've removed the first three paragraphs of that section before, but it somehow got restored. It just confuses people about the scope of the article. Besides, there wasn't very much to the history of the term "intelligent design" before the DI appropriated it. A few scattered unrelated mentions, at best, that did not really catch on in the philosophical literature. The term was no longer being used by anybody when the DI appropriated it. ] (]) 13:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
{{abot}}
::::That's circular logic, going like "Let's exclude non-DI intelligent design from this article. Then, since only DI is in the article, then ID must be just DI"{{unsigned|North8000}}
:::"verything in the article about ID that pre-dates the DI version refutes the "ID is just DI" premise" - Again - what are you talking about ''specifically''? Refs 17-20 (DI fact sheet, two refs from Johnson, one from Forrest) talk about the "origin of the concept" prior to the "modern" ID, but I don't see any of them "refut the...premise". If you won't be specific, there's no way we can make any progress here. ] (]) 14:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


==Intelligent Design and the Law==
It wouldn't be hard to fix this article. Tweak or add about 6 sentences, take the improper "disamig" def off the beginning. Sounds like a more pleasant life for the 4 folks than eternally fending off calls for repair by a large number of people. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 11:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Got a link to this from ''Academia'', it's online as linked below, an article in Penn State Law Review . An informative overview, a long read. Possibly a useful source, but think we've already covered the points it make. . . ], ] 21:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{cite web |first=Frank S. |last=Ravitch | title=Playing the Proof Game: Intelligent Design and the Law | website=Penn State Law Review – The Flagship Publication of Penn State Law | date=1 February 2009 | url=https://www.pennstatelawreview.org/print-issues/articles/playing-the-proof-game-intelligent-design-and-the-law/ | access-date=21 December 2024}}

Latest revision as of 12:10, 22 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Intelligent design article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89Auto-archiving period: 6 months 
Featured articleIntelligent design is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 12, 2007.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 2, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
January 21, 2006Good article nomineeListed
October 16, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 9, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
February 23, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
July 24, 2007Featured article reviewKept
December 14, 2008Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:

  • Neutral point of view as applied to science: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
  • Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work.
  • Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
  • Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
  • Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
  • Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
This  level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconAlternative views High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCreationism: Intelligent design Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Intelligent design task force (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconChristianity Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconConservatism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPhilosophy Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSkepticism Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconReligion Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
? view · edit Frequently asked questions

Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning Intelligent design (ID).

To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question.

Q1: Should ID be equated with creationism? A1: ID is a form of creationism, and many sources argue that it is identical. U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and Phillip E. Johnson, one of the founders of the ID movement, stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast creationism as a scientific concept.

Not everyone agrees with this. For example, philosopher Thomas Nagel argues that intelligent design is very different from creation science (see "Public Education and Intelligent Design", Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 36, no. 2, 2008). However, this perspective is not representative of most reliable sources on the subject.

Although intelligent design proponents do not name the designer, they make it clear that the designer is the Abrahamic god.

In drafts of the 1989 high-school level textbook Of Pandas and People, almost all derivations of the word "creation", such as "creationism", were replaced with the words "intelligent design".

Taken together, the Kitzmiller ruling, statements of ID's main proponents, the nature of ID itself, and the history of the movement, make it clear—Discovery Institute's protestations to the contrary notwithstanding—that ID is a form of creationism, modified to appear more secular than it really is. This is in line with the Discovery Institute's stated strategy in the Wedge Document. Q2: Should ID be characterized as science? A2: The majority of scientists state that ID should not be characterized as science. This was the finding of Judge Jones during the Kitzmiller hearing, and is a position supported by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. Scientists say that ID cannot be regarded as scientific theory because it is untestable even in principle. A scientific theory predicts the outcome of experiments. If the predicted outcome is not observed, the theory is false. There is no experiment which can be constructed which can disprove intelligent design. Unlike a true scientific theory, it has absolutely no predictive capability. It doesn't run the risk of being disproved by objective experiment. Q3: Should the article cite any papers about ID? A3: According to Misplaced Pages's sourcing policy, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, papers that support ID should be used as primary sources to explain the nature of the concept.

The article as it stands does not cite papers that support ID because no such papers have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Behe himself admitted this under cross examination, during the Kitzmiller hearings, and this has been the finding of scientists and critics who have investigated this claim. In fact, the only article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that made a case for intelligent design was quickly withdrawn by the publisher for having circumvented the journal's peer-review standards.

Broadly speaking, the articles on the Discovery Institute list all fail for any of four reasons:

  1. The journal has no credible editorial and peer-review process, or the process was not followed
  2. The journal is not competent for the subject matter of the article
  3. The article is not genuinely supportive of ID
  4. The article is published in a partisan ID journal such as PCID
If you wish to dispute the claim that ID has no support in peer-reviewed publications, then you will need to produce a reliable source that attests to the publication of at least one paper clearly supportive of ID that underwent rigorous peer-review in a journal on a relevant field. Q4: Is this article unfairly biased against ID? A4: There have been arguments over the years about the article's neutrality and concerns that it violates Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy. The NPOV policy does not require all points of view to be represented as equally valid, but it does require us to represent them. The policy requires that we present ID from the point of view of disinterested philosophers, biologists and other scientists, and that we also include the views of ID proponents and opponents. We should not present minority views as though they are majority ones, but we should also make sure the minority views are correctly described and not only criticized, particularly in an article devoted to those views, such as this one. Q5: Is the Discovery Institute a reliable source? A5: The Discovery Institute is a reliable primary source about its views on ID, though it should not be used as an independent secondary source.

The core mission of the Discovery Institute is to promote intelligent design. The end purpose is to duck court rulings that eliminated religion from the science classroom, by confusing people into conflating science and religion. In light of this, the Discovery Institute cannot be used as a reference for anything but their beliefs, membership and statements. Questionable sources, according to the sourcing policy, WP:V, are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight, and should only be used in articles about themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

See also: WP:RS and WP:V Q6: Are all formulations of intelligent design pseudoscience? Was William Paley doing pseudoscience when he argued that natural features should be attributed to "an intelligent and designing Creator"? A6: While the use of the phrase intelligent design in teleological arguments dates back to at least the 1700s, Intelligent Design (ID) as a term of art begins with the 1989 publication of Of Pandas and People. Intelligent design is classified as pseudoscience because its hypotheses are effectively unfalsifiable. Unlike Thomas Aquinas and Paley, modern ID denies its religious roots and the supernatural nature of its explanations. For an extended discussion about definitions of pseudoscience, including Intelligent Design, see Pigliucci, Massimo; Boudry, Maarten, eds. (2013), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem, University of Chicago, ISBN 978-0-226-05179-6. Notes and references
  1. ^ Phillip Johnson: "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." Johnson 2004. Christianity.ca. Let's Be Intelligent About Darwin. "This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy." Johnson 1996. World Magazine. Witnesses For The Prosecution. "So the question is: "How to win?" That's when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing"—the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do." Johnson 2000. Touchstone magazine. Berkeley's Radical An Interview with Phillip E. Johnson
  2. "I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science."…"Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth?"…"I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves." Johnson 1999. Reclaiming America for Christ Conference. How the Evolution Debate Can Be Won
  3. Dembski: "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory," Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999
  4. Wedge Document Discovery Institute, 1999.
    "embers of the national ID movement insist that their attacks on evolution aren't religiously motivated, but, rather, scientific in nature." … "Yet the express strategic objectives of the Discovery Institute; the writings, careers, and affiliations of ID's leading proponents; and the movement’s funding sources all betray a clear moral and religious agenda." Inferior Design Chris Mooney. The American Prospect, August 10, 2005.
  5. "ID's rejection of naturalism in any form logically entails its appeal to the only alternative, supernaturalism, as a putatively scientific explanation for natural phenomena. This makes ID a religious belief." Expert Witness Report Barbara Forrest Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, April 2005.
  6. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., pp. 31 – 33.
  7. ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., 4. Whether ID is Science, p. 87
  8. "Science and Policy: Intelligent Design and Peer Review". American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2007. Retrieved 2007-07-19.
  9. Brauer, Matthew J.; Forrest, Barbara; Gey, Steven G. (2005). "Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution" (PDF). Washington University Law Quarterly. 83 (1). Retrieved 2007-07-18. ID leaders know the benefits of submitting their work to independent review and have established at least two purportedly "peer-reviewed" journals for ID articles. However, one has languished for want of material and quietly ceased publication, while the other has a more overtly philosophical orientation. Both journals employ a weak standard of "peer review" that amounts to no more than vetting by the editorial board or society fellows.
  10. Isaak, Mark (2006). "Index to Creationist Claims". The TalkOrigins Archive. With some of the claims for peer review, notably Campbell and Meyer (2003) and the e-journal PCID, the reviewers are themselves ardent supporters of intelligent design. The purpose of peer review is to expose errors, weaknesses, and significant omissions in fact and argument. That purpose is not served if the reviewers are uncritical
  11. "Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington". Biological Society of Washington. Retrieved 2007-07-19.
  12. See also Sternberg peer review controversy.
  13. Wilkins, John (9 November 2013), "The origin of "intelligent design" in the 18th and 19th centuries", Evolving Thoughts (blog)
  14. Matzke, Nick (2006), "Design on Trial: How NCSE Helped Win the Kitzmiller Case", Reports of the National Center for Science Education, 26 (1–2): 37–44
  15. "Report of John F. Haught, Ph. D" (PDF). Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (NCSE). 2005-04-01. Retrieved 29 August 2013.


Archives

Philosophy sources

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.


Shorten the SD

The WP:Short description should be improved. One, the overall article is about the creationist argument. With this in mind we can describe ID as an "argument" and thereby give the potential reader the essence of the topic. But two, more importantly, "pseudoscientific" adds unnecessary POV. Would we be happy with an article title of Pseudoscientific arguments about the creation of the universe? No. But we do have various articles in Category:Cosmogony and Category:Physical cosmology. Would any of the articles benefit from SDs that said "Scientific argument about such & such"? Again, no. Let's just say that Intelligent design is an argument and leave out the unnecessary "pseudoscientific" adjective. – S. Rich (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

"'pseudoscientific' adds unnecessary POV". Can't see it myself. 'pseudoscientific' is used in the first sentence of the lede, so is clearly considered an integral NPOV element of the topic. As such, it merits inclusion in the SD; as WP:Short description says "These descriptions ... help users identify the desired article", so including 'pseudoscientific' functions to aid in identifying 'Intelligent design' as the article about the pseudoscientific argument. -- Jmc (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
I observe that the simple:Intelligent Design article on the simple English Misplaced Pages treats the subject drastically differently than this one and doesn't even mention pseudoscience. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source. But maybe someone should change the simple:Intelligent Design article. I have experience there. Does one replace "pseudoscientific" by "stupid" or "wrong" to change it from English to Simple English? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
This is not a question of RS for either WP or Simple WP. (No matter what, the Simple ID article must be NPOV. And changes to the Simple article are best discussed there.) I "simply" ask that we remove the POV-laden "pseudoscientific" from the short description in this regular WP article. – S. Rich (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
This is not a question of RS Yes it is. You were trying to change this Misplaced Pages article based on what another Misplaced Pages article says, so you were trying to use the other article as a source for this one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
If something is science and looks like science, one does not need to mention that it is science. That is the reason why the "scientific" adjective is not used.
Pseudoscience is something that pretends to be science, so it looks like science but it is not science. That is the reason why the "pseudoscientific" adjective is used. --Hob Gadling (talk)
My concern is about the POV vs. NPOV tone of the SD. We can describe the article as "an argument about ...." and avoid saying it is "arcane", "former", "inaccurate", "irrelevant", "dismissed in scientific circles", "hogwash", etc. The WP:SDAVOID guidance says "avoid 'former', 'retired', 'late', 'defunct', 'closed', etc.." Removing "pseudo" helps us comply with this guidance. – S. Rich (talk) 04:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
No, it does not. Calling a pseudoscience "pseudoscience" is perfectly NPOV when reliable sources consistently call it pseudoscience. I think you need to actually read WP:NPOV instead of just saying it. Also WP:FRINGE, WP:PSCI and WP:FALSEBALANCE.
Also, the logic "the rules say we should avoid X, therefore we should avoid Y" leaves something to be desired. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
If the words "pseudoscience" or "pseudoscientific" are to be replaced, I do appreciate Hob's suggestion to use the words "stupid" or "wrong" instead. - Roxy the dog 06:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
@S. Rich You've failed to address the point I made in immediate response:
'pseudoscientific' is used in the first sentence of the lede, so is clearly considered an integral NPOV element of the topic. As such, 'pseudoscientific' merits inclusion in the SD; as WP:Short description says "These descriptions ... help users identify the desired article", so including 'pseudoscientific' functions to aid in identifying 'Intelligent design' as the article about the pseudoscientific argument.
You don't seem to have any issue with 'pseudoscientific' being used in the article itself, so your objection to it in the SD seems perverse. --Jmc (talk) 07:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
User:Srich32977 Can you put the existing SD alongside something proposed ? I am doubtful you will make headway for WP:SDLENGTH, but a definite comparison might at least get a focus back to about being shorter. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree. The inclusion of the qualifier "pseudoscientific" is superfluous to the point that it reeks of bias.
I don't think it's a battle worth fighting.
Yes, the short description is… not short. Especially when you compare it to the length of the rest of the article. Further, some of its content is redundant with the body content.
But it's not just the first sentence that has a POV problem. The entire short description—nay, the whole article—is marred with bias to the point that it to me looks not salvageable. And even if it were, it seems that it's guarded by a group of ideologues: fanatics who will pile on their fallacious rhetoric until the hope is sucked dry from you by the tyranny of their majority. Emilimo (talk) 10:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Yup, the tyranny of WP:BESTSOURCES. <sarcasm warning>How sad!</sarcasm warning> tgeorgescu (talk) 11:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Straw Man. I am not criticizing WP:BESTSOURCES. When I say tyranny of the majority (which I definitely feel is happening on a large scale around discussion of this topic) I'm criticizing use of specific rhetorical devices and fallacious reasoning such as (but not limited to) argumentum ad populum and secondary implications such as groupthink, overconfidence in conventional wisdom and secular orthodoxy, false sense of inerrancy, and myriad intellectual vices such as appeal to ridicule which you just used on me with your sarcasm.
I'm not without hypocrisy; I admit my previous comment used blatant ad hominem attack. But just because I indulged in intellectual vice for a moment doesn't invalidate my sentiment.
A new article need to be written about what ID really is at a fundamental level—a theory of the origin of life—outside of and disconnected from its social contexts. Emilimo (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
It isn't a scientific theory. Not even a scientific hypothesis. Because nobody took care to formulate it as a cogent scientific hypothesis. Phillip E. Johnson died without knowing the hypothesis of intelligent design. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
That sounds like an appeal to ignorance. The theory is not valid because there hasn't been a person who has put it in a form that acceptable to you and the consensus/majority? Who is the authority on what constistutes a "cogent scientific hypothesis"? Why would we need Phillip E. Johnson to come back to life and do it for us? How do you know one is not already out there? Emilimo (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Wait you got me on another red herring there; I never claimed it to be a scientific theory. Which is why I think there needs to be a page presenting it without any claims of it being a scientific theory, similar to the page on the Big Bang. Just because I am suggesting the theory—in and of itself—as not scientific does not mean that it is pseudoscience. On the contrary it would arguably call for it to be, by definition of pseudoscience, no longer labeled as pseudoscience. You don't see the Big Bang theory labeled as pseudoscience. As should be the case with ID. Emilimo (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Big Bang, despite your protestations, is a widely-accepted scientific theory. For the metaphysical correspondent of ID, see Teleological argument. That, my friend, is a bona fide philosophical argument, but alas it has nothing to do with science. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
That sounds like an appeal to ignorance Oh, the irony. ID itself is one huge heap of appeal to ignorance ("I tried to find a way how evolution can make things like X, and I failed"; insert every biological feature for X); it does not have any actual content beyond that. And that is the very reason why ID is no scientific hypothesis. You are talking to people with lots of experience debating "Cdesign proponentsists", and every time one asks one of them for the theory of ID, one gets crickets.
How do you know one is not already out there? The burden of proof is on the person who claims that it exists. Bring it here, and everybody will be baffled, stunned, and surprised.
Independent of that, this is not a forum. Your claim of bias is commonplace for every article about any pseudoscience - see WP:YWAB - and does not impress anybody. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Sources are sometimes bias as well. Given that it is a controversial topic we should add further in the article that "it is considered by most scientists a pseudoscientific argument" given the right sources, but not in the opening paragraph. Is like if someone made the opening paragraph of Gender pay gap to be "The gender pay gap or gender wage gap is the ALLEGEDLY difference between the remuneration for men and women who are working." - Barumbarumba (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The thing is, all pro-Intelligent Design sources are notoriously unreliable, and "unbiased sources" are invariably accused and denounced as being negatively biased due to accurately describing Intelligent Design as religiously-inspired, anti-science flimflam. Mr Fink (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
I fully agree with you. Since the professional editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica didn't consider it appropriate to apply the label "pseudoscientific" to ID theory, it seems reasonable to avoid that in order to preserve neutrality. The better approach would be to neutrally include the statement by the US National Academy of Science saying that it isn't a legitimate scientific theory. I would argue that the term 'pseudoscience' is appropriately applied to theories like Flat Earth. Because ID has support from a number of scientists with relevant educational backgrounds, I believe it is more accurately categorized as 'fringe science' or 'questionable science' prominent supporters of ID include: award winning chemist Dr. Henry F. Schaefer III, professor of biochemistry Dr. Michael Behe, and Microbiology professor Dr. Scott Minnich. Further, a 2018 Pew Poll of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science found that 2% of members believed humans had always existed in their present form, and another 8% believed that human evolution was guided by a supreme being. BeLikeBritannica (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Read the FAQ. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
I created an account just to agree and complain about the rampant and abhorrent bias and POV narration in the article. While I do not subscribe to the belief myself, the rampant author judgments within is disgustingly transparent and, if I can be crass, immature and embarrassing to read to someone looking for information on the subject. When you have editors like Hob Gadling or Roxy the Dog using charged language like "stupid" to describe belief systems, it worsens the content of the site and makes this article read like the tangents of a lonely Redditor upset that they had to go to Sunday school when they were eight, rather than a source of information.
For comparison's sake, the article on Scientology reserves such personal judgments, attributing labels of ingenuity and falsehood to third parties, not from the author's own original judgments. Similar belief systems are treated with more respect, but this one is marred entirely because of its prevalence in western culture.
Such impartial author viewpoints are rampant throughout the article. A few keypoints of contention I noticed from a cursory search include the tangent of the Discovery Institution (cited from someone saying they're "a leader" because several members of the movement are "associated," as if there's any other article out there that pulls such vague weasel wording. To air out dirty laundry, it's very apparent that this is for the purpose of associating the article with conservative think tanks as a prelude, rather than as a detail later on in the history of the article, where such information should be placed). The line "Detailed scientific examination has rebutted several examples for which evolutionary explanations are claimed to be impossible." strikes me too (the preceding claims should be included in a summary, with these examinations placed in a proceeding criticism section. Such is the norm for most articles, but this one gets an exception because the editors REALLY want everyone to know their takes on it). "The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court ruling held the latter to be the case." line is out of place and only contextualized by scouring the references and notes before when this should have its own section, the line itself following what reads like original research on the dilemma of what the belief states. The article itself is littered with details that add very little ("A Discovery Institute report says that Charles B. Thaxton, editor of Pandas, had picked the phrase up from a NASA scientist, and thought, "That's just what I need, it's a good engineering term."") There is a separate article for that book; include the information there! In the section on concepts of the belief system, while generally more well-constructed, it still has its fair share of issues. The paragraph of "Critics point out that the irreducible complexity" is vague in referring to whom these critics are, which is embarrassing when the section on Specified complexity does this tactic of citing a vague "scientific community" correctly. The "Fine-tuned universe" paragraph has only one citation, and it doesn't even link to anything! The distinction of the ideology from the movement is made too little too late for how the article presents the relevance of the Discovery Institution...
I could go on, but I have a feeling the people responsible for the poor state of the article have their heels dug in so deeply that they will refuse to acknowledge the myriad of problems within the article, so I'll abridge my grievances: the article is absolutely filled with author judgments more concerned with refuting the subject rather than presenting a clean, readable text, and as a result the article is filled with poor citations, clunky and out-of-place details, and an astonishing amount of frontloaded bloat. It has been an absolute chore to read this thing.
I know this is going to be taken in bad faith to be misconstrued as "remove all criticism from the article," which is absolutely not backed up by anything I just said, so let me repeat that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking that the few people with self-restraint here actually structure the article to read like something trying to give an overview of the subject foremost, criticisms debunkings and all, in a clean, readable manner, and not like it was written foremost as a sloppy blog entry wearing the skin of an encyclopedia.
OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
ID is a paragon of pseudoscience, according to WP:BESTSOURCES, and we have the website policy WP:PSCI.
About Scientology: we don't say that because that is a matter of judging intentions rather than judging facts. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
I would implore you to actually read the post you're replying to.
I do not care about validity of the subject matter (though I do think the "pseudoscience" label could benefit from a citation and end a lot of talk on this page if added, since one thing I keep seeing while reading posts here is that there's apparently a lot of sources calling it one). I'm discussing the poor state in which this article is written because it's entirely from people foremost interested in taking the ideology down a peg thinking they have article ownership and loading it with original research, to a point that it reads worse than other infamous pseudoscience topics. Similar articles have clear and lengthy sections for criticisms and debunkings that serve just fine. This one opts to make a massive mess of the subject. It's a badly written article.
You can agree or disagree with the subject, but from an objective point of view the article is a mess. If I find the energy/time, I'll clean up a lot of my grievances myself.
OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
The tone can get copy/edited. But the fact that it is patent pseudoscience should remain inside the article, very clearly and unambiguously expressed. In that respect we have no choice, since website policy is binding. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
The tone can get copy/edited. But the fact that it is patent pseudoscience should remain inside the article
For probably the third time now, I don't give a crap about that label. I would even agree that it should be there if it was sourced. My problem is the article is poorly written. I have given several examples demonstrating this, please actually read those instead of arguing against a point nobody is making.
OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Okay, to the point: criticism sections are dissuaded. Criticism should be spread inside the article, refuting each point being made by the pseudoscientists.
In other words: the fact that this article does not have a criticism section is a net positive, and the articles which do aren't good examples to imitate. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Criticism should be spread inside the article, refuting each point being made by the pseudoscientists.
Do you have a policy you can point to that illustrates that to be the case? This is one of the only articles I have seen on the site whose reading goes out of its way to meticulously try to debunk everything stated within it. This type of writing isn't employed in many other religious articles if at all, and reads choppy and unfocused.
OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 01:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Criticism#Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
While I do honestly appreciate the attempt at giving a policy, the subject of this page should fall under an exception mentioned:
"For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (Idealism, Naturalism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religion (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) – it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle. Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets."
In the case of this article, there are several instances where this kind of information is haphazardly placed about because of the lack of refrain. I listed one in the article trying to link the subject to a conservative think tank, but there are more.
OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
ID is propagated by a Christian conservative think-tank. It's not some accidental detail of it, it is so by design. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
The section as worded reads like a clear violation of WP:AWW. A stronger relationship than "The leading proponents of ID are associated with" should be provided, and this information should be listed in the section regarding the movement. While the information is important to include, in its current state it's not important enough to include in the opening section, much less before the early history of the ideology before YECs.
OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 03:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Let me tell you something: the people who hate mainstream science already got the message that Misplaced Pages is against them. So, we're writing for a certain audience, not for everybody.
Our bias is not concealed. People who love Misplaced Pages, love it for such bias. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
This is an open encyclopedia, not your personal blog. I don't give a crap what windmill-tilting you seem to think is being waged against a couple hundred creationist nutjobs, the article is written like crap and I've given several clear examples and policies that showcase very specific examples.
OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@OldManYellsAtClouds Rather than yell at clouds, it'd be better to positively address issues. Here's a small example with a big issue behind it: you say, "The "Fine-tuned universe" paragraph has only one citation, and it doesn't even link to anything!". The reason it (and many pseudo-links like it) doesn't link to anything is the big issue and it needs someone with your energy to address it. -- Jmc (talk) 03:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

While I do appreciate the invitation, and will probably take it up when I have more time on my hands, un
Judging byIsome of the rather... let's say "brash adamancy" of some of the regulars on this talk page i. I worry that such radical changes such as removing that problematic paragraph and rearranging the criticisms into a cleaner format would be misconstrued as trying to hide or mitigate criticisms against the subject matter. Rather than risk a one-sided edit war, it would be better for the people adding these text to just provide a proper citation and not make the article a complete mess.both carrying the article's current style, I suspect I may need to take your advice regardless.
OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 03:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
As the article is protected, I'm working at a proposed rewrite that cleans up some of the grievances I have with the page on my userpage. As of writing I have the introductory paragraph glanced at. If you're not being coy, I'd like honest feedback on my proposed changes.
OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
The introduction of an article contains the summary of the body of that article. So, unless the version you are proposing is very closed from the current version, any new introduction not properly summarizing the current version of the article is likely to be a non starter. --McSly (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
So, unless the version you are proposing is very closed from the current version
It is, just a tad more streamlined, cleaned, and worded more impartially. I left commentary, including two explicit requests for citations.
OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
You are requesting a citation for "pseudoscience". But no citation is given, according to WP:CITELEAD. So, yes, there is a reason why no citation is given.
I saw the changes you advocate for: the changes are minor, and often not compliant with WP:PAGs. About impartiality, see WP:FALSEBALANCE.
Also, I don't see why WP:RS should be provided for a hidden comment. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
You are requesting a citation for "pseudoscience". But no citation is given, according to WP:CITELEAD. So, yes, there is a reason why no citation is given.
I believe the exceptions listed in MOS:CITELEAD are applicable here, given how contentious the label has been in these talk pages, and from the opening sentence of the article itself having five citations within it. Moving the fifth reference to specifically address the pseudoscience label adds no new citations to the lead and satisfies my complaint with that particular point. I ask in my suggestions for someone to provide a source since (1) I believe there may be a more readily-available source that could be used in its place, and (2) I typed it on mobile and don't like using the article editor for more than basic formatting.
I saw the changes you advocate for: the changes are minor, and often not compliant with WP:PAGs. About impartiality, see WP:FALSEBALANCE.
I'm tempted to evoke WP:SARC here, as "and often not compliant with WP:PAGs" is possibly one of the most vague and thus irrelevant complaints that could be levied. I ask for forgiveness in being heated for a moment; the idea that a simple cleanup to the article, a cleanup in which I've not added anything to even hint at the validity of ID and attempted to avoid WP:POVDELETION by retaining criticisms except in cases where it would be better to move information, is even remotely the same thing as trying to make a false balance is overly simplistic and a tad insulting. Misplaced Pages is not obliged to validate pseudoscience, I can agree and don't think either of us said otherwise, but it's also not a place for authors to engage against the subject (much less focus on discrediting fringe theories) to make it a messy read or use the notion of bias existing to go on tangents about the subject in ways that harm the objective tone and pacing of the article.
The thing that really gets me scratching my head about all of this is that the sources and facts are against ID, so making a clearer article helps ID proponents none.
OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 06:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:FALSEBALANCE was a reply to more impartially. You proposed minor edits, so I don't see those as either cleanup of the article or making the article more impartial. This all debate seems therefore as much ado about nothing. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:FALSEBALANCE was a reply to more impartially
I never asked for more impartiality, I described this as a perk of the cleanup. Please follow the conversation.
You proposed minor edits, so I don't see those as either cleanup of the article or making the article more impartial.
I'll ignore the non-sequitur in that and reassert the context of what's happening: I am pulling teeth against a user who thinks WP:NOOBJECTIVITY means an author should argue against the subject of an article, and am being met with resistance for miniscule cleanups in the opening paragraphs. I would go through cleaning up the entire thing for its other myriad issues, but lack any trust that such exhaustive efforts would be met with anything besides someone violating WP:OWNER.
This debate being "for nothing" can be amswered with one question: what is going to happen if I try to get even those simple cleanups in the lead put in? I hope, in that front, I'd have made a stink for nothing.
OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Well, friend, I'm only one editor, so I never decide myself the WP:CONSENSUS.
WP:NOOBJECTIVITY is an essay, meaning it is neither policy, nor guideline. WP:PSCI on the other hand is website policy. So, obviously, website policy trumps an essay. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Well, friend, I'm only one editor, so I never decide myself the WP:CONSENSUS.
I'm really interested in what conversation you're having in which you're debating if ID is pseudoscience.
It seriously is grating to read so many replies from you that fail to address even one point being brought up and instead go after some paranoia.
WP:NOOBJECTIVITY is an essay, meaning it is neither policy, nor guideline.
That argument is on-par with the "evolution is just a theory" sound bite creationists love. summarizes a policy which reads "which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."
Emphasis mine. Meanwhile you're on here justifying an article littered with WP:OR with "Our bias is not concealed. People who love Misplaced Pages, love it for such bias." I
WP:PSCI on the other hand is website policy
Is anyone here arguing that ID isn't pseudoscience?
OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:PSCI requires a certain tone of the article. While you admit that ID is pseudoscience, you seek to soften the tone of the article. E.g. downplaying that it is essentially a movement propagated by a conservative Christian think tank. And that it caters to fundamentalist Christians and evangelicals, since Catholics and mainline Protestants made peace with the theory of evolution. And that instead of seeking to discover new objective facts in biology, it is essentially a ploy to introduce God in sciences, i.e. despite the boundaries established by Immanuel Kant, who said he had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:PSCI requires a certain tone of the article
I do not believe you are meeting that tone. You are going beyond meeting explaining that the content of the article is wrong and are more focused on a personal mission to debate everything within it with Original Research. There's several instances where you're barely citing scientific experts or explaining that the counterarguments come from these experts.
  • "A sufficiently succinct summary of the argument from design shows its unscientific, circular, and thereby illogical reasoning" <-- This is your conclusion presented without a source
  • "Whether this lack of specificity about the designer's identity in public discussions is a genuine feature of the concept – or just a posture taken to avoid alienating those who would separate religion from the teaching of science – has been a matter of great debate between supporters and critics of intelligent design. The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court ruling held the latter to be the case." <-- Debated by whom? This is the closing paragraph of a section, not the beginning summary. Don't just reference the court ruling in-sentence either, put its verdict at the end and cite the case.
  • "Variations on the phrase appeared in Young Earth creationist publications (...) there in the first place."" <-- Move source 34 earlier, since there's a clear split in the paragraph where it stops referencing material from it and starts referencing material from 33.
  • "Critics point out that the irreducible complexity argument assumes that the necessary parts of a system have always been necessary and therefore could not have been added sequentially." <-- I don't have anything suggesting needing fixed here, I want to point out that this paragraph is mostly good. The vague "critics" is part of the introduction, but even it's cited, and later on it starts giving names with specific arguments. This is good. This is how the article should read. There's a lot of sections that read like this, and I feel as if it would be unfair to leave them unrecognized.
  • "Irreducible complexity has remained a popular argument among advocates of intelligent design;" <--- I say the paragraph is "mostly" good because of this line. This should be reworded or removed. It doesn't help the proceeding explicitly cited debunking, and it is redundant. You are presenting this idea first in the argument list. Narratively, this weight assumes that it's a popular argument (avoid weasel words too).
There are more examples, but I wish to move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldManYellsAtClouds (talk • contribs) 14:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
While you admit that ID is pseudoscience
This statement reads as if you're proposing that everyone who agrees with the scientific community should be okay with the sloppy article, which is ridiculous. It's entirely possible to be objective about a topic known to be false, and to criticize an article on the subject for its shortcomings.
you seek to soften the tone of the article (...)
It is apparent you are not reading my posts, and came in here with a preconceived notion that everyone critical of the article's writing and structure must be a proponent of ID, and no amount of reasoning or given examples of the article's shortcomings will convince you otherwise.
Get this through your head. Sit down and read this slowly, multiple times if needed: I am not arguing about the validity of ID. I am addressing the writing of a poorly-constructed Misplaced Pages article.
It's as if you think not including the sources of these statement would make anyone susceptible to believing ID. When a lot of people see articles like this one, argumentized takedowns that use your own wording more than the scientific community's, they see someone with a personal grudge about the ideology and want to know why it made them so mad, and end up looking into it. Having names behind the statements make the content stronger and more reliable, which hurts ID more.
Instead of squabbling with you further, I'm going to begin making some minor edits to the article to fix some of these myriad issues.
OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Pseudoscience? Creationism?

Sir Fred Hoyle, staunch lifelong atheist - "hard" atheist -in his Omni Lecture at the Royal Institution, London, January 12th, 1982, had this to say: “The difference between an intelligent ordering, whether of words, fruit boxes, amino acids, or the Rubik cube, and merely random shufflings can be fantastically large, even as large as a number that would fill the whole volume of Shakespeare’s plays with its zeros. So if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of in pondering this issue over quite a long time seems to me to have anything like as high a possibility of being true.” 2601:404:CB83:D50:44C8:EE37:6741:1F40 (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ at the top of the page. You could also take a look at Argument from incredulity. --McSly (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
See WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:SOAPBOX--Mr Fink (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Also see Hoyle's fallacy. -- Jmc (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
And WP:RS and WP:OR. Your own thinking, as any other user's, isn't worth shit here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't see a proposed edit in IP, but the FAQ does not include Hoyle since the article does not. Seems reasonable to discuss if Hoyle *should* be mentioned as a precursor in this article or at Specified complexity. The article does mention Paley which is far distant past and not as direct a link nor related to the ID concepts expressed in this article. I easily found reasonable cites in the history of ID that 'the term Intelligent design appears to have been coined from Hoyle and Horrigan', and a prominent criticism referring to specified complexity as a 'variant of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe's old claim' (about the probability of a tornado assembling a Concorde) -- so having a mention of the precursor and wikilink to Junkyard tornado seems reasonable. But p-value use of probability common in scientific studies (although commonly problematic) is more the see-also wikilink than Argument from incredulity since presenting details of method and calculation is not properly termed "incredulity". So -- mention Hoyle here, in SC, or not at all ???? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
It's important not to conflate the argument from design with intelligent design. The argument from design posits that only an intelligence could have created the universe. Intelligent design OTOH posits that the argument from design is a scientific one and also that it can be bolstered through scientific research.
So Hoyle did not endorse ID. TFD (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
TFD - That the article does conflate the argument from design with intelligent design is a different topic than the question of whether to mention Fred Hoyle as a precursor - perhaps in the "Origin of the concept" or the "Fine-tuned universe" sections. And to the contrary, Hoyle is listed as a supporter of ID -- though again the question was whether to note him as a precursor, either here or at Specified complexity. To be precise the 'support' means as a precursor he preceded the Intelligent design movement by a few years with his own ideas of life on Earth came from outer space, the argument of improbability and use of Information theory (similar to Specified complexity), his creating the Junkyard tornado metaphor, plus remarks about Fine-tuned universe, etcetera. His 1983 book The Intelligent Universe "Examines the origins of life on earth, analyzes the Darwinian theory of evolution, and argues that life is the result of a deliberate plan." The 'support' does not mean he was a member of Discovery institute and as far as I've googled he made no comment at all about the IDM or court case -- at least nothing as famous as his originating the above concepts. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
It's more accurate to say that ID advocates claim him as a precursor. TFD (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
TFD - so to check, are you answering the question with a yes, that the article mention Hoyle and phrase it 'ID advocates claim him as a precursor' ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
No, not unless reliable secondary sources routinely mention that ID supporters claim him as a forerunner. And even if they do, it doesn't give us licence to copy the quote above. The purpose of the article is to describe ID based on how it is reported in reliable sources, not to engage in advocating it. TFD (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
TFD - understood, although I hope you mean Third-party sources and WP:WEIGHT. The ID proponents are obviously RS for what ID proponents say, as 'ID advocates claim him as a precursor' is objective fact. Second-party would be anti-ID such as NCSE and hence not reliable for what ID claims nor for WP:WEIGHT. Third-party would be outside reporting such as USnews.com - though I only see they reporting it as fact, not ‘ID advocates claim’ e.g.
The term "intelligent design" appears to have been coined in its contemporary scientific usage by the atheist cosmologist Dr. Fred Hoyle, who in 1982 argued that "if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design." The term "intelligent design" was also used by non-scientist James E. Horigan in his 1979 book Chance or Design? where Horigan used the term "intelligent design" and framed his argument as an empirical one, "without resort to biblical or other religious references," and without investigating questions about "ultimate purpose." Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
To assert that USnews.com is reporting it as fact seems a claim too far. It appears in a guest blog by a creationist who begins his post thus: "Most Darwinists involved in the public debate today have one, and only one goal: To stifle free debate on this subject and thereby discourage you, the public, from scrutinizing the scientific evidence for yourself." -- Jmc (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Jmc well, among all the googles I had missed that header -- so the USnews.com quote is showing one example of ID advocates saying Hoyle was a precursor and their mentioning the objective fact that "intelligent design" was a term Hoyle used a few years before. Anyway -- do you have a position about the question of how or if to mention Hoyle in article ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
ID proponents are not RS for what ID proponents say, because each one is expressing his own opinion, not speaking as a spokesman for the movement.
The fact that Fred Hoyle put the words intelligent and design together in the 1960s doesn't mean he was advocating a belief system that developed decades later.
I don't know why you keep pushing this. Of course some things we cannot explain could be caused by ghosts. But that's beyond the realm of scientific enquiry. TFD (talk) 06:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
TFD Clearly what was published and that IDM mentions Hoyle of the 1980s is objective fact, the question was how or if to mention Hoyle as a precursor in article, which you have already responded to. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Mark, you seem to be trolling and/or trying to synthesise an argument using primary or unreliable sources. Don't. . . dave souza, talk 22:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

dave souza Hi Dave. I am asking a simple and obvious question — taking note of the IP (which indeed is objective fact and appears fairly commonly mentioned in IDM) to ask if Hoyle should be mentioned as a precursor in this article or at Specified complexity. I would prefer if a simple edit question could be easier with simple edit answers, but I suppose any controversial topic has this kind of difficulty of lots of off-question replies. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Per weight, Hoyle only belongs in the article if mentioned in reliable secondary sources about ID. As WP:FRINGE says, "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles."
ID proponents would obviously have us believe that Hoyle endorsed their views. If he did, it would give them respectability. We would need a reliable secondary source to comment on that. TFD (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
To summarize a conclusion to this subthread: There seems no interest and not much attention to the question, so Hoyle remarks exist and are said by IDM as coining the term "Intelligent Design" they later used, but the conclusion is to not include any mention. The thread question was not whether Hoyle endorsed ID, the question was more whether Hoyle should be mentioned as a precursor. The probability argument quoted by IP and/or Hoyle's use of the term "intelligent designer" seemed candidates for note either here or at Specified complexity. Hoyle notably had a probability argument against abiogenesis (Junkyard tornado) although that was more generally for advocating cosmic panspermia (Psuedo-panspermia), such as in the 1982 book 'Evolution in Space', rather than an intelligent designer of Directed panspermia. Anyway, thanks for what input there was and over & out. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Intelligent design as an argument for Gods existence?

The irony has already peaked with the initial comment and been explained with the response. Risking further irony levels would be reckless and might result in injuries as hapless Wikipedians hurt their ribs laughing at this complaint. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have to wonder if the people writing this have a hidden agenda. ID proponents have never asserted who the designer is--it could be an Alien for all we know. The introductory sentence is very clearly biased and should be rewritten to be historically neutral. Intelligent design proper is a (pseudo)scientific theory that attempts to demonstrate that certain biological systems can be more adequately explained by theories of design. It is false to say that the theory is meant to prove God's existence--that is the philosophical argument from design. While I doubt the editors here are intellectually honest enough to change this, it is the truth. This article serves as proof as to why Misplaced Pages is an unreliable source for unbiased information. 104.158.206.172 (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

cdesign proponentsists did not do a very good job of hiding their agenda, trying to mask the teaching of creationism in US public schools behind a facade of "intelligent design". See Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District for how a US federal court dealt with this "breathtaking inanity". Just plain Bill (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Intelligent Design and the Law

Got a link to this from Academia, it's online as linked below, an article in Penn State Law Review Volume 113, Number 3, Winter 2008. An informative overview, a long read. Possibly a useful source, but think we've already covered the points it make. . . dave souza, talk 21:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: