Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:27, 13 September 2012

	Please read before starting
This article represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic. Newcomers to Misplaced Pages and this article may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid here. Misplaced Pages policy notes for new editors: A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents ID in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of ID is too extensive or violates Misplaced Pages's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are: NPOV: Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI) NPOV: Undue weight (WP:UNDUE) NPOV: Making necessary assumptions (WP:MNA) NPOV: Giving "equal validity" (WP:GEVAL). The contributors to the article continually strive to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the content forking guidelines. These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are No Original Research (WP:NOR) and Cite Your Sources (WP:CITE). Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Misplaced Pages's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON). This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the article itself and not the inherent worth of Intelligent Design. See WP:NOT. If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of intelligent design or promote intelligent design 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.
Important pointers for new editors: This article uses scientific terminology, and as such, the use of the word 'theory' to refer to anything outside of a recognised scientific theory is ambiguous. Please use words such as 'concept', 'notion', 'idea', 'assertion'; see Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid#Theories and hypotheses. Although at times heated, the debates contained here are meant to improve the Intelligent Design article. Reasoned, civil discourse is the best means to make an opinion heard. Rude behavior not only distracts from the subject(s) at hand, but tends to make people deride or ignore what was said. Please use edit summaries. Challenges and proposals to this article's content must be in alignment with Misplaced Pages's core content policies: WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. If you make a suggestion that does not align with them, you can expect a pointer to the appropriate policies; giving such a pointer is not a form of rudeness, but meant to help smooth the process of building the encyclopedia. To respect your own time and that of others editors, if you receive such a pointer to policy, you should take the time to read and understand the policies before re-raising the issue. If you have been pointed to policy, but continue to argue the matter ad nauseam without the benefit of being supported by policy, you should not expect a full response, but rather that your discussions will be archived or userfied. Again, this is not rudeness or incivility; it is out of respect for the time and patience of all the editors participating and in the interest of maintaining a smooth-running encyclopedia:Misplaced Pages talkpage guidelines do not allow for raising and re-raising objections to content that is well-aligned with content policy, and there is a specific policy against doing that: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (which classifies it as disruptive editing). It's better for everybody if we don't allow things to get to that point. Please peruse the FAQ and the partial index of points that have already been discussed, and use the search box below, to ensure that you are not rehashing old topics. Old topics resurrected without new evidence are likely to be ignored and archived quickly.

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: The journal has no credible editorial and peer-review process, or the process was not followed The journal is not competent for the subject matter of the article The article is not genuinely supportive of ID 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 ^ 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 "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 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 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. "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. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., pp. 31 – 33. ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., 4. Whether ID is Science, p. 87 "Science and Policy: Intelligent Design and Peer Review". American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2007. Retrieved 2007-07-19. 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. 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 "Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington". Biological Society of Washington. Retrieved 2007-07-19. See also Sternberg peer review controversy. Wilkins, John (9 November 2013), "The origin of "intelligent design" in the 18th and 19th centuries", Evolving Thoughts (blog) 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 "Report of John F. Haught, Ph. D" (PDF). Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (NCSE). 2005-04-01. Retrieved 29 August 2013.

	Intelligent design is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 12, 2007.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 2, 2005 Peer review Reviewed January 21, 2006 Good article nominee Listed October 16, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 9, 2007 Peer review Reviewed February 23, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted July 24, 2007 Featured article review Kept December 14, 2008 Featured article review Kept Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative views High‑importance This 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Creationism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity This 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism This 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy Mid‑importance This 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism High‑importance This 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism High‑importance This 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion Top‑importance This 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Maintained

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.

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, 89

​ Archives by topic: Philosophy sources​

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Absolute Chaos

I've spent the last 24 hours trying to make any one of dozens of simple edits that would improve this hopelessly disjointed and inaccurate article, and it's like trying to help 1,000 bickering cooks make a pot of soup. The entire Misplaced Pages editing process is unmanageable for an article this small. I could spend a year arguing and undoing changes with an endless parade of petty noodlers and not succeed in making a single successful change. This article is an absolute mess of inaccuracies and bad writing, and nobody is able to do anything. This is complete GRIDLOCK. This is absolute CHAOS. Everyone contributing to this article should be EMBARRASSED. We're all wasting our time. This article is a joke and so are all of these thousands of little ignorant, petty arguments about minutiae. This is a FAILED process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zyx1xyz (talk • contribs) 23:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Try making a suggestion here on the talk page about what you want to change. Cla68 (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) I'm sorry you're frustrated. Misplaced Pages actually works quite well. You need patience. If you want to write your own article on ID, feel free to do so elsewhere. If you wish to help with this one, you must follow Misplaced Pages policy. KillerChihuahua 23:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

|}

Please, Zyxqxyz, just make a suggestion here about what you want to change. Cla68 (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Promulgation link

After someone edited the lead sentence to include a dictionary link for the word "promulgated", I replaced it with the close-enough synonym "promoted" - if a word is obscure enough that we think some readers will need to pause and look it up in a dictionary, and if it's not a technical term that's a significant aspect of the article subject, I think we should try to avoid using it in the WP:LEADSENTENCE.

This was reverted with the explanation that the verb was "sourced to appease one particular editor who didn't seem to understand that words have different contexts", which seems to refer to this conversation. Putting a clunking great wiktionary link in the first sentence of a featured article to appease one Misplaced Pages editor seems like a bad idea. If the consensus genuinely is just "one editor didn't know what this meant" then we should unlink it, but if consensus is actually that "many readers won't understand this word in this context", wouldn't a synonym or a rewrite be better? --McGeddon (talk) 09:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd be astonished if John Q Public didn't understand the word, nor do I think anyone would confuse it for its obscure legal meaning. Removing the link doesn't seem problematic. Sædon 09:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree. This is not Simple English Misplaced Pages, and the word "promulgate" is better than "promote" here, and it's hardly an obscure word. I've removed the link. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Could we please, instead of impulsively revert warring, discuss article changes we don't agree with? Notice that once a few editors paused to talk it over, it was resolved fairly easily and amicably. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I think perhaps a different word might be something to consider here. I added the Wiktionary link after someone had tried to wikilink the word promulgate to the legal definition on Misplaced Pages, and this isn't the first time. I think even though we may understand the verb and believe it common enough for others, the repeated edits "defining" this term via wikilink is a good indication that many readers don't understand it. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Promulgate has a broader meaning which is think is better here. It includes the initial "broadcast" of written items and thus also usually the creation of the item. North8000 (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Possible synonyms are not as specific and do not carry the connotation of origination. Again, the word is common enough that any college freshman should know it, or else better learn it pdq, and that is the language level we should be aiming at. Trying to explain the history of the topic using baby-talk is fine, but not here. That's what Simplified English Misplaced Pages is for. We are not doing our readers a disservice here by making them reach for a dictionary. Does a body good. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

We aren't just restricted to picking one perfect synonym, of course - we can recast the sentence as much as we like ("a form of creationism posited and promoted by the Discovery Institute", perhaps). "Promulgated" sounds somewhat archaic to my British ear, and feels slightly outside the "style used by reliable sources" of WP:TONE, particularly in the lede where "It is even more important here than in the rest of the article that the text be accessible". --McGeddon (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Polls

I've removed the following from the Polls section:

A May 2005 survey of nearly 1500 physicians in the United States conducted by the Louis Finkelstein Institute and HCD Research showed that 63% of the physicians agreed more with evolution than with intelligent design.

The description of the poll results is the reverse of what the citation actually says, and it doesn't seem relevant to the article. If anyone thinks it's worthwhile to have, please go ahead and correct it.WmGB (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. Doctors are not experts in the fields of either philosophy or evolutionary biology. It's a bit ironic to think about, but I learned years ago that doctors do not necessarily have the qualifications to talk about the more basic aspects and implications of biology, which is honestly a little scary. Sædon 22:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

{e/c}

That's exactly what the poll reported: "Results of a national survey of 1,472 physicians revealed that more than half of physicians (63%) agree that the theory of evolution is more correct than intelligent design."

My question is if the article should note that Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant doctors were polled, showing Protestant doctors far more open to ID. However, the "report" I linked to is just an incomplete summary. How many Jewish doctors were polled? how many Catholic? how many Protestant? how many of other faiths? how many of no declared religion? (None?) Yah, so I just convinced myself you deleted meaningless trivia; thanks. Yopienso (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Also worth noting is the long-term intentional bias of the Finkelstein institute, which is a think tank to promote religious perspectives. Hardly a credible source for an article about a religious concept. i kan reed (talk) 14:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Wait a minute Ikanreed. If Intelligent Design is a religious concept, then wouldn't a think tank that focuses on religious perspectives be subject matter experts on the philosophy? So, shouldn't their opinion be desired as a source for an article on this topic? Cla68 (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Poll results are significantly affected by their wording. Also, polls in Misplaced Pages articles are almost always specially selected to make a particular view. North8000 (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't. I didn't say they were subject matter experts. I said that they actively supported a particular perspective, and haven't got a history of unbiased publication in this arena. Those are very different things, and there's no way to take what you said as anything but an intentionally disingenuous misreading of what I said. Don't do that, please. It wastes so much time on talk pages when everyone goes around misinterpreting what others are saying. Then you can't have a real conversation at all. i kan reed (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Non-Neutral POV

This is clearly written by a cabal of editor dedicated to smearing ID; the same issue is found consistently on every other wiki page relating to ID. This is exceptionally obvious when comparing wiki ID articles to the one on New World Encyclopedia. I cite coverage of ID anytime someone claims wiki is as accurate as other encyclopedias. Let's fix this issue and improve wikipedia. 74.132.169.132 (talk) 03:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that the New World Encyclopedia is an encyclopedia with a Unification Church POV. Being a secular encyclopedia, we do not represent a religious POV, but rather the POV of reliable sources. In the case of ID that means scientific sources and as cursory research will demonstrate, ID is wholly rejected by the scientific community. Sædon 04:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Saedon, we aren't supposed to present any POV, either pro- or anti- ID. In order to do that, I think we should present this topic, first, as its adherents see it, then present opposing opinions. The Encyclopedia Brittanica entry on ID is, IMO, a good example of an NPOV treatement on this topic. Anyway, 74.132.169.132, it's probably more helpful if you present a specific passage or statement in the article you don't feel is NPOV, and we can start with that. Cla68 (talk) 04:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Hi IP. The New World Encyclopedia is a project organized by the Unification Church and the late Sun Myung Moon. As such it's similar to projects such as Conservapedia and Creationwiki in that edits must conform to a particular non-neutral point of view. That said, is there anything in particular you'd like to see brought over from that article?

Second Assistant Undersecretary of the Cabal, GaramondLethe 04:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Heh, kind of funny. I decided to check out the ID talk page on NWE and found this comment by a user named kgreen: "The article on Intelligent Design is an example of poor scholarship. You might as well just put a link to Discovery Institute’s own version of what they are, even though they have been shown to be dishonest. Do your articles on North Korea show happy children and well-fed adults toasting the Dear Leader?" That about sums up why we should never be compared to them. Not as long as interesting as our talk pages, but there are a few wtf comments to check out. And say what you want about NWE, but at least they allow outside input (unlike Stalinopedia Conservapedia). Sædon 04:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Saedon, when it comes to welcoming outside input, I don't always see much of difference between editors here and staff at Conservapedia. Cla68 (talk) 04:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what problem you have with that edit, nor the summary, wrong link? But to answer your inquiry, you can start with the "create account" link that is always on and doesn't require admin approval vs. the fact that unless you have a strictly rightwing Christian POV you can't be a Conservapedia editor (my only account there was blocked when I pointed out that the theory of relativity has no ethical implications whatsoever, but Shafley isn't exactly all there). This is, of course, getting off topic, but I'm happy to discuss on my talk. Sædon 04:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The core of the problems is a structural one where the article conflicts not only with reality and the common meaning of the term but even with itself. And that is to incorrectly and artificially define ID as consisting only of the variant promoted by the Discovery Institute. This fault enables POV editors to incorrectly paint & present the ID concept as wholly a political maneuver rather than the general concept at the core of a range of beliefs that it actually is. I tried bringing this up but got shouted away by the group that is guarding this article. They avoided the core logic of the argument and instead shouted me away via essentially repeating a bunch of bogus non-germane chants. So I'm pretty sure that it will take more eyes from outside of the guard group here to fix this article. North8000 (talk) 10:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a standard response of the religious. When one element is pointed out to be not justifiable, the response is "Oh, no. There's a different and better interpretation you must consider." I call it the "Never wrong" interpretation. HiLo48 (talk) 10:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if that was for me. As an atheist I think that all versions of ID and all of its proponents are wrong. But I checked that POV at the door when I put on my editor hat and am sort of arguing in reverse to my own POV, at least with respect to how the structure problem at the article enables it to have a POV problem. North8000 (talk) 11:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Specific changes supported by reliable sources please. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi North8000. I agree that there have been many arguments from design proposed (going back to at least Aristotle, IIRC) but I can't bring any to mind that have been labeled as "Intelligent Design". I've read both Numbers' and Forrest's books on modern creationism and (again, subject to my faulty memory) based on those I think "Intelligent Design" came from people who then went on to become associated with the Discovery Institute. There may be a need for an "Arguments from Design" article that would encompass Aristotle, Paley and Dembski, but I don't think it should be this article. Of course, if you can cite material that puts Paley under the general heading of "Intelligent Design" then I'm happy to reconsider. (I just did a quick google books search with several date ranges. The phrase and concept of "intelligent design" goes back to at least the 1890s. You might want to start by categorizing those and working up a "History" section of the article. If it turns out that the term refers to several distinct ideas then I think you'll be well-placed to argue for a change in focus of the article.) GaramondLethe 15:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Not quite, Garamond. If a topic is sufficiently distinct and notable in its own right, than it gets its own stand-alone article. There is no doubt that this is true for ID as promulgated by the DI. And if there are other topics to which the name is less often applied, they go in other articles. The term "intelligent design" is almost always used used to refer to the DI brand. It rarely refers to other unrelated, or only marginally related, movements of the sort North is referring to. Those topics currently have their own article at Teleological argument, to which readers are directed with a hatnote.

We don't put Apple (fruit) and Apple (the computer company) in the same article, and because the term "apple" is by far most commonly used to refer to the fruit, it is that article that gets the unqualified "Apple" title, even though you can find plenty of sources that show that some people use the unqualified word "Apple" to refer to the company and its products. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not ready to enter into another big slugfest on this. But one, maybe two of the posts seem to really discussing points and I'm up for that. The Apple analogy is not analagous. Thos two meaning of apple are clearly very different. IMHO ee're talking about a single (albeit vague) meaning for ID that has been artificially split by the article. The other material is already in the article, sourcesd. And so what is errant is the summary in the lead and the statement at the beginning. North8000 (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a single clear meaning of the term intelligent design which, as the lead notes, is 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". The teleological argument is often called the design argument, it commonly posits an intelligent designer namely God, but it has only been presented as a scientific theory in the form of creation science which was subsequently rebranded as intelligent design. All of which is clear from the sources cited in the article. . dave souza, talk 19:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You just completely ignored my point that there is material even in this article which refutes what you just said. On ID prior to the existence of the DI. I'm not ready to go back to that type of (non)dialog. Signing off. And for those who keep chanting "sourcing" as a parry to that which is already sourced, let's talk about somethign that is NOT sourced. This article has no sourcing for the core flaw which is declaring that ID is limited to the DI version. North8000 (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Please point to specific sources already in the article that support the position that intelligent design is something more than a neocreationist political machine perpetuated by the DI. dave souza's point, which conveniently went over your head, is that the material you believe indicates the existence of a broader ideology called intelligent design actually refers to something else... the teleological argument! I have informed you of this as well, in great detail. I have also tried to explain WP:UCN to you, as have others. So my only request is that, if you're not going to identify specific sources that support your position; if you're going to continue to disregard Misplaced Pages policy; and if you're going to immediately shut down conversation because you're "not ready to enter into another big slugfest on this," you just stop mentioning it. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I see this as an issue of people not reading the Faq and Notes section at the top of the page. For that reason, I have tried to shorten the text that appears at the top of a page so that the Faq/Notes appears more prominent. I tried to set the "Article Specific Notes" to not collapsed by adding "|collapsed=no}}" but that didn't change anything. The Article notes should be set to not collapsed, otherwise new readers are not going to read them. Same reason why I set the FAQ to not collapsed as well. It's very easy to miss for casual readers. I mention this because on every fringe science article, you will get someone coming to the talk page every few months and complain that the article is biased. FAQs and other sort of notes should be an attempt to head off those sorts of comments. But they need to be visible. They do not appear to be working however. I think we need some sort of information on how many people are actually reading them.

There's also a broader problem of talk pages typically having far, far too much text. People are just mostly going to ignore it and dismiss it as irrelevant. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Usually those "FAQ's" are just the POV of one side of a debate at the article and should be deleted. In this case they really don't relate to the question at hand and so are an unrelated discussion. North8000 (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

They reflect the policies of Misplaced Pages, such as WP:Reliable Sources, WP:Fringe, WP:Undue Weight, etc. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, several sections directly address the issue of NPOV. That's very relevant. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

IMO the ones in this article aren't bad. But they are not related to the point I brought up. North8000 (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Time for a NPOV 101 lesson here. Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy doesn't mean "all pov's extant in the world are equalized here - evened out- so they are all equally balanced here". It means "wikipedia doesn't inject their own pov". It requires that wikipedians not monkey with said pov's as they are because they don't like them. We're not the referee of "fairness" in pov's in the world...we're a resource where people come to look stuff up and where we seek the trust of readers that we're not a propaganda tool, but that we're presenting them a BS-free account of solid, real world info that representative of reality! If history and science and culture etc's written by the "winners", fair or unfair, wikipedia's not the guerilla "group source" resource that rewrites it all. NPOV policy forbids it!

Compare New World Encyclopedia's references to the references cited here. The contrast is an excellent illustration of two very different approaches to "neutrality". Professor marginalia (talk) 05:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

There are two different angles here. I'm talking about an underlying structural problem which has tended to cause this article to have a bit of a slant. Others (not me) are talking about the overall end result. North8000 (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take a more level headed view of it? From your earlier comment, your "structural problem" is that you want an article about the general concept at the core of a range of beliefs: that article exists, it's teleological argument. If you've no proposals for improvements to this article, this section should be hatted. . dave souza, talk 09:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

What North8000 advocates

This is just for the record, summarizing or coalescing months of on and off discussion. An RFC or whatever would come later and would obviously need outside eyes; at this time this is only to summarize and provide clarity on what changes I advocate:

1. The scope of the article to be the common meanings and usage (past and present) of "intelligent design" relating to the origin of life and the universe, as covered in reliable sources
2. Delete the (IMO) improper template at the beginning that starts with "This article is about the form of creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute...."
3. Build the body per Misplaced Pages standards based on the above (e.g. from coverage in reliable sources)
4. Have the lead actually summarize what is in the body of this article (this is a change; now it does not even summarize what is currently in the article) and any future disambig type statements would need to follow that.

Sincerely North8000 (talk) 10:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on what North8000 advocates

Then you're wasting your time, and ours. By far the majority of the reliable sources use the term "Intelligent Design" to refer specifically to "the form of creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute". The article is about a topic, not a phrase. Drop the stick. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

While I see almost no difference between ID and Creationism (there is a difference, but it's mostly semantic/pedantic) using the claim that "the sources we are using say..." doesn't work against the argument given (that ID and Creationism should be differentiated). You are not negating the argued point, DV, you are just pointing out the problem that was pointed out. 83.70.170.48 (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Responding to DV, That makes no sense. That like saying that if a majority of sources refer to General Motors and Toyota vehicles when talking about about automobiles, then the "automobile" article can be declared to be only about General Motors and Toyota vehicles. North8000 (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

It makes lots of sense. The Slinky article refers to a toy, not something stealthy, sleek, or sexy. Yopienso (talk) 10:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I was illustrating my main point which is the faulty reasoning in DV's post; the faulty reasoning is essentially this: "Most sources talking about real world "Topic XYZ" are talking about a particular "Case B" of it. Therefore it is valid to say that "Topic XYZ" consists only of "Case B"." Your post does not address this, and instead gives an example which IMHO is not parallel to the situation here. Unlike here, the real world meanings of "slinky" are not only unique and different, one of them is an adjective rather than a topic. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.

1. There was no common meaning or usage of "intelligent design" before the 1980s. English being a fluid and expressive language, the two words were certainly paired at various times, even by Scientific American (just above the sub-title, "Grand Scheme") and Charles Darwin, but not to indicate the beginning of the universe or the origin of species.
2. Consensus is that we need that template so newcomers to the article aren't confused about the topic it covers.
3. Good luck findings RSs documenting ID outside the DI.
4. Looks like what the lead is missing is its status outside the U.S., but imo that's just tacked on at the end of the article, anyway.
5. You may want to peruse this treatment of ID. (EBSCO, yet!) Yopienso (talk) 10:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yet another editor calling for the removal of the definition of intelligent design that is among the most succinct and accurate possible definition on the grounds that they think it sounds accusatory. Can't support this. i kan reed (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding #1, how are the "common meanings and usage (past and present) of 'intelligent design' relating to the origin of life and the universe" different from the teleological argument? Because if they're the same (as seems apparent), then that material is already covered in the appropriate article, named according to WP:UCN. Please provide sources illustrating this distinction. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The teleological argument is more suitable to describe the few (if any) notable uses of the term "intelligent design" that applied prior to the neo-creationism promoted by FTE/Pandas/DI. The two are distinguished up right up front—readers looking for the older expressions of the "argument from design" are directed to the appropriate article. The term "intelligent design" wasn't how the various expressions of the teleological argument were normally identified. Take Flood geology—although it's a safe assumption that there will be examples out there somewhere of geologists who analyzed floods using the term "flood geology" in their speech or writing. (Until I researched the topic, I'm sure I'd have assumed that the term "flood geology" referred to the science of floods. It doesn't.) And it would be absurd to downplay what it typically means, to brush aside the volumes of books, articles, and webpages where the term refers specifically to a field of Biblical creationism, and instead to blow the dust off some older, alternative use of the term to highlight instead—simply because it came before. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref group=n> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=n}} template (see the help page).

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• FA-Class Alternative views articles
• High-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• FA-Class Creationism articles
• Top-importance Creationism articles
• WikiProject Creationism articles
• FA-Class Christianity articles
• Unknown-importance Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• FA-Class Conservatism articles
• Unknown-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• FA-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• FA-Class Skepticism articles
• High-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• FA-Class Religion articles
• Top-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles