Talk:Intelligent design: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 14:56, 27 December 2006 editKillerChihuahua (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users34,578 edits please do not remove or edit others' posts← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:23, 27 December 2006 edit undoRaspor (talk \| contribs)655 edits →Controversy Next edit →
Line 1,797:		Line 1,797:
	:::::::Well I am the one who raised the issue so I might as well weigh in. I don't feel the change you made improved the article. I am biased against posing a question in a header and then offering the content as an answer to that question. It seems rhetorical if not leading to me. Nothing personal or edit "warrish", I simply raised the issue because I felt it did not make a positive contribution to the article and could set an precedent we probably want to avoid. I doubt the article will become fossilized anytime soon though the formatting and style will probably remain somewhat stagant, which I think is a good thing. If we make formatting or stylistic changes they should be well planned and with editorial consent. Otherwise we open the door to changing header titles (etc) on a whim and then having to endlessly defend reverting (or keeping) them. The subject matter itself comes with enormous baggage and controversy, so we'd be wise to narrow the scope of what's worth arguing over. Finally, your original question ''is it scientific?'' is a good one that I think the reader will already ask themselves as they weigh the evidence and competing ideas in the article and come to their own conclusion. Cheers, ] 04:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)		:::::::Well I am the one who raised the issue so I might as well weigh in. I don't feel the change you made improved the article. I am biased against posing a question in a header and then offering the content as an answer to that question. It seems rhetorical if not leading to me. Nothing personal or edit "warrish", I simply raised the issue because I felt it did not make a positive contribution to the article and could set an precedent we probably want to avoid. I doubt the article will become fossilized anytime soon though the formatting and style will probably remain somewhat stagant, which I think is a good thing. If we make formatting or stylistic changes they should be well planned and with editorial consent. Otherwise we open the door to changing header titles (etc) on a whim and then having to endlessly defend reverting (or keeping) them. The subject matter itself comes with enormous baggage and controversy, so we'd be wise to narrow the scope of what's worth arguing over. Finally, your original question ''is it scientific?'' is a good one that I think the reader will already ask themselves as they weigh the evidence and competing ideas in the article and come to their own conclusion. Cheers, ] 04:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

	== ~~Controversy~~ ==		== Permission ==

			Am I allowed to post my opinion on the NPOV of any part of this article?
	Our tempers are bad enough here on the talk page--this article is clearly popular and controversial. Because of this, I would recommend that this article be semi-protected to prevent vandalism. ] 19:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
			And if someone removes this can they tell me why?

	:I have requested semi-protection just now, based on the fact that the past few days have seen several vanalism edits from anonymous IP addresses. -] 20:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

	::Request was denied because "there is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism." I guess it depends on which admin sees the request; some are more amenable to semi-protecting than others. I once managed to get ] semi-protected before for identical reasons. -] 23:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:23, 27 December 2006

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.

Please read before starting

First of all, welcome to Misplaced Pages's Intelligent Design article. 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.

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:

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.

Intelligent design has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}.

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed.
For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

Intelligent design received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Creationism GA‑class 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
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notes to 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#Theory.
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.

Archived discussion

I didn't think the discussion was quite closed on "leading proponents" when it was archived. Admittedly there was some tendentious argumentation and some irrational candidates for "leading proponents not affiliated with the DI", but a few reasonable arguments were made as well. Among them were Alvin Plantinga (by merit of Simoes wanting to see evidence of the connection of the ISCID to the DI), and also the Australian Education Minister, along with mention of Ann Coulter and George Bush. This is, after all, a fairly complex topic and resonable questions do deserve reasonable discussion. Perhaps those discussions should remain active pending a more thorough closure to whatever extent might be possible?... Kenosis 18:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It might not have been closed, but it was certainly fruitless and becoming disruptive. There still has not been any evidence given that there are leading ID proponents who are not affiliated with the Discovery Institute; Plantinga certainly isn't one, he's published no notable ID books, not one, and has never participated in ID court cases as an expert, and is cited in the mainstream press on ID far, far less than Behe, Dembski, Johnson, or Meyer. Plus as a member of ISCID he's affiliated with the DI. Any topic is always open for revisiting and discussion, but without any new evidence that a specific change is warranted, those proposing such changes cannot reasonably expect alterations to supported content that fly in the face of existing evidence and widely accepted facts. FeloniousMonk 19:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The previous discussion was essentially a long process of elimination. I'm sure if people still have concerns about the issues raised (of the people discussed I think only the Australian minister warrants serious further consideration) then I'm sure they can continue it here. --Davril2020 19:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It can always be discussed when new evidence is available. But unless the Australian minister suddenly publishes 4 or 5 ID books that get the ink and response that Behe and Dembski's books get, he's not going to be considered a leading proponent by any meaningful definition of the term. FeloniousMonk 19:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I've had a look at Brendon Nelson's website and I can't find any mention of intelligent design on it anywhere. His profile says nothing at all about intelligent design and his wikipedia page likewise does not mention the concept. That intelligent design seems absent (or at the very least, very very buried) would seem to strongly argue against any reasonable definition of leading. In addition, I can find no reference to him having 'introduced legislation' - he has said that he believes ID should be taught if the parents want it, but appears to have made no comments at all about the merits of the theory, still less described the theory or made contributions to it. All sources I can find refer to one specific mention of the concept. Having looked at this I can't imagine anyone would continue to suggest he is a 'leading' advocate. Is there anyone else left from the list? --Davril2020 20:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Moreover, Brendan Nelson, who got on board with ID several days after George Bush had his two cents on the issue in 2005, has since been replaced by Julie Bishop. She has firmly stated that ID will not be part of the Australian science curriculum (as reported here). So much for that, I should think. ... Kenosis 23:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The objections and related proposed changes were DOA at the outset. It's simply far too easy to determine who the leading proponents are in any national movement. Expert court testimony, published books, references in the media, all work together to make hiding the roots of a movement improbable. Behe, Dembski, Johnson, Meyer, by their own admission are the leaders of both the concept and the movement: Something like 95% of the author's names listed are also on the list of Fellows, , and the rest are affiliated through relationships of groups like ISCID and ARN in the movement. Looking at the list of fellows at each group, you see the same names again and again: CSC fellows, ARN (click (featured authors'), ISCID fellows. Those same names, again and again. They are the leading ID proponents. FeloniousMonk 20:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a good place to note that in this just archived discussion Bagginator, Psychohistorian, ILovePlankton, AbstractClass, Simões,MattShepherd, i kan reed,Storkk editors indicated a change in one form or another while Kenosis, Jim62sch, ScienceApologist, Guettarda, Davril2020, Nnp, KillerChihuahua, FeloniousMonk editors indicated they either wanted further discussion or were against the change. Looks like deadlocked disagreement to me.Bagginator 00:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

No, that's called a tendentious dispute - continued arguing in pursuit of a certain point while failing to satisfy WP:V and WP:RS for an extended time while ignoring comments from other editors and calls for proof. There can be no legitimate dispute to be deadlocked over where no compelling evidence for a change has been presented. You've failed to make your case for the simple reason you've presented no evidence for the change you've proposed. Consensus never trumps NPOV or verifiable facts. FeloniousMonk 00:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

FM beat me to the point. Everyone is free to have their opinions, but on wiki, absent verifiable and reliable spurcing, they are irrelevant. Seems to me the claims of alleged leading propents fail the WP:V and WP:RS tests. Jim62sch 00:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

In response to Bagginator's comment above: Just to clarify, Brendan Nelson turned out to be a red herring, as he's no longer the education minister. The other proposed candidates for "leading proponent not affiliated with the Discovery Institute" ranged from marginal commentators to completely absurd phantoms made up out of thin air. Lacking an alternative that's a clear improvement for the article, I support the existing language. ... Kenosis 00:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Now, for a hypothetical example, if Brendan Nelson in his new role as Minister of Defence were to somehow take over Australia in a military coup and impose intelligent design on Australian curricula, I would support a reconsideration of the existing phrase "It's leading proponents are all affiliated with the Discovery Insitute". Hope that helps to clarify my position. ... Kenosis 01:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, but what are the odds? We've already had one coup d'etat this year, could there be another? Jim62sch 01:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, how do Aussies pronounce junta? Jim62sch 01:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

All of the back and forth aside, this boils down to a discussion into what constitutes a "leading proponent of intelligent design". So, according to Bagginator's list, there are 8 people who support changing the definition from the definition used by Forrest to some new (unspecified) definition, and there are 8 people opposed to it. This cannot be considered consensus for change.

While Forrest's exact definition is unstated, she does name people she considers to be leading proponents - people who have really built the idea, published extensively on it, devoted considerable amounts of time to it. There are other sources which call other people "leading proponents". These sources cannot be considered "experts" on the matter - they are journalists (at best), and there is no real way to determine what their functional definitions may be, or how well-suited they are to judge what constitutes a "leading proponent". In addition, they list people who are otherwise not strongly associated with the idea. If you read the Umana article, for example, when the author calls him a proponent of ID it's in the context of calling him a little nutty. Not exactly the sort of source on which you want to build an encyclopaedia article.

It's possible for us to list every ID proponent, determine how much of an impact they have had on ID, and see how often they have been called a "leading proponent". Such a project would not be acceptable as content (it would clearly be OR), but it might give us a context in which to evaluate these sources and claims. Guettarda 19:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Bagginator left this message on my talk page:

What do you think of the others ive offered as WP:V and WP:RS? Here is my total list that meets that specific criteria. The San Francisco Chronicle, August 28 2005 calls Norris Gravlox, "a leading proponent of the intelligent design theory" the Tribeca Film Festival calls Jack Cashill, "a leading proponent of intelligent design." The Orlando Weekly from September 1st 2005 calls Mat Staver, "leading proponent of teaching intelligent design in public schools" and on May 26, 2006, the Legal Times calls John Umana, "a leading proponent of intelligent design" establishing WP:V and WP:RS.Bagginator 05:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought it would be appropriate to post my response here since as others have pointed out, hopefully going through a list of names will mean that if the names are raised again we can link to this discussion rather than exhaustively review it. So, we have:

Norris Gravlox - this person does not exist. The article is a spoof by a humorist (note that the writer claims he works at the 'Evangelical School of Dentistry' which does not exist and more tellingly, claims the person works at 'Bald Knob'. In the same article the writer talks about 'intelligent design' proponents who believe that children are formed not by an egg and sperm, but by storks bringing the children to earth (link to original article)

Jack Cashill - Not exactly unassociated with the Discovery Institute

Mat Staver - A more complex case. Reading this suggests to me that he is a creationist and not a proponent of intelligent design. At the very least he seems to be proposing literal creationism which means you get into the conflict of whether intelligent design is a form of creationism or not. At any rate he has conducted no work on intelligent design at all - he is an advocate of teaching it, but has made no independent contributions to its theory in the way Wells, Behe et. al. have.

John Umana - This again is an issue of authoritative verifiable sources. I have not located a single article dealing with Umana as an ID proponent. There seems to be only a single article on him on this subject at all and it is entirely tangential to the topic. I think it would be wiser to seek out more verifiable information about him first. At any rate, I can find literally no information on his position of irreducible complexity or other important ID concepts, so figuring out what his perspective actually is is extremely difficult. Again, having a source isn't in itself sufficient - it must be authoritative. More substantial sources might convince me personally, but then there's the question of Umana's output, which at present seems extremely small and of limited circulation. I've also had a look at some details of his book. And note, it is indeed 'book' - he has published only one item and from the description it seems exceedingly short. It appears to be self-published. And, though this isn't directly relevent, you'll find that a good chunk of the google hits for the man are either (a) this very talk page or (b) blogs, where Umana (or someone with his name) has taken to posting chunks of the book and posting a backlink to its amazon webpage. Again, even aside from the need for a more substantial source we are truly reaching here if we describe this person as 'leading'.

William Harris - I'll go back over this if people want but as I understand it the 'Intelligent Design Network' is intimately associated at every level with the 'Discovery Institute' and as such Harris is associated with them since he was a co-founder of IDnet). He has also co-authored a number of works with the founders of the DI which to me makes him inextricably linked to their project. (I'd like comments on this one if people know any more about the relationship between DI and IDnet than I do)

Having looked at all the people you listed, two are clearly inappropriate, one would require drastically expanding the definition of 'leading proponent' and with the final one I'm having trouble assessing his beliefs and without a source specifically devoted to this person's belief in intelligent design I couldn't argue that he was significant. Certainly, it seems all the other individuals we've seen listed as leading proponents have independently reviewed media articles not simply on them, but their relationship to the ID movement. --Davril2020 22:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The inference that John Umana is a leading proponent makes a mockery of WP:VER and WP:RS. For convenience I'll simply reproduce my earlier comment about it, which was: "Legalitmes.com calls Umana a leading proponent of ID, and we get 70 hits on Google, virtually all of which are a result of legaltimes.com calling Umana a leading proponent and putting it on the web. And that's virtually all because of this story which is also cached here]. Now, what's wrong with this picture as it relates to WP:RS." ... Kenosis 22:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Davril2020, thanks for doing the heavy lifting on this one. I spend too much time researching and not enough time actually reading the context of these articles. As for Jack Cashill, the evidence you linked to is an article written for World Net Daily, not an article written for Discovery Institute. The fact that Discovery Institute reproduces articles by leading proponents on its website shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. As for the others that are called leading proponents. I think that is our problem here is that we can't agree on what a leading proponent would be but we believe it is up to us. Can someone point me to the Misplaced Pages guidelines that cover this? So far what ive found is that we need to establish WP:V and WP:RS and not truth. Several of those leading proponents are established via WP:V and WP:RS and it seems like some are saying, "Well, I disagree with that opinion and therefore it is wrong." Like what Guetarda writes above. Can an opinion ever be wrong? It can be verified though. Bagginator 00:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The definition of 'leading proponent' might at some point become an issue, but what we're dealing with here is WP:V and WP:RS. Sources are not acceptable simply because they come from major media organisations. To give you an example, look at the fake intelligent design proponent above, Norris Gravlox. He doesn't exist, but the only way I know that is because of the writing style, the fact that the author is a humorist rather than a reporter, and that none of the places cited in the piece actually exist (nor do any of the organisations). Yet it is a source by a major media outlet suggesting that he is a leading proponent. There are absolutely no sources contradicting this view. There are no verifiable sources that point out that he does not, in fact, exist. Therefore if we used a minimalist approach to WP:V and WP:RS we could faithfully write him into the article and write a bio of him, with reference to this piece. This is absurd, but on the other hand, we have no verifiable sources saying he does not exist. Clearly, this would cripple Misplaced Pages if the standard for inclusion was so low since any satirical article without a warning label would be included as fact (since who are we to interpret what is and is not of humorous intent?). Therefore, although editors cannot use original research, it is inevitable that they act as mediators in determining what is and is not an acceptable source. In this case, for instance, Forrest was discussing intelligent design specifically when she referred to these people as leading lights of their cause and discussed the whole issue in depth illustrating her knowledge of the area. So, to contradict this, we would probably wish to look for an equally prominent source (i.e. someone who has been cited as an expert on the subject) discussing particular examples. In this context, tangential references to someone being a 'leading proponent' are inadequate. If more substantial sources are found we can reopen debate on what a 'leading proponent' is, if there's any need to. --Davril2020 03:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Bagginator, in response to your subsequent comments on my talk page you are correct that to swing too far one way is as bad as to swing too far the other way. The point is that we cannot simply take sources and insert them into articles; there must be some form of analytical process by Misplaced Pages editors to determine what is and is not acceptable. As such we cannot just say 'it meets the criteria for WP:V' etc., since this is, in some measure, determined by the editors. In this instance, the bar has been set high - most people here seem to want specific articles on ID proponents emphasising their leadership of the movement. I am unclear as to why you feel reporters are better at judging who is and is not a leading proponent of intelligent design than philosophers who have devoted many years to studying the issue, particularly when the journalists are clearly not experts on the subject, have not been called as witnesses, and are only referring to the ID proponent tangentially in each instance. Bear in mind that if we accept what these reporters say then equally we must include references to ID being creationism, absurd, full of lies etc. simply because other reporters with equal experience have said so, even when the author is clearly misinformed about the subject. --Davril2020 13:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

As to William Harris, Davril2020 is the second person to tell me something along the lines of...

the 'Intelligent Design Network' is intimately associated at every level with the 'Discovery Institute' and as such Harris is associated with them since he was a co-founder of IDnet

but as of yet no one has verified this claim through a reliable source. Not the claim that William Harris is a co-founder of IDnet, that is made obvious by looking at their webpage. The claim that IDnet is affiliated with the Discovery Institute. Can anyone provide a reliable source to back up this opinion?Bagginator 08:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"...the writer talks about 'intelligent design' proponents who believe that children are formed not by an egg and sperm, but by storks bringing the children to earth." It would actually be quite difficult to disprove this idea. You could watch every household in the US and see no storks, but that would merely amount to an absence of evidence. The idea that sexual congress is somehow connected with babies is, of course, the dominant paradigm, but the theory is controversial. I demand equal time for the stork hypothesis! PiCo

Definition yet again... very brief

The problem I had with the definition is because I didn't understand the term "intelligent cause", I read the responses again, and you are essentially right in the answers, but I would like to add that the definition becomes much clearer, if one reads the wikipedia entry on intelligent designer, which is wikilinked, but who clicks on links to crucial terms in a definition? Anyway, if one understands all the connotations of "intelligent cause", it is clear that it can not be interpreted as an innocent argument from design. I guess I have to admit that "this article is GOOOD"... Well, the editors are very paranoid here, but I guess they have reason to be. Good luck, to both sides!

(And just one more thing, what's with the "Counter-arguments against such criticisms are often proffered by intelligent design proponents, as are counter-counter-arguments by critics, etc." Sounds like an inside joke about the history of this article, otherwise it's just stating something very very obvious) --Vesal 13:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

RE "the editors are very paranoid here": Yes, we have bad dreams of nice men in clean white coats coming to take us away in straightjackets. This is a difficult and complex subject with its various overlaps of the philosophical, theological, scientific and socio-political ideology, not to mention the widely-encountered obfuscation of who the real players are and what are their agendas, and how the donors' money comes into play too. Vesal, if you felt caught in the middle of something, I can tell you I have been-there/done-that in this article. I'm sure you have everyone's apology, or at least mine if you felt I was being the least bit hasty about any opinions posted in that long debate.

Part of the problem, of course, is that the definition itself is a POV magnet, so for purposes of WP:VER, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV the Discovery Institute's definition is used in the introduction. But the more persistent problem has been that the verified fact of ID's origin and dissemination into contemporary culture is quite counterintuitive until one goes over the research thoroughly. It is a sufficiently unusual phenomenon that the first tendency is to say "how can all of the leading proponents of a concept like this be from one "place", part of one group of people. The well verified fact is that's just what happened here. One group, one organization of people (with several additional sattelite or shadow entities) manufactured and disseminated this packaging of "intelligent design" into contemporary culture. ... Kenosis 18:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologize, as I now fully understand the situation, but thank you! Anyway, I don't know why I'm drawn to controversial pages when my contributions would be far more helpful on less developed articles. --Vesal 12:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Overview

ID Overview Statement

Transferred the following introduction desciption of ID from the long discussion in the recently archived material to the article: Intelligent design examines evidence for intelligent causation in abiotic and biotic systems from the formation of the Universe to human beings. DLH 14:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. There is no 'evidence for intelligent causation'. There's nothing to examine. It would be more accurate to say that, "Proponents of intelligent design are searching for evidence of intelligent causation.."-Psychohistorian 18:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Psychohistorian You make an interesting assertion that appears to require comprehensive knowledge of everything everywhere. Look forward to your evidence for that. Science can disprove a theory by finding contrary evidence. However proving a negative is rather on the impossible side. Absence of evidence is necessary but insufficient to prove your negative hypothesis. Thus you could argue that from Aristotle to Newton that there was an absence of evidence for the atom and thus it did not exist. Necessary - but insufficient. Rutherford's experiments dismissed that assertion. You have to look in the right place at the right time with a method that can detect the prediction of an hypothesis. DLH 19:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

There may or not be evidence ID forms models to distinguish intelligent from natural causation. Here is a longer but more precise sentence.

Intelligent design tests models of abiotic and biotic systems against empirical data to identify evidence for intelligent causation versus natural forces, ranging from the formation of the Universe to human beings.

DLH 00:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

And? Jim62sch 00:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

And there's a difference between precision and accuracy. Model testing in ID? Please, some evidence of this. Guettarda 03:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"Intelligent causation" is not a scientific concept. There is no accepted (or even seriously discussed) definition outside of creationist circles, which is necessary for falsifiable claims to be made about it. Therefore, evidence cannot be identified to support its existence from a particular experiment or model. Simões (/_contribs) 04:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Am I then able to conclude then that the previous entry attributed to Simoes is an arbitrary sequence of random characters generated by a random signal generator? If so it is a remarkably improbable event with no apparent correlation to known testable methods of human interaction, language, communication, computer hardware and/or software design. Look forward to some serious arguments.DLH 20:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

A concept cannot test a model. What intelligent design proponents purport to do is provide a better explanation for origins than the mainstrema explanations. This is already outlined in the intro. --ScienceApologist 10:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Is anthropomorphic compaction frowned on here? Ok here is reworded version with "practioners". The focus of this line is to replace the present misleading first sentence to Overview.

Intelligent design practioners model empirical data of abiotic and biotic systems to identify evidence for intelligent causation versus natural forces, ranging from the formation of the Universe to human beings. DLH 20:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

(NB: This is not an attempt at polemics; this is an honest question.)

This appears to have been separated from it's question. Could someone please claim it.DLH 20:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Better in what way, exactly? The ID "hypothesis" (and I use that word lightly) is unfalsifiable and untestable. It explains nothing, because it is compatible with everything. It doesn't make any predicition; it doesn't give us any new venues to explore; it doesn't show us where to look for the next piece in the great puzzle that is science.

So what's left? How is it better? It makes a few christian fundamentalists feel intellectually fulfilled?

Really, in what particular way do ID proponents think it is better?

--Wasell 12:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

A remarkable polemimc. See models of irreducible complexity by Michael Behe such as the clotting cascade, and conservation of information by William A. Dembski, Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force? by Jonathan Wells etc.DLH 20:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

ID is not testing and modeling? This is ground breaking news and we should add this new development to the article in a big time way. The Discovery Institute and their supporters have been claiming for years that some of their "scientists" are conducting tests and research yet they have never made any of this public. The other day they were claiming they are keeping all their research a secret so no one makes fun of them or threatens their livelyhood/reputation. DLH, please by all means share your references and cites for this testing and modeling. This would be a big time score! This is the first I've heard of it and I'm surprised this is not on the front page of every newspaper in America. I'm going to go buy a newspaper and see how we'll it's being covered. FYI, who exactly is doing the modeling and testing and what have the findings been? Is anyone trying to replicate their results yet? Again, Nice_score, is there an online source for this? I can't find anything on Google yet. Mr Christopher 14:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Proponents of intelligent design claim that they are searching for evidence of intelligent causation. We hve no way of knowing if they actually are searching for evidence of intelligent causation because there is no published research. JPotter 14:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you on that, JPotter. DLH had written Intelligent design tests models of abiotic and biotic systems against empirical data to identify evidence for intelligent causation versus natural forces, ranging from the formation of the Universe to human beings. so I naturally thought he must have uncovered where some ID proponent(s) is now actually doing something scientific (and not just pontificating and/or using little mouse trap analogies fit for pre-schoolers). I've searched Google and bought a few papers today in hopes of learning about this new development. So far I have not found anything to support DLH's claim(s) that there is some actual testing and modeling going on now in the ID realm. Hopefully he'll clue us in today on his discovery. Mr Christopher 17:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr Cristopher & JPotter. Sorry to hear you have difficulty searching or that you have been listening to the naysayers too long. For starters see:

Michael Behe and David W. Snoke (2004). "Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues". Protein Science 13 (10): 2651-2664.
The Extended ID Bibliography
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)]
DLH 20:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda reverted adding this sentence asserting "(rv - some of these changes are inaccurate, others misleading)" but without discussion or providing any evidence for that assertion. DLH 21:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Feloniousmonk revered asserting "rv. Inaccurate and biased" without evidence or discussion. The two sentences are the result of mmonths of refinement. Replaced them.DLH 04:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

We've pointed out to you, over and over, that your assertion that ID practioners "model empirical data" does not appear to be consistent with reality. If they "model empirical data" why do they keep these actions hidden? What models? Guettarda 15:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Natural Causation

See Intelligent Design Archive 32 Overview Natural Causation for extensive discussion. The following sentence is proposed to replace the second sentence under Overview for a more balanced contrast to ID overview.

By contrast, conventional biological science, relies exclusively on natural explanations for abiogenesis and macroevolution through processes such as mutation and natural selection, starting from the Big bang. DLH 20:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Feloniousmonk reverted asserting "rv. Inaccurate and biased" without evidence or discussion. The two sentences are the result of mmonths of refinement. Replaced them.DLH 04:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Add AAAS reference:

By contrast, conventional biological science, relies exclusively on natural explanations for abiogenesis and macroevolution through processes such as mutation and natural selection, starting from the Big bang.

DLH 03:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Overview ID & Conventional science

Copied following summary overview of ID and Conventional science following long discussion:

Intelligent design practitioners model empirical data of abiotic and biotic systems to identify evidence for intelligent causation versus natural forces, ranging from the formation of the Universe to human beings. By contrast, conventional biological science, relies exclusively on natural explanations for abiogenesis and macroevolution through processes such as mutation and natural selection, starting from the Big bang.

DLH 23:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Numerous problems:

Universe is not abiotic.
intelligent causation is a natural force, distinguishing between them is a false dichotomy.
biology does not start from the Big Bang.

Therefore reverted.

--ScienceApologist 23:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The universe consistes by definition of abiotic and biotic systems. The ID overview statement does not require a 1:1 match, but gives ranges. Abiotic and biotic are logically comprehensive over all systems. DLH 00:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
"From the formation of universe to human beings" is similarly a comprehensive range in time and subject matter. DLH 00:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Your claim that "intelligent causation is a natural force" is "a false dichotomy" is an asertion over the heart of ID vs abiogenesis and macroevolution. Natural forces are the four forces of strong, weak, electro-magnetism and gravity. Whether these can cause intelligent systems or if their is intelligent causation separate from those natural forces is the key to ID and what this article is about. Your assertion is invalid for reverting the ID position. I have split the sentence up to address your objections. DLH 00:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent design practioners model empirical data of abiotic and biotic systems to identify evidence for intelligent causation versus natural forces. ID models range from the formation of the Universe to human beings. By contrast, conventional biological science, relies exclusively on natural explanations for abiogenesis and macroevolution through processes such as mutation and natural selection, starting from the Big bang.

Proposed revision DLH 00:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You didn't address the fact that universe is the piped link for abiotic.

Removed links to abiotic and biotic. Added "to biological systems".DLH 02:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

"Intelligent causation versus natural forces" assumes the dichotomy exists. This is not NPOV.

Changed "intelligent design versus" to "distinguish evidence for intelligent causation from". The natural forces are the strong force, weak force, electromagnetism and gravity. Added link to Forces. Human beings are recognized as intelligent causes. The dichotomy is at the heart of the debate.DLH 02:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

There are no ID "models" for the formation of the universe to human beings. ID is a best a conjecture about existing data, but in no way offers original models.

Does not say there are. States modeling empirical data to detect intelligent causation. Not models of intelligent causation. The assertion on original models is false, as evidenced by Jonathan Wells' model of centrioles.DLH 02:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

biological science does not start from the Big Bang.

Describing orthodox models of abiogenesis using natural processes after the Big bang.DLH 02:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Added lightning with link to the Urey-Miller experiment.DLH 02:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Revised Overview intro:

Intelligent design practitioners model empirical data of abiotic and biotic systems to distinguish evidence for intelligent causation from natural forces, ranging from the formation of the Universe to biological systems and human beings. By contrast, orthodox physical and biological sciences, rely exclusively on natural explanations for abiogenesis and macroevolution through processes such as lightning, mutation, and natural selection, starting after the Big bang.

DLH 02:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Restored from Kenosis' uncommented undiscussed reversion.DLH 04:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ rv claiming: "rv POV, contains many elements already rejected among other issues. get consensus on talk first" but without discussion as to his objections nor critique on how to improve it.DLH 04:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a little peculiar that you're making changes that have no consensus and then accusing those who revert the changes of doing so without discussion. What, exactly, are you trying to do here? Simões (/_contribs) 05:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Simoes is right, and we'd don't need to discuss every single revert of undiscussed pov additions. FeloniousMonk 05:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I am working to correct the duplicitous inaccurate overview introduction: "Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to natural explanations for evolution." This falsely implies both that ID is against microevolution and objects to natural explanations for it. ID practitioners widely accept that there are natural causes such as mutation that result in microevolution. They also recognize environmental pressures such as droughts that change finch beaks - AND THEN CHANGE THEM BACK AGAIN when the rains return. ID also works with empirical evidence, hypotheses, forming and testing models, and so works with the scientific method. Thus explicitly distinguishing the issue of macroevolution not evolution. I have proposed these two sentences and reworked them for several months to address objections. Please show where this is wrong or show cause for why this improvement should not replace the current inaccurate statement.DLH 22:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Kenosis please identify what is not supported by the references cited and provide ways to improve it. DLH 03:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll point out that DLH's paragraph re-hashes a prior discussion from Talk:Intelligent design/Archive32#Evidence for intelligent causation in which the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are discussed as creationist gloss (and it was my contention that using these terms constitute creationist POV). These are terms used (or abused) primarily by creationists, I first saw them used by creationists about 15 years ago, and the terms have made their way into the mainstream. These terms have no place in descriptions of conventional science. The only difference between this discussion and the archived one is that the archived one was about the lead paragraph to the article, whereas this one is about the lead paragraph of a subsection. Nevertheless, it's essentially the same discussion. No need to go through it all again. -Amatulic 03:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to dissappoint Amatulic, but evolutionists such as Roger Lewin and Stephen Gould have been actively discussing macroevolution at least in the early 80s. See MacroEvolution Laurence A. Moran ver 1.1, Evolution by Accident

Wesley Elsberry reports on the use of ‘’‘macroevolution’‘’ by Dobzhansky in 1937, and by Goldschmidt in 1940:

elsberr@orca.tamu.edu (Wesley R. Elsberry); Newsgroups: talk.origins; Subject: Re: ABiele: A Reply to Mr. Hershey; Date: 16 Nov 1996 16:39:36 GMT

The earliest use of "macroevolution" and "microevolution" that I have found so far is in Dobzhansky's 1937 "Genetics and the origin of species" (or something similar to that, I'm working from memory here). D. did not establish a demarcation between the two, but merely used the terms to refer to the ends of what he saw as a scale of evolutionary phenomena.”

Dobzhansky, Theodosius Grigorievich, Genetics and the origin of species New York, Columbia Univ. Press, 1937. xvi, 364 p. ill. LC# QH366 .D6

“G. proposed that macroevolution refer to the establishment of the good species and higher taxa. Microevolution would then refer to everything below the species level.”

Goldschmidt "Material basis of evolution". ‘’The material basis of evolution,’‘ Richard Goldschmidt, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1940, xi, 436 p. : ill. LC# QH366 .G53

Thus Amatulic's accusation is itself POV and without foundation.DLH 14:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Revised summary with citation to definition of Macroevolution by Goldschmidt 1940.
Intelligent design practitioners model empirical data of abiotic and biotic systems to distinguish evidence for intelligent causation from natural forces, ranging from the formation of the Universe to biological systems and human beings. By contrast, orthodox physical and biological sciences, rely exclusively on natural explanations for abiogenesis and macroevolution through processes such as lightning, mutation, and natural selection, starting after the Big bang., DLH 15:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Revised summary changing citation to Levinton, 2001, Genetics, Paleontology and Macroevolution to address complaint by Amatulic below over use of Goldschmidt 1940.
Intelligent design practitioners model empirical data of abiotic and biotic systems to distinguish evidence for intelligent causation from natural forces, ranging from the formation of the Universe to biological systems and human beings. By contrast, orthodox physical and biological sciences, rely exclusively on natural explanations for abiogenesis and macroevolution through processes such as lightning, mutation, and natural selection, starting after the Big bang.,

Revised summary adding microevolution and citation to Hendry & Kinneston, 2002 to address complaint over micro and macro evolution.

Intelligent design practitioners model empirical data of abiotic and biotic systems to distinguish evidence for intelligent causation from natural forces, ranging from the formation of the Universe to biological systems and human beings. By contrast, orthodox physical and biological sciences, rely exclusively on natural explanations for abiogenesis, microevolution and macroevolution through processes such as lightning, mutation, and natural selection, starting after the Big bang., ,

DLH 03:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed unsourced overview sentence

the following unsourced sentence: "Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to natural explanations for evolution. Intelligent design stands in opposition to conventional biological science, which relies on the scientific method to explain life through observed physical processes such as mutation and natural selection." per WP:VERIFY DLH 22:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Macroevolution: Creationist POV or Scientific Use?

Sorry to disappoint DLH. If my "accusation" is POV, it's the POV of a scientist. The terms microevolution and macroevolution have been co-opted by creationists according to all sources I can find, including Misplaced Pages's macroevolution article. These terms were proposed by scientists but never gained broad acceptance in the scientific community because they're viewed as equivalent concepts. You don't see these terms appear in peer reviewed journals anymore. The macroevolution article also agrees with articles on the in saying: With the discovery of the structure of DNA and genes, genetic mutation gained acceptance as the mechanism of variance in the 1960s. This developing theory of evolution was then called the modern evolutionary synthesis, which remains prominent today. The synthetic model of evolution equated microevolution and macroevolution, asserting that the only difference between them was one of time and scale.

It's irrelevant how long ago the terms were coined. In modern times, after creationists co-opted them, their use now constitutes creationist POV and has no place in any description of science.

Again I say, this discussion on DLH's proposed paragraph has been re-hashed before and it isn't necessary to repeat it again, or to keep re-introducing variations of the same sentences into the article. -Amatulic 17:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a geneticist and am probably underequipped to discuss this topic, but coming from the perspective of systems science, I find it hard to believe that there isn't an important distinction between change within a species (microevolution) and change which creates speciation (macroevolution). I'm looking at it in terms of species functioning as an attractor on the range of genetic diversity. If one organism mutated by itself into a new species, it couldn't reproduce with an organism of the original species and, therefore, its mutation would be an evolutionary deadend. Again, I'm not an expert on genetics, but I am curious as to how this is resolved and if any content/sources can be brought to bear in the article on this issue.-Psychohistorian 17:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Change within a species can (and often does) lead to speciation, whether you define "speciation" as reproductive isolation or morphological change. This has been observed in many species of plants, birds, flies, and other organisms, where gradual changes result in a population incapable of breeding with the "parent" population. Although certain scientists (e.g. Gould) speak of macroevolution in the context of creation/evolution debate, there really isn't any distinction recognized by the scientific community. There isn't microevolution or macroevolution, it's simply evolution. If you're interested, here are just a few of many examples of speciation:

In 1905, while studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, H. De Vries discovered among his plants a variant having a different chromosome number. He was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named the new species O. gigas. (De Vries, Species and Varieties, Their Origin By Mutation, 1905)
After five years of selective crossbreeding, E. Pasterniani in 1969 produced almost complete reproductive isolation between two varieties of corn. The species were distinguishable by seed color, white versus yellow. (Zea mays L. Evolution 23, pp. 534-547)
There is a lot of literature about speciation in fruit flies and house flies. Different experiments have been carried out to examine separately the effects of natural selection and genetic drift. See, for example, J. Ringo, et. al, "An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation," The American Naturalist (1989) 126, pp. 642661, or A. B. Soans, et. al, "Evolution of reproductive isolation in allopatric and sympatric populations," The American Naturalist (1974) 108, pp. 117-124.
During a series of natural catastrophes, the Galapagos island finch-species Geospitza fortis developed a larger beak, necessary for consuming a variety of seed unaffected by the ravages. This was a new phenotype never observed before, made manifest in just a few years time. Even thoroughly convinced evolutionists might be shocked by the sheer rapidity of natural selection in this instance. Normally, phylogeny - the evolutionary history of a group of species - is not observable within hundreds or even thousands of generations.

The point is, creationists latched onto the concept of an imaginary and arbitrary dividing line within evolution and ran with it. Modern scientists may use these terms but recognize that there isn't really any distinctive place to designate where the division occurs; macroevolution and microevolution are equivalent except in terms of time scale. -Amatulic 17:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Amatulic's searching abilities are amazing. I "only" find 4960 references to Macroevolution in Google Scholar. If the term macroevolution "has no place in any description of science.", I wonder what higher level of usage and by whom he considers is required to make it acceptable? He must find Nature is creationist propaganda and not a scientific magazine: Hox protein mutation and macroevolution of the insect body plan. Genetics, Paleontology and Macroevolution, by Jeffrey S. Levinton 2001 published by Cambridge University Press, must be another of those "Creationist" publications he is warning users against reading. The use of term macroevolution in the proposed overview sentences is this scientific sense, not Amatullic's revisionist myopic perceptions.DLH

Also speaking as a scientist, Amatulic's citing articles is irrelevant as the issue is not whether "evolution", but to objectively summarize the position of ID and orthodox science on their primary points of difference which is in "macroevolution" - mostID readily accept that some level of "microevolution" occurs with changes in frequency of genes etc.DLH

I think the term is used by scientists but part of the problem is that how they use it isn't even always the same and how its being used here is in the creationist sense of the word not in the scientific sense(and even creationists don't use it consistently). JoshuaZ 19:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of how many different usages there are for macroevolution all of them are much better ways of distinguishing the issues between ID and orthodox science then evolution. The latter is so broad that its usage implies ID rejects variation in gene frequencies in populations which is false.DLH

Apparently PubMed has not banned the use of macroevolution either, with at least 125 citations to macroevolution or macro-evolution. See: Theory Biosci. 2006 Mar;124(3-4):349-69. Epub 2005 Dec 20, The proper place of hopeful monsters in evolutionary biology. Theissen G.

"Rejecting" macroevolution "in favor of" microevolution is a context that makes no sense in evolutionary biology. It is in this sense that creationists make an artificial bifurcation of the subject. Sure, there are those who study macroevolution and those who study microevolution in the scientific community, but the implication that the macroevolution studies are assailable while microevolution is "hard science" is a creationist POV and misconception based on a naive expectation regarding scientific inference. As such, claiming that IDers or creationists reject macroevolution but not microevolution is a decidedly non-scientific viewpoint. You cannot simply reject macroevolution and not microevolution any more than one can, say, believe that half-lives that are on the order of years and less are reliable while halflives on the order of thousands of years and above are unreliable. This is a false bifurcation of a consistent principle and concept and should not be entertained in a neutral article such as this one.

If you wanted to illustrate the unscientific way in which ID proponents use macroevolution in, for example, quoting their false bifurcation for inclusion in a relevant part of the article, that wuold be fine. But simply relying on the main expository text to make such a distinction will not fly as it specifically contravenes NPOV.

--ScienceApologist 19:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I just tried to post a similar response but got the edit conflict warning, meaning you beat me to it. I do wish to say I retract my earlier sweeping statement about the terms not appearing in modern peer-reviewed literature. My position is that DLH's proposal uses the term "macroevolution" in the ID/creationist bifurcation sense, not in the sense I see in those journals, describing changes in morphology. I wouldn't have as much of a problem if the word were used in the clause about ID specifically, but it doesn't belong in the clause about science. Unfortunately, now that DLH has stooped to the level of irrational sarcasm, false allegations ("warning against reading"), and personal attacks ("revisionist myopic"), there isn't much point continuing the discussion further. -Amatulic 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The use of macroevolution is a summary for numerous objections in the scientific literature including the severe difficulty of justifying macroevolution mathematically using population genetics, and the recognition of the absence of intermediary forms. This is also complementary to ID's discussion of Irreducible complexity relating to systems with complex body parts, (though irreducible complexity is also applied to micro components.) My apologize to Amatulic that my indulging in a bit of hyperbola and satire in response to his extreme categorical statements was interpreted as a "personal attack". DLH 21:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Missing links and probability? Now you're really sounding like a creationist! No and no, on both accounts. No one in the scientific community thinks that missing links are "absent" in the manner in which creationists contend and no one in the scientific community thinks that macroevolution cannot happen "mathematically". --ScienceApologist 21:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by "the severe difficulty of justifying macroevolution mathematically using population genetics". Who has tried and how have the failed to justify macroevolution using population genetics? Is this like failing to justify ecosystem ecology using population genetics? I am puzzled how one can expect to study macro-scale phenomena with micro-scale tools. Guettarda 15:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

For the link between microevolution and speciation, see the recent book, Speciation by Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, which focuses on empirical evidence, or, (if you dare) Fitness Landscapes and the Origin of Species by Sergey Gavrilets, which is a theoretical treatise. Thanks. Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Added microevolution and reference to address objection over micro vs macro. see above.
Regarding mathematics of Evolution, see:

John C. Sanford Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome. (2005) Ivan Press. ISBN 1599190028.
Olivier Gascuel (Ed) Mathematics of Evolution and Phylogeny, (2005) Oxford University Press, USA ISBN 0198566107
Giuseppe Da Prato, Peer Christian Kunstmann, Irena Lasiecka, Alessandra Lunardi, Roland Schnaubelt, Lutz Weis, Mimmo Iannelli (Editor), Rainer Nagel (Editor), Susanna Piazzera (Editor), Functional Analytic Methods for Evolution Equations (Lecture Notes in Mathematics) (2004) 472 pages, Springer, # ISBN 3540230300
Fred Hoyle, Mathematics of Evolution, (1987) University College Cardiff Press, (1999) Acorn Enterprises LLC., ISBN 0-9669934-0-3
Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life 2005 Cambridge University Press ISBN 13 978-0-521-80293-2
A. Liss (Ed), Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution (1966) Wistar Institute Press, No. 5, ISBN 0845142038

Regarding missing links, why the issue between gradualists and saltationalists? e.g., See:

Adler, Jerry and John Carey. “Is Man a Subtle Accident?” Newsweek, November 3, 1980.
Lewin, Roger. “Evolutionary Theory Under Fire.” Science, November 21, 1980.
Gould, Stephen Jay and Niles Eldredge. “Punctuated Equilibria: the Tempo and Mode of Evolution Reconsidered.” Paleobiology, June/July 1977.

Back to the point, the issue here is summarizing the orthodox science seeks exclusively natural causes for microevolution and macroevolution, and cites conventional texts on those subjects. The statement says nothing about the presence or absence of missing links DLH 03:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

So you resort quoting texts from the 1980s to justify your opinion? Classic creationist response. Also, you'll note that most of the references you cite do not claim there is a mathematical problem with evolution. So hot air is hot air and this conversation is over. Your point is creationist POV and is not allowable in the article since the article is NPOV. --ScienceApologist 23:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Unsupported assertion. Both Microevolution and Macroevolution are used in the scientific sense, supported by references.DLH 19:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Current proposed overview introductory statement:

Intelligent design practitioners model empirical data of abiotic and biotic systems to distinguish evidence for intelligent causation from natural forces, ranging from the formation of the Universe to biological systems and human beings. By contrast, orthodox physical and biological sciences, rely exclusively on natural explanations for abiogenesis, microevolution and macroevolution through processes such as lightning, mutation, and natural selection, starting after the Big bang., ,

Peer review (again)

Some anonymous user changed the peer review section pretty drastically, and FeloniusMonk rightly reverted it because these changes weren't discussed beforehand. Fine. However, after looking at this page from the Discovery Institute web site, I think that the peer review issue shouldn't be dismissed so easily as this article does. Some of the entries have been discussed in past peer review discussions, but not all. Clearly the DI is claiming their proponents are getting ID viewpoints published in peer-reviewed journals, a direct contradiction to this article. If even one peer-reviewed ID article exists, it at least deserves a mention. -Amatulic 21:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The article already deals with the DI's claims about their list, please see:Intelligent_design#Peer_review

The DI's list has been shown to be an extravagant exaggeration many times in many places. Not least of which is the Dover trial ruling which very clearly stated ID has failed to produce any peer reviewed articles:

" The evidence presented in this case demonstrates that ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications"
"In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing."
"After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents, as elaborated upon in submissions to the Court, and as scrutinized over a six week trial, we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community."

Court documents only address material submitted in evidence. They are not exhaustive. e.g., they did not include the evidence Dembski prepared but did not get to submit. Expert Witness Report: William A. Dembski, The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design, Appendix 3: Ten Peer-Reviewed ID Articles (with Annotations) Thus Jones on Kitzmiller is necessary but insufficient evidence to support this assertion.DLH 03:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Then there's Behe's own testimony that there is no peer reviewed scientific publications that support ID:

"On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: 'There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.' "... "Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed."

Contributors here should be knowledgeable and up to speed with the current state of the topic if they are going to make changes or objections, otherwise they are simply wasting their time. The Dover trial settled this issue in 12/05, and nothing has changed since. They should at least read the archives to see why things are the way they are. FeloniousMonk 22:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You missinterpret Behe. Behe's statement is an obvious summary of historical science can be equally applied to abiogenesis and macroevolution. I posit the following as equally accurate:

There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for abiogenesis supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how abiogenesis of any biological system occurred.
There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for macroevolution supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how moacroevolution of any biological system occurred.

DLH 00:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I did read the archives and saw some titles on the DI's list mentioned, but not all; that's why I brought this up. Thanks for the very detailed explanation. Honestly, I missed or glossed over the mention of the DI's list in the peer review section. I must have been confused between the past and current edit. However, your claim that "nothing has changed since" the Dover trial, while true now, would still have to be re-examined each time the DI lists a new claim of peer-reviewed publication. -Amatulic 22:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course. Whenever new verifiable information comes to light the article has to change - but there doesn't seem to be much likelihood of any peer-reviewed ID work appearing in journals anytime soon. --Davril2020 22:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

RE Davril's "Whenever new verifiable information comes to light the article has to change": In keeping with WP:Reliable sources and WP:NPOV#Undue_weight or course. ... Kenosis 03:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Just like science, our conclusions are always tentative and based on the best evidence. Here's an interesting overview of the Meyer peer review controversy from Chris Mooney: FeloniousMonk 23:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but IMO this analysis is flawed and demonstrates bias. A statement by a judge that there are no peer-reviewed ID papers in journals does not prove that there are no peer-reviewed ID papers in journals. And Behe's testimony wasn't that "there is no peer-reviewed scientific publications that support ID" - as is obvious in the quote of his that you use. He said that there are no articles ... supported by ... experiments or calculations ... which provide" etc. Those are NOT the same thing. And as a matter of fact, there are ID articles in peer-reviewed journals, and as for the extension to "no ... publications", that is just absurd. One of the challenges to ID by opponents is that they publish too many books (which are publications, right?) rather than peer-reviewed articles.Exiled from GROGGS 13:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Affirm Exiled from Groggs' argument. The article presently is unwarranted assertion by taking statements out of context.

This section is highly POV by almost exclusively criticizing ID. It should at least start with the ID position and then the critics. Propose starting this section with:

ID proponents list a number of peer-reviewed articles as supporting the concept of Intelligent Design. e.g, the Design Institute maintains an annotated list of peer-reviewed articles. William Dembski assembled a summary list of peer reviewed articles. with the pertinent references and links. DLH 04:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the same discussion fredged up for the __th time. Well, you asserted, prove. Jim62sch 14:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Saying that there are no X's is a universal (and not always right) claim. If DLH or anyone else provides a cited source of a counterexample ("here's an X" where X = peer-reviewed article on intelligent design) it seems there should be some discussion on why the counterexample is not valid if the universal claim is to remain. Maybe it's not a valid counterexample, or maybe it is but the topic is about peer-reviewed articles of a specific type (e.g. in the "mainstream" scientific journals as opposed to the research done within ID groups). But I don't think we should just dismiss the proposed counterexample without reason. --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Your point is already covered in the article: "In the Dover trial the judge found that intelligent design features no scientific research or testing..., ...the Discovery Institute continues to insist that a number of intelligent design articles have been published in peer reviewed journals, including in their list the two articles mentioned above. Critics, largely members of the scientific community, reject this claim, pointing out that no established scientific journal has yet published an intelligent design article. Instead, intelligent design proponents have set up their own journals with "peer review" which lack impartiality and rigor, consisting entirely of intelligent design supporters." FeloniousMonk 18:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

But then it would be true that they have articles in peer-reviewed journals--just not in mainstream literature (like I said above, peer-reviewed in the ID movement). In any case, I'm glad to have seen you finally replied. In a number of cases I've seen you ignore relevant points entirely. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Wade A. Tisthammer, the reasons have been given over and over and over and over. Every single article the DI claims is "peer reviewed" has been discussed over and over and over and over here. This is why people aren't leaping out of their seats over this "discovery' of "ID peer reviewed articles". No offense to you or others but it would help our efforts greatly if those who are trying to improve this article were actually familiar with the subject. There are numerous articles online about the so-called "peer reviewed ID articles" the DI and Dembski claim exist. These reportedly "peer reviewed" articles and such have been a major issue in within the scientific community, this subject has not flown under the radar. Please do not complain if folks here don't want to take time out of their day to give you or others personalized, indiviual lessons on the subject. You would do well to do some actual research on the subject and be familiar with the aspects you want to discuss here on the talk page. Thanks for your cooporatation and willingness to work together Mr Christopher 18:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

But if this is so, someone should say "Already examined each of those proposed counterexamples, see this link" not simply ignore the proposed counterexamples altogether. Otherwise the dismissal seems arbitrary.

Also, the claim that a peer review article would recieve media attention is not, I think, completely right. What if the peer-reviewed article were within the ID community itself? Would it achieve vast media attention then? I doubt it. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"If DLH or anyone else provides a cited source of a counterexample ... it seems there should be some discussion on why the counterexample is not valid if the universal claim is to remain"

Has a counterexample been provided? The truth is, there's no need to dredge these things up - if such an article were to come to light, it would get a lot of media coverage - think about the Meyers paper. For that matter, Behe & Snoke, which was not about ID, but only loosely connected with it, received extensive discussion in the relevant journal, including response articles, and a response to the responses by Behe. If something on ID gets published it will be BIG news. We won't have to argue about it here, we'll just have to cite all the news stories. Guettarda 18:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The claim that a peer review article would recieve media attention is not, I think, completely right. What if the peer-reviewed article were within the ID community itself? Would it achieve vast media attention then? I doubt it. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Having like-minded cronies vet your work, as does ISCID , is not peer review, as the AAAS rightly points out Intelligent Design and Peer Review FeloniousMonk 19:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

An ID adherent could also criticize evolution because "like-minded cronies" (evolution adherents) also peer-review their work.

Whether it constitutes peer-review depends on how you define the term. Merriam-Webster defines it as "a process by which something proposed (as for research or publication) is evaluated by a group of experts in the appropriate field." The ID adherents certainly do have experts in the appropriate fields they publish in, do they not? I think the statement just needs to be refined a little. The issue is not whether there are any ID articles have peer-review, it's that there are no ID articles that have peer-review in the mainstream scientific literature. This criticism may be perfectly legitimate, but it needs to be articulated more precisely than "ID has failed to produce any peer reviewed articles" (a claim which is technically incorrect). --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"In-house review" is not the same as "peer review". Have a look at the system within the USDA Forest Service, for example. Reports are usually internally reviewed (albeit by scientific peers), not subject to peer review in the normal sense. Consequently, they are considered part of the "grey literature", not peer-reviewed science. There has yet to be a single piece of science from the ID community, no takers for funding offered for research into ID, no mechanism for hypothesis testing, no testable hypotheses... Until (unless) that changes, this whole discussion is pointless. If that changes, it will attract press attention, no matter where it is published. Guettarda 20:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

See above. Technically they have peer review, just not peer review in mainstream scientific literature. Their heretic status (deserved or not) has forced them to do their peer-review in house--which still fits the definition peer review.

FYI, ID adherents do put forth testable and falsifiable hypothesis, else how is it that so many ID hypotheses (e.g. irreducible complexity of a certain system) have been failed such tests and been proven false? As always, we should be careful with what criticisms we make, as we may contradict them later on. --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No they do not have peer review. This is the problem with the ID crowd, they want to redefine what constitutes science and now redefine what constitutes peer review. Anyone remotely associated with the field of science knows what peer review means and they would also recognize what the ID folks are calling "peer review" to be a joke. We should not follow their lead by attempting to redefine peer review. And while we're chatting about it, their "heretic status" has not forced them underground, their lack of anything remotely scientific has lead them to create their own virtual "science playground" where they can dress up and play scientist. We should avoid redefining what comnstitutes peer review and we should avoid pretending they are heretics who've been forced to do their peer review in house. For a big laugh look at the documents Dembski wrote for the Kitzmiller case, specifically the 10 ID articles he claimed were peer reviewed are a laff riot. No, there is no need for us to join the "peer review" smoke and mirror charade. Mr Christopher 17:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You said, the ID adherents "redefine what constitutes peer review" but did they? Unless they wrote the Merriam-Webster dictionary entry for the term, I'm inclined to think not. Do they "dress up and play scientist"? Well, many prominent adherents are (heretics or not) in fact scientists. Technically, they have peer review (it fits the dictionary definition provided; I see no reason to ignore this), just not in mainstream scientific journals. Note I said, "Their heretic status (deserved or not) has forced them to do their peer-review in house " which is true. You may think that intelligent design deserves to be a heresy (think it presents no falsifiable claims or whatever), but it doesn't change the fact that their articles will not be accepted by mainstream scientific journals (whether such journals are right in doing so) and so are nonetheless forced to do their peer-review in house if they wish to have any peer-review at all for their papers.

To say that there is no ID paper published in mainstream scientific journals is accurate methinks (excluding the one that was later renounced of course); to say that there are no such papers published in any peer-reviewed materials is not. A more informative statement would be "Though ID adherents have their own separate peer-reviewed journals in which they publish, they have failed to publish any articles in any mainstream scientific journals." Do I think this modified entry will be accepted? Not really. I suspect people will have the opinion "the reader doesn't really need to know that they conduct such peer-review processes" or some such thing. I thought I'd throw in my two cents anyway and point out that, technically, ID adherents do have their own sort of peer-review even if that sort of peer review is not enough to legitimize their theory. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Give it a rest. What constitutes proper peer review is determined by the people practicing it, not a dictionary. And "Articles accepted to the journal must first be submitted to the ISCID archive. To be accepted into the archive, articles need to meet basic scholarly standards and be relevant to the study of complex systems. Once on the archive, articles passed on by at least one ISCID fellow will be accepted for publication." is not how the scientific community conducts peer review. FeloniousMonk 20:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"What constitutes proper peer review is determined by the people practicing it" but this is circular. How do we determine if people are practicing it? That's why I used an external authoritative source to seek the definition of "peer review" (a reputable dictionary). It's unclear how ISCID "is not how the scientific community conducts peer review." At least one person from the journal looks it over to see if it's relevant to the journal and if it matches (in their view) proper scholarly standards. Isn’t that how it’s usually done? --Wade A. Tisthammer 15:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully this will be my last comment on the subject. Within the Peer Review section the article states To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. And also states ...intelligent design proponents have set up their own journals with "peer review" which lack impartiality and rigor, consisting entirely of intelligent design supporters. Both sentenced are factual, supported and let the reader know a) no ID articles have been published in scientific journals b) the ID proponents have set up their own "peer review" publishing. Wade, why are we even talking about this subject? The two points you want in the article are already there. Mr Christopher 21:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"Wade, why are we even talking about this subject?" Look at how it started. Note the remark above, "ID has failed to produce any peer reviewed articles" which is technically untrue. Still, I should’ve checked the entire section to see if there was a “correction” later on noting that ID proponents do their own peer-review. I’ll grant you that. BTW, the wording seems a bit off. Wouldn't be better to be more WP:NPOV and say "intelligent design proponents have set up their own journals with "peer review" which critics say lack impartiality and rigor, consisting entirely of intelligent design supporters."? Intelligent design is a minority view and I recognize that, but still, a better attempt at WP:NPOV regarding this controversial issue could be maintained. As an analogy, the Jesus Myth entry does not contain the claim “Jesus in fact exists” rather it makes statements as, “The majority of scholarship, including historians, believes there was a historical Jesus.” Why not follow the same interpretation of Misplaced Pages policy here? Because we really, really hate the theory?

I've also noticed this claim. "Intelligent design, by appealing to a supernatural agent, directly conflicts with the principles of science, which limit its inquiries to empirical, observable and ultimately testable data, and which require explanations to be based upon empirical evidence." A number of problems here, but I'll only deal with one. Intelligent design (at least when applied to life on Earth) does not imply the supernatural (I did not see this “correction” mentioned in the section), so I fear we may be setting up a straw man here and misrepresenting the opposition. Behe, the leading ID proponent himself, says explicitly that intelligent design does not require the supernatural in Darwin's Black Box pp. 248-249.

One could of course argue that any designer of the universe (intelligent design on the cosmological level) must be supernatural. I'm not entirely sure if that's necessarily true, but perhaps it is. Nonetheless, we still need to be careful about creating straw men here. I’ve seen it happen too many times in controversial issues. --Wade A. Tisthammer 15:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

(ri) re "Wade, why are we even talking about this subject?" -- because Wade is here for no reason other than to waste people's time with points that have either been hashed, rehashed, all-bit-and-chewed, cudded-up and rechewed and rehashed again or that are completely lacking in validity. No Wade, this is not an ad hom (as you'll no doubt protest that it is), but it is a very sound observation based on your edit history here. If you are so interested in this article, why not become productive rather than obstructive. Jim62sch 23:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Completely lacking in validity eh? "ID has failed to produce any peer reviewed articles" was an incorrect claim, and I provided a counterexample and a cited source to prove it. Why do you think this correction is "obstructive"? I've also tried to find a better wording (see the section on changing "affiliated" to "associated") that is less prone to misinterpretation and is truer to the source. Why think this is obstructive? I still think the point I raised earlier,

Was valid. Why think it was not? --Wade A. Tisthammer 15:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but who said "ID has failed to produce any peer reviewed articles"? I thought we were talking about the fact that ID has produced no peer-reviewed science articles. As for the dictionary definition - that's just silly. Did you read what I said about the Forest Service?
""What constitutes proper peer review is determined by the people practicing it" but this is circular. How do we determine if people are practicing it?" Simple. We don't determine it. It isn't for us to determine it. We leave it that to the experts. You say it's circular to have peer review determined by those who practise it. But who else is in a position to determine this? Is it circular to allow doctors and medical ethicists to determine what constitutes medicine? Should we allow faith healers, or maybe just a committee of citizens? Should we let standards for bridge construction be set by civil engineers, or by an opinion poll? Guettarda 17:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

As for who said the quote, FeloniousMonk said it. "As for the dictionary definition - that's just silly." Why do you think it was silly for me to appeal to a reputable dictionary to learn what the meaning of the term is? You're right about the "We don't determine it" part, which is why I used the dictionary instead of relying on mere opinions from people in this discussion page. You said

You say it's circular to have peer review determined by those who practise it. But who else is in a position to determine this?

Remember the context of the statement, how does one know what the term "peer review" means? My answer was simple: simply look up the term in a reputable dictionary. FeloniousMonk replied, "What constitutes proper peer review is determined by the people practicing it, not a dictionary." But notice that the alternative he offers instead of the reputable dictionary I cited, "What constitutes proper peer review is determined by the people practicing it." One obvious problem: how do we determine who is practicing it? We don't even know what the term is and thus cannot identify the people who practice it. In any case, the coherency of FeloniousMonk's alternative utterly collapses on itself because of its circular nature. It's better just to consult a reputable dictionary to see what the term means. I did just that when I provided my verifiable citation of a reputable dictionary, whereas to support his claim FeloniousMonk has cited...nothing. An incoherent circular statement is no adequate substitute either. --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Give it a rest, Wade. You've presented nothing new here. Your objections have been shown to be groundless and your proposals based on strained logic and flawed evidence. Now you appear to arguing for arguing's sake. You're wasting your time and ours and disrupting this page. I think it's time to wrap this up; you need to drop this issue and move along. FeloniousMonk 18:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I've presented nothing new here? Really? Did someone else also cite a reputable dictionary to prove their point? Or how about the apparent straw man I mentioned above? And how is the reputable dictionary a "groundless" source for the definition of the term? When it comes to strained logic, who is the one used provided the circular statement I mentioned above?

If you don't want to discuss the issue further (as seems to be the case from your "drop this" remark) no one is forcing you to post here. --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the paragraphs above. You may have cited "a reputable dictionary to prove your point", but you cited the wrong tense of the word and then continued to obstinately and tendentiously argue to alter the article for 2 days afterward based on your mistaken use of that dictionary. You're not only flogging a dead horse, but the wrong dead horse. FeloniousMonk 19:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I cited the wrong tense of the word "peer review" in the dictionary? Who's beating the wrong dead horse now? --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

m:Don't be dense, you know which word I'm talking about Wade. Please stop wasting your time and ours. FeloniousMonk 22:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Look at the paragraphs above. You were beating the wrong horse Felonious, maybe you should learn to take your own advice about not being dense. The dictionary term I was talking about in this section was "peer review." Hadn't you noticed? There was no mistake there. --Wade A. Tisthammer 03:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Revised summary statement with references as follows:

The Discovery Institute maintains an annotated list of peer-reviewed articles it submits support the concept of Intelligent Design. William Dembski assembled a list of "Ten peer reviewed ID articles." Critics dispute that these articles are peer reviewed or refer to or support ID.

This satisfies Wiki policy of cited evidence by reputable sources and states the ID position which is what this article is about, and then summarizes the critics. I second Wade Tisthammer's arguments. It is important to get a NPOV summary showing both minority and majority positions, not just an anti-ID summary. DLH 03:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Arguments dismissing ISCID peer review would apply equally to journals on evolution which are equally "reviewed" only by those supporting evolution. ie the argument is superficial and semantic. Show me any journals on "evolution" that welcome ID critique. DLH 03:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should read what I said about the USDA Forest Service. Anyway, are you accusing Behe of perjury?

DI makes claims about peer review. The Kansas school board redefined science. People make all sorts of absurd claims all the time. The only DI fellow who spoke about this under oath said that there is no peer-reviewed science. Thus, in venues where one is required to speak the truth, no one has denied that statement. If someone says that "black is white", but recants it under oath, then you can't use them as a source for the "fact" that black is white. Same here. ID has produced no peer reviewed science. ID has produced no science that they are willing to share with outsiders. If they had produced any, they would have produced it. Instead they maintain a list of papers which includes Behe and Snoke. Behe has clearly stated that the paper is not about intelligent design, anyone reading it can see that it isn't about intelligent design, and yet Dembski included it in his list. The Meyers paper was dishonestly inserted into a journal, the Meyers paper doesn't provide any support for ID (rather it says, given that there isn't enough evidence for X, let's replace it with Y, for which there is absolutely no evidence). There is no peer-reviewed science about ID.

As for the "belief in evolution" silliness - if you want to assert that there is no such thing as scientific peer review, feel free to make that assertion, and as soon as you can write a book about it and get it published by an academic publisher you can use in it discussion at Misplaced Pages. Are you a member of the Kansas board of education? Or were you just trying to add comic relief? (Hint: in written conversation like this, people don't pick up on things like tone of voice very easily - you need to add a smiley or something, otherwise people get very confused and think you are actually making such ridiculous statements with a straight face). Guettarda 04:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"The only DI fellow who spoke about this under oath said that there is no peer-reviewed science." Hmm, call me a WP:V junkie but could you provide a verifiable source so that I could check up on it? Also, note the reputable dictionary I cited above regarding what the term "peer review" means. Of course, you could say it's not peer-reviewed science because ID is by definition not science or some such thing. In any case we ought to be careful how we word things. Technically, ID has peer-review (if only in-house)--just not peer-review in mainstream scientific journals. --Wade A. Tisthammer 04:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but if you don't know who said this and where you have no business commenting on the accuracy of article. FeloniousMonk 21:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how said it? Yes I do. It was Guettarda. And you have no business saying I can't comment on the accuracy of the article. Also, I am not forbidden pointing out potential distortions people make. --Wade A. Tisthammer 15:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I was refering to who said the original quote Guettarda was refering to, Behe. Thanks for once again proving my point here. Now, for 10 points, please tell us where and when Behe said it... FeloniousMonk 04:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Wade, if you can't be bothered to figure out what people are talking about here you really shouldn't waste people's time with your off-topic meandering. The article does not say that there has never been an article published in support of ID which was reviewed by someone the author might consider a peer. It's about whether anything has been published in a peer reviewed science journal. As I explained before, with the Forest Service example, in-house review is not peer review. You can argue all you want about whether it should or shouldn't be - it isn't. We aren't here to redefine established terminology. As for ID not being science "by definition" - if it doesn't follow the scientific method, it isn't science. Not because ID is "by definition" not science - but rather, because ID proponents have chosen not to do science. It's like having someone run a 100 m race try to call himself a marathon runner, and then complaining that the "mainstream marathon community" is discriminating against him because it fails to recognise what he is doing as running a marathon, despite the fact that he believes that he has put a "marathon" effort into running the 100 m race (and supports his argument by linking to Merriam-Webster. Stop making these speciose straw-man arguments. Guettarda 05:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you give me a specific example of where I have made a straw man argument? No you cannot. Why think that asking a source for your claim ("The only DI fellow who spoke about this under oath said that there is no peer-reviewed science") is a "waste of time" anyway? Is it because the questioned claim is false and unsubstantiated?

Claiming that ID theory is "not science" because of actions/inactions of its adherents (e.g. some vague claim about not following "the scientific method") is an ad hominem fallacy. And technically, there has been an ID article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal--though you could say that one "doesn't count" because the journal later repudiated it. (As for whether Sternberg violated proper procedure, see here). --Wade A. Tisthammer 15:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest modifying it to say that "mainstream scientists criticize these articles as not being peer-reviewed or not supporting intelligent design" so we make it extra clear who the majority is--not that I expect your entry to be accepted DLH (for good or for ill). --Wade A. Tisthammer 03:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

As this issue of "peer-review" is getting tricky to nail-down, in the same way that "science" is hard to nail down, why not just note down the particular journals that have had ID articles in them, and compare this with the list of journals that have not had ID articles printed? From these two lists the reader should be able to discern what is going on. Just give 'em the plain facts, and let 'em draw the inevitable conclusion. Leeborkman 07:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

There are no science journals with ID, just their in-house publication. It isn't really tricky to nail down "peer-reviewed science journals" - most peer-reviewed science journals are ISI-indexed. If you wanted to show that something that was not ISI-indexed was still credible, you might want to show that it was regularly cited in ISI-indexed publications. ISCID is not ISI-indexed, is reviewed in-house, and as far as I can tell, papers published in it are not cited in other science journals. In addition, Behe, a DI fellow, obviously does not consider it "peer reviewed science".

It would not be practical to list journals which have no published ID papers. You'd have to list them all. In addition, you would have to track down the 5th tier of journals which are not ISI-indexed, to provide a proper peer group for ISCID. It would totally unbalance the article. Guettarda 07:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

That ISCID is not cited appears to be an assertion with no verification. ISCID: Google Scholar appears to list a growing list of citations to ISCID.DLH 00:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you must have inserted the wrong link - this doesn't support your assertion that iscid is being cited. Guettarda 21:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we list all the science journals that haven't published ID. We all know the names of the top handful of reputable science journals. Simply note that these highly particular journals have not published ID articles, note the names (and publishers) of the journals that have' published ID articles, and what does this comparison show? It should be fairly telling. Leeborkman 07:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

No, that would be playing into the Discovery Institute's hand. We already have two exceptionally credible sources in the article, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Dover trial ruling, that say the intelligent design movement has yet to publish an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. And there is no shortage of other equally credible and significant sources that support this; I have literally a dozen others we can add if people still doubt it. There's only so much evidence that people can blithly dismiss before their game becomes apparent, you know. FeloniousMonk 16:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry FeloniousMonk - Logically that is necessary but insufficient evidence. The court can only comment on evidence submitted into the record (which did not include Dembski's article). Then the judge ignored even that evidence. The AAAS defines ID as not "science", and then declares there are no "scientific peer review". That is a self serving circular argument. The following sentences summarize both the ID positionn and the mainstream position.DLH 23:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Since ID rejects the scientific method and philosophy of science, it cannot be science. This is glaringly obvious to anyone who has the least understanding of what science is. Trivialising the leading US scientific organisation (and probably the leading one worldwide) either shows that you have no understanding of science, or that you are being intentionally misleading. Guettarda 21:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The Discovery Institute maintains an annotated list of peer-reviewed articles it submits support the concept of Intelligent Design. William Dembski assembled a list of "Ten peer reviewed ID articles." Mainstream scientists declare ID is not science, and criticize these articles as not being scientifically peer reviewed or that they do not support or refer to ID.

Incorporated Tisthammer's recommendation. DLH 23:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

"The Discovery Institute maintains an annotated list of peer-reviewed articles" - this issue isn't "peer reviewed articles", it's "articles published in peer-reviewed scientific publications". There are lots of peer reviewed articles about ID, some of which support the idea. But they aren't scientific publications.
"it submits support the concept of Intelligent Design" - despite the fact that in many cases this is a patently absurd claim
"Mainstream scientists declare ID is not science" - irrelevant here, it's established that ID is pseudoscience and the the scientific community rejects ID
"and criticize these articles as not being scientifically peer reviewed" - as does the only DI Fellow willing to speak on the matter under oath
"or that they do not support or refer to ID" - not just "mainstream scientists".

In other words, this is both factually inaccurate and highly misleading. Guettarda 21:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

DLH, have you even read Dembski's list of 10? Those he submitted to the court (Kitzmiller)? Good lord man they're a joke. Absurd even. Insulting to anyone who knows anything about science and intelligent design. Why do you promote stuff like that here? Mr Christopher 22:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The summary say's nothing about people's perception of the articles. It objectively state's the action of DI and Dembski on posting a list of articles with citations verifying the statement. The later material goes into all the criticism. The issue here is providing a summary introductory statement of the facts. The summary explicitly excludes "scientific" to avoid that big debate. (If critics claim ID is not science, then by circular definition they claim there are no scientific articles etc.)

Guettarda: "it submits support the concept of Intelligent Design" - despite the fact that in many cases this is a patently absurd claim

The summary does not address whether the claim is absurd, but that the claim is made.

Guettarda: "Mainstream scientists declare ID is not science" - irrelevant here, "

Removed "declare ID is not science, and "

Guettarda: ""and criticize these articles as not being scientifically peer reviewed" - as does the only DI Fellow willing to speak on the matter under oath "or that they do not support or refer to ID" - not just "mainstream scientists"."

What other's say is irrelevant to this summary overview. There is plenty of criticism below it.

Revised overview statement for this section:
The Discovery Institute maintains an annotated list of articles it submits are peer-reviewed and support the concept of Intelligent Design. William Dembski assembled a list of "Ten peer reviewed ID articles." Mainstream scientists criticize these articles as not being peer reviewed, not being in major scientific journals, or not supporting or referring to ID.

DLH 04:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, no. It's no improvement on the existing passage, which is accurate and well-supported. FeloniousMonk 05:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Start with Summary ID position, then critics: This article is officially about ID, not "Criticisms of ID". Thus it should begin with a summary of the ID position that is the source of the controversy. These facts are buried several paragraphs down. The current "Peer review" sentence says: "The failure to follow the procedures of scientific discourse and the failure to submit work to the scientific community which withstands scrutiny have weighed against intelligent design's being considered valid science. To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal." Both are POV statements or assertions with no statement of what ID practitioners hold they are doing. Thus the need for correcting introductory overview.DLH 22:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

DLH, you still seem confused. This is not a promotional piece for ID. Neither is it a debate where one side gets 5 minutes, then the other gets their 5 minutes. Mr Christopher 21:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, I had understood that Wikipidia had a firm WP:NPOV policy, but it seems that other policies are being enforcing here. I am trying to provide an objective statement of both sides. I do not see how providing objective statements is a "promotional piece" for ID other than it is not strongly anti-ID like much of this article.DLH 21:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Revised overview statement for this section, including citation to AAAS statement:
The Discovery Institute maintains an annotated list of articles it submits are peer-reviewed and support the concept of Intelligent Design. William Dembski assembled a list of "Ten peer reviewed ID articles." Mainstream scientists criticize these articles as not being peer reviewed, not being in major scientific journals, or not supporting or referring to ID.

This now provides summary statements with cited references from both sides, to be further detailed below.DLH 21:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Questionable Citation in the Peer Review section

We have a questionable citation here. From the article

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.

When one actually checks the citation, we see that the citation does not actually contain the claim that the article "was quickly withdrawn by the publisher for having circumvented the journal's peer-review standards." The person who put this citation in was FeloniousMonk, who has a history of using citations that do not actually contain the claim in question. For a recent specific example, see this discussion section where I deal with another questioned citation (regarding a claim he made in this very talk page) as follows:

Have you shown that the Institute is "constant relying on Harris for quotable soundbites"? You have only given one proposed example, and that example is merely the Discovery Institute's copy of the Kansas City Star article that mentions him (I didn't see it actually quoting him).

I suggest that either a valid source be found for the claim that the article “was quickly withdrawn by the publisher for having circumvented the journal's peer-review standards” or the else the claim be removed. --Wade A. Tisthammer 15:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The statement can be found here. This site references the AAAS with the webaddress FM gave. --Plumbago 15:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

If that citation supports the claim associated to it, the citation should be changed accordingly. Unfortunately, the statement you cited (which I discuss here) also does not contain the claim that he violated proper procedure (though the statement says he took an action that was not "typical").

Additionally, I did a little checking and found out Sternberg's actions brought some attention from the investigation by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), an independent federal agency. This is what it had to say,

They also assumed that you violated editorial regulations of the Proceedings because you were the primary editor of the article. These comments were made to and by SI and NMNH managers and were published to several outside organizations. It was later revealed that you complied with all editorial requirements of the Proceedings and that the Meyer article was properly peer reviewed by renowned scientists. As an aside, the information received by OSC does not indicate that any effort was made to recall or correct these comments once the truth was made known.

You can see for yourself here. The questioned claim not only has no valid citation, but we also have a valid citation that flatly contradicts the claim. I thus suggest that the questionable claim be removed. --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Wade brings up an important point in that I think the Meyer paper (and ensuing controversy) is not as clear and detailed as it could be. There is no mention of Sternberg, his role in circumventing the peer review process, his relationship with the Center for Science and Culture / Discovery Institute, or his relationship with the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design. This guy is up to his eyeballs in Intelligent Design and circumvents the established peer review process to get a fellow IDer published and obviously the journal was not very keen on this. I realize we cannot cover every single detail in this article but I think due to the controversy over the lack of scientific peer review artilces we owe it to the reader to provide more detail other than a "see Sternberg peer review controversy". Thanks for pointing this out Wade.

Does anyone else have an opinion on adding some detail in the article on this important subject? And Wade would you mind keeping your FM issues on his talk page or your own? Thanks in advance! Mr Christopher 16:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This matter is already covered in it's own article and there's a pointer to it in this one, so no, there's no reason to go into detail here. FeloniousMonk 04:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I might not mind it if FM had showed me the same courtesy. Repeatedly he has brought up his issues with me in the past in places that are neither my talk page nor his. For instance, he did so in a mediation entry and someone else's talk page. If he can say such libelous, unsourced (he has refused to give specific examples to back up his accusations against me) and groundless attacks against my character, why can I not accuse him of Misplaced Pages misconduct in such alternate places, especially since I am the one who provides specific examples to adduce my claims?

More to the point (and purpose of this talk page section), did you see what I wrote above regarding Sternberg complying with "all editorial requirements of the Proceedings and that the Meyer article was properly peer reviewed by renowned scientists"? Did you also see the part where I pointed out that the citation FeloniousMonk provided did not contain the actual claim associated to it (namely, that Sternberg circumvented the peer-review process)? Did you see the cited source of the OSC contradicting this questionable claim? Don't you think we ought to address these fairly serious issues of the section? --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I see that Sternberg on one hand said he alone "reviewed" Meyers' work because he thought he was the best man for the job, and later, apparently, he suggested four other mystery stealth scientists had also reviewed the work, yet they are a part of a secret ID cabal whose identities he is keeping a secret. Dude, and that investigation was not an investigation, they took Sternberg word on everything and never bothered to look for the other side of the story. Yeah, 4 others peer reviewed Meyer's paper, but just like the intelligent designer himself, their identities are being shielded once again. Hey for all we know those 4 unidentified people who Sternberg claims reviewed the Meyers' paper may have been space aliens or time travelers, when it comes to intelligent design you just never can tell. This is covered in great detail on the Sternberg peer review controversy page. Mr Christopher 17:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What is your source that "Sternberg on one hand said he alone 'reviewed' Meyers' work"? It is true that Sternberg says he "took direct editorial responsibility for the paper" but I don't know of him ever claiming that he was the sole scientist reviewing for the peer-review process. Also, on what grounds do you say the OSC did not actually investigate it? Do you really think the federal agency would just take Sternberg's word for the events without question (especially if Sternberg allowed a pseudoscientific theory in an established scientific journal)? You cannot simply disregard a source like this without evidence. I found an npr article contradicting your claim that the OSC did not investigate. Additionally, the problems I brought up here have not yet been covered in the Sternberg peer review controversy page. As of the time of this reply, they're only in the discussion section of that page. --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Dude I wasn't clear, I was not suggesting an investigation did not occur, I was pointing out that investigation is somewhat flawed and in itself controversial. Mr Christopher 19:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You said "that investigation was not an investigation," hence my cited source to the contrary. And I'm still waiting for your sources, by the way. What is your source that "Sternberg on one hand said he alone 'reviewed' Meyers' work"? On what grounds did the independent federal agency issue a "flawed" investigation? Do we have a source that is more reputable than the U.S. Office of Special Counsel that says it was flawed? An independent federal commission perhaps? Or just some disgruntled people on the Internet? And what about the fairly serious issues of the section I talked about above, e.g. the citation that did not actually contain the claim associated to it? --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh brother... And then you wonder why your arguments here and elsewhere don't get much traction? Give it rest, and please stop baiting and taunting credible, constructive contributors here. FeloniousMonk 21:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Aw hell, anyone who feels the need to explain on his user page why his nick is "tisthammerw" has a pathological need for irrelevant exactitude. The baiting is just a way of saying, "I know more than you do". Of course, the factual nature of the expression might be questionable, but hey, we can always ask for a cite. Jim62sch 23:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we not feed every crank and troll that has an ideological ax to grind with this article's content, which is exceptionally well sourced and supported. FeloniousMonk 04:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"exceptionally well sourced"?! Did you not pay attention to what I have said? The citation associated to the claim of the paper being "quickly withdrawn by the publisher for having circumvented the journal's peer-review standards" does not actually contain this claim. See for yourself if you don't believe me. After an investigation, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) said that Sternberg "complied with all editorial requirements" and "the Meyer article was properly peer reviewed"--which contradicts the challenged claim. On the one hand, we have a claim with a bogus citation (in that it does not actually contain the claim attributed to it) and a source from the OSC that contradicts it. Would you care to explain exactly why the challenged claim is "exceptionally well sourced"? If anyone, it is you who seem to have an ideological axe to grind considering it is you who have inserted the bogus citation and refuse to concede when this is exposed (at first I thought the flawed citation was simply a good faith mistake on your part, but now you seem to be defending it even after I pointed out it does not contain the claim attributed to it). --Wade A. Tisthammer 13:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I've indeed paid very close attention to everything you've said; I just haven't found it very compelling. FeloniousMonk 16:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The citation associated to claim of the paper being "quickly withdrawn by the publisher for having circumvented the journal's peer-review standards" does not actually contain this claim. You don't see this as a problem? Why? How can possibly you say this claim is well sourced when it has no source to support it? Especially when we have an independent federal agency investigation that said Sternberg "complied with all editorial requirements" and "the Meyer article was properly peer reviewed"? Did you even bother to read the citation I've been referring to all this time? (If you haven't done so, I suggest you do; you might be surprised by what you see). --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Corrected link from AAAS to http://www.biolsocwash.org/ BSW which contains the actual statement.

Corrected "withdrawn" to "disavowed". Nowhere does the statement say it was withdrawn. It says it would not be rebutted, and it says it does not meet its science policy, but does not say it would be "withdrawn."DLH 20:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually if you check the link, you'd see that the BSW statement says what Sternberg did was not typical but it does not say he "circumvented the journal's peer-review standards." Note also we have an independent federal agency investigation that said Sternberg "complied with all editorial requirements" and "the Meyer article was properly peer reviewed." Also, the citation in question still links to here--which does not contain the claim of Sternberg's paper being "quickly withdrawn by the publisher for having circumvented the journal's peer-review standards." If one actually checks the cited source, one would see that it doesn't even mention Sternberg or his paper. Apparently though, FeloniousMonk does not see this as a problem (or was so careless as to not even look at the citation I've been referring to all this time--while blithely claiming he's been paying close attention and that the claim is "exceptionally well sourced"). Guettarda is responsible for replacing the BSW link with this one. Apparently Guettarda did not pay attention to the comment of your edit (that you "corrected" the link--it still didn't contain the claim in question but it at least mentioned Sternberg). --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"Note also we have an independent federal agency investigation that said Sternberg 'complied with all editorial requirements' " Um, no. Unless you're intending to misrepresent the agency in question, it's more accurate to say "Note also we have an partisan federal investigation that said...' " as evidence shows: FeloniousMonk 18:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow

Althought it was a little change you really made that "leading proponents" sentence a lot better. I would just like to say thank you for not because jerks, and for actually trying. ILovePlankton (I'm at a public place and I'm not conformtable signing in here.)

Propose changing "affiliated" to "associated"

I cannot imagine this change will cause much of an uproar but instead of simply editing the article I thought it best to get consensus here first. Here is the relevant text linked to as the cite for the current wording;

Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement?

A. Yes, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.

Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute?

A. All of the leaders are, yes.

And then if you read the following question/answer Forrest goes on to show how each is specifically associated with the Discovery Institute. It isn't until the next exchange that the word "affiliated" is used to describe Dembski.

Q. And one last individual, William Dembski. Is is he affiliated with the Discovery Institute?

A. Yes, he's one of the founding members of the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, one of the founders of the Wedge Strategy.

The word "affiliated" should be changed to "associated".Bagginator 08:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

'Affiliated' as a fairly clear meaning, but I think that 'associated' is perhaps too vague. To have an affiliation involves active contact, but this is not necessarily the case with 'associated'. One can be associated merely by shared belief. If the word is changed it would have to be something equally precise. 'Connected' might work by that is virtually synonymous with 'affiliated'. --Davril2020 11:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Affiliated is far more precise. It seems to me that Bagginator is incorrectly arguing that the imprecision of the interlocutor, and I presume the non-correction by the witness (correction being something the witness is not required to provide), is somehow cause for a change in verbiage. Sadly, such an argument is a nugation and thus fails to support the proposal.

Additionally, as we also have three cites supporting the usage of the word affiliation re the connexion of the leading proponents of ID and the DI, I think we'll likely stick with the current accurate word selection. Jim62sch 13:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

In response to Davril, everything you suggest is contained in WP:OR. Bagginator 14:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Correction, you do not have a single citation using the word affiliation to describe all leading proponents of Intelligent Design.Bagginator 14:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

, . FeloniousMonk 15:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Is your links to a thesaurus your joking around? My claim, and i'll repeat it here, is that there are zero sources that use the word affiliated to describe all of the leading proponent of intelligent design in connection with the Discovery Institute. Instead, they use the word associated. Since this is an encyclopedia, the words used by the sources should also be used by us. Otherwise, we are getting involved in POV pushing.Bagginator 05:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes, and Dr. Poppicock is another leading proponent. Quit taking us all for idiots. Guettarda 06:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I endorse Bagginator's change per his documentation. DLH 20:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

As do I (for the reasons I state below). --Wade A. Tisthammer 15:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The main reason I prefer "associated" is because it's truer to the cited source. The cited source says all leading ID proponents are associated with the Discovery Instituted, not "affiliated" with it. All else held constant, why not just choose the word that the cited source uses? --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Why use the word associate instead of affiliate? For one thing, not all reputable dictionaries permit the usage we see in the current wording ("Its leading proponents are all affiliated with the Discovery Institute"). Check out this reputable dictionary source (the Merriam-Webster Dictionary):

transitive verb

1 a : to bring or receive into close connection as a member or branch b : to associate as a member <affiliates herself with the local club>

2 : to trace the origin of

intransitive verb : to connect or associate oneself : COMBINE

For those rusty on English grammar, a transitive verb is one that is requires a direct object. For instance, "I pet" is not complete without something like "I pet my cat" (the cat being the direct object). Similarly, "He is affiliated with the Discovery Institute" where affiliated is the verb and Discovery Institute is the direct object. As the example in 1 b of the Merriam-Webster dictionary indicates, being affiliated with a club or organization is using the word as a transitive verb.

The problem? Some prominent ID proponents such as Calvert (and we have a cited source, namely The Associated Press, that labels him as such ) are not members of the Discovery Institute, and Calvert’s organization (IDnet) is not a branch of the Discovery Institute. Thus, we have a counterexample of a prominent ID proponent who is not affiliated with the Discovery Institute, at least on the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of the term. Now it is true that some dictionaries have looser and less precise definitions of “affiliate,” but this makes the word too ambiguous and potentially misleading because it is too prone to misinterpretation (e.g. one could read “All leading ID proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute” as “All leading ID proponents are members of the Discovery Institute” based on the definition that the Merriam-Webster Dictionary provides). Utilizing a different word thus seems prudent here.

Incidentally, the citation never says that all leading ID proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute; rather it uses the word associated. Not only does "associate" solve the battle of the dictionaries and make things less prone to misinterpretation, we have the added bonus of staying truer to the cited source. So why not use the word "associate" instead? All else held constant, shouldn't we just use the wording that's closer to the cited source? --Wade A. Tisthammer 15:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Addendum It has been brought to my attention that, unlike my electronic Merriam-Webster dictionary, the word "affiliated" is not in the same entry as the verb "affiliate" in the online dictionary and thus my argument based on the Merriam-Webster does not quite apply (though it applies in the electronic dictionary version). Still, we seem to have the question that, all else held constant, shouldn't we just use the wording that's closer to the cited source? --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

John Umana Again

Thus far no one has been able to establish any connection between John Umana and the Discovery Institute. The disagreement between editors here is whether John Umana is a "leading proponent". Fortunately for us our opinions on whether he is a leading proponent or not do not matter. What does matter is that we have a citation from a reliable source. Some disagree over whether or not we have a reliable source. In this case, the instruction from Misplaced Pages is

We need to find a way to edit John Umana into the article in order to provide an account over this disagreement.Bagginator 14:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You've offered nothing to establish why John Umana is a notable ID advocate or proponent. And there's plenty of evidence he's not: He's written no notable ID books or articles and he only gets 62 (!) hits in relation to design: So why should we waste our time arguing he's not affiliated with the leaders of ID or inserting a non-notable view into the article? His most notable book is pointedly not notable , though it does "offer analysis of the evidence as to the crop circles and their origins and as to extraterrestrial intelligent life in the cosmos." FeloniousMonk 15:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

OhhhKaaaayy. Thanks for that link. Jim62sch 17:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Bagginator, we have already discussed this matter at some length. Recall that one of your proposed 'leading proponents' did not, in fact, exist and was the creation of a satirist. However, and please try to understand the significance of this, there is as much evidence suggesting the satirist's creation is a leading proponent as there is for Umana. That is, they have one source each to their name proposing them as leading proponents. Now, we all know that the satirist's creation does not exist yet this fact is original research. If we include all reliable sources regardless of authority then we must equally include the non-existent 'proponent' as well. The reason we will not do so is because we collectively must determine whether a source is authoritative or not. So the question you should really be asking is 'is the source I have proposed sufficiently authoritative or not to warrant changing the introduction'? The consensus, again, appears to be no. --Davril2020 01:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Good choice of words, Felonious. You didn't say he didn't write any ID books, you said, "He's written no notable ID books" . I did some checking and found out he did in fact write an ID book. --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding here. I'm not asking whether Umana should be put into the article, i'm asking for help on how he should be put into the article. Leaving him out is POV pushing. No one wants to help me edit Umana into the article? There is a verified source calling him a leading proponent of intelligent design and so far there is no evidence that links him to the Discovery Institute. Here is what i'm thinking;

John Umana is a leading proponent of Intelligent Design who is not affiliated with the Discovery Institute.".

This satisfies all of Misplaced Pages's criteria for entry. If we are not going to push our point of view into this article this entry or something similar to it needs to be edited in.Bagginator 05:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

From WP:RS: "Editors have to evaluate sources and decide which are the most reliable and authoritative." I think the unwillingness among the most editors here to cite law.com articles is that law.com does not appear to be a very established (read: reliable) source of information. That it is virtually alone in mentioning Umana as a proponent of intelligent design (as demonstrated by a Google test), much less a leading proponent (or any variant phrasing thereof), adds to the suspicion of its reliability. Simões (/_contribs) 06:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Lay off the nonsense. It's a throw-away comment at the end of an article which basically calls Umana a nut. Please supply some evidence to support that the author of the article can be considered an authoritative source on ID or the ID movement. Without any other evidence that Umana is a "leading proponent" other than this article, there is no reason to give this author any special weight. As you well know. Misplaced Pages is not a random, unfiltered collection of "facts". Do you propose we also list Umana as a nut? The source makes a far better case for that than it does the claim that he is a "leading proponent". Guettarda 06:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:OR says

In some cases, there may be controversy or debate over what constitutes a legitimate or reputable authority or source. Where no agreement can be reached about this, the article should provide an account of the controversy and of the different authorities or sources. Simoes, are you suggesting that i'm in agreement with your opinion about law.com? To be clear, i'm not in agreement. Therefore, the article should provide an account of the controversy.Bagginator 11:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda, i'm happy that you are sharing your opinion. Please understand that my opinion of law.com differs from your opinion. In this regard, one of the three pillars of Misplaced Pages may be instructive. WP:OR Misplaced Pages articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. That is, we report what other reliable sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurateBagginator 11:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call this a controversy. You appear to be alone in your opinion that law.com is a reliable source. A single minority opinion does not a controversy make. Simões (/_contribs) 16:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Simoes, does it a debate make? "...controversy or debate...." of course it does.Bagginator 18:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Your insistence ad nauseum that this law.com article is a reliable source in the face of my or someone else's pointing out that there is no reason (and/or reason not) to consider it reliable is not a debate. If you disagree with this assessment, I invite you to take it to a RfC. Simões (/_contribs) 19:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well here is where Umana is coming from The australopithecine apemen were hairy creatures with far smaller cranial capacity than Homo sapiens. When God determined to create Man, He chose several healthy female hominids and endowed them with enhanced intelligence and understanding above that of ordinary hominids. These hominid mothers would be the first to give birth to human children. The Lord God set to work in forming the first human fetuses in several pre-human hominids of the species Homo heidelbergensis." That doesn't sound like Intelligent design to me, and if we add him as a leading proponent why would we not add the Raelians? For that matter, my aunt Gladys believes in ID. If I can get a few local newspapers to quote her and refer to her as a leading ID advocate can we include her in the article as well. She lives in a community of about 4,500 people so getting her in the local paper shouldn't be that difficult. Bless her heart she has some goofy beliefs so getting her in the paper shouldn't be that diffcult and it would really make her day. Mr Christopher 17:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Now this source should meet WP:V and WP:RS. ROFL. Jim62sch 21:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source that can be verified calling the Raelians leading proponents of intelligent design I wouldn't object to adding them to the article. Your argument doesn't appear to be with me but with the rules of Misplaced Pages. You should argue that on the appropriate page, Mr Christopher.Bagginator 18:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

So, I could self publish a book or pamhplet full of idiotic notions, contact a few media sources, call myself a leading expert on intelligent design, they quote some of my nuttier ideas or activities and refer to me as a leading expert on intelligent design and that gets me space here on Misplaced Pages? Bagginator, my issue is not with Wiki rules or standards, it's with your judgement as an editor and contributor to this article.

I wish I could assume good faith on your part but if you look at this history of this subject, Umana, and all the opinions from seasoned editors you have ignored over and over and over and over, I'm afraid I cannot do that anymore. In fact I'm inclined to ask if you might be Umana's publicist or have some sort of financial ties to him. I don't wonder that because you suggested his inclusion, I wonder because you have ignored every bit of rational evidence that overwhelmingly proves he does not belong in this article. So naturally I wonder why you're here promoting him and ignoring everyone else in the process.

Obviously if someone can get their name in this article they will gain a huge amount of public exposure. If I had a book to sell and I needed cheap publicity and an easy means of gaining credibility (hey look at me on Misplaced Pages, thay say I'm a leading expert, by golly that proves I'm a leading expert!) I'd sure want my name in an article like this. I bet Umana would love to see his name here and for Wiki to mistakenly portray him a leading ID proponent. How much publiclty and "credibility" (money) could that generate for him?

Manipulating the media is easy, I could get most any newspaper to refer to me an a leading ID expert, that wouldn't take much effort at all. But that wouldn't make me an leading ID expert now would it? This is where I question your judgement. And I think you are beginning to realize that manipulating Misplaced Pages editors is not quite as simple as manipulating the media.

Your actions on this subject are wholly innapropriate in my view. I am astonished by the patience that has been shown to you. Please go solicite an RFC and stop wasting everyone's time here. We are not paid to do this, are you? :-) Mr Christopher 22:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll take my response to your talk page, Mr. Christopher, as I find your personal assault on my character and your accusations wholly inappropriate for the Intelligent Design talk pages.Bagginator 22:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't say you didn't have it coming, the way you've been wasting everyone's time here with tendentious objections and baseless proposals. Perhaps you should consider your own method here and it's role in Mr Christopher's reaction to you. FeloniousMonk 23:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Baggy's response sounds like, "Adopt-high-dudgeon-if-caught, adopt-high-dudgeon-if-caught, adopt-high-dudgeon-if-caught, adopt-high-dudgeon-if-caught, rawk" to me. Of course, I could be wrong. ;) Jim62sch 23:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry you found my comments so disagreeable, I've read my comments above now several times and other than a few typos and possibly being redundant, I stand by every word I typed which was all base upon my observations of your (Bagginator) behaviour on this talk page. While I agree with you that someone who promotes the idea that human beings are the result of God dilly dallying around with some female hominoids (impregnating them with some sort of higher intelligence?) belongs in the same company as Dembski, Behe, Wells, and the Discovery Institute, the evidence clearly demonstrates he has yet to establish such a relationship or earned notoriety and no informed person, except possibly you, considers him to be a leading authority or proponent of Intelligent Design. Again, that is not my personal bias, it is simply where all the available evidence leads. I accept the fact you think we are all wrong here so please pursue the RFC route. Thank you in advance for your cooporation on this matter. Mr Christopher 02:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Bagginator is wrong and simply ignoring all evidence that proves this. Whether it is six or sixty pointing this out to him, an RFC is unlikely to change his mind. Using RFC to try force a point you've been overwhelmingly shown to be mistaken on is a misuse of the dispute resolution process and the community's time, meaning Bagginator is a better candidate for an RFC than the issue he raises here. FeloniousMonk 02:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been reading up on Umana and his is a fascinating story to be sure. Based upon the Amazon review of his self-published book, at least one person has bought a copy. Pretty much all that reviewer said was you should buy a copy for your friends. The book review (probably written by the "publisher" on Amazon does not even mention the term Intelligent Design. Odd indeed. Umana also has a blog with one article (from February 2006 it appears) that has a single response. Well, Umana replied to the reply, so maybe that counts as two replies. I think we can conclude that other than me and Umana, at least one other person has read his blog. Odd that Umana does not list Intelligent Design as one of his interests on his blog. In fact there is only one mention of the term intelligent design. He does, though, mention Behe in a sentence. The picture of him suggests he is a jovial man and possibly a good cook and host. I'll admit I'm a sucker for a happy person who enjoys cooking and entertaining.

I note that no one has even seen fit to start a Wiki page on him. You'd think a leading ID proponent, not associated with the Disco, with a national following would stir some interest in a Wiki article. Of course the lack of anything about him on Wiki does not mean he is not noteable. His beliefs about crop circles and God dilly dallying with hominoid females should land him a spot on some Wiki list or something. Perhaps those who feel he should be included here might start a page on this fascinating man. Mr Christopher 17:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Quite the deep thinker too. Must admit the plate of pasta looks good. I wonder what the wine was. Jim62sch 19:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

William Harris

Above William Harris is pointed to as a leading proponent of Intelligent Design. On May 9th 2005, according to Station 7 WABC in New York, Station 7 WJLA in Washington D.C., Station 6 WJBF in Augusta, Station 28 WFTS in Tampa, Station 9 WFTV in Orlando, Station 10 WPLG in Miami, Station 6 WRTV in Indianapolis, and Station 13 KSFY in Sioux Falls, William Harris is a leading proponent of Intelligent Design. The assertion above is that he is affiliated in some way with the Discovery Institute. I asked for a verifiable source to support that opinion but have not received one yet. If no one has a verifiable source to support that opinion William Harris, along with John Umana, should be added into the article as leading proponents of intelligent design not affiliated with the discovery institute.Bagginator 05:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

After a massive research effort and lengthy discussion with which Bagginator is already familiar by now, the consensus of editors involved in this article is that these "candidates" for "leading proponent" are not even worth consideration. Giving credit for some degree of rationality and perspective, the only discernable purpose to continue dwelling on these various relatively minor participants in the intelligent-design debate would be to attempt to create the illusion for the reader of the article that intelligent design is somehow not the product of a coordinated group. Unfortunately, in real life it is the product of a coordinated group, specifically the Discovery Institute affiliates, Behe, Dembski, Johnson, Meyer, maybe also Minnich, Weikart and a few others closely involved in that organized cell. These others mentioned just above are not the leaders, not even close; nor are they reasonably characterized as "it's leading proponents". ... Kenosis 06:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this your way of saying you do not have a reliable source to show that William Harris is affiliated with the Discovery Institute? It is your opinion and the opinion of other editors of who are and who are not the leaders. Fortunately, our opinions don't count in that regard. What does count is verifiable and reliable sources. I find it revealing that some editors here continue to make appeals to opinion and "common sense" rather than to the rules of Misplaced Pages.Bagginator 11:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

~~Bullshit~~Horsefeathers. Editors need to make these kinds of decisions all the time, else the articles would be virtually unreadable and would force the reader to parse through all the available research themselves if it were all included in the article. Heck, if some theoretical maximization to the limits of WP:VER were the only standard, why not refer to each and every publication ever published referring to ID along with all secondary and tertiary arguments about its implications as argued by those secondary and tertiary commentators with respect to each and every mention of the words "intelligent design" on the web. Then, after a 20 megabyte-long article of this type, we could add additional arguments about what the limits of WP:RS are with respect to each and every tidbit referred to in such an article, easily another couple of megabytes of appendices. And I'm sure I'm being quite consevative about these estimates of the length of such an article (WP recommends 32kB, 0.032 of a megabyte, though it's permitted to flex within reason).

Finding, as Bagginator just did, a passage in a fancied-up blog called "legal times" that used the words "leading proponent" in a web article about a dispute over attorneys' fees, in a minor "tell-all-Washington-"insider"-sex-revelations" subject of largely prurient interest, is not even remotely close to notable in this context. Nor would it be notable in this context if it had received 100 times the amount of coverage that it did on the web (60-70 hits). And similarly, a fellow who's doing a whistlestop tour on the local radio circuit doesn't even come close to a rational dispute over who the leaders are with respect to a subject that has received the kind of widespread attention that intelligent design has received in the last decade. ... Kenosis 17:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You mean like these? (PDF) Harris is affiliated with the Discovery Institute a number of ways; through his position and role at IDNet, which works closely with the DI, and his signing of the institutes' ID maninfesto, A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, and the DI's constant relying on Harris for quotable soundbites while touting his credentials. Do I really need to go on? FeloniousMonk 19:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. You have no verifiable sources that actually say he is "affiliated" with Discovery Institute, just your own personal interpretation (just as he is using his own personal interpretation). I can understand the disagreement. Harris is not a member of Discovery Institute, nor is his organization a branch of the Discovery Institute. So saying he is "affiliated" with the Discovery Institute could come across as misleading, since Harris is not affiliated with the Discovery Institute in the strict sense of the word. On the other hand, there is some connection (however tenuous) to the Discovery Institute, but whether or this connection is "close" enough to call it "affiliation" in the looser sense of the term seems debatable. Felonious, you have shown that he is among numerous scientists who signed "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" which says

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

It is true that a number of Discovery Institute members signed this statement, but there are also scientists who are not a member of this organization who signed it. Does signing this statement imply one is "affiliated" with the Institute whether one is a member or not? I'm not sure the connection is close enough to make that claim. Have you shown that the Institute is "constant relying on Harris for quotable soundbites"? You have only given one proposed example, and that example is merely the Discovery Institute's copy of the Kansas City Star article that mentions him (I didn't see it actually quoting him). Does IDnet work "closely" with the Discovery Institute? Well, it depends on how close is "close," and seems open to debate--particularly without any reputable and verifiable sources that say either way. --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wade. Seems this definition from the OED covers the issue: Relationship, esp. as perceived within a group of similar things thought to have derived from a common source;Jim62sch 00:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the definition my electronic dictionary gave? "To associate as a member or branch." That was the only definition my dictionary gave. Calvert is not a member of the Discovery Institute, nor is his organization a branch of the Discovery Institute. It doesn't match the primary meaning of "affiliate." Yes, the word "affiliate" also has looser definitions, making it too ambiguous which is why I suggest we use a term that is not so prone to misinterpretation. The verb word "associate" is one I suggested, largely because it's also the same word the cited source used (thus we have the added bonus of staying truer to the cited source). So why not use it? --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a gulf in legitimacy betwen your "electronic dictionary" and the OED -- the OED is the preeminent dictionary of the English language. Also, most English words have multiple definitions that are dependant on context. That you choose to rely on a dictionary that gives only one definition of affiliate is your problem -- however, don't try to inflict your problem on the rest of us. Jim62sch 22:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's not forget that "He is affiliated with the organization" is using the word "affiliate" as a transitive verb. Let's also not forget that the Merriam-Webster Dictionary is indeed an extremely reputable dictionary. And when one looks up the word "affiliate" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary we see that it's use as a transitive verb matches precisely what I said. The Merriam Webster dictionary has a precise defition of the term "affiliate" such that the statement "Calvert is affiliated with the Discovery Institute" is not true, because Calvert is not a member of the Discovery Institute, nor is his organization a branch of the said Institute. Yes, some different dictionaries have looser and less precise defintions. But this is again the reason why the word is too amibiguous and too prone to misinterpretation. Also note that the cited source for the claim uses the word associate and not "affiliate." I suggest we stick closer to the wording of the source. Why shouldn't we? --Wade A. Tisthammer 14:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I see the uninformed campaign to ambiguate who the actual leading proponents of ID are continues apace. William Harris and John Calvert are the co-founders of IDNet. IDNet is a regional group formed to promote ID in education. And IDNet is closely affiliated with the Discovery Institute, , having worked closely with the institute in the Mid West and New Mexico, esp. the recent Kansas evolution hearings. During which Harris was a featured speaker in the DI-organized ID symposiums. Please become more knowledgable on the topic before continually raising objections here. Until then, give this issue a rest. FeloniousMonk 19:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That is to say, Harris and Calvert are both not-leading proponents, but instead regional operatives, and also are affiliated with the Discovery Institute? ... Kenosis 22:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Correct. FeloniousMonk 17:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

To say that Calvert is not a leading ID proponent seems questionable given the existence of a verifiable source to the contrary. We know that The Associated Press refers to John H. Calvert—a Managing Director of the Intelligent Design network—as a “prominent Kansas proponent of intelligent design.” The word "affiliated," as at least one editor has mentioned previously, is a bit vague. What does the term mean? "Is a member of"? "Has hung out with"? My electronic dictionary defines the verb "affiliate" as "to associate as a member or branch." Calvert is not a member of the Discovery Institute, nor is his organization a branch of the Discovery Institute. I thus can see why saying he is "affiliated" with the Discovery Institute comes across as misleading to some, since in fact Calvert is not affiliated with the Discovery Institute in the strict sense of the term.

Also Felonious, the immediate citation you mentioned to back up the claim, "IDNet is closely affiliated with the Discovery Institute" is suspect. Here's the only mention of the Institute I could find:

For a detailed list of books and other publications regarding Intelligent Design we recommend that you visit: the Access Research Network site and The Discovery Institute Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture.

It recommends visiting another website, and that implies the two groups are "closely affiliated"? Such a connection is tenuous, to say the least. As far as I know though, the Discover Institute and IDnet were both involved in the controversy in Kansas.

Still, the Discovery Institute gets involved in seemingly any major happening involving intelligent design in the U.S. It is perhaps not surprising that Calvert (or any other leading ID proponent of the U.S.) and the Discovery Institute meet up sooner or later. Does any such meeting qualify as being “affiliated” with the Institute? While it is verifiable that Calvert is a prominent ID proponent, it seems to be a matter of interpretation whether Calvert is "closely affiliated" with the Institute. One could use what seems to be the primary definition of the word "affiliate" (i.e. the only definition my electronic dictionary gave) but one could conceivably also use the word much more loosely. When it comes the question of whether or not a certain prominent ID proponent is in fact "affiliated" with a particular organization (whatever that ambiguous term means), I'd feel better if we had a verifiable reference either way. --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the sentence reads, "Its leading proponents are all affiliated...". I note that "closely" is not used. Seems we have a strawman trying to scatter the crowing of reason here. Jim62sch 00:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It was no straw man. If you paid more attention above, perhaps you'd see that I was quoting FeloniousMonk above when he said, "IDNet is closely affiliated with the Discovery Institute." That's what I was responding to. Please be more careful when you make such accusations against me. --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Accusation? ROFL. Besides, I care more about what the article says in this case.

Also, one hopes you're not planning on picking up where you left off -- tendentious edits, refusal to accept legitimate cites, the raising of spurious arguments, etc. Jim62sch 22:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: my two cents The questionable claim that all leading ID adherents are "affiliated" with the Discovery Institute is, I suspect, false. Nonetheless, there is a verifiable source of an apparent expert making that claim in accordance with WP:V. Neither I nor anyone else can (or at least should) use one's own personal viewpoints to disregard Misplaced Pages policy.

What about the use of alleged sources to counteract that claim? There are indeed valid sources to point out the existence of a leading ID proponent (e.g. Calvert) who is neither a member of Discovery Institute nor belongs to an organization that is a branch of the Discovery Institute. Although it is easily demonstrated that the leading ID proponent(s) is not affiliated with the Discovery Institute in the strict sense of the word, one can always use the looser definition of "affiliate" (having a "close connection" with) and claim the individual is affiliated with the Institute in that sense. Unfortunately this rather loose definition of "affiliate" is so vague that one might argue (however incorrectly) that having lunch with Dembski or signing the same petition implies being "affiliated" with the Discovery Institute because that is "close" enough. It may be irrational, but it is in practice difficult to attack.

The only reason I think the cited (albeit fishy) claim (that all leading ID proponents are "affiliated" with Discovery Institute) should be allowed is because it has a cited source to support it. What is evidently needed to counter this cited claim is a valid source that says person X is a leading ID proponent and a valid source that says person X is not affiliated with Discovery Institute. The problem? Even if such a person does exist, it seems that finding such a valid source would be a difficult if not impossible task. Seldom do news articles make remarks as, "person X is a leading ID proponent, and by the way that person is not affiliated with so-and-so organization." In regards to Bagginator's claim--I fear I must side with his adversaries because of Misplaced Pages policy despite the fishiness and probable falsehood of the cited claim (unless of course Bagginator comes up with valid source that fully support his claim). As much as I would like my personal judgment to override Wikipeida policy, I cannot do so. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You're ignoring: 1) Calvert's role and accomplishments in the movement are not close to being as significant and notable as the widely acknowledged leaders of the movement -Dembski, Behe, Johnson, Meyer, Wells. 2) Calvert and his group are closely affiliated with the DI, having worked closely together on the Kansas science standards and elsewhere. FeloniousMonk 21:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You're ignoring (1)Whether you personally think Calvert's role may not be as significant as e.g. Behe is irrelevant, since we do have a verifiable and reputable source that Calvert is a prominent ID proponent. Please do not allow your personal feelings to trump Misplaced Pages policy (again). And (2) how close is "close"? Exactly what actions constitute sufficient "closeness" to be "affiliated" with? It's vague, especially if you do not go into detail what exactly Calvert and the DI did that constitutes them working "closely" enough to constitute being "affiliated" with (same thing with Harris; perhaps especially so). I would prefer a different wording altogether (see below). --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Post Script It seems that "associated with" should be used instead of "affiliated with" to avoid being misleading. The claim, "Its leading proponents are all associated with the Discovery Institute" is still unsatisfyingly vague (what precisely does it mean to "associate" with? Does having lunch with a member qualify, or signing the same petition?), but at least the statement would not be as misleading. Note also that two of the three citations, when actually looked up, do not actually contain the claim that all leading ID proponents are affiliated/associated with the Discovery Institute. (One does however.) --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Affiliated: "1. to bring into close association or connection: The research center is affiliated with the university. 6. to associate oneself; be intimately united in action or interest. 7. a branch organization. Affiliated is exactly the right word. There's nothing misleading about it. FeloniousMonk 21:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the definition my electronic dictionary gave? "To associate as a member or branch." That was the only definition my dictionary gave. Also check out this more reputable dictionary source than the one you provided (the Merriam-Webster Dictionary):

transitive verb

1 a : to bring or receive into close connection as a member or branch b : to associate as a member <affiliates herself with the local club>

2 : to trace the origin of

intransitive verb : to connect or associate oneself : COMBINE

Neither Calvert nor Harris is a member of the Discovery Institute, nor is their IDnet organization a branch of the Discovery Institute. Thus, to claim "he is affiliated with" the Discovery Institute is at least potentially misleading. Yes, the word "affiliate" also has looser definitions on some dictionaries, making it too ambiguous which is why I suggest we use a term that is not so prone to misinterpretation. The verb word "associate" is one I suggested, largely because it's also the same word the cited source used (thus we have the added bonus of staying truer to the cited source). So why not use it? --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Very nice grammar lesson, but rather pointless. Oh, are you aware that there is a reflexive use as well?

BTW: your version of Merriam-Webster is a bit deficient as there are at least six definitions for affiliate. Time to move up to a more complete dictionary, I think. Jim62sch 23:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Dictionary.com shows 'affiliated' is exactly the right word. And one that has enjoyed much consensus for a very long time, your transparent attempts at semantics and hair-splitting aside.

Calvert is affilated with Discovery Institute; no one has said he is a member. And being affiliated is sufficient to disqualify him here, were it not that he is already disqualifed because he's not even half as notable as the recognized leaders of ID, Behe, Dembsksi, Meyer, Johnson, Wells. Read the DI's Essential ID Reading List Behe, Dembsksi, Meyer, Johnson, Wells are all there, but Calvert is not. That's because the one ID book he cowrote is not definitive or notable enough. Calvert's affiliation with the institute is well established. Calvert and his Intelligent Design Network (IDnet) often acts on the Discovery Insitute's behalf. For example, the Intelligent Design Network of New Mexico (IDNet-NM) negotiated with PBS station KNME to provide a public discussion the station's refusal to show the Discovery Institute's Unlocking the Mystery of Life video (which feature genuine ID leaders Behe and Dembski) which was scheduled to air January 2005 before being cancelled due to concerns over the institute's religious connections. (FYI "IDnet-NM is a Division of Intelligent Design Network, Inc, (IDnet) of Kansas.") In 2003 in Minnesota, IDnet was responsible for promoting pro-ID science education standards drafted by the Discovery Insitute. Calvert's group performed the same role for the institute, promoting the institute's draft science standars and model lesson plans, in 1999 through 2006 in Kanasas , Ohio , and New Mexico And Calvert spoke repeatedly on the DI's behalf around the state in Kansas. And Calvert appeared with DI Fellow Michael Behe in defense of ID on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer. Calvert is affiliated with the institute, working with it and on its behalf. Based on our previous experiences with you no doubt you'll claim this is all just a coincidence. FeloniousMonk 17:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't claim it's a coincidence. The Discovery Institute is by far the most prominent ID group. It shouldn't be a surprise that any prominent ID adherent such as Calvert (and your personal opinions of his prominence make little difference, since recall we do have a reputable source claiming he is a prominent adherent) would bump into them e.g. appearing with fellows of the Institute (such as Michael Behe). Calvert is a lawyer, and the Discovery Institute is seemingly involved in all major ID events, so it's no surprise that they were both involved in the infamous Kansas trial. IDnet and Discovery Institute both share the same ideals (i.e. promoting intelligent design). Given the near omnipresence of the Discovery Institute in all major ID events, can IDnet be truly said to have a “close” enough connection (to qualify as "affiliation") to the Institute simply because IDnet also attempts to become involved in major ID events? I’m not sure, but it seems a little shaky. In any case none of this is particularly relevant to my key point. And Felonious, you don't seem to be addressing the key point. Calvert is not a member of Discovery Institute, nor is his organization a branch of the said institute.

Addendum to this post At least some of your cited sources don't quite check out. For instance you said, "And Calvert spoke repeatedly on the DI's behalf around the state in Kansas. " On a hunch I decided to check the links; none of the citations provided say that Calvert ever spoke on the DI's behalf.

Yes, dictionary.com has a definition that fits the bill, but a more reputable dictionary (i.e. Merriam-Webster Dictionary) has a more precise definition that does not allow the usage you ascribe to it (see my previous post where I explain this in more detail). I already said that the word "affiliate" also has looser definitions on some dictionaries, but this is precisely my point: the word is too ambiguous and at least potentially misleading (one could easily read "Calvert is affiliated with the Discovery Institute" as Calvert being a member of the institute because of the definition this reputable dictionary gives) which is why I suggest we use a term that is not so prone to misinterpretation. The verb word "associate" is one I suggested, largely because it's also the same word the cited source used (thus we have the added bonus of staying truer to the cited source). So again I ask, why not use it? --Wade A. Tisthammer 14:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

So, in other words, you are just claiming coincidence. Calvert and IDnet have worked closely with the Discovery Insitute on a number issues a number of times at a number of different places; they are affiliated with the institute, period.

"Yes, dictionary.com has a definition that fits the bill, but a more reputable dictionary (i.e. Merriam-Webster Dictionary)" Thanks for making it clear that you're not just wasting your time and ours with semantics, but with specious objections as well. Dictionary.com's defintion is drawn from the Random House Unabridged Dictionary: "Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary." Are you going to now argue that the Merriam-Webster Dictionary is more reliable than the Random House Unabridged Dictionary? The Random House Unabridged Dictionary says: affiliate, verb (used with object) 1. to bring into close association or connection: The research center is affiliated with the university. No different than "Its leading proponents are all affiliated with the Discovery Institute." Again, affiliated is exactly the right word, was settled upon here a long time ago ater much discussion and has enjoyed broad consensus from credible, long-term contributors here. You objections are noted but must be weighed against your singular history of partisan participation, baseless objections, and past rejecting of all evidence on this topic, and at this article in particular, Wade. As such, I don't find them compelling. FeloniousMonk 15:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"So, in other words, you are just claiming coincidence." No, I explicitly denied coincidence. You have misrepresented my position.

I was unaware it was based on the Random House dictionary. Such a claim was not there on its web page. And again with the hypocritical personal attacks? This is not the first time you made them and where I pointed out your failure to cite specific examples of my alleged misdeeds whereas I pointed out specific examples of your disruptiveness and flagrant violations of Misplaced Pages policy .

OK, now I see what you're doing, what your game is, Wade. You cite the definition for "affiliate" using Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary as showing our use of the term "affiliated" is inaccurate. But the entry for "affiliated", the term we actually use in the article, at Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary shows our use of the term: affiliated: closely associated with another typically in a dependent or subordinate position: the university and its affiliated medical school (you have to click the word "affiliated" for its definition)

In other words, you've been building up a straw man and been furiously tearing him down. Sneaky, that. Please stop wasting your time and ours with specious objections; by your own source affiliated is accurate. FeloniousMonk 16:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I was unaware that the term "affiliated" was not simply the past tense form of verb "affiliate" (as opposed to the present tense; my Merriam-Webster electronic dictionary did not have a separate entry for the past tense but rather listed it in the same entry). I should've checked that on the online version however; and for that I apologize.

There is the American Heritage Dictionary (which does not have an additional, separate entry for "affiliated") with a similar entry to the one in "Merriam-Webster," though you could argue that Calvert is a "subordinate associate" even if that's not the case (IDnet may have occasionally worked with Discovery Institute, but subordinate to it?). The Oxford English Dictionary says, "United in a dependent relation, as the branches of a society to the central organization." I'm not sure it can be called a dependent relation since IDnet can exist quite independently of the Discovery Institute (not being a branch of it). Of course, I suppose we could play the same definition game on how IDnet is "dependent" on the Discovery Institute.

Still, you haven't addressed my question. All else held constant, why not use the wording that’s truer to the source? If anyone's being sneaky here and wasting time, it's you for consistently avoiding this question. --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on, would it make sense as a past tense? Or even as a past participle? No. It's an adjective Wade, it makes no sense in any other context. Jim62sch 22:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems all three of us (you, Felonious, and myself) are all guilty of not being careful enough about checking our sources.

As for me, I failed to check to see if the past tense of the verb "affiliate" existed (assuming the past tense fit in the same entry as "affiliate" like in my Merriam-Webster electronic dictionary). This was indeed a blunder on my part and for that I once again apologize.

As for Felonious, he has continued his habit of providing citations that do not appear to contain the actual claim. As I mentioned earlier in this section,

Also in this section, Felonious misrepresented my position when he said, "So, in other words, you are just claiming coincidence" when in the post he responded to I explicitly denied coincidence (I said, "No, I don't claim it's a coincidence") and even offered an alternative non-coincidence explanation.

As for you in this case Jim, you should check the Merriam-Webster Dictionary entry I cited and see that its listing was a verb, not an adjective. So of course it makes sense in the past tense, which is why the electronic dictionary version included the past tense in the same entry.

I suggest we all become more diligent in the future with our sources. --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

My sources were fine, as were FM's. But this electronic dictionary of yours is quite suspect. If it only had affiliate as a verb, it's a sad lexicographical source then, isn't it. Did you know that affiliate is also a noun? As for the rest, you give a lecture on transitive versus intransitive verbs, but don't recognise adjectival use of a word? Please.Jim62sch 23:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"My sources were fine, as were FM's." Again, you do not seem to have paid attention. Why your apparent insistence that he prevents valid citations in cases where he clearly doesn’t? I'll quote an example I mentioned earlier,

The source did not contain the claim in question, ergo it's not a valid source. On what grounds do you claim FM’s sources were "fine"? You have not explained.

The electronic dictionary's entry lists its primary meaning as a verb, but it also lists its other uses (including "affiliated") it just doesn't give a different definition for them (presumably the reader is to connect the dots between the different uses, as I did). "As for the rest, you give a lecture on transitive versus intransitive verbs, but don't recognize adjectival use of a word?" Of course I did; you have misrepresented me in saying otherwise. What makes you I didn’t recognize it’s adjectival use? True, I looked at the verb definition and connected the dots, as it were. The word "affiliated" is what is called a participle. A participle is a form of verb (this can include even transitive verbs) that functions as an adjective. --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

By your own source affiliated is perfectly accurate and there is no provision in policy, guideline or convention at Misplaced Pages that requires articles to use the exact term verbatim found in sources. BTW, there's more than one source cited in the article, there is five. FeloniousMonk 18:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I admit my error in not checking the past tense for the verb "affiliate" but whether or not Calvert accurately fits the definition seems shaky to me, partly due to what I said earlier and that some of your citations you used to support the "affiliated" claim don't quite check out. For instance you said, "And Calvert spoke repeatedly on the DI's behalf around the state in Kansas. " On a hunch I decided to check the links; none of the citations provided say that Calvert ever spoke on the DI's behalf.

Yes, there are five citations as you pointed out (previously there were only three). The problem is not all of them contain the claim that all leading ID proponents are associated/affiliated with the Discovery Institute (one of them says the institute boasts "a number of leading ID proponents"--not the same as all, another says the Institute is "the primary institutional advocate of ID" which I agree it is, but that does not imply that all leading ID proponents are affiliated with it etc.). I've found only one of them that contains the claim under discussion. Indeed, I am somewhat puzzled why all those extra sources were included at all with the sentence.

Also, I notice that you have continued to evade my question. You said, "there is no provision in policy, guideline or convention at Misplaced Pages that requires articles to use the exact term verbatim" which is true, but all else held constant, why not use the wording that’s truer to the source? --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that foul language is allowed in conversations like this on Misplaced Pages, i'm very surprised. While I still disagree with the opinion of FeloniousMonk and Kenosis and the conclusions they draw, I can see that neither of us our going to move our opinions and it is time to move on to the next step, instead of argue ad infinitum here on these talk pages.Bagginator 18:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What the hell are you on about? Are you refering to the use of the word "bullshit"? Cut the crap. Jim62sch 21:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should cut the crap. Bagginator's surprise is not ill-founded. The use of profanity that Bagginator referred to contradicts the letter of (if not the spirit of) official Misplaced Pages on civility. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Alas, read. The real world is ugly Wade, paradise exists only when you shut your eyes and ears. Jim62sch 00:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

He'd worn the community's patience thin and showed no willingness to concede, such responses are not surprising either. While Bagginator's surprise may have justified, his wilfull ignoring of over a week's worth of evidence that he is mistaken is not, which is what has prompted the exasperation of some here. It's one thing to be shown to be wrong and move on, while it's quite another to repeatedly ignore the evidence that you are. FeloniousMonk 21:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the questioned word in my statement above to "Horsefeathers." The rest of my statement stands as written. and I've returned it to its original position directly below Bagginator's statement to which I was responding so it can be reviewed in its original flow. ... Kenosis 22:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Jim, you said, "Alas, read. The real world is ugly Wade" and yes it is. But that's no excuse to make it uglier when it's not necessary. Note the link you referred to has to do with articles and not the type of discussion that happened in the talk pages (this talk page wasn't talking about articles on profanity; so it was unnecessary to use it here). Also, check out Misplaced Pages:Profanity

Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Misplaced Pages readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not .

The use of cursing we saw clearly did not fit the bill here. Also, on WP:CIVIL#Examples we see that directing profanity at another contributor is a "serious example" of violating this official Misplaced Pages policy. --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Wade, "offensive", "cursing" and "profanity" are subjective terms, yes? In my opinion (and I'm guessing Kenosis' as well) the words we used do not fit in any of those categories -- hell, they even appear on regular TV -- modern America's arbiter of taste. ;)

Also, lay off the little lectures -- while they are quaint, I was never a big fan of June and Ward Cleaver.

Oh, just out of curiousity: are you offended by Chaucer or Shakespeare? Jim62sch 22:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

"Wade, "offensive", "cursing" and "profanity" are subjective terms, yes?" Profanity is not quite relative. The "sh" word is profanity, and does not appear regularly on American TV (on the major networks; premium channels IIRC allow F-words and such). And if you don't like Wikpedia policy, you have the option of not participating. (P.S. No, I am not offended by Chaucer and Shakespeare--none which has to do with anything about Misplaced Pages policy.) --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

OED: profanity, The quality or condition of being profane; profaneness; profane conduct or speech; in pl. profane words or acts. : profane, Characterized by disregard or contempt of sacred things, esp., in later use, by the taking of God's name in vain; irreverent, blasphemous, ribald; impious, irreligious, wicked. Nope. Wanna go for vulgar? Jim62sch 22:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and speaking of these little words of wisdom, "And if you don't like Wikpedia policy, you have the option of not participating" -- remember that the next time you decide to engage in WP:POINT, tendentious editing and overall disruption of articles and talk pages. Entiendes? Jim62sch 22:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If you think that whether the "sh" word counts as a swear word is "relative" I think you are just plain mistaken. And again with the groundless accusations? I'm getting tired of them. Can you point to one specific example of me violating WP:POINT? I keep asking for specific examples on these matters, and the refusal to provide them is common. --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

As to the brief use of the word "bullshit" in response to Bagginator's response to my response to his statement above in this section, coming as it did after an extremely long series of exchanges here and in the last archive about whether Frank Harris is a "leading proponent" such that the language of the article's introduction might properly be said to be inaccurate, note that it's since been stricken and changed to "horsefeathers", which more closely captures my original intent in characterizing his statement anyway. Also note that neither word attacks the person, but only the point (or lack thereof) to which the response was directed.

Perhaps the objector(s) to the use of the BS-word for emphasis about a point may have noticed that although the use of the word is still impermissible on network television and subject to big-time grief from the FCC, it's use has indeed become widespread in public discourse of late. (I do not know whether that is due to an increased proliferation of actual BS in the world, or to other factors.) Some examples follow: ... Kenosis 17:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

'On Bullshit' (2005) by Harry G. Frankfurt listed #445 on Amazon.com

"One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit," Harry G. Frankfurt writes, in what must surely be the most eyebrow-raising opener in modern philosophical prose. "Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes his share. But we tend to take the situation for granted." This compact little book, as pungent as the phenomenon it explores, attempts to articulate a theory of this contemporary scourge--what it is, what it does, and why there's so much of it. The result is entertaining and enlightening in almost equal measure. It can't be denied; part of the book's charm is the puerile pleasure of reading classic academic discourse punctuated at regular intervals by the word "bullshit." More pertinent is Frankfurt's focus on intentions--the practice of bullshit, rather than its end result. Bullshitting, as he notes, is not exactly lying, and bullshit remains bullshit whether it's true or false. The difference lies in the bullshitter's complete disregard for whether what he's saying corresponds to facts in the physical world: he "does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are."

This may sound all too familiar to those of use who still live in the "reality-based community" and must deal with a world convulsed by those who do not. But Frankfurt leaves such political implications to his readers. Instead, he points to one source of bullshit's unprecedented expansion in recent years, the postmodern skepticism of objective truth in favor of sincerity, or as he defines it, staying true to subjective experience. But what makes us think that anything in our nature is more stable or inherent than what lies outside it? Thus, Frankfurt concludes, with an observation as tiny and perfect as the rest of this exquisite book, "sincerity itself is bullshit." --Mary Park

'Your Call Is Important to Us: The Truth About Bullshit' (2005) by Laura Penny.

From the review in Publishers Weekly: "The odious lies of advertising and PR; "morbidly obese CEO bonuses"; news networks that are "content providers" rather than sources of journalism; "nutraceuticals," "cosmeceuticals" and lifestyle drugs; overly powerful and financially motivated insurance companies and HMOs; and, of course, the reliably unreliable politicians—Penny's political and corporate targets in this everything-and-the-kitchen-sink sendup are largely American (although she reserves some ammunition for her homeland ..."

'The Dictionary of Corporate Bullshit: An A to Z Lexicon of Empty, Enraging, and Just Plain Stupid Office Talk' by Lois Beckwith (Paperback - Feb 14, 2006)

'Dictionary of Bullshit' by Nick Webb (April 30, 2006). Part I, for instance, is entitled "Corporate Bullshit".

'Bullshit and Philosophy (Popular Culture and Philosophy)' by Gary L. Hardcastle and George A. Reisch (Paperback - Nov 28, 2006)

From the Publisher's summary: "Popular interest in bullshit — and its near relative, truthiness — is at an all-time high, but the subject has a rich philosophical history, with Hobbes, Locke, Hume, and Kant all weighing in on the matter. Here, contemporary philosophers reflect on bullshit from epistemological, ethical, metaphysical, historical, and political points of view. Tackling questions including what is bullshit, what does it do, is it a passing fad, and can it ever be eliminated, the book is a guide and resource for the many who find bullshit worth pondering."

In light of this kind of proliferation of the word today, I find it somewhat ironic that the use of the word "bullshit" is considered so foul by some, but that spurious, tendentious argumentation involving absurd stretches of rationality is not. I stand by what I said, the sum of which is that the recent versions of the argument that the Discovery Institute is somehow not necessarily the nexus of the concept of "intelligent design" in the modern world, are false and that the only verified fact is that the Discovery Institute and its affiliates are the sole nexus of the concept of "intelligent design". That is to say, the leading proponents are all affiliated with the Discovery Institite. Everyone else who believes in it, follows from it, is a regional operative, a political backer, a financial backer, etc., is secondary to the plan of action of the wedge strategy formulated by the Discovery Institute affiliates. As to my use of the BS-word to characterize Bagginator's particular statement (1)I've already retracted it; (2)it characterized the point of argumentation, not the person; (3)"horsefeathers" is a bit closer to my intended characterization of the statement to which I was responding. But either way, y'all have my apology if anyone felt like it was directed at the person rather than against the point. ... Kenosis 17:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Change proponents to theorists?

So nobody can decide what a leading proponent is. If we changed "leading proponents" to "leading theorists," would that help? (It would rule out Brendan Nelson for a start).PiCo 03:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

As noted in Talk:Intelligent design/Archive32, this has its own problem of suddenly rendering the sentence unsourced (the given source does not speak of leading theorists, only leading proponents). At any rate, Nelson has already been eliminated by virtue of no longer being the Education Minister (and therefore no longer leading on the issue even in Australia). Simões (/_contribs) 03:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"Theorists..." No doubt ID's proponents would prefer that, the problem is ID is not a proper theory, so theorist would be a misnomer and misleading. FeloniousMonk 03:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Go postmodern, put "theorists" in inverted commas :). But I accept Simoes' point. PiCo 04:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid#Theory. --ScienceApologist 11:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"So nobody can decide what a leading proponent is" Actually there is a great deal of consensus here over what constitutes a leading proponent as well as what the evidence for such an individual is. The rare exception may be quite vocal and even disruptive but their notions do not negate the overwhelming editorial consensus on this matter. Mr Christopher 15:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's an application of the 'Teach the Controversy' method. Raise a specious objection, then point at the heated responses to it as evidence of lack of consensus, something in the article that needs to be fixed, controversy that needs to be included, etc. Of course a contrived, nonexistent controversy is not going to pass scrutiny of anyone looking at the issue objectively and critically, though. FeloniousMonk 17:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a big difference in the English language between a "theorist" (someone who theorises) and a "proponent of a theory" (someone who believes and supports a theory). The people who invented/created/developed ID are "theorists". People who believe and support ID (eg George W. Bush?) are "proponents". In general, theorists and proponents are two overlapping groups (it is even possible to be a theorist without actually being a proponent of your own theories, eg the guy who invented Pastafarianism). Or am I barking mad? Leeborkman 10:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

In this case, all of the theorists are also proponents (i.e., they are actively engaged in the promotion of the theory, and the drafting and dissemination of various proposals that ID be taught in school). As for Bush, I doubt he even understands the concept (a man who used the word caliphate to describe the terrorists in Iraq probably has a few comprehension problems...but I digress), and it is likely that his answer was merely to assure he keeps the Christian Right affiliated with his party (throw'em a bone works well in American politics), thus calling him a proponent is quite a stretch. Jim62sch 13:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jim. I'm not particularly familiar with the gory details (that's why I put a question mark after George W., but surely the relevant members of the School Board that wanted ID on the curriculum were proponents without ever claiming to be theorists. Isn't that right? Anyway, I need to read up on all of this some more. So far, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the real highlight for me. See ya. Leeborkman 13:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Since the FSM, I can never look at a meatball without feeling that it's looking back at me. ;) Jim62sch 14:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Need I point out? Intelligent design is only a theory in the minds of its advocates. --ScienceApologist 15:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

And in the minds of its advocates, those who devised ID are "theorists". ;) In any case, SA raises a good point why "theorists" is semantically improper. Jim62sch 15:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't agree with you there. ID is certainly a "theory" in the common English usage of the word. The debate is whether ID is a scientifc "Theory" (with a capital T), and if it is a scientific Theory, then is it a good Theory or a bad Theory. (This is in fact much the same debate that has been argued about Darwinian Evolution for many many years, hinging around the notion of falsifiability or tautology). It's pretty clear that ID is non-falsifiable, and that makes it a poor Scientfic Theory, or if you are hard-line about these things, then it is not a Scientific Theory at all. But don't get all Science-chauvinist and say that the only kind of theory is a Scientific Theory. For example, I have a theory that Britney Spears' taste in clothing is the direct result of wearing Mickey Mouse ears as a child. It's not much of a theory, and it's sure not science, but it's my theory and I'm sticking to it. I am the world's leading Britney Spears Mouse Ears theorist. Leeborkman 22:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Intelligent_design#Notes_to_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." FeloniousMonk 23:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, okay, you are using Theory in the sense of "an hypothesis that has gained widespread acceptance by virtue of its demonstrated explanatory and predictive power". As ID has zero predictive power and dubious explanatory power (relying on something more complex than the phenomena that it seeks to explain), ID does not rate the title "Theory". Is that the sense of Theory that this article is using? NOTE: You have to be careful here, because Darwin's Theory is also susceptible to claims about predictive power. Anyway, I should point out that it is strange to use the word "theorist" to apply only to those people who put forward accepted, Scientific Theories with demonstrated explanatory and predictive power - even in strict scientfic terms, a "theorist" is surely someone who puts forward an hypothesis as a candidate for Theory-hood. Otherwise you have a big hole in your terminology -- if someone who creates an hypothesis isn't a "theorist" then what are they? Or are you saying that ID is not even an lowly hypothesis? Thanks. Leeborkman 00:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The "strong form" of the anthropic principle is not a tautology.

The weak anthropic principle is a tautology (or it can plausibly be asserted that it is), but the strong anthropic principle actually makes a claim that is not true by definition. in fact, that claim is quite debatable and many people (including scientists) dispute it. There is no reason that "The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history." it just so happens that the universe did take on those properties (which is the WAP). to assert that the universe must have those properties, that it is impossible that the universe could have taken on different properties (that might not allow for life to develop) is not a tautology. it is actually a controversial statement that makes a claim that is not necessarily true by definition. r b-j 01:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

All forms of the anthropic principle are in part truisms, since any valid cosmology arrived at by observation must be consistent with the existence of those making the observations. Do you have a specific point here in relation to the article? FeloniousMonk 02:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I see you made an edit. At first I did not agree with you, as I've seldom read that distinction between SAP and WAP being made in regards to tautologies, but I've found some notable sources for the latter being more recognized as the tautology between the two, so I've reinserted your edit and added the sources. FeloniousMonk 03:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

just read the words, Felonious. while it might not be obvious that the WAP is a tautology (i think it is) but it cannot be disputed that the stronger forms of the anthropic principle simply are not tautologies. the SAP and FAP (and, to make a point, the CRAP) are statements that actually say something that is not the premise or definition. they, in fact, say something that is controversial and such cannot be a tautology. in fact, i cannot see how "some critics" see Intelligent Design as a tautology. it says that there is an Intelligent Designer (although they try not to admit they mean God) and that does not follow trivially from the observation of order in the universe and in biology. just because such order is accepted as a premise does not mean that an intelligent designer put it in place. but the WAP is a tautology for sure: "conditions that are observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist." it's true, but it doesn't say very much. r b-j 03:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The Schonborn test

A lot has transpired here since | my previous post, and I'm hesitant to pop in again because it feels irresponsible to do so if I don't have time to make the commitment to follow and participate more responsibly.

After reviewing what's transpired here, however, I am all the more convinced that there's a problem that results from a conflation of a broadly believed concept of "Intelligent Design," on the one hand, and on the other hand the tenets advanced by a narrow movement with a handful of identifiable "leading proponents."

As I conceded in my earlier comment, Cardinal Schönborn is in fact an internationally leading proponent of the broad concept offered in the article as the definition of "Intelligent Design"; but he is not on record supporting what is actually meant by "Intelligent Design" in current usage, and it's likely that when the publications emerge from the recent confab with the Pope & other doctoral students of the Pope, Schönborn will emerge as a non-supporter of what "ID" actually stands for.

In actual current usage, "Intelligent Design" does not signify the broad concept that is believed in by just about everybody who believes in Divine Creation (including Schönborn). The DI folks might assert that's what it means, and that's an obviously useful claim for them to make, since it enables them to claim all kinds of people as believers in ID.

But that is not what "Intelligent Design" stands for. "Intelligent Design" is a label for the position that the kinds of "evidence," arguments, and conclusions advanced by ID advocates are scientific evidence, arguments, and conclusion--that the work they do should be recognized as part of the work of "science." The inventors of ID claim that it means something else (the more widely believed concept), and that's a strategically useful claim for them to make, but their making that claim does not make it so.

If the article were revised so that "Intelligent Design" is defined as what it is in fact -- a tendentious movement and the set of claims and arguments advanced by that movement -- instead of defining it as a "concept" that is believed by so many people who are actually opposed to ID, then it would be a lot less difficult to justify the identification of ID's "leading proponents" as persons who are affiliated with DI. jawhitzn 04:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought I should offer a text for the kind of revision I'm proposing. Instead of just editing the article, however, let me offer this here for discussion first.

The revised article could begin like this:

Intelligent design (ID), according to its proponents, is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."The theory of intelligent design holds 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."Questions About Intelligent Design*

However, the concept as defined in that way is one that would be embraced by many people who believe in Divine Creation, but who do not accept the positions being advocated in the name of "Intelligent Design." As used in the controversies described in this article (below), "Intelligent Design" denotes the positions advocated by a movement that promotes beliefs that are not shared by many who would accept the "concept" which the ID movement offers as its definition of ID, but who do not share the belief that the work espoused by the ID movement is truly scientific work, and must be recognized and treated as such. It is their positions on questions about science, and the place of their work and their beliefs in relation to science, that is the distinguishing feature of ID--not their espousal of the broad "concept" they offer concerning the "best explanation" for origins, which is believed by many people who do not accept, and often oppose, the distinctive tenets, doctrines, and agendas that make up what is actually referred to and understood as the theory of "Intelligent Design."

Leading proponents of the ID movement are all ... jawhitzn 14:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The relation between the teleological argument and ID is already covered in the Overview and in the Origins of the concept and Origins of the term sections. If any additional coverage is warranted it would need to go there since that's way too much detail and explanation for an intro. FeloniousMonk 15:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there's way too much verbiage, but it's not because there's too much detail. What I wrote is verbose because there's a whole lot of redundancy, which would be reduced before it ever became part of the article. I kept the redundancy in there because I thought it would help clarify the point. I'm not sure that was successful.

The point is not to call for "more coverage" of "the relation between the teleological argument and ID." The point is that the article is wrong in accepting the premise that ID is what the DI says it is. If in fact ID really was the "concept" as they define it, then it would be true that it's supported by the masses who believe in Divine Creation. But that's not really what ID is. What I am proposing as "the Schönborn test" is that the article fails the test of accuracy if it presents a definition of ID by which the ID movement could claim to be supported by people who in fact are not supporters of ID (people whose position is like what I'm ascribing here to Schönborn, whether that ascription is correct or not--I could offer other names.)

What is distinctively designated by the name "Intelligent Design" is not what they define as the "concept," but the distinctive constellation of beliefs and arguments espoused as "ID Theory" by the ID movement.

I can understand the thinking that an encyclopedia article should begin with the concept itself, before getting into the reality of how a concept is being used at a particular time by particular people or groups. That sounds fine as a general principle. It doesn't work in this case, however. First of all, the "concept" as they define it is not a concept at all, but a proposition or a thesis. If the article were revised to characterize this as a thesis rather than as a concept, it would still fail the "Schönborn test" that I'm proposing, since the thesis is still one that is accepted by many opponents of ID Theory.

Just changing from "concept" to "thesis" would already differentiate between the article's characterization of what ID is, and what its proponents claim that it is. As soon as that separation is made, however, the attempt to identify a coherent thesis would end up showing that there is none (for reasons I will not go into here).

Neither the "concept" nor the thesis has the kind of objective reality that would warrant treating them as the main subject of the article, as distinguished from the actual beliefs of an actual existing social historical political and cultural movement. It is the ID Movement, and their ID Theory, which are the objective realities that can be treated as the subject of an encyclopedia article. So, I'm coming to the conclusion that this article should be revised as one that treats those actual realities as the subject of the article.

What do other people think? jawhitzn 17:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

What do other people think? Without the Discovery Institute (aka Dembski, Behe, Wells, et al)and their supporters, no one in North America would be discussing Intelligent Design. Well except perhaps the Raelians but no one is listening to them. Intelligent Design is largely a construct/allied campaign lead by the DI. And it was the result of the failures of creationists to gain foothold in public science classes. The history of the book Of Pandas and People is an especially comical chapter in the history of creationist attempts to infiltrate our public science classes. They thought if they changed some of the wording they could pass the constitutional test for teaching this watered down version of creationism in public science class. They got busted and their scheme failed. Again, without the DI ID would be as relevant as Raelian origin stories or even space alien abduction stories. Anyhow, that's my informed take on it.Mr Christopher 22:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that. The Discovery Institute certainly is a very prominent ID organization (through the CSC branch). Many (though not all) prominent ID adherents are members. But the concept of intelligent design and its prominent supporters predated being a member of that Institute. Even if the Institute disbanded there would still be the minority of scientists who argue for the legitimacy of the theory—even if they are unorganized. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Just as somewhere, some mad scientist supports Modern geocentrism Jim62sch 00:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I see the purposeful campaign of dissembling continues apace. Sigh. FeloniousMonk 01:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Citations Double Standard

Somebody removed the following under "Intelligence as an observable quality", saying that it "lacked citations". However, the argument that it counters ALSO lacks citations. Thus, either keep it all, or remove the arguments that it is responding to if you want to be fair. It is not balanced to leave one uncited POV but not the counter argument.

...However, it couldn't be ruled out that the designer shares some human-like qualities that would be recognizable to human analysts. Detecting every possible designer configuration is not a necessity for testing.

--68.183.137.66 07:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It happens. Here's just one example: when this change was added without a citation it was challenged. Yet in violation of WP:CITE, the material remained for while even when there was no citation to support it. As you can see here, both WP:CITE and WP:V were repeatedly brought up—and repeatedly ignored. The dispute was finally resolved when a citation was found, but as I noted in the discussion section, “It's still somewhat troubling to see how the challenged claim persisted without a citation.” In practice, in seems that when it comes to controversial articles Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines often take a back seat to the will of those who police such articles--especially if those people are bitter opponents. --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you pretending you have good record on the proper use of sources, Wade? Are you under the impression that your incessant objections have been invariably rejected after much discussion because you have a good grasp of WP:CITE and WP:V? For anyone who bothers looking at your contribution history here for the last year, it is clear that the defining characteristic of that participation has been a dogged partisan rejection of evidence. For sheer denying or rationalizing away the relevance, significance, or importance of opposing evidence and logical argument, you are without equal, despite the recent best efforts of Bagginator. And your attempt to poison the well against long term contributors here is transparent. Please don't continue to misrepresent your self or others here. FeloniousMonk 18:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You said, "Are you under the impression that your incessant objections have been invariably rejected after much discussion because you have a good grasp of WP:CITE and WP:V?" Yes, better than you anyway. Or perhaps you understand it equally as well as I do but choose it ignore it when it becomes inconvenient to your POV. Please tell me how you interpret the following from WP:V and WP:CITE respectively,

any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor.

3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

Why did you choose to ignore this here and elsewhere? I would like to know.

You have made accusations against me here, but can you provide even one specific example of me being guilty of "a dogged partisan rejection of evidence"? You have not done so, and have had a habit of making attacks against me (such as above) without providing evidence behind them. If you want to play the "attack" game, fine. Let's take a glance at your contribution.

FeloniousMonk, you have ignored Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines to suit your own point of view. Evidential example: you willfully ignored WP:CITE when you reinserted the challenged material on the irreducible complexity page without a citation. And when I put up an RfC after you ignored Misplaced Pages policy, you removed the RfC. You have also ignored WP:NOR by inserting original research in the intelligent design article, replacing it with different original research when I objected. Often times you accuse me of ignoring consensus. When I request to provide evidence of consensus, you often times refuse (e.g. here).

And there's more. Have I rejected evidence offered? Sometimes yes--when it's not valid evidence e.g. the use of citations that do not actually contain the claim in question. An example is in this very discussion page when I said,

The citation you provided did not support your claim that the Discovery Institute is “constant relying on Harris for quotable soundbites” at all. No quotable sound bites of Harris were present in the citation. If you want to see a person who misrepresents things, maybe you should look in the mirror before making the same accusation against me. --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

My record of adding sources to this article and others speaks for itself, as does yours. FeloniousMonk 19:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It sure does. To use another example of adding a citation that does not contain the claim in question, I was able to find one in the first paragraph. When it comes to the claim that all leading ID proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute (it was admitted that many of them are, but the “all” claim was controversial), only one of the five citations actually contained this claim—with you adding at least some of these questionable citations.

When I give a citation, the citation actually contains the claim I associate to it. Notice how I was able to give a specific example to back up my accusation (this citation you offered was not at all an instance of the Discovery Institute quoting Harris) whereas you consistently refuse to back up your accusations against me. I'm not saying you never give valid citations. Even I admit that sometimes you do. But all too often you give citations that just don't contain the claim in question.

Even in this case, the citation you offered here is nothing more than a list of search engine results from Google. Maybe a valid instance of the Discovery Institute quoting words of Harris can be found on those dozen-plus web pages listed, but you ought to give a specific example rather than giving me a list of search engine results, hoping one of them supports your point and expecting me to sort out the mess. And next time you make groundless accusations against me, be aware that I am prepared to show your Misplaced Pages violations and back them up with evidence as I did above. (I notice also that you did not answer the questions I asked.) --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it."

This seems contradictory. How did it get there in the first place? Well anyhow, is there any way to put a tiny footnote to provide a counter argument to an uncited argument? --68.183.137.108 05:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, FeloniousMonk put in the material. I'm not sure how the quote you mentioned is contradictory. One can provide sources for an inserted claim the same day the claim is inserted. If the inserted claim is challenged and no source can be provided, the action that is most consistent with Misplaced Pages policy is to remove the challenged material until a valid source is found. This is methinks especially true when the challenged material is suspected to be original research.

In answer to your question, it in practice depends on who’s policing the article. If an editor has a history of willfully disregarding Misplaced Pages policy, removing the challenged uncited material might be quickly reverted. If you inserted a counter argument—even when providing a citation—that counter might be removed on “POV” grounds by the same said editor. If you challenge the claim as unsuitable for being in Misplaced Pages (e.g. an argument that you suspect is original research) you would be perfectly within your grounds to talk about the claim in the discussion section. “I challenge claim X on the grounds that it appears to be original research. Can anyone provide a valid source for it?” If after several weeks no citation is provided, and your subsequent removal prompts a quick revert from an editor willing to disregard Misplaced Pages policy, I suggest putting up an RfC.

If someone does provide a citation, it behooves you to check up on it. A number of times I was provided by a citation associated to a suspicious claim, but when I checked the citation I found that it did not actually contain the claim attributed to it.

P.S. Next time put your replies at the end of someone’s post. It’s bad form to “interrupt” the post by putting your response in the middle. (Though I suspect you did not do so on purpose.) --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Alas, the incessant nattering grows so tiresome. Wade, no one really feels like looking up all of your past "contributions" (to use that word very loosely) just to nail you to the cross you long for. You're really not worth the time. In fact, I think the best way to deal with you is to respond as tersely as possible. Good day. Jim62sch 21:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

A nice way to avoid the fact that neither you nor anyone else can cite any specific examples of the behavior I am allegedly guilty of. Honestly, it wasn’t so hard to dig up something on FeloniousMonk (it took mere moments), since he is indeed guilty of flouting Misplaced Pages policy to suit his own POV and putting forth citations that do not actually contain the claims he attributes to them. Tell me something, if I am the one who's such a scoundrel, why is such hard work and lots of time to find anything on me? I wonder... (hint: see what I said above about groundless accusations) --Wade A. Tisthammer 03:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Jim didn't say it was hard work, he said it's not worth the bother. Your history here speaks for itself: FeloniousMonk 16:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

All that link provided was a list of my most recent contributions. On the part on, "Jim didn't say it was hard work, he said it's not worth the bother," this is a problem. "I'm going to accuse you, but it's not really worth the bother of providing any shred of evidence behind my attacks." Personal attacks should be used rarely in Misplaced Pages, but if you do accuse someone it's good sense ethically and logically to provide evidence. You and Jim may make accusations against me, but you cannot provide any specific examples of the things you two accuse me of. You cannot do so because such accusations are groundless—whereas if I accuse anyone (including Jim or FeloniousMonk), I provide specific examples to adduce my accusation. This isn't a good idea simply because it shows that there is factual basis (as opposed to being libelous), but also because it's the right thing to do. If it's worth the time to personally attack somebody, it's worth the time to back up that attack with evidence. Otherwise a person has no business making such attacks at all. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wade, once again you appear to be being combative and arguing simply for the sake of arguing. Unless you have something constructive to add here, give it rest and stop fanning the flames here. FeloniousMonk 21:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a rather tu quoque remark. You are the one who started accusing specific individuals here, remember? (I merely agreed with poster's point about double standards, pointing out a specific example without accusing anyone in particular.) You are the one who said that for "sheer denying or rationalizing away the relevance, significance, or importance of opposing evidence and logical argument, you are without equal." Before you accuse me of fanning the flames, keep in mind who lit the match. If you make such groundless attacks against my character, you ought to expect recriminations (and unlike you, I can back up my accusations with specific examples). --Wade A. Tisthammer 13:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If you're certain of that, then please, by all means continue as you've been. FeloniousMonk 15:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that the main article be split into sub-topics so that uncitable counter-arguments can at least be put into the "talk" page. I think this is a fair compromise. The "only human artifacts are allowed" stance is bad logic and I wish to be able to properly squash it. Readers should be able to find both sides of an argument regardless of whether a citable source can be found. This is the web-era, not dead-flattened-bleached-tree era. Get with the times, Misplaced Pages. You are growing stodgy. I can understand hiliting or giving preference to cited arguments, but to totally kill and burry uncited ones is a disservice to readers. --Tablizer 05:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The Avatar of Misplaced Pages replies: see WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:CITE, and WP:RS. Or, more to the point: If there exists an major argument given by a notable figure in a public controversy, then you should be able to easily cite him or her. Simões (/_contribs) 07:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have not been able to find such just yet. --Tablizer 03:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding bias in article

I feel after a brief read-over that the way this article is presented leans heavily towards one side of the argument. There is little "neutrality"- even the order of the arguments shows this (the intelligent design is presented, followed by a rebuttal). The intelligent design argument seems to be put constantly in the critical light. Compare this article to the one on evolution? Look, even, at the section of evolution related to controversies. From a relatively neutral perspective, it does not look at though this entry allows intelligent design very fair treatment for those who might be looking for a balanced review of it. Rather, this comes across like a page in a book intended to refute rather than explore the subject.

If that is the case, than name this article "Criticism of Intelligent Design" rather than "Intelligent Design".

-Patrick

If you have issues with the article, please address specific items, along with sources that meet WP:RS to illustrate why the current article is incorrect. Also take care to note WP:NPOV and in particular the clause on undue weight; there is not a requirement to give minority views as much space as majority views. --Davril2020 15:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Davril is correct. Like it says in the "Please read before starting" note at the top of this page: "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 shape this article are: NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions, NPOV: Giving "equal validity"." When read in light of the specific provisions of policy that apply to it, the article is well within the bounds called for by the NPOV policy. FeloniousMonk 15:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

a more modest proposal

I don't know how people here will feel about the suggestions I proposed under "|the Schönborn test," but I wonder if the points I raised are not enough to warrant, if nothing more, at least this much of my proposed revision:

The revised article could begin like this:

Intelligent design (ID), according to proponents of the ID Movement (link here to pertinent section below), is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Leading proponents of the ID Movement are all affiliated with ...

(with changes highlighted like this above, the rest reamianing as it is. I think just attributing the definition to its source would mitigate the accuracy issue that I've discussed before. jawhitzn 17:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Before now, I didn't do any editing on the article (a) because I'm new to this and don't feel confident that I know the norms; and (b) I figured that in any case changes in an article as controversial & as thoroughly discussed as this should be made after some degree of consensus is achieved here on the Talk page.

However, when I looked again at the DI reference which has been cited as the justification for the opening definition as it was, I saw that the DI itself does not offer its thesis as the definition of a concept of ID. Instead, what they're talking about is ID Theory, as a theory which "holds" their thesis to be true. I went ahead and did the edit, which I think is warranted simply for fidelity to the source which is cited to authorize that point.

I also think it's better this way because, in my revision, Misplaced Pages says "ID Theory is a theory which holds this (citing DI)," instead of the previous version in which Misplaced Pages said "ID is this (citing DI)." In the revised version, the Misplaced Pages article reports an objective fact about what somebody's theory "holds"; in the previous version, it implicitly concurs in a tendentious proposition about the meaning of a "concept," (which, it turns out, is not even supported in that form by the cited source).

So I felt justified doing the edit without waiting for consensus here in Talk. I won't be bothered at all if somebody reverts the article; but I will be inteested in the explanation if somebody does that. jawhitzn 19:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The DI and their supporers make claim to ID being scientific and a legitimate scientific theory. Unless we redefine what constitutes science, they are mistaken on both counts. Even Dembski admits unless the definition of science is changed they do not "stand a chance in hades" For Wiki to portray ID as a scientific theory would be misleading our readership. Therefore we should take a neutral ground and call it a "concept" and avoid calling it a theory or even a thesis. And we should note the fact that ID proponents do in fact believe they have a real scientific theory on their hands, I believe the article covers that. But for us to call ID a theory or even a thesis would be an insult our readership's intelligence. Mr Christopher 22:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

small note of support for jawhitzn / change needed to opening

I've edited the opening in the past - because i thought it was a bit confusing, and could be improved. I still think that's true.

Many active editors here seem to believe that the seperation between the teleological argument and Discovery Institute ID is clear and distinct - I don't think it is.

The first sentence says ID is a concept - the Origins of the Concept section describes all kinds of historical luminaries, none of whom have anything to do with the DI. The opening sentence says all leading proponents are associated with the DI. I'm confused - I've said it before, but this article seems to be talking about different things at different times, and editors here often seem quite angry / agressive when someone points this out.

I think James' changes improved the article, and perhaps it's a bit of a shame that I don't think it's worth me putting them back..... cheers, Petesmiles 05:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Pete

The article, as it now stands, is gravely flawed; and the flaws have seriously pernicious consequences.

Because I care not only about the ID controversy, but also about Misplaced Pages as an institution (and wikis as a medium), I also am going to just wait and see what happens with this article, and then after some time (months, probably) use this as an example.

I have removed the identifying information that is now replaced by this sentence (see Guettarda's post below). I listed my full name when I created my Misplaced Pages ID because I think it's important for people in this medium to be identifiable and accountable, unlike the self-appointed anonymous dictators who are so vigilantly protective of their little patches of Misplaced Pages space. Sooner or later, these things will be fixed. jawhitzn 13:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

At least this way you can be held accountable for your puerile ad homs. Unfortunately, wiki is a magnet for the conspiracy-minded of this world, as your example so aptly proves. Sooner or later, these things will be fixed. Jim62sch 21:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

(I can't figure out why I can't get links to work on this page without the vertical bar showing up; but that's not too much of a problem.)

Gee whiz! The use of characterizations such as "gravely flawed" and "pernicious consequences", when used with respect to the Misplaced Pages article on intelligent design, are interesting indeed, albeit a bit hyperbolic. Here's the way I read that, for whatever it's worth: NEWS FLASH! "Godless Liberals Have Taken Over Wickedpedia; Horses Already Out of Barn" Write your congressman before the world goes to hell. Somebody call a cop; it's suspicious, pernicious, neo-liberal, feminazi, radical deviation from the Official Party Line. This is not Turkmenistan , and the Discovery institute and affiliates are not Turkmenbashi. Nor are the editors of this article. ... Kenosis 20:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It is flawed because it's factually wrong and logically incoherent. For example, it does not pass what I've called "the Schönborn test" for accuracy. The consequences are pernicious in the way they play into the DI agenda and strategy. I don't see how your FLASH is at all related to the issues. jawhitzn 22:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the article tells it like it is, in keeping with the three most basic WP principles of WP:NPOV, WP:VER and WP:NOR. WP:CON is the method used to arrive at the content; consensus being a method that is neither a vote nor a dependence on asserted professional qualifications or expertise of the partipants, although the participants' demonstration of familiarity with topics under discussion can be a signicant factor in the process of achieving consensus. Additionally, a number of additional guidelines come into play with respect to interpersonal dynamics, stylistic guidelines and other practical issues. The Misplaced Pages article on intelligent design is certainly among the most thorougly researched and intensively discussed topics in the entire Wiki.

This intelligent design article is not a theoretical exercise in discussing specifically theological vs. scientific applications for a term such as "intelligent design". The entire article on the teleological argument has gotten less traffic in its entire history than this article gets in a couple of weeks. The reason for that is this: ID is a synthetic term incorporating a set of particular concepts, made and disseminated into popular consciousness today, particularly in the US, by affiliates of the Discovery Institute. As said before in now-archived talk-page discussion, this term would be a minor theological curiosity were it not for the wedge strategy and the peculiar synthesis of ideas having been maneuvered into public view in the context of the culture wars in the US, an ideological, socio-political gambit for power, in part by attempting to shape the hearts and minds of the next generation so as not to produce future generations of godless "materialists", but instead to have them grow up knowing a "science consonant with theistic convictions". This is, in short, why Schonborn's view is only marginally relevant to the article, and why the only notable version of intelligent design is the one that was assembled and foisted upon the public consciousness by the Discovery Insitute affiliates. ... Kenosis 22:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Kenosis, What you say here tells it like it is. I was only proposing that the article be revised to say just what you are saying here. As it now stands, it is not saying the same thing. Your comment here is accurate, coherent, succinct, and even eloquent. It also provides reasons for your position.

The article should begin just as you have said it here: "Intelligent Design (ID) is a synthetic term incorporating a set of particular concepts, made and disseminated into popular consciousness today, particularly in the US, by affiliates of the Discovery Institute." That would make it accurate. jawhitzn 23:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the insult, jawhitzn, and before you go further down that path, please consult the personal attacks policy. But, more to the point, when people call up your employers and try to get people fired, when people post pictures of Misplaced Pages admins' homes and children on attack websites, when well-known lawyers threaten to have you arrested by their friends...there are lots or reasons not to broadcast your real name on Misplaced Pages. Guettarda 20:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There was nothing personally directed at anyone. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't feel insulted--and anyone who claims the role should not feel insulted, either, if that's the role they're claiming for themselves.

Thank you, though, for informing me as to the dangers of the Misplaced Pages environment. I am new to this, and I had come in with the apparently mistaken idea that this was an intellectual community. On your advice, I will remove my identifying information. I don't know if I can remove my name from the User ID; but if I can't, then I will close it out or whatever it takes to become anonymous in the savage jungle you describe. jawhitzn 22:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

As for "the shoe fits" - either you made it with reference to your fellow editors here, in which case it's a violation of the policy on personal attacks, regardless of who you were out to insult. As for the other part - Misplaced Pages is high profile, and people are often offended that we don't let them alter articles to reflect The Truth. Most people aren't like that, but some are. You can usually avoid these issues as long as you are not an active admin, but even reverting vandalism can attract unwanted attention. Guettarda 04:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

getting closer.....

it seems that you guys have rubbed each other up the wrong way a little above - but it's pretty clear to me that all parties want a great article - james, I support you strongly, but as you've no doubt seen from the archives, many editors here have had to deal with an incredible amount of nonsense from various ID nuts over time, and perhaps we can understand why they're sensitive to change - I'd also expect those editors to recognise that behaviour in themselves.

The opening isn't good enough - it conflates the centuries old concept with the modern movement - these are not the same things - we need to fix this. cheers all, Petesmiles 23:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No, "the centuries old concept" is called the teleological argument, not intelligent design. As the article already states "intelligent design" as a term/concept didn't evolve out of the teleological argument until fairly recently. The article is accurate as it stands and the teleological argument is dealt with at it's own article. FeloniousMonk 04:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this article is falling into a basic rhetorical faux pas, ie it is conflating critique of the ID concept with critique of the people who propose and support the concept. These distinct critiqes need to be clearly differentiated into separate paragraphs, separate section, or even separate articles. The "design" argument has a long history, and I would think that discussion of the ID concept itself rightly belongs with discussion of historical design arguments like Paley, and the manner in which Darwinian Theory actually addressed the design argument, demonstrating a process whereby apparent design could arise without the need for a designer. Separate this clearly from the recent ID movement, where you can rightly discuss political and religious motivation, organisational affiliations, etc. What do you think? Leeborkman 23:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was not just trying to sound diplomatic when I applauded Kenosis and proposed his sentence to start the article. I do think it is exactly right.

A separate article on the historical and philosophic design argument would probably make sense for the reason both of you suggest. However, I agree with what's said in Kenosis' comment that "Intelligent Design" is a synthetic term that is specific to the ID Movement and the current controversy in the US. That's why I've been arguing against the current intro which concurs (in the name of Misplaced Pages) with the DI contention that "Intelligent Design" is a more general "concept" -- one that they are quick to observe is something that the Pope the Cardinal, and all manner of other folks would all assent to (despite the fact that they do not support the constellation of ideas that is designated by the new synthetic term).

I'm surprised if there is not already an article on the design argument that extends back from Paley through Aquinas to the ancient Greeks. There should be one, if there's not, and I think that separate article would lift burdens from this one.

The DI folk make a big deal of the ancient Greek lineage, which they use to counter suggestions that this is a Christian idea from Aquinas, Paley, et al. In doing so, they are conflating the historical ideas with their own synthetic term. But what "Intelligent Design" stands for is that this is a discovery of science, and a new branch of science, a new kind of science, and ultimately a new paradigm to replace the old naturalistic paradigm, as the paradign for all of science. And, of course, the "wedge" only begins with science, and promises to take over all the world.

Aquinas held no such beliefs; nor did the ancient Greeks.

The Designer Whom Aquinas believed in was believed to be Omniscient, not "intelligent."

At some point in the future I will be publishing an argument that deconstructs the synthetic term. But that will be the kind of original theoretical analysis that does not belong in a Misplaced Pages article. It can be observed, however, that the synthetic term and what it means are a creation of the folks who have come together in the current ID movement. jawhitzn 00:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate it Jawhitzn; I've advocated some things in this article that've been shot down too. A principal reason the article's introduction reads as it does is that in the Fall of 2005, after lengthy and intensive debate among proponents, opponents and apparently neutral participants, a strong and stable consensus was reached that the introduction would consist of three short paragraphs. The first would describe the concept of ID and who its leading proponents are; the second would synopsize the position of the scientific community; the third would summarize ID's current legal status. This is what the introduction in fact does, and I concur with the many long-term participants in the article who assert that it does so quite well, in keeping with that intensively discussed consensus and in keeping with all of the fundamental principles of Misplaced Pages.

Yes, arguably the language just proposed (in the talk section just above) might be a more informative way of expressing certain aspects of intelligent design, but would need to be reconsensused with an adequately strong mandate to override those earlier agreements with respect to the very first paragraph, perhaps even the whole introduction, which involved a great deal of work by the participants. This proposed new language for the lead of the article also runs into WP:WEASEL with the words "popular consciousness", "made and disseminated", "set of particular concepts", "particularly in the US", each of which begs for endless arguments about the precise wording of each little component of that statement. The sentence proposed here also is a conclusory summary based on the information that the article proceeds to present. It thus runs into problems with WP:VER in that, lacking broad uncontested agreement that those are the verified facts, there would be many more things to verify with citations within that one paragraph were it to be worded in this proposed way. Presently the language of the article avoids these difficulties by sticking with the agreed approach and limiting the paragraph to what was agreed. ... Kenosis 01:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I can appreciate that the current version is a negotiated treaty that cannot be altered without reopening a lot of issues. But it seems like folks here are so invested in what's here that they can't see what's wrong with it. Presumably, the first sentence is a straightforward verifiable statement of fact. Unfortunately, it's still wrong in a number of ways. If "verification" consists of quoting a DI FAQ, then (1) that citation only verifies that this is what DI claims to be the meaning of ID; it does not verify that this is actually what ID is. This could be fixed just by adding "according to DI" in the intro sentence, so that the article is stating a straightforward fact about what it is that's being claimed, instead of a purported (and not really verifiable) fact about what ID is. Besides which, the thesis is a thesis (or, as you say, a synthesis), and not a "concept" at all. Besides which, the quoted DI FAQ even describes this as 'ID Theory (which) holds that ...' So the source cited for verification does not even verify what is being said in the article.

When Misplaced Pages repeats this as the "concept" of ID, it is presented as a concept that is embraced by many who don't support or even actually oppose ID. That's tiresome repetition on my part, I know, but I want to bring this back to the consequences which I do think are pernicious. I have been immersed in this stuff for about 18 months now, and every day there are letters to editors of newspapers around the country written by people who believe that ID is supported by significant numbers of scientists. Members of the old school board in Dover believed (and some of them still publicly argue) that ID has broad support. It's the trick of claiming support from the broad range of people who do believe in what's presented (not just in the Misplaced Pages article, but regrettably there also) as this concept of ID that allows people to be misled about this.

I can see, though, that this is not going to be corrected.

Thank you for your explanations, and for not simply acting in a way that preempts consideration of these problems without any reasons or discussion. jawhitzn 02:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course this raises the issue of, "what do you propose ID to mean". I too wish that this term had not been coopted by DI, but coopted it has been and thus, we are stuck with it. Also, the other potential meanings of ID are handled via the use of a disambig page, thus if one were to write a page on ID in another discipline -- assuming there is one to be written -- it would be rather easy to differentiate between the versions of ID. However, as you can see, this article is part of a series on ID as it is defined by DI, fought over in school boards across the country, written about in newspapers and litigated in the courts. Jim62sch 21:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've said my piece here for the moment, I think. Anyone else? There were at least a dozen editors involved in this particular discussion that still check in here with varying degrees of regularity, and a bunch more that don't appear to check in much anymore. And there have been at least a dozen others that have taken various critical slants ostensibly favoring the position of the DI, whose various arguments may be seen in long discussions visible in the last 15 or more archives relating to these basic issues. Yet further, many participants have stopped by to offer various criticisms of the content, logical structure or organization of the article.

Through all of these discussions, every time the evidence is reviewed or more research is conducted by the editors, the conclusion has remained the same. The only ID of any notability now or at any earlier stage of the history of the article or the history of the earth, is the product of the Discovery Institute affiliates. That's why the DI website is used as the citation in the first paragraph. If that is inadequate verification for the satisfaction of some participants in WP, we can certainly add 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40 citations or more for that one statement. I would hope that one or two citations more would be adequate for this particular point. ... Kenosis 04:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought I was done with this myself, but I'm afraid the point is being missed. It's not a matter of how many citations are need for verification. It's a matter of what is and is not verified by citations that are used. The single citation to the DI FAQ is by itself a perfectly fine and adequate verification of the fact that this is a thesis asserted by DI. If that were the fact related in the article, then it would be perfectly well verified by the single citation. The article begins by relating something else as a matter of fact, however, and you can probably find a zillion statements of support for that in DI literature. Their saying it's so does not make it so. Citing them as saying it's so does not verify that it is so.

You may or may not believe that the US military effort in Iraq is part of the war against "Islamic fascist terrorism." If you cite a speech where GWB says this, then you have verified that this is a claim asserted by GWB -- you have not verified that the Iraq war is a war against Islamic fascism, or even that "Islamic fascist terrorism" is a valid name for something real. It does not matter how many GWB speeches you cite in which he says the same thing, or whether you add citations to Cheney's speeches. An encyclopedia article could verifiably say "GWB claimed ..." The citation, or a zillion citations to GWB speeches, would not verify an encyclopedia statement that "The US military effort in Iraq was part of a war against Islamic fascist terrorism." jawhitzn 05:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Since the DI is wholly and solely responsible for ID as it is found in today's debates, the DI's definition is the only one that matters. Not to mention that almost all notable subordinate ID groups, IDEA, IDnet, ect. use the exact same definition: Furthermore, any definition of ID formulated through synthesis here will not fly due to our no original research policy, and any definition of ID from some other group will be by necessity less notable than the DI's, and thus challenged on the grounds of significance and notability per our neutral point of view policy. You need to take into account what our policies say how policy shapes this article's content if you hope to alter it. FeloniousMonk 04:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be fine if the article reported that this is how they define what it is that their theory holds. That would be an accurate statement of fact. That's not what the article says, though. The actual meaning of the "synthetic term" (as Kenosis accurately describes it) does not depend on what they claim it means in their strategic rhetoric. jawhitzn 05:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Any significant substantive alteration of a definition or set of premises offered by the only proponents who've made the term an issue that merits this very discussion would be silly. The DI affiliates synthesized it and disseminated it, and thus the only notable definition is the one they invented and disseminated. ... Kenosis 06:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages policy has no provision for editors to determine the "truth" of a statement. In fact, just the opposite, it specifically calls for "article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each", see WP:NPOV. So, our policies require that all viewpoints be attributed, presented in the proportion to which they are held, and be supported by verifiable sources. Exactly who's definition of ID do you suggest is more notable than the Discovery Institute's? FeloniousMonk 05:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, then.. why not begin by quoting the precise definition as given by these web-sites (in quotes to show that it is a direct quote)? Is this not a fair and reasonable description of the ID concept? According to the Intelligent Design and Awareness Center, "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution." This idea harks back to the Design arguments of Wiiliam Paley and others, but differs significantly by postulating blah blah blah. Intelligent Design was proposed by PersonX in 19XX in his book "XYZ". Although the theory/concept has been overwhelmingly rejected by the scientifiic community as unscientific, due to a lack of explanatory and predictive power, Intelligent Design has gathered a great deal of support among such and such groups. Some of these supporters continue to campaign for the teaching of Intelligent Design in school science courses as a viable alternative to Darwinian Evolution. Opponents have suggested that the supporters of Intelligent Design dishonestly misrepresent both the concept itself and their own political/philosophical agenda. Anyway, I'm just thinking out loud, without knowing the long history of this article. I'll keep on reading. Thanks. Leeborkman 05:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Not appropriate for the intro, which is required to be brief only summarize the topic, but such background detail would be appropriate for the Origins of the concept section of the article, where much of it is already presented. FeloniousMonk 05:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed (after more than 6500 edits and growing, and well over 2mb of text posted on the talk page--that's a lot of text folks) the article patiently and diligently goes over the relevant details, with links and topic forks to the various related subjects and issues, all of which the reader may pursue as desired. ... Kenosis 05:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A Quick Observation By An Outsider I just came across this article as someone who isn't particularly interested in the subject, so I may be able to offer an observation from a perspective that isn't very common--that of a disinterested observer. I was skimming through the article, and the "overwhelming majority" line jumped right out at me. I'm always rubbed the wrong way when those sorts of claims are made based on the statements of editorial boards, etc., at prominent organizations... sure, it's very very likely to be true, but citing a list of organizations whose leadership have issued statements is not necessarily evidence to support that sort of language. I think that it is the tendency to go that one extra step and insert that sort of language which gives the impression to some (based on past discussion) that there is an NPOV problem with this article.

As a quick example, I read further along and found the section describing the origins of the modern ID movement. This section would presumably cite an prominent advocate who was a major part of the formation of the modern movement, or possibly cite an influential article or publication which thrust ID into the spotlight. But what I found, inexplicably, was that the origins of the movement were being described (or defined) by Barbara Forrest, who is not only not a "member" of the movement, but is apparently "an outspoken critic of intelligent Design, and the Discovery Institute" (which I learned by following the link on a hunch). Did it really add anything to the article to have "an outspoken critic" explaining the origins rather than a prominent supporter? This is, afterall, the "Intelligent Design" article, not the "Arguments against Intelligent Design" article (also known as "Evolution" and "Biology"). It seems that in those situations that could go either way, the less hostile language should be used.

It is obvious that you guys have tried to be neutral (and I'm sure you have taken your share of abuse), but there are many subtly biased choices of words or phrasing that, I think, pile up when taken together. Anyway, good article... I'll go away now. :-) Smitty1276 04:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

See the discussion below - "overwhelming majority" is the most accurate terminology. There are absolutely no peer reviewed scientific publications on ID. Despite all the noise made by the ID movement, no scientists have incorporated their ideas into their science. What more of a rejection do you want? Not one person (not even those few scientists who are proponents of ID) have incorporated ID into science. Guettarda 05:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Then the article should simply state what you just stated, that there is no peer reviewed published work on ID. That doesn't mean that the "overwhelming majority" of scientists disagree with the idea that a creator might have had a hand in the design of life (though it probably is the case). You are fighting very hard to include biased language in this article, and I think it brings your objectivity into serious question. The language I used is much more accurate, as it faithfully represents the contents of the material that is referenced. Someone else made subsequent edits to refer to the "scientific community" because they thought "overwhelming majority" was "too small". Despite the fact that there is a culture of bias here which would seek to include quantification of an abstract idea which can't be quantified, the new language is much more accurate, because the editor unwittingly removed the phrase "overwhelming majority", which is the part that wasn't substantiated by the source. I am happy with the new language... I guess the key is to describe the edits in the most anti-ID way possible to appease the quasi-religious anti-ID folks who police this article. The fact that I have already been called an "advocate for ID" for making reasonable edits which inarguably improve the quality and NPOV quality of the article speaks volumes about you. You're just as bad as the ID guys. 192.91.172.42 16:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

or maybe faraway, so close !

wow - there's certainly strong feelings, and no shortage of words to express them... p'raps we'll try and keep this thread concise;

I think it would be fair to describe the defense of the status quo as vehement! Could we agree on the following? .....

the first sentence defines the concept
the origins of the concept are mentioned later
we agree that the guys mentioned in the origins section aren't affiliated with the DI
the opening says all proponents are affiliated with the DI

The origins sections is talking about the origins of Intelligent Design, but Kenosis says "The only ID of any notability now or at any earlier stage of the history of the article or the history of the earth, is the product of the Discovery Institute affiliates".

This is confusing. So is the article at the moment. James is right. cheers, Petesmiles 08:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If one looks at the article, there's a section on the history of the concept, which is the history of the teleological argument (the argument from design), the class of argument to which intelligent design belongs; and there's the history of the term, the combination of which did not achieve notability outside of theological and philosophical circles until the DI affiliates synthesized its version and labeled it "intelligent design" starting with the use of the term in the late 1980s. If one reads the article, it gets somewhat less confusing, even if more amazing as a unique phenomenon of modern socio-political dynamics. ... Kenosis 14:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

An opening that for me goes some way to addressing these concerns, and which makes it alot clearer that we're talking about a very specific argument might be;

"Intelligent design is a teleological argument, defined as the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Its leading proponents are all affiliated with the Discovery Institute. They say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life."

Its a tiny change that for me helps.... Petesmiles 08:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not a bad suggestion. We should consider this... FeloniousMonk 18:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

There is one bad thing about it; calling intelligent design "a teleological argument." The teleological argument is an argument for God's existence, whereas intelligent design has no mention of God, rather it leaves the designer unidentified. --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Wade A. Tisthammer, I think I can speak for most everyone here when I say give me a break. This must be an entirely new subject for you, intelligent design, yes? Mr Christopher 18:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually he's been around for about a year now Guettarda 21:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Has it really only been that long? Jim62sch 22:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, Wade A. Tisthammer, I didn't realize you were kidding. Yeah the intelligent designer is not god (wink wink) :-) Mr Christopher 22:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You said, "I think I can speak for most everyone here when I say give me a break. This must be an entirely new subject for you" but I could say the same thing to you. Look at the cited definition of intelligent design. Is the designer identified there? No it is not. Intelligent design (as defined in the Misplaced Pages entry) has no mention of God, rather it leaves the designer unidentified. What I said was quite accurate. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious.. the claim is that life is too complex to have been created without a creator, right? But if the designer was from this universe, then wouldn't it have needed a creator of its own? The only way for life to have been created by a designer is if the designer has always been, him/her/itself, alive - right? This is just my attempt to understand this and doesn't belong in the article, but I'm hoping someone could explain that fact to me in a way which is consistent with ID. -Psychohistorian 19:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"the claim is that life is too complex to have been created without a creator, right?" Well, not quite. The claim is that life possesses a certain type of complexity (e.g. complex specified information) that requires a creator. It is still possible, as the leading intelligent design proponent Behe pointed out, that the designer has a different type of complexity than the kind of life we see on Earth (a special composition of gases perhaps), a type of complexity that could have arisen naturally. Even ID adherents recognize that some types of complexity require a designer and some do not. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so, where does he detail what kinds of 'complexity which can create life' require a creator and what kinds of 'complexity which can create life' don't (and why the one needs a creator and the other doesn't)? I think that would be a valuable contribution to the article.-Psychohistorian 20:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm afraid you may have misunderstood me. Behe was just saying that intelligent design (the idea that intelligent causes are necessary to create the type of life we see on Earth) allows other alternatives than the designer being a deity, much as the big bang theory and the apparent finite age of the universe does. From Darwin's Black Box p. 249

Designing life, it could be pointed out, does not necessarily require supernatural abilities; rather it requires a lot of intelligence....This scenario still leaves open of who designed the designer--how did life originally originate? Is a philosophical naturalist now trapped? Again, no. The question of the design of the designer can be put off several ways. It could be deflected by invoking unobserved entities: perhaps the original life is totally unlike ourselves, consisting of fluctuating electrical fields or gases

There really is no scientific way of identifying the designer, so such possibilities remain open for the philosophical naturalist. --Wade A. Tisthammer 03:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so you are saying that ID isn't a theory, its just a hypothesis - a guess. I thought you were an ID proponent, but if you are, you aren't like others I've spoken to.-Psychohistorian 12:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes and as that leading ID proponent Behe also suggested, it could be a space alien or a time traveler (wink wink), right Wade? Mr Christopher 19:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Although I personally do not accept either explanation, it is true that intelligent design allows for that possibility. Think of it this way. I believe God is the provenance of the Big Bang and created the universe 10-20 billion years ago. Does that mean that the Big Bang theory and the finite age of the universe are religious concepts? No it does not. They are extremely consistent with theism (see here for an example; scroll down to the first instance of "big bang"), no doubt about that, but they still do not contain God. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I've always loved the time traveller paradox and the alien shuffle. Jim62sch 21:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The only paradox is that purportedly rational people accept the bogus notion that aliens, perforce materialistic, could alter the universe prior to life arising in it. Even Dembski rejects the notion of aliens as the designer: Paraphrasing Forret the fact that ID's anti-naturalism logically implies its supernaturalism requires proponents to use thinly veiled euphemisms to disguise its supernatural foundation— a verbal maneuver enabling them to speak to their Christian audience while simultaneously arguing for legal purposes that ID is non-religious and therefore legal. (PDF) The Dover trial ruling recoginized the claim of aliens as a cynical ploy to dodge objections to the teaching of ID on First Amendment grounds. FeloniousMonk 22:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Think about this. Suppose humans came about ultimately through natural processes and abiogenesis is true. Suppose also humans create intelligent robots. These robots could not have come about naturally (any more than automobiles) but their creators could have (and did). Why can't a similar thing be true as the alternative possibilities suggest? The statement that if our kind of life could not come about naturally than no kinds of life could seems presumptuous, to say the least. It also seems hypocritical if you buy that one rebuttal against the anthropic principle (that there could be other forms of life unlike our own). --Wade A. Tisthammer 03:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't be so dismissive of the greys. See Multiverse and Brane cosmology -- maybe each brane has its superior brain. ROFL. Jim62sch 23:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Wade, I read the article you linked. Classic god of the gaps arguement, nothing new there. I could just as easily propose that my aunt Gladys created the universe, or caused the Big Bang. The only trouble with that is dear old Gladys would be unable to replicate it. Invoking god or some space alien time travel is even more stupid because we have zero evidence of such a being existing in the first place. However, it is just as "scientific" to suggest the Soul of Elvis Presley (the True King) caused the Big Bang as it is to suggest god did it. Neither can be proven or disproven and the existance of Elvis' soul and any gods, space aliens or time travelers has ever been established. I am astonished that grown ups promote and fall for the magical notions found in the god of the gaps justification. And for those to suggest such an arguement is "scientific" is simply shameful. Mr Christopher 14:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sic maeremus fatuitatem mundi (Thus we mourn the silliness of the world). Jim62sch 19:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"Classic god of the gaps arguement, nothing new there. I could just as easily propose that my aunt Gladys created the universe, or caused the Big Bang." I think you missed the point. The point I was making is that the big bang theory is not religious, even though it is extremely consistent with theism. The big bang theory does not identify the cause of the "bang", thus leaving it amenable to philosophical naturalists even if theists use the theory to justify their belief (hence the purpose of the link to begin with). --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

(reduce) I'm lost. What precisely are you trying to say, Wade? KillerChihuahua 18:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The small change to the opening

Can we reach consensus for the proposed opening above? - I think those few words help, and would like to put them in.... cheers, Petesmiles 01:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It's this one btw - ""Intelligent design is a teleological argument, defined as the concept that......" - Petesmiles 01:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The article already explains this. ... Kenosis 03:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

But not until much later - it's so important that we state catagorically that ID is a very specific argument. I think the failure to do this is a large part of why every few weeks someone like me pops up and says it's not good enough... Also, could I take it that you don't see anything materially wrong with the addition, but just find it superfluous? - In which case, could I just beg indulgence for those few little words, which as I say, seem to me to improve things.... cheers, Petesmiles 04:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks good to me. A possible refinement would be "Intelligent design is a variation on the teleological argument, presented as the concept that..." Either way it overcomes the perception that this article might be about the teleological argument in general. It might also help to put a Main article: Teleological argument link at the top of the Origins of the concept section. ...dave souza, talk 04:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the editors have dealt with this before. (Hint: It's somewhere in the archives, and has something to do with the wedge strategy and WP:VER). We're not talking about God here; we're merely talking about an intelligent design. ... Kenosis 04:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that's why dave put 'variation' in - do you think this change would be overly problematic with some parties then? - what you do you think of it personally? - I think it's clearer. Cheers, Petesmiles 05:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

For sake of argument, how about "Intelligent design is a wedge strategy to affect the hearts and minds of successive generations, and to directly affect the ultimate outcome of the culture wars, primarily in the United States." . Quite arguably, with some relatively minor investment of time and effort among WP editors, this might be equally verifiable and much more to the point of what is the "nature" of ID. ... Kenosis 06:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Back in the dim mists of the archives you'll probably find me making a suggestion on these lines and being told it belongs in the Intelligent design movement article – my understanding is that this article's about the "concept", which by their own definition fits squarely within the range of concepts known as the design argument or the teleological argument, the latter term implying a purpose rather than necessarily a god. From the teleological argument#External links, both Teleological Arguments for God's Existence – the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Design arguments for the existence of God – the Internet encyclopedia of philosophy specifically include ID and its proponents. By the way, The Sceptic's Dictionary on ID gives it a pretty good analysis. Anyway, another possible phrasing for those not knowing the Teleological argument name could be "Intelligent design is an argument from design presented as the concept that..."...dave souza, talk 10:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be at least two competing issues here:

1) What is intelligent design?
2) What is intelligent design according to the proponents of intelligent design?

As it is now the article seems to address question #2 yet even though a cite is used for it, it is not clear that the definition given comes from intelligent design proponents (there is no qualifier such as "according to _______"). A factual definition would answer "what is intelligent design" according to reality which would include a teleological argument. Or the definition would plainly indicate the definition given is from the mouths of the intelligent design proponents. I should add I do not think the existing definition is broken or bad, but for the sake of discussion that's my $.02 on the subject. Mr Christopher 14:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Something like this?: According to the Intelligent Design and Awareness Center, "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution." This idea harks back to the Design arguments of Wiiliam Paley and others, but differs significantly by postulating blah blah blah. Intelligent Design was proposed by PersonX in 19XX in his book "XYZ". Although the theory/concept has been overwhelmingly rejected by the scientifiic community as unscientific, due to a lack of explanatory and predictive power, Intelligent Design has gathered a great deal of support among such and such groups. Some of these supporters continue to campaign for the teaching of Intelligent Design in school science courses as a viable alternative to Darwinian Evolution. Opponents have suggested that the supporters of Intelligent Design dishonestly misrepresent both the concept itself and their own political/philosophical agenda. Leeborkman 14:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't here when the original opening was negociated but I've seen numerous blow ups regarding making any changes to it. If we are to consider making a change I think we'll do well to make a very subtle yet elegant change to the existing definition versus wholesale changes. I think we stand a better chance of getting editorial consensus (and minimize the riff raff) if we avoid reshuffling the entire opening. I believe the original point was to include teleological argument in the definition. We have yet to determine if there is an editorial consensus concering that single change. Would we be better off limiting the scope of the proposed change to that and not start considering wholesale changes? Mr Christopher 15:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Mr. Christopher's supposition that intelligent design may be treated separately from the DI's version, there is only one "intelligent design" worth discussing in an article, which is the formulation disseminated by the Discovery Institute affiliates. The article states this formulation, then proceeds to present what the issues are. Proponents claim it's a valid scientific theory competitive with evolution. The scientific community says it isn't. The US federal court decision says it's creationism in disguise and not to tamper with the science textbooks or make official statements to students that evolution is somehow controversial among scientists. The WP article presents all this consistently with WP:NPOV and WP:VER. After that, the article presents what the other issues are. It's a form of teleological argument, merged with the words "intelligent design", heard at a conference in 1988. The Foundation for Thought and Ethics got involved in pushing the idea of teaching creationism and Christian values in the public schools, and in 1989, Charles Thaxton changed the word "creationism" to "intelligent design" in the textbook Of Pandas and People. In the 1990s, Johnson, Behe, Dembski, Meyer and others got together on the project under the umbrella of the Discovery Institute, formulated the wedge strategy, proceeded to make their arguments to the public, et cetera, et cetera. The article explains what the controversy is about and what the basic arguments are, linking to numerous related topic forks as needed. It's all there, or at least all the important stuff. So I don't see how changing the introduction would help the article. ... Kenosis 16:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Nor do I really. The introduction should be just that -- something that leads you into the article, hitting only the primary points. It should not, however, be a Reader's Digest version of the article, for if it were, there's be no bloody point in having the article itself, would there? Jim62sch 21:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

the opening.. continued...

So to get back to Petesmiles' proposal, Intelligent design is a teleological argument, presented as the concept.... concisely sets out the basic point with very few extra words, and indicates that it's their definition. Looks worthwhile to me. ...dave souza, talk 08:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Without writing reams in response to the lucid arguments above - the fact remains that this article is actually about a very specific teleological argument, something that needs to be very clear in the opening, so could we straw poll / agree to this change? - thanks, folks! Petesmiles 09:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason that it was not stated in the introductory paragraph is that ID is formulated intentionally to avoid positing the nature of the "designer". If, however, it is verifiable in the references Dave Souza gave above, perhaps the first paragraph would appropriately read something like this?:

Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." It is a teleological argument for the existence of God, also known as an argument from design. Its leading proponents are all affiliated with the Discovery Institute. They say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.

Footnotes could be, for example: Teleological Arguments for God's Existence – the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Design arguments for the existence of God – the Internet encyclopedia of philosophy

Personally I'd have no problem with that, though I'm just one more editor. ... Kenosis 09:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not gunning for a change in the opening paragraph but if we do make a change what Kenosis has proposed would be ideal. Mr Christopher 14:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not anxious to change the intro either, for good reason. Though Kenosis' proposal is accurate and would resolve the confusion of some over ID v. the teleological argument, my concern is that in so doing it opens another can of worms since ID proponents avoid, by design, mentioning that ID is an argument for God in at least half of their statements; namely, those that are aimed a school boards, politicians and the general public. In the other half, those made to their constituents, they freely admit that they feel the designer is God. The only question now is: Do we let them play their rhetorical game in the intro, which by necessity needs to be short? Currently the intro avoids issue and deals with it below the fold in the Origins of the concept section. Adding Kenosis' solution would force the issue into the intro and thereby expand its size and complexity. FeloniousMonk 16:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hah! And expanding its size and complexity would support arguments that this article was designed? ;-) I do think any change such as this should be very diligently consensused before moving forward. The two articles Dave_souza cited plainly support the assertion that intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God, irrespective of what the ID proponents say to the school boards. Are there any reliable sources that say ID is not an argument for the existence of God? other than that directly emanating from the DI? I would imagine there are some sources available that could provide unnecessary reason for endless wrangling over the issue of whether the Stanford Encyclopedia and Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy provide the only view capable of being derived from "reliable sources". And as long-term editors know, some of these arguments on the talk page can get ridiculous based on even one or two minor sources. (e.g., "well, so-and-so says it's not an argument for the existence of God", etc.) So even as I write this comment, I'm beginning to change my own view on the issue of including it in the introduction to the WP article. Perhaps best to leave the introduction as it is and leave the complex explanation to the sections that follow in the article. ... Kenosis 17:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Which is why Petersmiles' proposal works better than being more definitive. The teleological argument doesn't have to identify "the designer" as is made clear in the intro to both the articles cited. Stanford refers to "is typically taken to be supernatural" – the IDers may be atypical when on occasion they claim their designer might not be, but they still come within the description. Similarly the encylopedia of philosophy has Design arguments "typically" having "an intelligent designer who intentionally brought it about that the material universe exists" – ID is only atypical in sometimes having their designer appear less ambitious. Argument from design is a redirect to teleological argument, which points out that "Some versions of the argument may substitute for God... perhaps extraterrestrials as cause for natural phenomena... And, some forms of teleological argument choose to leave the question of the attributes of a hypothesized "Designer" completely open." ...dave souza, talk 18:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Dave, if it is not to be identified as a teleological argument for the existence of God, or a god, or a committee of gods, or gnostic emanations from the One God, or whatever, why put it right in the intro? It's an argument for a supernatural creator, a metaphysical consciousness of some kind, and that's an argument for the existence of God. (This remains the case even despite Dembski's shenanigans in saying it could be aliens, which only temporarily postpones the underlying question "who or what designed the aliens".) Those invested in this angle will, I suspect, almost certainly tie up this talk page not only with arguments about the issue of not necessarily being for the existence of God, but also will undoubtedly argue for other preferred material in the introduction. These arguments, as we have seen before, could be quite protracted. ... Kenosis 20:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to be a bit slow coming back on this. To me, the teleological argument (as a theological debating point which usually, if not always, argues for the existence of God) summarises the ID argument pretty concisely, and since Behe for one has claimed Paley as a predecessor they appear to agree. Using "presented as" before the standard concept indicates that someone other than Misplaced Pages is making this presentation: the citation links show who. These seem to me to be worthwhile improvements to the intro. Just my opinion. ...dave souza, talk 19:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Understood, Dave. I appreciated the challenge of putting some of these fairly complicated issues in perspective. Some of the problem, of course, revolves around the difficulty in defining what's meant when the word God is used. Six-and-a-half billion people appear to have about 20 billion views. One might say this reflects an inadequately specific and unverifiable operational definition, essentially the same as what the scientific community has concluded about the concept of "intelligent design". Try to argue about what the operational definition is, and, well, that's what professional theologians do for a living. Which is why students even in most religious schools go to one class to learn science, and another to learn theology. Trying to combine the two hasn't even tended to work well in religious schools. ... Kenosis 18:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

If "based on perceived evidence of order, purpose, design and/or direction in nature" is an important feature of a teleological argument, then intelligent design is not purely a teleological argument, because it looks at a lack of other features to rule out the ability of chance to play a role in the changes taking place. Hackwrench 01:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Article uses ID or Intelligent Design randomly

At the top of the article, it is explained that ID refers to "Intelligent Design". Then throughout the article, both terms are used. Isn't this a waste of space? Why not just use ID for all further mentions. The only exception should be a literal quote; or a publication title. Comments? 00:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was long ago agreed to not use ID, and also to leave "intelligent design" without capital letters. ... Kenosis 00:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Nevermind, I was wrong about the "ID" part. Personally I don't care one way or another. ... Kenosis 01:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I should think that the first reference in a section should be to intelligent design, the remaining to ID. Jim62sch 01:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Jim. Makes it easier if someone jumps to a section to know what we are talking about. JoshuaZ 01:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

We got ripped for doing just that a year or two as 'ID' was "jargon." We should follow the guidelines. What does the MoS or the FA and GA guidelines say on the matter? FeloniousMonk 01:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Key Issues.

It is sufficient to say that the majority of the scientific community does not see intelligent design as scientific. It is not necessary for the purposes of this article to split the scientific community up into three groups. Hackwrench 01:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Since intelligent design is stated as a theory counter to an evolutionary one, it is not accurate to say that the relevant aspect of theories it is superior to are ones regarding the evolution of life because superiority can only be established on the merits of what a theory explains, and not what it explains it with. Therefore, I think biodiversity is a better candidate. Hackwrench 01:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Also doing so would harmonize it with Argument from evolution Hackwrench 02:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

As written in the body of the article as opposed to the references, the article comes across as if proponents of intelligent design have only ever stated one purpose, the, the scientific one, which as the accompanying references indicate is not the case. Hackwrench 01:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

What does "intelligent design talking ponts" mean? In the comment to a revision, it was said that I was adding them.Hackwrench 01:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Equating "natural chance" with nature

As written, the paragraph:

Dembski defines complex specified information as anything with a less than 1 in 10150 chance of occurring by (natural) chance. Critics say that this renders the argument a tautology: Complex specified information (CSI) cannot occur naturally because Dembski has defined it thus, so the real question becomes whether or not CSI actually exists in nature.

reads as to equate natural chance with nature. It seems to say that chance is the central process of nature, and that CSI happens so rarely that the question is whether it is a part of nature. Hackwrench 02:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Argument from omniscient God against intelligent design

First start with the premise that God knows everything he ever knew, (weaker than omniscience, but as strong as we need here). In the process of design, one starts with a lack of knowledge and works to knowtedge of the designed object. We have already said that the God described above can never have more knowledge than he possesed to begin with. Therefore, such a God does not design. Hackwrench 15:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That sounds to me a bit like Zeno's paradox. That reasoning applied to mankind: cars can't exist because mankind started without the knowledge how to make cars and nobody taught mankind how to make cars. :-) Anyway, almost certainly such a premise isn't part of ID. Which paper are you referring to? Harald88 18:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This article discusses a specific case, wherein the words "intelligent design" were given widespread attention, in an ideologically based socio-political context, with certain organized group(s) using a particular modern formulation of teleological argument as a wedgie in an attempt to bring discussion of God into the public school science classrooms. That context is its only notability in today's world. It is not a theoretical exercise in itself, as that would be original research, which is not permitted in Misplaced Pages. Many of the editors have, though, taken liberty to speculate about these things in much broader context on the talk page, which is quite permissible within reasonable limits. ... Kenosis 17:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

My purpose in placing this here is to address the question pertinent to this article of how the people who constructed such an argument and got it notable despite the simplicity of this analysis refuting it using terms they and their primary audience would be more familiar with. In other words, how did they pull a fast one on "Christians"? Hackwrench 23:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

What? Mr Christopher 23:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

There is quite a bit to the ID political movement that is considered questionable by critics--your question is more properly for the movement, rather than the theory. However, Misplaced Pages is not here to debate the merits of the theory or the movement--we are merely here to report on the theory and the movement, mentioning notable objections. Misplaced Pages policies forbid including original research, such as your challenge, to our articles. Thanks. Justin Eiler 23:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Suspected misquote of source

Will someone who knows the source please look at the middle of note 80? It says, "Their third weakness is that they are their refusal to come clean on the age of the earth." This is incoherent. It looks like a vestige of an incompletely removed change. Surely the original doesn't say that? Cognita 03:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The grammatical error is an accurate rendering of the cited text. I've replaced the words "that they are" with " ... " . ... Kenosis 03:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Confused

Thanks, Kenosis!

Today my talk page has this unsigned message: "Claiming that the removal of an entire section is "more small grammatical stuff" is vandalism see WP:VAND."

This is harsh. I'm not a vandal, and I certainly didn't mean to remove any sections. I was making tiny changes to clean up the presentation--nothing that would alter the meaning. The page I was directed to shows that what I submitted ends in the middle of a word. I don't know how the text that followed it disappeared.

A real vandal who wanted to delete a section would have done it more neatly. I've seen a guideline "Assume good faith," but it wasn't followed in this case. Cognita 17:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

yes, it did appear to be inadvertent, judging by your other edits. I hope I didn't inadvertently imply intentionality on your part, as I was specifically noting "inadvertent deletion" in the edit summary. ... Kenosis 17:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC) My mistake in part; as I review the history I see that I said "substantial deletion" in the edit summary. Either way, I think whoever that was on your talk page appears to have jumped to that conclusion without assessing the situation thoroughly enough to reasonably gauge your intentions. ... Kenosis 23:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. Evidently someone thought the deletion was intentional, though. I only hope an accusation of vandalism doesn't go on some sort of permanent record and mark me as a bad citizen here. Perhaps it will be balanced by my having removed and reported an instance of real vandalism (a gratuitous obscenity) the other day.

Cognita 20:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

WP is a very imperfect place, in that respect not unlike the rest of the world. Same basic challenges as everwhere; the more controversial the article or subject area, the more likely these things are to happen. I wouldn't worry about it in the least, Cognita. I feel safe in saying that the vast majority of WP users appreciate grammatical fixes such as you just implemented, and understand that mistakes happen all the time. ... Kenosis 20:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Cognita -- given your comments above, I've retracted the vandalism notice as, having looked over your edits, I'm sure it was just accidental. Kenosis raises a good point though -- this article has been beseiged lately by editors seeking to disrupt the article, a factor that led me to jump to contusions. ;) Jim62sch 00:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

More text omitted. Help!

Before I describe the situation, let me paste this in lest it be lost:

<ref name=dembski_logos><ref name=PJC/> Barbara Forrest contends that such statements reveal that leading proponents see intelligent design as essentially religious in nature, as opposed to a scientific concept that has implications with which their personal religious beliefs happen to coincide.</nowiki>

Okay. Now. The block of text above was the last bit of the section I edited a few minutes ago. It showed in the typing window--that's where I copied it from. Having somehow lost the end of a section yesterday, I used Preview to check the edit this time. The preview was missing this material from the end of the section, although the material was definitely in the window (I know, I already said that; just trying to make clear how absurd this is). I tried Preview again, with the same result. So as not to waste the work of fixing all those commas and periods, I uploaded the edit and saved the missing part separately.

I hope someone can restore the deleted text in its proper place. I believe the section is "Movement." Given these mysterious deletions, I don't think I can do it myself.

What's going wrong? Something is cutting off the bottoms of sections, not every time, but it's happened twice. Is this a browser problem? Should I not be trying to make changes with IE 5? Sorry, the computer is a five-year-old Mac, and choices are few. I have another browser, iCab. Might it work more reliably? Cognita 00:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh-oh. What I pasted in turned into a footnote number. Here it is with deliberate misspellings for "ref" and "cite":

<reffff name=dembski_logos><refff name=PJC/> Barbara Forrest contends that such statements reveal that leading proponents see intelligent design as essentially religious in nature, as opposed to a scientific concept that has implications with which their personal religious beliefs happen to coincide.<rrref>Barbara Forrest. Expert Testimony. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial transcript, Day 6 (October 5) <ciiite>"What I am talking about is the essence of intelligent design, and the essence of it is theistic realism as defined by Professor Johnson. Now that stands on its own quite apart from what their motives are. I'm also talking about the definition of intelligent design by Dr. Dembski as the Logos theology of John's Gospel. That stands on its own." ... "Intelligent design, as it is understood by the proponents that we are discussing today, does involve a supernatural creator, and that is my objection. And I am objecting to it as they have defined it, as Professor Johnson has defined intelligent design, and as Dr. Dembski has defined intelligent design. And both of those are basically religious. They involve the supernatural."</cittttte> </reeeef> Cognita 00:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Two things:

1) I'm told some have a browser problem which causes material to be truncated in this way (I think it was Navigator?). Solution = try a different browser for WP until designers ;-) resolve the problem.
2) Using <nowiki> at the beginning and </nowiki> at the end of each paragraph for which it is desired to show the content of the references inline on the talk page. For instance, check the edit box to see how I got <nowiki> to show up on the talk page. ... Kenosis 01:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Prepositions in titles

I am reproducing recent post on my talk page, which was already availble for public viewing anyway, in a more accessible location so other interested editors may comment if they wish. That exchange is as follows:... Kenosis 05:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Kenosis, you said: "(diff) (hist) . . Intelligent design; 17:37 . . Kenosis (Talk | contribs) (ÆReligion and leading proponents - following up on Cognita, the "Between" is capitalized in the title of Dembski's book)"

I appreciate being told the reason for a change, but the standard practice when citing titles is to let the part of speech dictate a cap or l.c. initial. (Style books do vary. In American Psychological Association style, the length of a preposition counts, too.) The way Dembski's cover or title page handled the word makes no difference; not sure that's what you meant.

Citation styles in the ID article are probably all over the map--and off its edges. I noticed some inconsistencies when going over the text. I imagine many people supplied references for this kind of article, and they did it differently. Making the style uniform would be a daunting task unless I had a paper copy that showed everything at once. Cognita 02:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Cognita, we generally handle quotes and book titles as they're presented by the author/publisher. With respect to the particular title you were referring to, please see this rendering. ... Kenosis 04:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but the policy here seems strange. (What happens when a book designer uses all caps for the title?) Traditional publishers do it as below:

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=9780830823147&z=y

Cognita 04:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Cognita, I'm moving this to the relevant talk page, so that those more familiar with WP policy, of which several are involved in the ID article, can assess and comment if they wish. My understanding is that when we quote to someone else, we're to quote verbatim, and mark accordingly any alterations with the appropriate markers, e.g. "", " ... ", or whatever other markers might be in accepted use, including "" if the WP editors think it's important to note. ... Kenosis 05:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Kenosis, you are correct. That publishers or newspapers or magazines ort any other source we cite do not use the Chicago Manual of Style is not our concern, we must quote them directly. Of course, I suppose we could add to items that appear to be grammatically wrong, but I'd rather not as that will open a whole new set of arguments. Jim62sch 16:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It may not be clear from what's above that the question about treatment of Dembski's title came up in connection with a note or reference entry. Any style manual will tell you that quotations in text must faithfully reproduce the original (except for "sic," ". . . ," changing double quote marks to single if double marks enclose the whole quotation, and capping or uncapping the first letter of a quotation to fit the syntax of the embedding sentence) but when you compile a bibliography, you treat all its book titles the same way. Styles for capitalization in titles of references vary between the sciences and the humanities and, within those groups, from one publisher to another.

Cognita 17:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, I noticed that the book title appears in the text in one section. I thought I'd made the change in a note or a ref. Maybe the title is used in both kinds of places, or I may have misremembered. Anyway, even where it appears in the text, standard styles would have you change the capitalization. They might or might not have you change Dembski's ampersand to "and." The text of the article did change it to "and."

The stricture against changing anything applies to content quoted from within a work. The title of the work itself is the name of something. Cognita 23:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"Peer review" section; white-screen time

(1) I made some changes to "Peer review." I did not make the following one, because it would affect the meaning. Second paragraph, on the absence of ID articles from journals: "Intelligent design proponents believe that the merit of their writings is rejected for not conforming to purely..." Well, journal editors don't reject merit, they reject articles. Should it say "believe that their writings are rejected for not conforming"?

(2) Making even simple changes is becoming an ordeal because pages take so long to appear. From the article to the section-editing page, a wait of 2 min 52 sec. From that page, after pressing "Preview," to an error message, about 10 sec. Back to the editing page, 3 min 48 sec. Second attempt to reach the preview page, 3 min 00 sec. After pressing "Save page," 3 min 22 sec – and the screen that appeared was not the article, but the two versions of the section side by side, with changes highlighted. No other programs were running except Finder, which is always on.

Are these wait times normal? My service is broadband, not the fast, expensive kind, but not dialup, either.

iCab has a feature that shows when a page has bad code. It says Misplaced Pages pages have bad code. Could that explain the long waits? Are the servers groaning under too much traffic? Cognita 04:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The servers have been having some problems during the past day or two. I haven't heard any news about it, though. <shrug> Simões (/_contribs) 04:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It's been the same on my end as on Simoes'. Although the WP servers have been a bit slower than usual, pages are still downloading and uploading correctly as far as I've been able to tell, at least on my browser through my ISP. I speculate that the problems Cognita is currently having are somewhere in her/his chain of ISP/computer/browser. ... Kenosis 15:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Kenosis, it's "her."

My computer is slow by modern standards, yes, but I used the supposedly better browser for "Peer review," and this is an award-winning small ISP. Pages move faster when I make changes to other articles and look at other discussion pages. The ID discussion page routinely takes one or two minutes to load and then often comes up blank the first time.

Worse yet, last night's work on "Peer review" didn't stick. It doesn't show in the article or in History. "Peer review" still uses "reference" as a verb (this use is of recent origin and fashionable, but dictionaries don't support it). I'll try again later. Maybe someone will answer the question about "merits"/"articles," and I'll be able to polish the whole section in one pass. Cognita 19:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, you'd be incorrect.

From the OED:

reference, v.

1. a. trans. To refer, assign to a thing. Obs. rare

b. To relate (a measurement) to a defined base or zero level.

2. To provide with references; to give a reference to (a passage); to find by reference.

Hence referenced ppl. a., referencing vbl. n.; also referencer.

1884 Cassell's Mag. Apr. 287/1 The solicitors..send out men called ‘referencers’ to ascertain the names of all the owners, lessees, and occupiers of the property within the limits of deviation. 1884 Cassell's Mag. Apr. 288/2 The united cost for..surveys, referencing, printing, fees, parliamentary agents, and so on. 1971 Nature 30 Apr. 602/1 It is a very good book indeedbut it could have been excellent if just a little extra thought had gone into the original plan and an extra month into the final editing and referencing. 1972 Science 5 May 503/3 The authors..give an additional line of the frequently quoted but never referenced turbulence poem by Richardson (1922) beginning ‘Big whorls have little whorls’. 1978 Nature 14 Dec. 739/2 The referencing, which includes entries up to the first half of 1976, is impressive.

The verb is perfectly acceptable. Jim62sch 22:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Jim, I don't say "reference" can't be a verb, only that, as a verb, it doesn't properly have this one particular sense. The OED doesn't support using it as a synonym for "refer to," which is its sense in ID: Peer review. All the OED's recent (i.e., 20th-century) examples use it in the sense of "provide references for" or "put in a reference list."

Cognita 22:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"Peer review" still uses "reference" as a verb (this use is of recent origin and fashionable, but dictionaries don't support it)."

Depends on the meaning of this sentence: "The authors..give an additional line of the frequently quoted but never referenced turbulence poem by Richardson"

In any case, we also have Webster:

Main Entry: reference

Function: transitive verb

Inflected Form(s): -enced; -enc·ing

1 a : to supply with references b : to cite in or as a reference

Let's remember, a good linguist, lexicographer (or copy editor) aims for the descriptive rather than the prescriptive. Thus, the usage of referenced, whether or not you find it sub-standard, will stay. Jim62sch 23:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"Let's remember, a *good* linguist, lexicographer (or copy editor)..." . Well, values differ, as I'm sure you know. Editions of Webster based on the Third International are notoriously descriptive. As for the OED's 1972 quotation, "referenced" there most likely has the bibliographic sense. If it simply meant "referred to," then "frequently quoted but never referenced" would have no clear meaning. The sentence seems to be about recovering part of a poem that can't be found in bibliographies.

To those of us – or, at any rate, some of us – who didn't grow up reading sentences like "The defendant excused his crimes by referencing his unhappy childhood," this new sense of "reference" sounds wrong. It doesn't correspond to Webster's sense 1b, above, or to any other established sense. I believe "cite" for "reference" in "Peer review" would be unobjectionable. It would have the additional advantage of brevity: two fewer syllables for readers to subvocalize. However, I sense a duel coming on. Loud readings from dictionaries at 50 virtual paces, at dawn?

Cognita 01:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, that was funny. I'll give in to a sense of humour at any time. ;) OK, change it to cite so long as no one else objects (they mean the same thing anyway). For some odd reason, "referenced" used as it is in this article does not bother me, but "impacted" when referring to anything but teeth or bowels does, as do the phrases "as we move forward in the future" and "due to the fact that". I guess we all have our pet peeves. Jim62sch 11:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I was in a crappy mood last night, so if it seems that I bit your head off in my post, I apologise. Jim62sch 11:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. It does sometimes seem that I've wandered into the boys' clubhouse by mistake (cf. "Calvin and Hobbes"), with the predictable consequences.

To proceed with tidying up "Peer review," all I need now is a consensus (around here? uh, right) on "merit" vs. "articles"; item 1 above describes the question.

And does anyone know whether the "edit section" link is supposed to bring up a window containing the section it belongs to and (whee, I found out how to get italics here) the next section? This happens occasionally. It may be related to those accidental deletions of material at the end.

Cognita 18:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I love Calvin and Hobbes, not as much as I love the Far Side, but, I digress (ah, the cliché is alive and well ;). OK, how about this: Intelligent design proponents believe that their writings are rejected solely for not conforming to purely...and that the "merit" of the propositions expressed in those articles is overlooked.

Edit just brings up the section you're editing...I'm not sure I follow the second part fully. Jim62sch 23:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to reword the sentence in line with what you wrote. There may not be room to add that many characters. Sometimes the computer won't let me type an addition, such as a comma, unless I take out something of the same length elsewhere; evidently I run up against a length limit.

Because the sentence tells what proponents believe, I think there should be no quote marks around "merit." Proponents believe their articles have real merit (no quotes), not spurious merit (quotes).

On the second issue, here's another description: on occasion, when I go to edit one section, the window for making changes contains the typescript for that section and the section that follows it in the article. I ask for one section and get two.

A few other things, but these are more minor. They probably require group consultation and may not be dealt with soon. I don't want to overburden you busy folks. (1) This article uses the British-style sequence of period or comma and closing quotation mark (word". instead of word.") in most places, although ID is an American topic. (Biblical literalism and the ideologies associated with it occur almost exclusively in the U.S. – okay, a little in Germany and Australia, but Europeans often express astonishment that such beliefs are taken seriously in the U.S. at all, and by so many people.) (2) Somebody who wrote a lot of the material was semicolon-happy. I think some passages would read more easily with a few sentences broken up. (3) The article does a good job of presenting ID and showing why it isn't scientific. However, laypeople don't typically choose their beliefs using a scientific standard as the criterion. They believe things that are consistent with their pre-existing world views. ID has an intuitive appeal to people predisposed to attribute physical events to mental causes, possibly a form of animism arising from the persistence of infantile thinking into adulthood. (Babies think everything happens because someone wants it to.) This issue pertains to belief systems generally and may belong elsewhere, but its practical aspect is that if you hope to give believers second thoughts about ID, debunking it on rational grounds won't suffice. Cognita 01:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Item 1 -- feel free to standardise whichever way you feel is better.

Item 2 -- so long as we do not create too many simple sentences, go for it.

Item 3 -- don't hold yer breath (you'll turn purple). Seriously, you raise a number of good points, but the purpose of an encyclopedia is to represet the facts as they are, not to change the minds of believers. (and some believers are gonna be really mad at your assertion that they be influenced by "...a form of animism arising from the persistence of infantile thinking into adulthood.") I mean, you're probably correct, but... Besides, unless we had a source that met WP:V and WP:RS saying something along those lines, it would just be original research (see WP:NOR).

BTW, are you using dial-up? Jim62sch 09:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Items 1 and 2: Okay, but I don't know when I might get to it. That's a lot of transpositions. Anyone want to help?

Item 3: One source for infants' (mis)understanding of causality is Silvano Arieti, The Intrapsychic Self: Feeling and Cognition in Health and Mental Illness (winner, National Book Award for Science, 1975). Erik Erikson, Childhood and Society, also has much to say on the relation between experiences in infancy and the content of later religious beliefs. But of course you're right, people don't want to hear that they think like babies. I had in mind, for instance, the great amount of discussion higher on this page where some contributors took pains to establish that all the leaders are connected to the Discovery Institute. The effect – and, reading between the lines, the intent – is to discredit ID by attributing its current popularity to a small, insular group of writers and public speakers. As the article says, though, the concept goes back at least to classical times. (May I assert that Plato had never heard of the Discovery Institute without providing some nonoriginal research as backup?) ID is popular not because the Disc. Inst. promotes it but because many people have a hard time believing that all these life forms got here by themselves, and it's easier for them to believe that an intelligence directed the process. They have no problem with the idea that a mental or spiritual entity acted in the physical world (but how?). Holding the Disc. Inst. responsible doesn't put ID into a full perspective in a broader sense. People can still say "So what? There must have been a designer anyway." Now, since the article is in the Pseudoscience category, anything about the psychology of belief is inappropriate if the only purpose is to evaluate ID's claim to be a science. Psychology comes in if the article has other purposes, such as evaluating ID's plausibility or explaining its appeal.

Item "BTW": No, I have "broadband lite," as above, and a slow computer. Cognita 19:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Broadband lite? Do I want to know what the heck that is? ;)

Anyway, I do not, in any way, disagree with you philosophically, in fact, I think you are quite likely right. (The whole thing reminds me of the war on drugs: religious folks (especially) cannot understand how people get hooked on drugs; well, duh, it's because of the same needs, desires, (mis)interpretations, etc., as get people hooked on religion.) Anyway, I'm not sure how this could be worked into the article. Jim62sch 00:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it could be, either, or whether it should be, and the article is too long already. It does seem that the article focuses on ID promoters' assertions and the arguments against them, at the cost of saying anything about ID subscribers of the grass-roots kind in society at large.

The problem of extra sections in the editing window recurs. When I clicked on "edit" for "Defining ID as science," the resulting window showed that section and the next section, "Peer review." Trying to edit the intro for "Controversy" was even worse. Clicking on "edit" for "Controversy" brought up almost the whole Controversy section, including its subsections, down to a point where it stopped mid-word, short of the end. I presume the reason is a glitch in IE – something to keep in mind if anyone else without an apparent hostile agenda deletes a block of text.

Next question: Some terms, such as scientific method, have wikilinks (term? they're links to other WP articles) more than once. Shouldn't a term appear as regular text after it's been treated as a link the first time? Other links whose purpose isn't obvious are those used for dates in references. If a work was published in 2003, the 2003 is blue (sometimes). I don't see how making it a link helps in this context. Cognita 08:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

a link

is this link inappropriate?

Flock of Dodos Documentary presents both sides of the Intelligent Design/Evolution clash

--Tsinoyboi 08:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't present both sides; it presents only one side by showing (a) only people who disagree with "evolving from apes" (straw man fallacy because evolution doesn't claim that), and (b) only people who agree with ID. Furthermore, the piece implies that popular opinion determines validity of a scientific theory! That's just stupid, and a common ploy of creationists. Popular opinion is irrelevant to the validity of science. The link isn't appropriate. -Amatulic 23:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Amatulic, with all due respect intelligent design itself has nothing to do with science :-) I haven't seen the film, but isn't it mainly Kansas centric? Meaning it has more do to with the intelligent design movement specific to Kansas. Or am I mistaken? Mr Christopher 23:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your first sentence: I know that, I was just trying to be, er, "balanced." :)

Click on the link; it's only about a minute long. It shows Kansas and Dover and a whole bunch of other scenes in rapid sequence. It promotes a longer film purported to determine who is the "bigger flock of dodos" - the ID movement or scientists. Judging by the content of this piece, I can guess what the answer will be. -Amatulic 00:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess it doesn't make for much of a source or link since there's almost no information on that site itself, but did anyone look at the news interview clip? http://www.flockofdodos.com/ABCTheMixMED.mov the trailer doesn't really show what it's about as much as this clip. --Tsinoyboi 02:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like/looks like it doesn't really belong in the article. It might warrant a mention in the Kansas evolution hearings but would seem out of place here. Mr Christopher 03:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I don't know where it belongs but I'm reasonably certain it does not belong here. Perhaps it warrants its own article? Mr Christopher 03:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

On box added and removed today

Maybe move "controversial topic" and "Please read before starting" to top? Cognita 22:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This seems reasonable. Any objections? JoshuaZ 22:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Edits by Hackwrench

Edit here with edit summary "Implementing a suggestion I made on the talk page that received no opposing comments" I have looked, and cannot find this suggested. Please re-state your argument here, thanks. KillerChihuahua 02:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

IMO, I would recommend that Hackwrench review the archives first. This issue was parsed, re-parsed, re-parsed again, then microparsed by numerous editors. The longstanding version is accurate. ... Kenosis 03:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Copied from Key Issues further up. Couldn't you have just used the browser's "Find" function to have done a search on my name? Hackwrench 06:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Moving from easier searches to slightly harder ones, what strategies do you recommend to find the relevant topic in the archives? Hackwrench 06:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive26 says something about bringing up matters similar to this later Hackwrench 06:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I did search, and saw that, and I did NOT see, either before or now, your proposed edits. KillerChihuahua 23:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh' the section titled Key issues, still on this main talk page Hackwrench 22:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I read your posts. I'd suggest you spend a bit of time reading the footnotes, you might gain insight. Jim62sch 01:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I read the footnotes attached to the three breaks and don't see how they demonstrate a need for readers of the page to have it broken up into three groups. While those words are used in the connected footnotes, one would have to be awfully pedantic to come to the conclusion that they were doing anything other than expressing the same sentiment in their colloquialism of choice. Hackwrench 05:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Reductio ad absurdum

If you want to prove someones belief wrong, or state that your belief is more correct, then you have to prove every belief wrong as well no matter how absurd it is. Otherwise a belief that someone believes is completely more absurd than yours will surface. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.126.229 (talk • contribs)

Correction; teaching ID in public schools not advocated!

Excerpt from Misplaced Pages, Intelligent Design: http://en.wikipedia.org/Intelligent_design

"Supporters also hold that religious neutrality requires the teaching of both evolution and intelligent design in schools, saying that teaching only evolution unfairly discriminates against those holding creationist beliefs."

The primary leaders and the mainstream of the ID movement hold to the opposite, actually…

Excerpt from Discovery.org: http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php

"3. Should public schools require the teaching of intelligent design?

No. Instead of mandating intelligent design, Discovery Institute recommends that states and school districts focus on teaching students more about evolutionary theory, including telling them about some of the theory's problems that have been discussed in peer-reviewed science journals. In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned. " -

The whole “Teach the controversy” (i.e. the controversy within darwinism itself) idea is for the express purpose of dissuading fringe crusaders from pushing for mandates to teach ID. Btw, given this policy, if one feels there are no real controversies among Darwinists then one has little to fear from ID, no? The principle ID advocates want educators to teach the evidence not the dogma. For example, the thorny implications of the Cambrian explosion should be rigorously debated by students everywhere. The current controversies among scientists on how to interpret this phenomenon should not be censored by ideologues who write the textbooks.

Therefore, an edit is surely in order here. 70.61.219.34 05:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC) adlac.

This is an insufficiently specific concern, as the evidence of intelligent design actually being taught in school so well documented publically(picking, say, the Dover trial records as verifiable source on this). Thus, at least some advocates encourage its teaching in school. If the article unequivibly states that the DI(not any other advocates) encourages teaching ID in schools, then this is a case of poor verification on the part of some editors(or of conflict in sources). Could you cite a passage that is in error from the article? i kan reed 07:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

See Wedge strategy and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. 'Nuff said. Jim62sch 11:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

i kan reed, thank you for your reply. I think you may have missed reading the citation? - no matter: "Supporters also hold that religious neutrality requires the teaching of both evolution and intelligent design in schools, saying that teaching only evolution unfairly discriminates against those holding creationist beliefs."

"Supporters hold" is not accurate as the DI does not hold this, the major ID spokespeople in the press do not hold this, the actual scientists who back ID do not hold this. Former Dover district school board members hold this view - to say anything more than this is stereotyping. Believe it or not, the DI actually tried to dissuade them from taking this position. So I affirm what you mentioned, i kan reed, it is a case of poor verification to assume that the main supporting leaders of ID (i.e. the DI) or even the majority of supporters hold this view. This is the impression of the statement, correct?

Jim62sch, do you dispute the policy statement from the DI website? Do you disagree that they are the preeminent supporters of the theory? Wouldn't it be erroneous for me to assume every opinion held by an amateur Darwinist represents the opinions of the professional mainstream proponents?

Let me know if you agree...thanks 70.61.219.34 02:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)adlac

Actually we have a source for this from intelligent design movement:" Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula written by the institute's director and co-founder, Stephen C. Meyer and David DeWolf, a fellow of the institute, which stated in its closing paragraphs: "Moreover, as the previous discussion demonstrates, 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. "JoshuaZ 17:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, lets compare the statement in Misplaced Pages with this corroborating source.

"Supporters also hold that religious neutrality requires the teaching of both evolution and intelligent design..."

"...as the previous discussion demonstrates, school boards have the authority to permit, and even encourage, teaching about design theory as an alternative to Darwinian evolution..."

I think that the contrast is clear here, so my criticism of the wikipedia claim stands. I will concede however that my thread title poorly specifies my particular contention. My apologies for any confusion.

To clarify the issue even further, note this explanation by Steven Meyer on Nightline:

"We think it should be permitted, the discussion of that should be permitted, we’re not asking for it to be required at this point. What we’re asking for is for Darwinian evolution to be taught in its full glory, if you will, but also for the current scientific criticisms of the theory to be taught as well, alongside it. And there are very significant criticisms of Darwinian evolution in the scientific literature."

Look, this impression that ID supporters are generally pushing to mandate the teaching of ID is false. But lets not miss all the other false assumptions and stereotypes that this wiki statement betrays. "Supporters also hold that religious neutrality..." ID supporters would never frame their position this way because they do not concede that their theory springs from metaphysics but rather from empirical evidence. An ID advocate would say that the foundational fairness issue is in the need to present the major evidence as it stands not a selection of just the Darwinistically favorable evidence nor, in particular, the standard offering of falsified evidences (see "Icons of Evolution").

And again the phrase "...unfairly discriminates against those holding creationist beliefs" is also transparently biased toward the assumption that ID supporters equate their position with creationism. Come on... this is embarrassing. Let people criticize the ID point of view, but for Pete's sake don't put outrageous words in their mouths; Why not rather quote from a prominent advocate? Friends, help me out on this one now.70.61.219.34 03:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)adlac

Yes, that's the DI's Teach the Controversy strategy. You're not seriously taking their claims as fact are you? There's literally no shortage of sources showing ID proponents are indeed seeking to introduce ID into public school classrooms. One method is by mandate. But the other is by introducing ID texts as "scientific alternatives" to evolution while portraying evolution as "having problems" and a "theory in crisis." Their side's viewpoint and strategy is to claim that they are not seeking the teaching of evolution, much less mandating it's teaching. For that very reason we need to be circumspect about objections like yours that advocate one side's particular view, particularly since their claims have been shown to be inaccurate or flat wrong time and again. For examples of this see Teach the Controversy, Critical Analysis of Evolution and the Dover ruling. FeloniousMonk 04:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The Wiki article attributed a poorly worded opinion to the main supporters of ID. I then explained that the DI, the most authoritative representative of ID, would, in fact, reject this explanation of their position. I saw some clear discrepancies. FeloniousMonk, you appeared to agree, in part.

You confirmed my claims about the DI's views saying, “Yes, that's the DI's Teach the Controversy strategy... Their side's viewpoint and strategy is to claim that they are not … mandating it's teaching.”

This is the same point that I made against the validity of the Wiki statement. The DI's positions shouldn't be misrepresented through slanted paraphrasing. Reasoned criticism not misrepresentation is the proper tool of a detractor. ...Anyway, the clearest disparities are at these bolded points:

Supporters also hold that religious neutrality requires the teaching of both evolution and intelligent design in schools, saying that teaching only evolution unfairly discriminates against those holding creationist beliefs.

I do appreciate that you have been honest about your POV against ID and the character of IDers in particular. We should all agree that these kinds of acknowledged biases must be minimized in statements that claim to represent an opponent's views. If someone still has the opinion that the DI pushes mandates to teach ID while claiming the opposite, please provide a source. Their extensive legal records would be the natural place to view their active agenda in relation to public education. However, I believe that their position is consistent. 70.61.219.34 07:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC) adlac

Um,

"ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID." Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover
Nick Matzke has shown 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. No one here but us Critical Analysis-ists…
"the ID crowd has pushed a "teach the controversy" approach to evolution that closely inﬂuenced the Ohio State Board of Education's recently proposed science standards, which would require students to learn how scientists "continue to investigate and critically analyze" aspects of Darwin's theory. This language may seem innocuous enough, but it clearly allows teachers room to bring up ID if they choose." Survival of the Slickest - How anti-evolutionists are mutating their message By Chris Mooney

That's three sources; there's literally dozens more. Do we need to post them all before you're convinced? FeloniousMonk 18:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Honestly, I don't want to offend, but lets clairify what is really at issue here. I trust that even if you feel the DI members are confirmed liers it will not change your commitment to Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy which states,

To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents.

The only question left is whether you believe the "more or less acceptible to their adherents" critiria is met in this statement:

Supporters also hold that religious neutrality requires the teaching of both evolution and intelligent design in schools, saying that teaching only evolution unfairly discriminates against those holding creationist beliefs.

While I value your opinion in this matter, it appears that the acceptablily of the contested statement actually hangs on the judgement of ID adherents only, as you can see. This is because it is ID's position that purports to be described here within an encyclopedia artical on ID. Are detractors more qualified to state what ID supporters think? Opponents of ID will find much more honor in engaging in noble critism than in propaganda. Besides, it is ID supporters who are the propagandists, right? I am confident that the Darwinists on this forum will want to maintain the moral high ground, dispite the emotionally charged nature of this debate. After all we are not here to debate anything, just to present the veiw as affirmed by its adherents along with critisisms so as to add clarity to the debate. How does it hurt Darwin's apologists to allow a clear presentation of what the IDer's say? Otherwise they may end up wasting time attacking what is really not in dispute. Speaking of...

...We have a great opportunity for common ground on the issues Felonious Monk - seriously. You feel upset that IDers are not admitting that they want their theory to be permited to be uttered in public places. They do admit that this is their desire, as I have already quoted from Steve Meyers on Nightline above. You say they shouldn't push it because it is not scientific; they say that making inferences to an intelligence is scientific. They base this claim on the fact that many scientific feilds do infer intelligence today for example , archaeology, cryptography, forensics, and the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI). Inference to intelligence has been made by most of the fathers of science before Darwin, who was able to explain that all life was based on the simple cell, being "little more than a simple glob of protoplasm." But now that science knows better it is much more tempting, though much more dangerous, to make the inference, as Francis Crick can attest, "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." Anyway, to get back to the part where we can agree, ID scientists do want their theory to get a fair debate and they admit plainly to some of the things you accuse them of doing sneakily. You quoted a guy named Mooney who said, "the ID crowd has pushed a 'teach the controversy' approach to evolution... This language may seem innocuous enough, but it clearly allows teachers room to bring up ID if they choose." When has the DI ever denied wanting to give science teachers in the free 50 states the right to admit the possiblity of various mechanisms that could explain the existence and complexity of life. Are you shocked that they don't support a mandate to have only one veiw based in large part on historical inferences that says that the most complex nano engineering feat ever conceived by the mind of man, so complex that its design could never be duplicated by the greatest human intelligence alive who was given the basic raw materials - this mind boggling superintelligent engineering feat was accomplished by no engineer at all. And further, this is just the lowest layer of the "machine" I'm talking about, the cell. This is just the blank computer hardware if you will. Making use of this hardware is libraries full of information content and programming, which as any computer engineer can tell you the information content is not explainable by the natural properties and structure of the hardware itself. Programing (information) does not derive from hardware. Yet in the world of Darwin the most comprehesive depository of information programming in the known universe, DNA,had no programmer at all. Thus again, according to Francis Crick, co-discover of DNA's double helix structure, "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." Now what exactly is it that you find so unreasonable? 70.61.219.34 06:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)adlac

Citations in the overview

The overview section is woefully lacking in citations. I'll try find citations when I have time, but it really should be cited better. (or is everything there cited later? Some of it seems to be, but other elements don't seem to be). JoshuaZ 20:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree JoshuaZ. I would suggest a short line of reasoning also. The last line says that ID is of a religious nature. It may be worth while saying "why" in a brief way. (eg, because it does not answer scientific questions, it doesn't tell us anything, and is supported mostly by religious advocates etc). I understand we can't place all the detailed reasoning in the opening, but I'm sure there is a good brief line in quotes somewhere.Liontherock 04:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The judge said it! I say, I must object. Please do not revert my edits. All you had to do was tell me that the judge said it, and I would have saved you the trouble and reverted it back to Kenosis' version myself:) Liontherock 06:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"Overwhelming"? Hardly.

I and another editor have each attempted to remove the sensationalist word "overwhelming" from a sentence in the article's lead, but someone has reverted it each time. The sources cited don't support "overwhelming" and I am not personally overwhelmed from reading them. It's an emotional word that smells of POV, perhaps without meaning to. Emotionally dramatic words have no place describing a scientific viewpoint, unless you're a creationist.

The sources seem to support simply saying that the scientific community views ID as pseudoscience. That's all. That's the consensus, even if one or two scientists here and there don't agree. Calling it an "overwhelming" majority carries emotional baggage, as much as saying a "shocking" or "disturbing" majority views ID this way. It's just a majority, in the sense of "nearly all scientists." So how can we get rid of this word? -Amatulic 23:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

A good demonstation on the overwhelming consensus can be gleaned from the fact that the Discovery institute has managed to find less than 700 scientists who are critical of evolution, whereas there are over 700 scientists named Steve who support it. See A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism and Project Steve. -- Ec5618 23:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well given the fact that the Discovery Institute and their fellows/followers rely on and favor propaganda and popularity polls over actual science, I'm guessing the "overwhelming" was a response to the DI's game of stating "many scientists are skeptical of evolution, look we even had them sign up sayin so!" And it is in fact an overwhelming majority of scientists who recognize ID as creationism with bigger words :-) But I hear you on the emotionally loaded language part. If any changes are made I'd favor us simply saying the "scientific community regards ID as ______" and avoid playing the numbers game (we need not get into their majority/minority game). That's my take on it...Mr Christopher 23:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As noted in the Dover trial ruling cited in the article, every scientific association that has spoken on the matter has rejected the ID proponents' challenge to evolution. But whether we identify this clean sweep as nearly all, the vast majority, or a significant majority, or whatever, all the various descriptors available do not convey how infinitesimal the number of ID supporters is within the scientific community compared to the size of that community. FeloniousMonk 00:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

...including the descriptor "overwhelming"?

When I look it up in a thesaurus to find a substitute, the synonyms are emotionally-laden words. Hmmm... on the other hand, the Random House and Heritage definitions on dictionary.com both show the phrase "overwhelming majority" as an example of usage. I guess it's okay, but I have to say it's jarring to me when I run across that word in the lead to this article, I guess because I'm personally not overwhelmed. -Amatulic 02:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Given the public debate on the matter some people are surprised at the strong use of language. The problem is basically twofold. If you remove it to say that 'a majority' holds the view you've substantially misrepresented the situation, since there are no notable scientific groups advocating intelligent design. However, if you alter the wording to say 'significant' 'substantial' or 'large' you're just mincing words without changing the context. Overwhelming majority, while it seems surprising and a little strong, is the best we have right now.--Davril2020 16:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

note: Please read the archives, especially archive 4 and forward, before bringing up "overwhelming" again. If you have read the archives and have new reasons why that word is not the best, feel free to mention it here. Otherwise, this is very well trodden ground. KillerChihuahua 16:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Amatulic - that's exactly right. "Overwhelming" alone isn't a good neutral word, but "overwhleming majority" is far more neutral. I don't think it conveys the precise shade of meaning I would like, but I can't think of a more accurate desciptor. Guettarda 17:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, I think that (on inspection of the 9th article note), the words "overwhelming majority" to describe the contrast between 600 signatures collected in five years versus 7500 signatures collected in two days is exactly right. Obviously, the specifics would be preferable, but expanding all the notes in the introduction would be harmful to the article (by making it nearly impenetrable with that much text). --64.132.163.178 18:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that we are claiming that its the "majority" of the scientific community. It isn't the majority of the scientific community. It's the entire scientific community. Those that believe in intelligent design are, almost by definition, outside of the scientific community. Therefore, I changed the sentence to read "The scientific community". Scientific community is wikilinked so that people can figure out what we're talking about when we state "scientific community". Yep, Behe is not in the scientific community when he tries to promote intelligent design. Neither are any of those other DI fellows. --ScienceApologist 06:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent Design in the UK

Recently it emerged that a pro-ID group relying upon DI material was mass-mailing schools in the UK with free teaching pack containing pro-ID information. They reported about 60 schools responded favourably (I believe this is less than 1% of all schools). The bit that might be relevent to this article is that UK government officials have announced that the teaching of ID is to be outright banned and have categorically stated it is not scientific. First article Second article. Do you think the comments are appropriate, or notable in the context of discussing whether ID is or is not science? --Davril2020 06:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems not very relevant to the question of whether ID is science but it would make sense to note it in possibly the Intelligent design movement article.JoshuaZ 07:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for calling this to our attention, Davril. Agreed that it is more relevant to the IDM article. ... Kenosis 16:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Further thanks, I've added a tactful mention to Creation and evolution in public education#United Kingdom. .. dave souza, talk 19:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What design "theory" requires

I just realized I have an issue with this sentence "Intelligent design does not conceptually require the identification of a specific agent of creation..." and I'm trying to figure out why. First of all the fact that design "theoriest" do not identify or even provide a coherant theory about the make up of the intelligent designer is a cop out. They know it's god, we know they mean god, so their little "I don't have to stoop to your pathetic level of detail" is an admission that their "theory" has no scientific clothes. So for us to say "Intelligent design does not conceptually require the identification of a specific..." is perpetuating the anti-scientific propaganda put forth by ID advocates. In legit science, you DO have to provide a pathetic level of detail about your theories and if you say such and such did this then you DO have to provide a coherant theory about such and such. To say ID theory conceptually does not require a defined intelligent designer sounds like something Dembski would write. Science sure as heck requires it, but for obvious reasons ID advocates do not require it because it gives them free rein to side step scientific principles. And who are we to say what intelligent design theory conceptually "requires" or doesn't require? I think instead we should simply say something like "Although intelligent design does not identify the intelligent designer..." and then merge that with the existing piece (that all IDers in private admit the designer is God). So I am suggesting we go with:

Although intelligent design theory does not define who or what the intelligent designer is, the personal view of many proponents is that the designer is the Christian god.

Am I making sense? Mr Christopher 17:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I just saw my concern was actually about a recent edit that has now been reverted. I'm satisfied with the current version. You may go back to your regularly scheduled program Mr Christopher 17:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Strunk and White and "all of"

Strunk and White say that "All of" as an adjective should be omitted because nouns in English are all-inclusive without modifiers. Since this has been a particularly contentous sentence, I thought I'd mention it here just so people realize it is purely a stylistic change. --ScienceApologist 13:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent subheading changes?

Does asking a (rhetorical) question in a subheader (Is intelligent design scientific?) comply with the manual of style? Mr Christopher 15:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There was discussion in the past, and the decision was to not use questions as headers in this article. More to the point though, this header pretty much destroys the lead section, which is supposed to summarise the article as a whole. Guettarda 15:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:LEAD requires that "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article." .. dave souza, talk 15:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If the lead is suppossed to act as an overview, why does the article have a seperate overview section? Perhaps the overview section should be moved to the lead.-Psychohistorian 15:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

concise. .. dave souza, talk 15:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Back to basics: There are only three things in WP that are not negotiable to change by consensus: WP:NPOV, WP:VER and WP:NOR. Everything in this article has been finely parsed and a consensus hashed out on numerous points both broad and fine, repeatedly, by many editors both familiar and unfamiliar with the subject matter per se. The MOS was followed wherever feasible. Using the section title "overview" is a very minor departure from the general recommendations of the MOS and was consensused. Lacking a clear improvement of some kind or significant changes in the verifiable facts of the subject, there's no reason it shouldn't remain organized as it presently is, in my estimation of it. ... Kenosis 16:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Defending the article againt change by arguing, in effect, "that's the way it was in the past, so that's how it needs to be from now on" won't be accepted. No article on Misplaced Pages is meant to be fossilized.-Psychohistorian 02:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

True that the work is never really done in WP. It is, though, acknowledged within WP that there is such a thing as a "stable article". Such an article, having been subject to a substantial amount of work by multiple editors who have become familiar both with the subject matter and the discussion and consensus process in arriving at a stable state, requires a stronger showing of merit for proposed changes than would an article that is still being developed. A subject as complex and controversial as this one, having been the subject of well over 2megabytes of talk page content and about 7000 edits to the article itself, having reached a stable state for some months now, and with no appreciable recent changes in the facts the article presents, is an example of such an article. ... Kenosis 04:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I am the one who raised the issue so I might as well weigh in. I don't feel the change you made improved the article. I am biased against posing a question in a header and then offering the content as an answer to that question. It seems rhetorical if not leading to me. Nothing personal or edit "warrish", I simply raised the issue because I felt it did not make a positive contribution to the article and could set an precedent we probably want to avoid. I doubt the article will become fossilized anytime soon though the formatting and style will probably remain somewhat stagant, which I think is a good thing. If we make formatting or stylistic changes they should be well planned and with editorial consent. Otherwise we open the door to changing header titles (etc) on a whim and then having to endlessly defend reverting (or keeping) them. The subject matter itself comes with enormous baggage and controversy, so we'd be wise to narrow the scope of what's worth arguing over. Finally, your original question is it scientific? is a good one that I think the reader will already ask themselves as they weigh the evidence and competing ideas in the article and come to their own conclusion. Cheers, Mr Christopher 04:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Permission

Am I allowed to post my opinion on the NPOV of any part of this article? And if someone removes this can they tell me why?

Guillermo Gonzalez (2004). The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery. ISBN 0895260654.
Michael Behe (2006). Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Free Press. ISBN 0743290313.
AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory
Guillermo Gonzalez (2004). The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery. ISBN 0895260654.
Michael Behe (2006). Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Free Press. ISBN 0743290313.
AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory
Guillermo Gonzalez (2004). The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery. ISBN 0895260654.
Michael Behe (2006). Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Free Press. ISBN 0743290313.
AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory
Guillermo Gonzalez (2004). The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery. ISBN 0895260654.
Michael Behe (2006). Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Free Press. ISBN 0743290313.
AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory
Guillermo Gonzalez (2004). The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery. ISBN 0895260654.
Michael Behe (2006). Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Free Press. ISBN 0743290313.
Goldschmidt, Richard (1940). The material basis of evolution. New Haven, Yale University Press. LC QH366 .G53.
AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory
Guillermo Gonzalez (2004). The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery. ISBN 0895260654.
Michael Behe (2006). Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Free Press. ISBN 0743290313.
{{cite book}}: Empty citation (help)title=Genetics, Paleontology and Macroevolution|author=Jeffrey S. Levinton, Jeffrey S.|year=2001|publisher|Cambridge University Press|id=ISBN 0521005507}}
AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory
Guillermo Gonzalez (2004). The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery. ISBN 0895260654.
Michael Behe (2006). Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Free Press. ISBN 0743290313.
Hendry, Andrew P. & Kinnison, Michael T. Microevolution: Rate, Pattern, Process (Contemporary Issues in Genetics and Evolution, Volume 8). Springer. ISBN 1402001088. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |Year= ignored (|year= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
{{cite book}}: Empty citation (help)title=Genetics, Paleontology and Macroevolution|author=Jeffrey S. Levinton, Jeffrey S.|year=2001|publisher|Cambridge University Press|id=ISBN 0521005507}}
AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory
Guillermo Gonzalez (2004). The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery. ISBN 0895260654.
Michael Behe (2006). Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Free Press. ISBN 0743290313.
Hendry, Andrew P. & Kinnison, Michael T. Microevolution: Rate, Pattern, Process (Contemporary Issues in Genetics and Evolution, Volume 8). Springer. ISBN 1402001088. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |Year= ignored (|year= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
{{cite book}}: Empty citation (help)title=Genetics, Paleontology and Macroevolution|author=Jeffrey S. Levinton, Jeffrey S.|year=2001|publisher|Cambridge University Press|id=ISBN 0521005507}}
AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory
Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)
Expert Witness Report: William A. Dembski, The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design, Appendix 3: Ten Peer-Reviewed ID Articles (with Annotations)
Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)
Expert Witness Report: William A. Dembski, The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design, Appendix 3: Ten Peer-Reviewed ID Articles (with Annotations)
Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)
Expert Witness Report: William A. Dembski, The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design, Appendix 3: Ten Peer-Reviewed ID Articles (with Annotations)
Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)
Expert Witness Report: William A. Dembski, The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design, Appendix 3: Ten Peer-Reviewed ID Articles (with Annotations)
Cite error: The named reference aaas_pr was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Discovery Institute, Center for Science and Culture. Questions about Intelligent Design: What is the theory of intelligent design? "
Discovery Institute, Center for Science and Culture. Questions about Intelligent Design: What is the theory of intelligent design? "The theory of intelligent design holds 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."Questions About Intelligent Design
Barbara Forrest. Expert Testimony. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial transcript, Day 6 (October 5) "What I am talking about is the essence of intelligent design, and the essence of it is theistic realism as defined by Professor Johnson. Now that stands on its own quite apart from what their motives are. I'm also talking about the definition of intelligent design by Dr. Dembski as the Logos theology of John's Gospel. That stands on its own." ... "Intelligent design, as it is understood by the proponents that we are discussing today, does involve a supernatural creator, and that is my objection. And I am objecting to it as they have defined it, as Professor Johnson has defined intelligent design, and as Dr. Dembski has defined intelligent design. And both of those are basically religious. They involve the supernatural."<nowiki>
Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook Access Research Network
Dembski: "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory,..."

Categories: