Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:36, 15 September 2007

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

See Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid.

This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the article itself and not the inherent worth of Irreducible complexity. See WP:NOT. If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of Irreducible complexity or promote Irreducible complexity please do so at talk.origins or other fora. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Misplaced Pages article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time in accordance with Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines#How to use article talk pages: Keep on topic.

Creationism B‑class High‑importance

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

Archives

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg

Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Misplaced Pages articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"Intelligent design creationism"

I've placed brackets (and a ?) on 'creationism' in the statement "intelligent design " in this article because, even though I'm aware of how much a problem I.D. is for Scientismists (that is Sceintific Fundamentalists), I.D. in-and-of-itself is NOT creationism and neither should it be PURPOSELY expounded as such. Some supporters of I.D. may in fact have creationist leanings but that does not mean all do, nor does it mean that they automatically must assume {stereotypically implied by opponents} that they believe the "intelligence" is a deity of whatever theological conceptualized sort. Indeed this was not a very OBJECTIVE and UNBIASED description of the idea of Irreducible Complexity. --Carlon 19:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The place to argue whether ID is creationism is at Talk:Intelligent design. As far as this article is concerned, the source quoted immediately after the phrase 'intelligent design creationism' uses that phrase to describe the ID campaign. I'll edit the article to make that a little more clear. Another editor already reverted that change; obviously I'm not the only one who thinks it problematic. Sheffield Steel_stalkers 21:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the place to argue the point of view isn't on article talk pages, though the question of the wording is appropriately discussed here. The reliable secondary source cited is clear that ID is indeed creationism, and we should not give undue weight to the religiously motivated legalistic denials of its proponents which are essentially primary sources. .. dave souza, talk 21:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It is very strange to claim that you have a "reliable secondary source" in a policy position paper of an advocacy organization. Also, your remark simply dismissing the statements made by intelligent design advocates for having religious convictions is itself an NPOV violation. They do not define intelligent design that way. It seems that most ID advocates are theistic (which does not in and of itself imply that they are religious...religion and theism are two different things, although they can be related), but simply showing this doesn't prove dishonesty or some sort of illegitimate "bias", any more than pointing out that opponents of ID most often have a materialist worldview. 200.56.182.195 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use of Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg

There is a dispute over whether fair use applies to the image on this page. Please join the debate at Image talk:Darwinsblackbox.jpg#Use of this image in Irreducible complexity. Rossami (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Serious Violation of NPOV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• B-Class Creationism articles
• High-importance Creationism articles
• WikiProject Creationism articles