Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:11, 17 July 2007

This template must be substituted. Replace {{FAR ...}} with {{subst:FAR ...}}.

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

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.

Template:TrollWarning

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

Archives

• (2002-2003)
• (2003)
• (Jan-Sep 2004, 53kb) - Are oppositions/criticisms of ID relevant?
• (Aug-Oct 2004, 46kb) - Is ID theory falsifiable?
• (Sep-Nov 2004, 42kb) - Overwhelming majority: POV? What does "scientific" mean?
• (Nov-Dec 2004)
• (Dec 2004-early Jan 2005)
• (Jan-April 2005)
• (April-May 2005)
• (Early - Mid June 2005) - Structured debate; the Pryamid analogy; Article Splits)
• Archives 11, 12, 13
• (Mid-August/Mid-Sept 2005) - ID as creationism; ID proponent's religious agenda; ID as scientific hypothesis
• (Mid-Sept/Early-Oct 2005) - Computer simulations & irreducible complexity, Criticisms of criticism, Footnote misnumbering, NPOV
• (Mid-Oct 2005)
• (Mid to late-Oct 2005) - Mainly involving users from uncommondescent.com and admins
• (Late Oct to early Nov 2005)
• (early to mid Nov 2005)
• (Mid Nov 2005) Tisthammer's and ant's objections
• (Nov 2005) Enormous bulk of text
• (30 Nov - 3 Dec 2005) various proposals, peer review
• (Early Dec 2005) - Mostly chatter concerning the current pool of editors
• (Mid Dec 2005) - Whether intelligent design is to be upper case or lower case
• (Late Dec 2005) Two major re-orgs and the Kitzmiller decision
• Marshills NPOV objections
• Reintroduction of Vast discussion
• Archives 27, 28, 29
• July 2006
• August 2006
• DI warning, DI and leading proponents again
• First archive of 2007
• January 22, 2007
• Jan – early Feb 2007
• Feb 9 - Mar 30, 2007
• - April 19, 2007
• Initial work towards a consensus lead in April 2007.
• April 19-April 26, 2007
• April - early May 2007, including work on lead.
• May 2007 unproductive discussions
• Archive 41. Reference formatting and other minor issues.
• 24 May - 8 July 2007

Points that have already been discussed

The following ideas were discussed. Please read the archives before bringing up any of these points again:

1. Is ID a theory?

   Fact and Theory

   Does ID really qualify as a Theory?

2. Is ID/evolution falsifiable?

   Falsification

   Falsifiability

   ID is allegedly not empirically testable, falsifiable, etc.

3. Is the article too littered with critique, as opposed to, for example, the evolution article?

   Criticism that the Intelligent design page does not give citations to support ID opponents' generalizations

   What ID's Opponents Say; is it really relevant?

   Bias?

   Various arguments to subvert criticism

   Critics claim ...

   Anti-ID bias

   Apparent partial violation NPOV policy

   Why are there criticizms

   Critics of ID vs. Proponents

4. Isn't ID no more debatable than evolution?

   Argument Zone

   The debatability of ID and evolution

5. Isn't ID actually creationism by definition, as it posits a creator?

   ID in relation to Bible-based creationism

   What makes ID different than creationism

   Moving ID out of the "creationism" catagory

   Shouldn't this page be merged with creationism?

   ID not Creationism?

6. Are all ID proponents really theists?

   ID proponents who are not theists

   A possible atheist/agnostic intelligent design advocate?

7. Are there any peer-reviewed papers about ID?

   Scientific peer review

   Peer-reviewed stuff of ID (netcody)

8. Is ID really not science?

   ...who include the overwhelming majority of the scientific community...

   Meaning of "scientific"

   Why sacrifice truth

   Rejection of ID by the scientific community section redundant

   Intelligent design is Theology, not Science

   Philosophy in the introduction

   Why ID is not a theory

   Bad philosophy of science (ID is allegedly not empirically testable, falsifiable etc.)

   The "fundamental assumption" of ID

   Peer-reviewed articles

   Figured out the problem

9. Is ID really not internally consistent?;

   Distingushing Philosophical ID (TE) from the DI's Pseudo-Scientific ID

   The many names of ID?

   Removed section by User:Tznkai

   Pre- & post- Kitzmiller, proponents seek to redefine ID

   Defining ID

   Figured out the problem

   "Intelligent evolution"

   ID on the O'Reilly Factor

10. Is the article too long?

    Article Size

    Notes

    The Article Is Too Long

11. Does the article contain original research that inaccurately represents minority views?

    Inadequate representation of the minority View

    The "fundamental assumption" of ID

12. Is the intelligent designer necessarily irreducibly complex? Is a designer needed for irreducibly complex objects?

    Irreducibly complex intelligent designer

    Settling Tisthammerw's points, one at a time

    The "fundamental assumption" of ID

    Irreducibly complex

    Irreducible complexity of elementary particles

    Repeated objections and ignoring of consensus

    Suggested compromise

    Resolution to Wade's & Ant's objections (hopefully)

13. Discussion regarding the Introduction:

    Intro (Rare instance of unanimity)

    Introduction (Tony Sidaway suggests)

14. Is this article is unlike others on Misplaced Pages?

    Why is Wiki Violating its own POV rule

    Call for new editors

    Archives 22, 23, 24

15. Is this article NPOV?

    NPOV

    Archive 25

16. Are terms such as 'scientific community' or 'neocreationist' vague concepts?

    Support among scientists

    "Neocreationist" social, not scientific, observation

    Archive 26

17. How should Darwin's impact be described?

    Pre-Darwinian Ripostes\

18. Peer Review and ID

    Peer review?

    Lack of peer review

    Peer Review: Reviewed

19. Discovery Institute and leading ID proponents

    Are all leading ID proponents affiliated with Discovery Institute?

    Archive 32

20. Why is intelligent design lower case, not upper case?

    Renaming Intelligent design as Intelligent Design

21. Is the article trying to equate ID with Christian Creationism and the Discovery Institute too much?

    The article discusses the formulation disseminated by the Discovery Institute affiliates

Cardinal Schoenborg does not support ID

The article says that " also received support from the Roman Catholic Cardinal, Christoph Schoenborn", but the very source cited has Schoenborg clearly stating that he was referring to a religious idea of creation (which he says is compatible with the scientific theory of evolution), rather than to ID as a supposed scientific theory. Therefore the erroneous statement should be removed from the article, or changed to something like "Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn was at one point reported to support ID; however, he later clarified that he was not referring to ID as a supposed scientific theory, but rather to a religious belief in creation, which he said is compatible with the scientific theory of evolution." 87.13.254.25 16:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The entire Scheonborn episode bears the fingerprints of manipulation by a few Discovery Institute principles. I think that this suggestion by 87.13.254.25 has some merit, and with appropriate sources, some clarification/expansion of this episode might be appropriate.--Filll 17:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I have removed the following text, because the references do not actually support the claim being made about Cardinal Schoenborn's beliefs:

It also received support from the Roman Catholic Cardinal, Christoph Schoenborn , though others in the Catholic Church strongly oppose it.

We should be very careful not to attribute beliefs to individuals if we don't have good evidence that they actually do hold those beliefs! --FOo 17:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe we should document this carefully, possibly in a daughter article if there is enough material, rather than just remove it. --Filll 17:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The actual statement, criticism and reaction are well covered in Schönborn's bio page, but there have also been statements that the DI set it up and manipulated it – for example on the BBC's War on Science programme. A brief mention here is appropriate as it's one of these stories dragged out to claim support for ID. ... dave souza, talk 18:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think, we should eliminate all direct implications between ID and the religion of the proponents of ID. There is an ID-theory, and the theory should be discussed. But not the religions. --Sensortimecom 09:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Your thought is contrary to the reliable sources cited in the article, which show in considerable detail that ID cannot be separated from its creationist and religious roots. However, your statement that there is an ID-theory sounds interesting – do you have verifiable sources setting out what this theory is? ... dave souza, talk 10:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. You may call it theory, or hypothesis or a mere idea. Anyway, there is a written postulate, and we have to discuss the postulate. Not the religions of the proponents. Even an pure atheist could be a proponent of "irreducible complexity" or "specific complexity". Why not? I am a European. We do not prefer to publish the religion of a creative person in connection with his work. It does not comply with "political correctness" and ethics. Besides, such a "usus" could even call psychos, extremists and terrorists;-( Therefore, please eliminate the religion of the ID-proponents from this wikipedia-site !!! --Sensortimecom 17:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh my! Look how late it is. I really have to be going. Check please! Odd nature 18:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sensortimecom, read the article carefully. ID is mostly a religious movement, it has very little to do with science. Any article on ID without any mention to the religion of the main proponents would be incomplete. - PhDP 18:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

We must carefully separate the "ID-religious movement" from what is matter of ID-theory or ID-hypothesis. In Europe, we meanwhile have many proponents who are neutral in question of religion. They do not want to be in the same pot, and they will fight against linking. --Sensortimecom 20:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If ID had a true theory, you'd have a point: it doesn't and you don't. Let's move on. •Jim62sch• 20:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

For that matter, if you know of an intelligent design proponent who is not merely "neutral in question of religion" but not associated with the Discovery Institute, several editors will be delighted to know who they are. Tevildo 20:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. In Europe, there are many ID-proponents who are neither associated with DI nor with religion. They do not mention any religious assertion or religious link in their literature. Such a behavior is usual here. We cannot imagine a hodgepodge like Dembski did it.--Sensortimecom 13:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

And some examples??--Filll 13:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example. Its a paper from Wolf-Ekkehard Loennig, Max-Planck-Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Carl-von-Linné-weg 10, 50829 Cologne, Germany

http://www.sensortime.com/loennig-dygmosoic-e.htm

http://www.sensortime.com/loennig-dygmosoic-e.pdf

Could you find any hint or link on religious implications? --Sensortimecom 16:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Claim CI001.4: mentions this 2004 paper, which "refer to arguments and facts supporting the view that irreducible complexity (Behe) in combination with specified complexity (Dembski)" suggesting a link with our DI chums. ... dave souza, talk 17:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The Europeans

Collect here references documenting the European (and Oceanic?) intelligent design movement. Silly rabbit 13:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• John Timmer. "Attempts to introduce Intelligent Design in Europe spark backlash". Ars Technica.

• Mr Guy Lengagne, Committee on Culture, Science and Education. "The dangers of creationism in education".{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

• Harun Yahya. "An invitation to the truth". (A Turkey-based European creationism advocate.) Also: Harun Yahya (2007). "The Atlas of creationism". (A controversial book in the European creationism political debate.)

• "The Interdisciplinary University of Paris (UIP)". (A creationist university in Paris, apparently promoting intelligent design (see this article.) A co-sponsor of Global Perspectives on Science and Spirituality.

I guess I must be missing something because those examples do not appear to be neutral about religion. And in addition, they all are allegedly connected with the DI, actually.--Filll 13:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah... yes, these aren't neutral about religion. I agree. I latched on to the claim that intelligent design was disproportionately represented here as an American movement. Although I think it primarily is an American movement, it can't hurt to include some references about the European counterpart. So, I'm just collecting a few here for possible discussion. Silly rabbit 14:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with this, either for this article or a daughter article. At one time I put a few in the external links section but they were removed. They will still be in the history however.--Filll 14:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI: here is where you added them. Silly rabbit 14:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Intelligent Design Network Australia
• Finnish Intelligent Design site
• Italian Intelligent Design site

I think that is them again.--Filll 14:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently they were deleted in response to this thread. Is it worth revisiting this? There does seem to be some logic in making a daughter article for the movement outside the US. Silly rabbit 14:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• "Creationism news from around the world". National Center for Science Education (NCSE). November 2, 2006.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: year (link)

The movement outside the US (except maybe in Australia) was still-born. Articles I've read in various European newspapers have been quite dismissive of ID. An article from Le Monde (it's in these damned archives somewhere) was particularly scathing in its reviews of both ID and the Intelligent design movement. (Note that we have an article on the movement and that is likely where the European stuff belongs.) Even in the few countries where ID is thought of positively, it is seen as an adjunct to OEC or YEC paradigms. •Jim62sch• 16:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there a definitive document (like the Dover trial) that we can point to? The closest I came was the parliamentary letter cited above, but this seems to be more of an advocacy letter than an official action. (Incidentally, it references the Dover trial.) Silly rabbit 16:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. As the farcical nature of ID was seen pretty clearly by the Europeans, there's very little on any real debate.

We have this regarding the Netherlands, "En Europe, en mai 2005, la ministre néerlandaise de l'éducation, Maria van der Hoeven, a tenu des propos à ce sujet en invoquant elle aussi la théorie du Dessein intelligent qui cherche d'abord à établir « scientifiquement » le fait que la nature semble être « pensée » avant de se hasarder à sous-entendre par qui elle l'a été. Cependant, elle n'a pas été suivie par le reste de son gouvernement." -- Roughly translated as "(In Europe) in May of 2005, the Dutch minister of education, Maria van der Hoeven, issued an opinion on the subject by calling it 'the theory of the intelligent design', holding that ID seeks primarily to establish 'scientifically' that nature appears 'to be thought-out' without defining the designer. However, the rest of the Dutch government rejected her opinion." •Jim62sch• 17:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's another link (sorry, I'm not translating this one, I don't feel like doing that much typing) •Jim62sch• 17:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If I may say, the ripples of ID into other nations, as a practical matter, is worthy of mention and the article already does so. But, consider the implications, by way of very rough analogy, of insisting on more detailed treament of Götaland theory in the United States. Yes, there are ripples of Götaland theory into the United States, and into the rest of Europe, but it's not the prime source of the controversy. (That said, I'm not attempting to negate the importance of clarifying the stance of Schônborn and the Catholic Church, nor of any other nation in which it's manifested in a notable way, which it very briefly did in the UK, Netherlands and Australia.) Just a thought. ... Kenosis 18:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

Hey all, I am doing a light copy edit in response to the FA review. I know this article is the product of lengthy discussion and consensus-building, so I am trying to avoid any substantive changes, but I'm making even minor edits mostly one at a time so it's easy for folks to see what I've done.--Margareta 22:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

They all look like needed improvements to my eyes. Foo, see how she does this? It is gradual, it is visible, and reasonable. Slow incremental progress is best.--Filll 22:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, that's how I started out , and got reverted with a bunch of hostility. It was the hostility towards minor changes that led me to my concern that this article was stuck and needed to be un-stuck by a broader review. --FOo 23:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

And now we have a competent copyeditor in Margareta. The changes you made subtly reduced the effectiveness of the article. Pasado 05:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is how routine corrections should be done - progressive, with good, accurate edit summaries. One minor point, though - according to the Manual of Style (WP:MOS), commas (and other punctuation) should go _outside_ quotation marks unless they form part of the original quote. I've made the appropriate changes. Apart from that, Margareta's work is to be encouraged and praised. :) Tevildo 22:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I was using the rules from Chicago and AP manuals of style, which both use the 100+ year old tradition (going back to the original Elements of Style) of putting periods and commas inside the quotes. I didn't know Misplaced Pages was different. I think it's silly, but I'll abide by the WP MOS (though I won't like it).--Margareta 22:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

MoS's do have that tendency. :) The "logical comma" style is enthusiastically endorsed by Fowler, and it _is_ - well - more logical, but these things are entirely a matter for the personal preference of the MoS authors. Thanks again! Tevildo 23:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok folks, what does this mean:

Johnson, considered the "father" of the intelligent design movement, went on to work with Meyer, becoming the program advisor of the Center for Science and Culture in forming and executing the wedge strategy.

Would it be accurate to say this: "went on to become the program adviser of the Center for Science and Culture, where he worked with Meyer in forming and executing the wedge strategy."?

I think "went on to work with Meyer in forming and executing the wedge strategy, and became the program advisor of the ." is a more accurate summary of the history. Tevildo

The two sentences are problematic, as the intelligent design movement complete with lobbying school boards, petitions, pushing teachers to take it into science classrooms etc. was on the go before Johnson published Darwin on Trial, and it seems that he barely mentioned ID in that book: it's certainly not mentioned in the review cited as a source. There's a common perception that he's the father of ID, but doesn't seem to have promoted it before 1995. Suggestion –

In his 1991 book Darwin on Trial, the retired legal scholar Phillip E. Johnson advocated redefining science to allow claims of supernatural creation. Johnson went on to work with Meyer in forming and executing the wedge strategy of the intelligent design movement, and became the program advisor of the Center for Science and Culture.

The structure of this part of the article is odd, going from ID's post 1987 historical development at the start of the Overview back to its philosophical predecessors, then previous uses of the phrase before looping back to post 1987 history. It would be better to start with an outline of the post 1987 developments, then have subsections for predecessors of basic ideas and of the term. A new main section on Concepts or Arguments would then have subsections on Irreducible complexity, Specified complexity and Fine-tuned universe. .. dave souza, talk 23:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I made it through the end of section 1, but now I really have to go do some real work. I'm sure I'll find a need to procrastinate later, and come back and finish.--Margareta 23:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I made a few realatively minor edits to your edits, but overall, well done. •Jim62sch• 00:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to pick up now where I left off. I'm sure you'll want to go over my edits when I'm done, but I'd like to ask one little favor--please wait until I'm done to start editing my edits, just to avoid edit conflicts. I will probably have more than one window open while I work and edit conflicts will just confuse me. I'll post again here as soon as I finish. Thanks!--Margareta 21:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrapping up for now at the end of Peer review, so have at it!--Margareta 23:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Dodgy quote

The article quality seems in general to be okay...but I follwed up the quote 'Behe himself has since confessed to "sloppy prose", and that his "argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof."'; he does say this, but he does qualify this statement by saying straight after that "No argument that rests on empirical observations can have such force. " I think it might be better to remove that second quote because of that. 134.226.81.3 03:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably so. Ironically, creationists use the same kind of fallacy against evolution: "You can't prove it." --FOo 03:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The quote is accurate, not used out of context. Behe's caveat falls under unverifiable personal opinion, whereas the quote given does not. I don't see an issue with it. FeloniousMonk 04:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that it's true of anything that one might say about the natural world. I think that one might be able to 'confess to "sloppy prose"' in some meaningful way, but it's meaningless and misleading, I think, to say that he *confessed* to not giving a logical proof to an (at least partially) naturalistic hypothesis. You're right that his talk of its force of effect can't be quoted here as it would require some additional interpretation, but the sense of it is quite reasonable, and does, I think, make the quotation a little bit out-of-context. 134.226.81.3 14:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine-tuned universe

I think the following quote by Richard Feynman might be useful to illustrate the "Fine-tuned universe" Section

"You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I was coming here, on the way to the lecture, and I came in through the parking lot. And you won’t believe what happened. I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!”

As we exists (do we?) in this universe, it is not a valid objection that the probability of getting the current cosmological constants is very low.

141.5.199.153 16:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)heg

I think a better analogy would be you travel to a State thousands of miles away from your home and you check into a motel and find a picture of yourself on the wall. TheBestIsYet 16:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Not really an apt analogy, whereas Feynman's is. FeloniousMonk 16:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually a very good analogy where Feyhman's is not. The finding of a random plate is not a significant event where finding a picture of yourself is; as finding a fine-tuned universe is also significant. The quote should not be added because it is not applicable. TheBestIsYet 17:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The strong anthropic principle is more like traveling to a place thousands of miles away and checking into a hotel ... and pointing at the mirror on the wall and saying, "Why is there a picture of me on this wall?"

It neglects to note that if someone different were in the room, the picture would be of that person ... and if nobody were in the room, the picture would be of nobody. --FOo 21:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The other false analogy is the one where getting a perfect bridge hand extremely rare and the response is 'getting any particular bridge hand is rare' but only with a very perfect hand is there a workable universe etc. The point is how do we determine if the perfect bridge hand was caused by chance or intent. It is a scientific pursuit. TheBestIsYet 00:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on the content of the quote, it would be better off, if it's going to be anywhere, in Fine-tuned universe or Anthropic principle. It doesn't really address Intelligent Design specifically. Tevildo 17:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguous sentences

If I come across any sentences that are ambiguous in meaning I'll post them here and let you discuss them, rather than changing them to say what I think they mean. Starting with:

1. “The intelligent design movement arose out of an organized neocreationist campaign, directed by the Discovery Institute, to promote a religious agenda calling for broad social, academic and political changes, by employing intelligent design arguments in the public sphere.”

Was it the campaign or the agenda that was going to “ intelligent design arguments in the public sphere”?

2. Under Movement: "Barbara Forrest, an expert who has written extensively on the movement, describes this as being due to the Discovery Institute's obfuscating its agenda as a matter of policy."

Perhaps I'm being overly pedantic, but I'd like the "this" to be a little clearer. Is it correct to say that "this" refers to the contradictory statements made by the Discovery Institute?

3. This isn't ambiguous, exactly, but I think this could use a citation. Under Controversy: "The intelligent design controversy centers on three issues..." Otherwise it sort of looks like OR.

4. Also under Controversy: "Natural science uses the scientific method to create a posteriori knowledge based on observation and repeated testing of hypotheses and theories (sometimes called empirical science)."

Is it "natural science," or "the repeated testing of hypotheses and theories," that is "also called empirical science." (If it's the latter, the sentence is correct as writtern; I just want to be sure.)

--Margareta 22:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

1. The campaign. By employing ID arguments, the DI sought to advance the agenda.
2. Yes.
3. Agreed - I'm sure there's something in Kitzmiller we can find.
4. It's both - "based on observation" and "testing of hypotheses".

And thanks again for this most thorough approach. Tevildo 22:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

A quick expansion of #4. Empirical science seeks to create knowledge based on observation and testing of hypotheses. Natural science is a subset of science (along with, for example, economic science). Natural science, as currently practiced, is (an) empirical science, but the two aren't identical. Tevildo 22:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd lose the parenthetical "(sometimes called empirical science)". •Jim62sch• 22:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Based on what Tevildo says, wouldn't it be better just to say "Empirical science uses the scientific method to create a posteriori knowledge based on observation and repeated testing of hypotheses and theories."--Margareta 22:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This might be clearer without the extraneous commas and by splitting it into two sentences:

“The intelligent design movement arose out of an organized neocreationist campaign to promote a religious agenda calling for broad social, academic and political changes by employing intelligent design arguments in the public sphere. This campaign was directed by the Discovery Institute.” •Jim62sch• 22:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

5. Another place that needs a source, under Defining intelligent design as science: "This presents a demarcation problem, which in the philosophy of science is about how and where to draw the lines around science. For a theory to qualify as scientific, it must be..."--Margareta 22:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

6. And another place for a source, under the same header: "Critics also say that the intelligent design doctrine does not meet the criteria for scientific evidence used by most courts, the Daubert Standard."--Margareta 22:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Though I guess the wikilink to Daubert Standard kind of has that covered.--Margareta 22:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It's difficult to tell who's talking about what in #4 above, but in response to some of the assertions hereinabove, the first sentence of the third paragraph now reads:

Empirical science uses the scientific method to create a posteriori knowledge based on observation and repeated testing of hypotheses and theories.

This edit is based on the presumption that natural science is a subset of empirical science, because social science is also involved in the discussion, and is generally regarded as "science" or "empirical science" to the extent that the particular social science(s) use scientific method. And, I think we can reasonably expect the citation police will be involved at some point, because this particular sentence, while a reasonable summary of the lay of the land, so to speak, is not, at present, cited to a WP:Reliable source Also, the proper term is "scientific method", not "the scientific method" , because scientific method is both a collective noun and an abstract noun. As a matter of pragmatic procedure, though, thus far the particpants in this article have chosen to accept that repetitive insistence on changing "scientific method" to "the scientific method" will occur frequently, and that as a matter of course the participants in this article are not prepared, if history is any guide, to devote the necessary effort to defend a minor point such as this -- but on this particular point I digress somewhat.

Please note, too, that this is closely intertwined with a set of issues recently, perhaps presently, under discussion at Talk:Intelligent design#Empricism. ... Kenosis 03:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I think we should lose it altogether - "Empirical science creates a posteriori knowledge...". "Empirical science uses scientific method" is just bad grammar, "Empirical science uses Scientific Method" goes against this article's prohibition of capitalization and doesn't address Kenosis' point (namely, that there's no such thing as the scientific method), and "Empirical science uses scientific methods" or "Empirical science uses the methods of science" would be tautological. Tevildo 15:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

For the moment, maybe we can tentatively leave this particular point of discussion by acknowledging that there's no such thing as the scientific method, just as there's no such thing that can be called a universal generalization or broad classification as "the water", or "the intelligent design" or "the creationism", etc., at least not in English-language usage, because they're either collective nouns or abstract nouns, or both. That said, there may still room for improvement of the sentence at issue here. ... Kenosis 02:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

For #5, I've added a source for the point that a demarcation problem exists for ID. But for each of the points used as demarcation criteria, source are already provided at their own articles or at science, scientific method, etc. already pointed to in this article. So per WP:NPOVFAQ#Making_necessary_assumptions we do not need to add repetitive sources here. FeloniousMonk 06:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

neo-creationist

The first sentence in the "Movement" section uses the obsolete term "neocreationist" which came from Barbara Forrest's 2003 book Creationism's Trojan Horse. I propose that we change this to the term to one supported by Forrest's latest paper. Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy Barbara Forrest. May, 2007. page 2 bottom. With some rearranging of words and addition of more information from the Forrest paper the first paragraph of the "Movement" section would then look like:

The intelligent design movement is a direct outgrowth of the "progressive" creationism of the 1980s. The movement is physically headquartered in the Center for Science and Culture (CSC), established in 1996 as the creationist wing of the Discovery Institute to promote a religious agenda calling for broad social, academic and political changes. This campaign primarily targets the United States, although efforts have been made in other countries to promote intelligent design. Leaders of the movement say intelligent design exposes the limitations of scientific orthodoxy and of the secular philosophy of Naturalism. Intelligent design proponents allege that science should not be limited to naturalism and should not demand the adoption of a naturalistic philosophy that dismisses out-of-hand any explanation which contains a supernatural cause. The overall goal of the movement is to "defeat materialist world view" represented by the theory of evolution in favor of "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

Note that this change also deals with the copyedit issue described above by Margareta. Pasado 05:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem that I can see with this is that, presumably, "progressive" creationism isn't the same as Progressive Creationism. Do we really need an adjective at all? "A direct outgrowth of the creationism of the 1980's" seems adequate to me. Tevildo 15:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem dropping the "progressive". I was using it because that's the way Forrest describes it. Pasado 18:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to revisiting this section introduction, with caution and hopefully a consensus process involved. I imagine, if I recall the history of the article correctly, that FeloniousMonk and perhaps a few other long-term participants will want to weigh in on this issue that Pasado just raised. ... Kenosis 16:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The basic problem this touches on is the difficulty in sorting, organizing and understanding the tremendously wide variety of creationists and similar beliefs in the US and overseas, in Christianity and other faiths, over the last 150 years. Neocreationism, progressive creationism, OEC, preadamism, YEC, Day-age creationism, intelligent design, assorted Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns, Beyond Intelligent Design, gap creationism, theistic evolution, progressive evolution, Cremo's devolution theory, Aurobindo's cyclic evolution theory and many other varieties from Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and other faiths make for an extremely difficult and confusing cacaphony to sort out. Each will claim that they and only they have the true knowledge of how life and humans appeared on earth. Each casts aspersions on the scientific approach, or tries to hijack science for their own purposes, and attacks the competing religious theories and movements. When seen in this framework, intelligent design is one of many many such anti-evolution and anti-science movements and beliefs, and certainly not the last one by any means. It is tricky to sort out exactly how it relates to the others, where it came from and why.--Filll 17:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the best we can do is find the most reliable, verifable sources available and use them. The current thinking of a major ID researcher (Forrest) whose material was heavily used at Kitzmiller should be able to provide clarity on this issue. Pasado 18:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I would agree. I would feel even better if we had the views of a couple of other researchers as well that we could throw into the article.--Filll 19:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No objection Morphh 17:32, 09 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed "progressive" creationism to Progressive creationism. On page 4 of Forrest's paper she goes into more detail about the ancestry of ID. I'll give it another day and if there's no other issues I'll update the first paragraph of the "Movement" section from:

The intelligent design movement arose out of an organized neocreationist campaign, directed by the Discovery Institute, to promote a religious agenda calling for broad social, academic and political changes, by employing intelligent design arguments in the public sphere. This campaign primarily targets the United States, although efforts have been made in other countries to promote intelligent design. Leaders of the movement say intelligent design exposes the limitations of scientific orthodoxy and of the secular philosophy of Naturalism. Intelligent design proponents allege that science should not be limited to naturalism and should not demand the adoption of a naturalistic philosophy that dismisses out-of-hand any explanation which contains a supernatural cause. The overall goal of the movement is to "defeat materialist world view" represented by the theory of evolution in favor of "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

to:

The intelligent design movement is a direct outgrowth of the Progressive creationism of the 1980s. The movement is physically headquartered in the Center for Science and Culture (CSC), established in 1996 as the creationist wing of the Discovery Institute to promote a religious agenda calling for broad social, academic and political changes. This campaign primarily targets the United States, although efforts have been made in other countries to promote intelligent design. Leaders of the movement say intelligent design exposes the limitations of scientific orthodoxy and of the secular philosophy of Naturalism. Intelligent design proponents allege that science should not be limited to naturalism and should not demand the adoption of a naturalistic philosophy that dismisses out-of-hand any explanation which contains a supernatural cause. The overall goal of the movement is to "defeat materialist world view" represented by the theory of evolution in favor of "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

Pasado 06:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The progression from creation science to ID is exceptionally well documented. If your saying creation science and hence ID are part of a progressive creationism, then say that. FeloniousMonk 14:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The first statement does not appear to be disputed, while the second may be if you define ID as part of creationism. There is a slight difference between progression from and defining it as. Be careful on wording. Attribute the statement if you change it to state that it is part of. Morphh 14:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned about adequate sourcing. I'd like to see additional sources cited, beyond Forrest's 2007 paper that traces the lineage of ID to "progressive creationism", such as the writing of Walter Bradley (previously a CSC fellow and mentioned in Forrest's paper) and perhaps others.

Also, I'm a bit uncomfortable with the language that the movement is physically headquartered in the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Perhaps drop the word "physically"? ... Kenosis 15:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit complex, since creation science was originally YEC. Essentially Edwards v. Aguillard: Affidavit of Creationist Dean Kenyon restated creation science so that YEC tenets like ye fludde weren't essential, and ID was developed by OEC proponents like Behe. Thus Forrest saith:

“Intelligent design theory” is the newest variant of the traditional creationism that has plagued American public schools for decades. Most ID proponents are “old-earth” creationists (OEC). ID is a direct outgrowth of the “progressive” creationism of the 1980s, a form of OEC based on the belief that nature operates according to both natural laws and periodic acts of special creation by God to create progressively more complex life forms. ... some are “young-earth” creationists (YECs)... However, virtually all reject natural selection as the mechanism of significant evolutionary changes. ... All believe that the limited power of evolution must be supplemented by God’s acts of special creation.

Dunno if extracting the bit in italics does it justice. .. dave souza, talk 22:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe try something like the following modification?: The intelligent design movement is a direct outgrowth of the creationism of the 1980s. The movement is headquartered in the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC), established in 1996 as the creationist wing of the Discovery Institute to promote a religious agenda calling for broad social, academic and political changes. Perhaps a mention that some have termed it "neo-creationism" might still be appropriate, with a cite, say, to NCSE and Forrest? Perhaps also a mention of Forrests and Bradley's mention of "progreesive creationism" in a footnote might be appropriate? ... Kenosis 00:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I posted the change with your recommendations. Feel free to add cites or add more material from the paper. This should also address Margareta's issue #1 above. Pasado 04:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Third sentence of the lead

I propose to change the third sentence of the lead slightly such that it reads as follows:

Intelligent design is the claim 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 modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer. Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, believe the designer to be God. Intelligent design's advocates claim it is a scientific theory, and also seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.

As of this posting, the sentence reads: Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, believe the designer to be the Abrahamic God..

As can be seen, the word "God" in the body text links to Abrahamic God in this proposal. I think this is more parsimonious than the last consensused version of this sentence, and says exactly the same thing. Because the relevant clause here reads "...believe the designer to be . . .", it's completely obvious which "God" we're talking about, and for any readers with questions, there's the link to "Abrahamic God". Hopefully this does not require a complete rehashing of the last round of debates about the article lead, which took over a month and might have raised the stock prices of manufacturers of headache remedies and alcohol distilleries a bit. Reasonable? Yes? No? maybe? ... Kenosis 02:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL - It works for me. Morphh 2:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Reads better to me. Pasado 04:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, after reading DGG's tirade on the FAR page, perhaps we should look at using reference lists. The article would look better with no more than one reference tag per sentence. Pasado 06:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

My preference is still for "God of Christianity", as that's the phrase used in the source, but I can't see any objection to either "God" or "Abrahamic God". Agree with the suggestion to combine the references, incidentally. Tevildo 06:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, saying "...believe the designer to be the God of Christianity." is better if that's what the cite uses. Pasado 06:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Since this is the lead, the more concise "God" works best for me. The detailed point about the source saying "the God of Christianity" belongs in the body of the article, together with the point that the DI claim to include a Jewish protagonist and have Islamic supporters. .. dave souza, talk 07:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Tentatively, then, accepting (1) that Orangemarlin and Tevildo have expressed reservations about the form of the word "God", but (2) that everybody in the modern world knows what the heck we mean here despite occasional protests, and (3) that the phrase uses the words "believe the designer to be...", a belief verified by statements of proponents and the Kitzmiller decision, I'll go ahead and make the edit. I leave aside, for now, the issue of "God of Christianity" because other sources have shown that the Discovery Institute and it's Center for Science and Culture has one or more fellows who are Islamic, hence "Abrahamic God", which is inclusive of "God of Christianity" . Here goes with the next cautious little step. ... Kenosis 15:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that it has the benefit of accuracy, I see no problems with the edit. Why is this even a conversation? The only difference between the "God of Christianity" and Yahweh/Allah, is that the "God of Christianity" actively compresses polytheism into a form of monotheism (e.g., the triune nature of God.) And that, is utterly irrelevant to this article. Let's move on. Jim62sch 16:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Lead paragraph 3

The third paragraph of the lead is misleading or inaccurate in suggesting that advocating the inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula began with the formation of the DI in 1990: such campaigning began with the FTE in 1989, and the DI don't seem to have been involved much until Meyer got them to fund the CSC in 1996:

The term "intelligent design" originated in response to a 1987 United States Supreme Court ruling involving constitutional separation of church and state. Its first significant published use was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes. The following year a small group of proponents formed the Discovery Institute and began advocating the inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula. The "intelligent design movement" grew increasingly visible in the 1990s and early 2000s, culminating in the 2005 "Dover trial" challenging the intended use of intelligent design in public school science classes. In this trial, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, a group of parents of high-school students challenged a public school district requirement for teachers to present intelligent design in biology classes as an alternative "explanation of the origin of life". U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and concluded that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

This revised proposal aims to clarify the development of campaigning:

The term "intelligent design" originated in response to a 1987 United States Supreme Court ruling that teaching "creation science" in public schools contravened constitutional separation of church and state. The high-school biology textbook Of Pandas and People introduced the term to replace "creation science". On its publication in 1989 campaigners promoted the teaching of intelligent design in science classes. A group developing their wedge strategy to change science to theistic realism with support from the Discovery Institute developed the "intelligent design movement" pressing for political and educational changes. The inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula was challenged in 2005 at Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District when a group of parents of high-school students objected to a public school district requirement for teachers to present intelligent design in biology classes as an alternative "explanation of the origin of life". The court ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and concluded that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

This says a bit more about the aims of the DI, and mentions "educational changes" as their initial target was university education rather than schools.. dave souza, talk 09:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Dave (and others too), please don't forget to keep a close eye on what specific material is introduced in the "Overview" and in succeeding sections. That's at least three successive levels of depth, maybe four. One of the organizational issues right here is that the third paragraph of the lead must explain this quickly and sufficiently to give a basic idea of the legal history and present legal status of ID, leaving further detail work to the Overview, which in turn sets the stage for more in-depth explanations in other sections that follow. (Incidentally, Dave, it's good to interact directly with you once again--it's been awhile.) ... Kenosis 14:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

A note to newer participants here. A number of months ago, the participants also agreed to integrate an international perspective in that paragraph too, via making clear by the choice of words that ID is fundamentally a product of the United States, a response to US Supreme Court decisions affecting public-school science-education policy and the Establishment Clause. This the paragraph already does, both in the present version and in Dave Souza's proposal. The specifics of international developments, the outward waves or ripples, so to speak, are then summarized in a later section w/ several subsections. ... Kenosis 14:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Good to talk, our paths have wandered onto different projects lately. However it's phrased, the important point is that publication of Pandas introduced nearly all the concepts and public campaigning for "intelligent design" organised by the FTE without any involvement from the DI or Johnson, who had his own parallel anti-evolution agenda: the two tracks converged with Behe contributing whale blood clotting to the 1993 edition of Pandas, and combined by 1995 with Johnson calling his disciples "intelligent design scholars" just before the DI's funding came fully on line through the CRSC. As I understand it.

This should indeed feature in the more in-depth sections, including the "overview", which in my opinion need reviewing along these lines. Will try to look at that shortly. If you don't like the proposal above, we can discuss the minimum changes to avoid the paragraph being misleading. .. dave souza, talk 16:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd use violated, not contravened. Subtle difference, but contravened is not generally used in this case. •Jim62sch• 17:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree. ..dave souza, talk 10:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This sentence is a bit unclear, "A group developing their wedge strategy to change science to theistic realism with support from the Discovery Institute developed the "intelligent design movement" pressing for political and educational changes." Did they do "abra-cadabra, science is now theistic realism"?  ;) •Jim62sch• 17:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Jim, you've uncovered their secret method! Cite Johnson 1996 "theistic realism" ... the defining concept of our movement. The sentence and the Kitzmiller sentence need rethought. .. dave souza, talk 10:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"in 2005 at Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District" -- at is the wrong preposition, and the syntax of the entire sentence is a bit off. •Jim62sch• 17:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, on the evidence we have, that the statement about the founding of the DI "the following year" is at all misleading and must give way to a reference to earlier developments such as the FTE or to "creation science", or other specifics, at least not in the lead. The DI was founded following the publication and failure of the book Of Pandas and People to gain a foothold in the marketplace (I'm not necessarily implying direct cause-and-effect). So the book gets published 1989 after a lengthy development period and changing the words "creation-" to "design", etc., but is a commercial flop; and immediately on the heels of this marketing failure the Discovery Institute is founded and ID advocates from a number of places, including the Texas-basedFoundation for Thought and Ethics, begin to collect around this mechanism provided by the DI's political and marketing experience. This is a watershed, or major cusp, so to speak, in the development of the Intelligent design movement, and its mention is quite reasonable because the DI continued to develop offshoots and subsidiaries like the Center for Science and Culture and its cousin the ISCID. I do understand the point that it can be tracked back further to the FTE, and also can be tracked back to Phillip E. Johnson's review of the amicus curiae briefs in Edwards v. Aguilard. And, among other possibilities it also can be traced back to the book Chance or Design? by James Horigan, a 1979 philosophy book whose cover features a logo virtually identical to the DI logo (the DaVinci figure surrounded by modern cosmic swirls) and which uses the words "design", "designed", and "intelligent design" many times throughout (though not as a term intended to describe a field of inquiry but as a philosophical argument--yes, another argument from design, which in turn can be traced back further to at least Aquinas, and probably to classical philosophy. All this and more is mentioned in various levels of depth in the article, as antecedents in "Origins of the concept" and "Origins of the term". The practical development leading up to the publication of Of Pandas and People also is introduced in more depth in the "Overview" and in "Origins of the term"

Note that the sentence about the DI being founded the following year, proceeding to advocate ID, etc. does not make any claim to being a definitive marker that says, e.g. "ID starts HERE ". So, I don't see the need to change or futher complicate this particular aspect of a lead that's already somewhat packed with specifics. Thoughts? ... Kenosis 17:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I do, however, think that the sentence introducing the "Dover trial" and leading into the following sentence "In this trial, Kitzmiller v. Dover..." could definitely be tightened up somewhat in its syntax and flow, without changing any of the substance of what's being said there. ... Kenosis 17:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC) ... For one specific thing, there's absolutely no need for the words "In this trial", when simply "In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District will do just fine. The prior sentence already introduced "the 'Dover trial", so there's no value added, nor any reasonable source of confusion avoided, by using those two extra words. So, proceeding cautiously as before, the words "... this trial ..." are outta' here. Any serious objectors please feel free to revert without any further argument from me. ... Kenosis 20:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> Matzke comments "Pandas represents the beginning of the modern "intelligent design" movement. This fact is obscured in most recountings... which usually credit Phillip Johnson's book Darwin on Trial ... Behe (Darwin's Black Box, 1996) and Dembski (The Design Inference, 1998)... In fact, all of the basic arguments of these ID proponents are found in essentially modern form in the 1989 Of Pandas and People (Behe's irreducibly complexity argument is found in the 1993 edition of Pandas). The textbook came first, and the "research" to support it came many years later.... Pandas was actively promoted for public school use by creationists, starting in Alabama in 1989 and continuing throughout the 1990's. After 2000, Pandas activity largely died down". There was a lot of continuing activity promoting Pandas and it seems misleading to suggest that it was an instant flop. Unless I've missed something, the involvement of the DI really begins with Chapman getting "seed money" in 1993, though Meyer was involved with the nascent Johnson group from the outset and was a co-founder of the DI in 1990. Also in 1993, Meyer and Behe contributed to the second edition of Pandas, but Johnson doesn't seem to have talked about ID until a couple of years later. Clearly the FTE strand and the Johnson strand were coming together by 1993, and "the movement" takes its familiar shape at the summer 1995 conference "The Death of Materialism and the Renewal of Culture" which forms the basis for the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture forming in 1996.. As you say, this needs to be concisely explained in the Overview, which in my opinion could become History including subsections for origins of the concept and of the term (perhaps better seen as precedents), with Specified complexity, Fine-tuned universe and Intelligent designer under a new Concepts section. ... dave souza, talk 11:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that section could alternately have been written explicitly as a history, with a separate section as an introduction to the main concepts--irreducible complexity, CSI, FTU, etc. Presently, though, as it has been for quite some time now, the introductory section of "Overview" is devoted to introducing the substantive aspects of the approach of ID proponents, to which several paragraphs are devoted. I expect one of the issues that would come into play in a discussion of this is the question about how far the article goes in the direction of being about the movement, which has its own main aritlce.

As to Of Pandas and People, it was central to Kitzmiller v. Dover, in that the statement proposed to be presented to biology students at the beginning of the semester referred them specifically to Pandas as an alternative resource. As to the initial marketing of Pandas, the proposal to the publisher originally projected a massive marketplace, one that never materialized. The sales to public schools were probably zero and there were not high sales figures to private schools. The web writings of both sides of the controversy reveal this to be the case, that it was, as I said, a "commercial flop". Here are two references saying this same basic thing from opposite sides of the controversy, the NCSE version of the story about sales and the IDEA version of the story. The Amazon sales rank is presently down to 153,392; and although this can sometimes be misleading with a textbook because schools generally buy directly from the publisher itself or the publisher's licensed distributor, there appears to be little indication that those figures are very high either. In 1987, according to the testimony at the deposition of Jon Buell, president of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, the original marketing projection estimated that: "... revenues of over 6.5 million in five years are based upon modest expectations for the market provided the U.S. Supreme Court does not uphold the Louisiana Balanced Treatment Act. If by chance it should hold it, then you can throw out these projections. The nationwide market would be explosive." By contrast, it took four years to sell the first print run of approximately 25,000 books, and a grass-roots effort needed to be mobilized to do it. Also from Buell's deposition: " Q. Pandas certainly did not live up to your market expectations or hopes, did it? A. Not to our hopes." Buell's deposition can be found here, with relevant testimony at p95ff and p102ff. See also, the summary in WP at Of Pandas and People#Origins_and_promotion. ... Kenosis 15:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I rather suspect that the Amazon ratings of such lowly-rated books would be quite volatile (potentially moving large numbers of places on the strength of the sale of a very small number of books), so wouldn't be better to state the rating as a range (e.g. "below 150,000) rather than a specific number (which is likely to become out of date more quickly)? Incidentally the rating is now 158,454 - presumably because they haven't sold a copy lately. Hrafn42 17:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a very inexact and quickly changing number; sell a few copies and it jumps up, go awhile without selling very much and it can go way down, only to quickly jump up again. The figure is particularly variable from day to day among books with a lower sales rank (higher number), as is the case here. But this was pointed out in the broader context of pointing out to Dave Souza that sales since its publication in 1989 were not anywhere near what was projected. What was required even to sell the first printing of 25,000 copies in roughly four years was to mobilize the grass-roots troops, so to speak. This was maybe one-twentieth or less of what was projected in the original marketing proposal. (25,000 x wholesale price of about $11 or $12 = about $275,000 or $300,000 gross for the publisher over four years, from which must be subtracted all the costs, printing, marketing, administration and payroll, storage, shipping, etc.. The original marketing projection, as I just mentioned above, said to be based on "modest expectations", was "over $6.5 million over five years.") Main point being, by 1990 it was quite clear it wasn't going to be a blockbuster and that a grass-roots effort would be needed. All this is in context of Dave's excellent research about the timeline of ID, and what were the important events in its development that might possibly affect editorial decisions for the article in the future. ... Kenosis 18:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I quite agree that the argument itself is 'robust, it's just that I'm suggesting that a rating range would be a more robust way of expressing the rating. Hrafn42 05:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree -- a range would save us from any debates over the actual current sales number. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 15:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Point of information. Presently the sales figures, commercial success or lack thereof of Pandas are not at issue in the article. This came up as part of an analysis of what were important markers in the development of "intelligent design" such that it might affect the language of the article lead. After I mentioned that by 1990, the year the DI was founded, Pandas was already known by its proponents to be a "commercial flop", Dave responded that he didn't think that was a fair characterization. And I responded by pointing up reliable evidence that its market showing was indeed quite weak if not an outright failure, ultimately taking four years and a grass-roots effort to sell out the first printing, and which amounted to less than 5% of the original market projections for the first edition. To this analysis was added information about sales of Pandas in recent years, initially brought up by Dave. Nothing more than that was at issue for the present text in the article-- or at least I think that was the case. ... Kenosis 17:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

<undent> Woops, sorry not to have responded earlier, I've been busy setting up schop amongst other things. There's no question that Pandas flopped: as Timeline of intelligent design notes, in 1987 Buell was projecting "revenues of Over 6.5 million in five years" on the assumption that they'd LOSE at Edwards! Surveys seemed to show plenty of demand, what stopped them was immediate activity by the NCSE. However, as Of Pandas and People#Origins_and_promotion shows, they kept trying to push it till about 2000. As far as I can see they had no assistance from the "Wedge" bunch until about 1995–1996, that group were busy with conferences and university level activity. Post 1996 the DI"s CRSC made it into a high profile PR campaign with immense political pull, but Pandas seems to have been almost forgotten until the clowns at Dover decided they wanted a 12 year old textbook, which is rather ancient for school texts. The fact that any at all are selling today is a testament to how slow creationists are to update their ideas, and how slow the ID crew have been to produce their long promised new textbook to have a controversy about. Hope alles klar, .. dave souza, talk 18:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ref formatting

I don't see that the FAR needs to continue in general, but I notice that many of the refs aren't formatted, particularly toward the end. Could this be done and then we get rid of the headache? (I post this here rather than there, because of the acrimony.) I'll do the refs...but damn, there's a 185 of them. Marskell 10:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

As I noted on the FAR page, we have of course tried different formats. The reason we settled on that one is to endow each of our statements and claims with a sense of overwhelming gravitas. Although this format might look unreadable and ugly, part of the goal is to hit the reader over the head with a hammer. It says, "hey buddy, you might not like this, but a LOT of people view it this way and it is well documented in a lot of reliable sources." If you can think of another format that has that kind of impact, but looks a bit prettier, then tell us what it might be.--Filll 10:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

My thought is we apply as many of the refs to the citation templates as possible. I don't care for the refs that just seem to discuss the view in more detail (seems like a self reference with no verifiability). It seems they should reference something external for the source of the information, even if we don't elaborate on the thought in the note itself - the reader can verify it. I would think we could reduce footnotes for a statement if we attributed more statements to a particular person or group, even if multiple groups make the statement. I certainly think we could reduce the footnotes in the lead. The lead is only a summary of the article, so the data can be more heavily referenced in the body. Troll objections can then be referred to the body content for in depth verifiability of the statements. I understand some of the refs look like that for a reason and perhaps some need to stay as they are. Though many don't have access dates, proper publisher information, etc.. I'm not bashing anyones hard work here.. just offering some constructive thoughts to help address some of the concerns raised. Morphh 13:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Morphh. There is a small group of them in "Defining as science", for instance, that consists of extra little explanations which have the benefit of avoiding unnecessary clogging of the body text. But we should ideally find external citations for these. The citations are out there, but fairly obscure, and just need to be found and placed into those notes. IMO, though, I wouldn't go so far as to say they need to be removed. Incidentally, I hate those citation templates with a passion; but if we're going to use them, by all means let's begin to standardize cite-web, cite-book, etc. But please don't ditch the extra explanations unless there's something plainly wrong or superfluous about the explanations. And please, please don't give a "ref name" to citations that involve references to different locations within a document, particularly Kitzmiller, and particularly books, articles and websites that involve different pages for different citations. We ran into a problem with that before, when a number of them needed to be carefully re-separated so as to refer to the specific locations within the sources. ... Kenosis 14:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ref name tagging has improved in the past year. It use to be that the main name tag had to be the first instance. This is no longer a requirement, so you can move text around without fear of blanking out the ref in the notes section. So long as one of the name refs has the content, it will display correctly. Not sure if this was your concern or not from your statement.. but it was a new feature so I thought I would mention it. Without using name tags, you run into having the same ref repeated muliple times in the notes section. Seems to be the common thing to do and effective on articles with similar length. Morphh 14:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Offhand, seems like a bit of a step forward, so long as it allows separate page refs and avoids the trap of having one footnote # with different page references within, repeated with ^a, ^b, ^c, ^d, etc. For my own part, I also still think it looks absurd to see footnote #1 following footnote #121 and such, though I recognize how this came to be. ... Kenosis 15:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Just so I'm not misunderstood, Filll, I did not mean the placement or volume of refs, but the lack of info provided. Some are simply weblinks with a title. Author, publisher, and date are also needed. The cite templates are one way to do that. You don't have to use them, but the way in which they break out info provides a useful template. (As I say, I'll help.) Marskell 13:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

<undent>Certainly if author, date, publisher etc are not included, this should be corrected. This is one thing I am sure all can agree on and a very useful contribution.--Filll 16:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Just for information, there are two approaches given in Misplaced Pages:Citation templates: the "cite book", "cite web" etc. templates are tailored to each king of cite, but don't have the option of cite footnotes in a "Citations" section linking on to a main "References" section. The other approach uses a standard all-purpose Template:Citation which is simpler as a basic template, and gives the option of this extra functionality when used with inline Harvard templates. This would simplify multiple references to the same document with the "Citations", for example, being Jones 2005 p.34 and the "p 34" giving a link to the exact page. More info on request, but it's a choice to make before starting to redo all the citations. This article was at the forefront of citations in linked footnotes, and it's already been through a few versions of that feature. .. dave souza, talk 17:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hah! ;-) So, less than two years ago the article was at the forefront of the WP citation movement, and now it's possibly becoming a dinosaur. Ah'swear, sometimes I want to be a Slowsky, and live like here ... Kenosis 18:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It begins

I have started formatting the refs. As I have not yet received my citation implant, this takes a bloody long time. I am using Template:Cite web. I know some people don't like the templates, but on a page with dozens of editors they are the best means of ensuring consistency. I have started from the bottom; someone else might go from the top. Marskell 17:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Lead, 2nd paragraph

Two suggestions (Gnixon 01:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)):

1) The journal Science is much more notable than its publisher, the AAAS (or the NSTA). I recommend saying "The publishers of Science and the National Science Teachers Association say it is pseudoscience."

2) "Others" is far too vague an attribution for such strong words as "junk science." It would be much better to say "Biologists and philosophers of science have called it 'junk science'." (Gnixon 01:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

With regard to #2, it's come up before. I don't have the time or the inclination to look back through the talk archives now, and particularly not on an issue like this. But here's the relatively recent history of this issue in the article itself, as to the second paragraph of the lead as it relates to what Gnixon says it would be bettter to do, presented here at various sampling points through the time period within which it appears to be relevant to Gnixon's recommendation. Myself, I have no idea what's "better" in this regard, given all the suggestions to date. Not all the edits below are directly related to the second paragraph, so one may need to scroll down to see the then-current version of it on the date quoted immediately below.

• 1 January 2007

• In response to a lot of quibbling on the talk page, I changed it to this, on 25 January 2007

• Later, It was changed to the following on 19 April 2007

• More recently it turned into a version closely resembling the current one on 9 May 2007

• After that it changed again no later than 15 May 2007

• Any other specifics Gnixon or somebody else will need to research independently. ... Kenosis 04:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I just had a chance to look over the history again, and would like to propose that the second paragraph be revised a bit, without changing its basic content. Presently it reads:

The consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. The National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science say it is pseudoscience. Others have concurred or termed it junk science.

May I suggest the following change, attempting to get it to read a bit smoother while trying to minimize interference with others' edits and feedback on it in recent months:

The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. The National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience. Others have concurred, and some have called it junk science.

I changed the words "say it is" to "have termed it" in the third sentence, and "termed it" to "and some have called it" in the fourth sentence. As to the proposed addition of the word "unequivocal" in the first sentence, I propose using it to replace the previous use of "overwhelming", which was removed late in 2006 if I remember right. An argument was made on the talk page at the time, to the effect that either something is a consensus or it ain't a consensus. As we have seen, there can be strong consensus, developing consensus, clear consensus, etc., etc. The consensus in the scientific community about this issue of intelligent design not being science can reasonably be characterized, in light of the references already provided in the article, as "unequivocal". Thoughts? ... Kenosis 21:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

How about "There is a clear consensus in the scientific community that ...."? I think that conveys the same information and might be a gentler tone for the lead of a controversial article. The attributed statements and quotes following give a good impression of the strength of scientists' feelings without letting the article adopt them. Gnixon 22:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the last sentence, I really think attribution is important here. The phrase "biologists and philosophers of science" is (a) accurate and (b) makes clear that "junk science" doesn't come from just anyone---it's from scientists in the relevant field (biologists) and those who think about "what is science" (philosophers of science). I know this paragraph has been fought over ad nauseum, but attribution is an important principle, and this wouldn't seem to conflict with any of the previous versions. Gnixon 22:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"Biologists and philosophers of science" is too narrow: The opinion has been expressed not just by "biologists and philosophers of science" but scientists of all stripes, not to mention leading scientific professional organizations, like the American Society for Clinical Investigation. There are many others that are not listed here but are easily found, so to attribute the view to "biologists and philosophers of science" is give a false impression. Odd nature 23:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The references given were from a biologist and a philosopher of science, along with another article I wasn't able to view from here. I'm just saying that the specific (strong) phrase "junk science" should be attributed to those who specifically used it. Below I propose a more general phrasing. Gnixon 22:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Geez, folks. We are talking about the article lead, where the article must summarize in brief. Presently the beginning sentence of that paragraph makes clear it's the scientific community making these assessments. WP:Weasel generally does not apply to the lead in quite the same way it might in the article proper, because it is the purpose of the lead to introduce the topic in general terms, leaving the article to spell out in more detail. Alternately the specifics can be relegated to footnotes. In the last sentence, it is spelled out in the footnotes. That is what Gnixon says must be done, and that is what the footnotes do.

This requires judgments to be made so as not to overly clog the lead with specifics. Here, it appears not to be necessary to state, in the last sentence of the present approach to the second paragraph, e.g., "Other notable members of the scientific community and philosophers of science have concurred that it is pseudoscience, and some members of the scientific community and one philosopher of science has called it junk science". It's simply not necessary. ... Kenosis 23:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Believe me, I agree your longer version isn't necessary. I personally think it would be sufficient to use only one sentence to mention that some notable body, presumably speaking for science, says ID is not science. (The "publishers of Science" seems like a good choice to me.) If it's important to add the "junk science" sentence, let's ask ourselves what content that adds besides an incendiary phrase. My answer: it can convey the strong feelings of "biologists and philosopher(s) of science" if we specifically attribute them in the text. Gnixon 06:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with Gnixon here. Firstly, and most importantly, we don't discuss the "pseudoscience" or "junk science" claims anywhere else in the article. In default of a "Critisism" section (and I'm sure some would argue that the article is one long "Critisism" section), then the discussion should be in "Controversy" - at the moment, this section just addresses why ID is not science, rather than why it's pseudo/junk science. According to WP:LEAD, "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article", and I would argue that an accusation of "pseudoscience" is significant. Secondly, if we're applying pejorative labels to ID, we need to identify our sources - "Everyone says it's junk science" isn't good enough. I personally would remove the entire sentence from the lead, but, if that's not acceptable, "Others in the scientific community have described it as pseudoscience or junk science" would be OK, provided we substantiate those descriptions somewhere else in the article. Tevildo 10:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with Tevildo very much in that the second paragraph has bit by bit become overly specific over the past seven months. Look back at its form at the beginning of 2007 here, for example.

Regarding Gnixon's statement "If it's important to add the "junk science" sentence, let's ask ourselves what content that adds besides an incendiary phrase.": Actually, I believe this paragraph has reported for at least a year-and-a-half now that all three usages have been used in various measure by multiple notable persons and/or organizations intimately familiar with scientific method and/or the demarcation problem. Those three characterizations, used in various measure by various combinations of organizations and individuals in the scientific, educational and journalistic communties, are: (1) not-science or unscientific, (2) pseudoscience or peudoscientific, and (3) junk science. Numbers 2 and 3, if they are "incendiary", are included because this is what reliable sources have said about the topic. The article isn't responsible for creating the controversy, merely for reporting and describing it.

The solution here may be to begin a discussion about placing some of the specific material presently in the second paragraph and its footnotes into the Overview as a paragraph describing in a bit more detail the responses to the assertions that iD is science and therefore should be presented in public high-school biology classes alongside standard biology texts and lessons. The responses of the scientific and science-education community in this regard can quite readily be elaborated upon a bit futher down under "Controversy" in the opening to that section or in the subsection on "Defining as science". It should be a simple matter, I would think, perhaps moving some of the material from the footnotes into the body text of the article. I don't see any major problems with such an adaptation, but I feel sure it will require discussion and consensus before imiplementing a significant move of material such as this.... Kenosis 11:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, as I said above, quoting "junk science" can be useful to convey the strength of feelings of scientists, but that only works if attributed. Otherwise, "pseudoscience" and "junk science" are redundant with "not science" or "unscientific", and we need only quote one reliable source using one of those four synonyms in order to make the point. Gnixon 15:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding a "Controversy" section, I think it would be a brilliant idea to provide a detailed section on controversy that would allow most of the rest of the article to simply describe what ID is and where it came from. Gnixon 15:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I was going to post the following last night when my laptop battery died. I'll read above comments momentarily... Gnixon 15:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

For example, how about:

The publishers of Science have stated that Intelligent Design is "not science." Numerous biologists and other scientists, as well as science teachers and philosophers of science have spoken out against considering Intelligent Design a viable scientific theory.

A single footnote on the 2nd sentence could say "For example, see a, b, c, d," perhaps with more detail, such as quoting "junk science." Gnixon 15:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that as any improvement on the original phrasing, and agree with odd nature's point about downplaying here. I can't support this change. FeloniousMonk 15:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Odd nature's objection was that "biologists and philosophers of science" is too narrow. Isn't "numerous biologists and other scientists, as well as science teachers and philosophers of science" broad enough? Or is your objection that not using "junk science" constitutes "downplaying"? I'm not sure how to be both so broad and so specific in the lead, since obviously not all of the broad group have said, quote, "junk science." I thought the chief advantages of my proposed version were conciseness (for the lead) and a representation of how many scientists have felt the need to speak out. Gnixon 22:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between not downplaying a point, and misrepresentation of our sources for that point. "Not science", "pseudoscience", and "junk science" are three separate descriptions, and I don't think it's fair to say that every scientific organization that's critisised ID can be taken as supporting all three of them. I agree that we don't need to list every source individually, especially not in the lead, but we do need to make it clear to whom we're attributing each of the three descriptions. Tevildo 18:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph already breaks up these three classifications applied by various parties who represent or participate in the scientific community or in the professional philosophical analysis thereof, presented in summary form as a lead is expected to. It says:

The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. The National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience. Others have concurred, and some have called it junk science.

If Tevildo is currently alleging that this paragraph involves "misrepresentation" of any kind, now would be the time to state specifically what it is that's misrepresented, and provide evidence in support of any such assertions. ... Kenosis 19:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not being clear enough. I think the paragraph is fine as it stands in terms of content, although I agree it is a little on the wordy side. What I would object to is something along the lines of, to quote Odd nature - "Scientists of all stripes consider intelligent design to be pseudoscience and junk science", and I think there may be a risk of this if the sentence is simplified beyond GNixon's suggestion above, especially if the point isn't addressed in more detail elsewhere in the article. Tevildo 19:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

<unindent>Well, anyway, six months ago it read like this:

The scientific community views intelligent design as unscientific, as pseudoscience or as junk science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.

If the editors here are able to come up with a suitable paragraph describing more specifically the responses of the scientific and educational communities, it can easily be inserted in the "Overview" that follows the lead-- assuming of course that there's consensus for whatever's proposed. Due to the FA review, presently there are more participants paying attention than has been the case for much of the time since FA status was first granted, so I think this might be a good time to create such a paragraph and see if there's adequate agreement on its content and agreement on whether we should insert it and simplify the second lead paragraph, Seems to me that both the new insertion and any significant changes to the second lead paragraph should probably be done more-or-less simultaneously, given the parameters discussed just above in this talk section ... Kenosis 19:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess what I'm saying is that if we're going to quote specific phrases, we should attribute them specifically. I agree that that level of detail would go better in the body of the article, instead of the lead, which is why I propose replacing the current lead paragraph with

The publishers of Science have stated that Intelligent Design is "not science." Numerous biologists and other scientists, as well as science teachers and philosophers of science have spoken out against considering Intelligent Design a viable scientific theory.

and saving greater detail for the footnotes and/or the body of the article. Gnixon 15:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you clarify? Do you object to specifically attributing specific phrases or putting such detail in the body of the article? Please don't call my suggestions "nonsense"---I consider it uncivil, and I've been entirely polite. Gnixon 01:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Editprotected

I tried to edit this article and I couldn't. What happened to the 'edit this page' tab?

{{editprotect}}}

'of God' in the lead to 'of a god'. 86.137.57.73 17:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover and other reliable sources including quoted statements made by the notable ID proponents, all of them do not believe the designer is "a god", but that the designer is "God" in the sense in which virtually everbody immediately understands it, even children. The link to Abrahamic God clarifies this further. The Kitzmiller decision stated that on the evidence, a reasonable person would conclude that the "designer" in ID is the "God of Christianity". In light of this, it would appear there's no overriding reason to mince words in the article. If there is one, kindly call it to the participants' attention. Thanks. ... Kenosis 18:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

International status

"...other religious beliefs within the scientific framework of scientific theories as established bodies of scientific knowledge...". Can we lose at least one of those 'scientific's? I would suggest "within the framework of scientific theories as established bodies of knowledge". Tevildo 12:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I replaced it with "standard framework of scientific theories"...I too hate redundancy. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 15:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Last sentence of first paragraph

Minor edit just made to the last sentence of the first paragraph, so it now reads:

• Intelligent design's advocates claim it is a scientific theory, and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.

Previously it read:

• Intelligent design's advocates claim it is a scientific theory, and also seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.

The original reason for the insertion of the "also" was in response to those arguing on the talk page that either advocates claim it's a scientific theory under existing criteria, or are trying to change the definitiion of science to accommodate it, but that advocates can't logically have it both ways. In fact, according to the reliable sources, advocates assert it's a scientific theory in order to meet the criteria set in Edwards v. Aguilard quoted in the first paragraph of the "Overview" section in the article, which is that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction". The claim that ID is a scientific theory seeks to meet the standard set by the Supreme Court's language, and has been said by various proponents to be justified on multiple grounds, that it's a scientific theory under existing criteria, and the assertion has been made that science must be redefined to allow theistic and/or supernatural aspects. Claims have also made that ID's a scientific theory but that the scientific community has unfairly excluded it, that its main competitor biology is not science but speculation, and that the court's interpretation that ID is not science in Kitzmiller v. Dover is the biased product of an activist judge, as well as on other grounds. All told, though, the words "and also" in the first lead paragaph does nothing more to explain the details of this to the reader than does the word "and", so I removed the "also". ... Kenosis 15:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

First sentence of third paragraph

Minor edit just made to the first sentence of the third paragraph, so it now reads:

• "Intelligent design" originated in response to a 1987 United States Supreme Court ruling involving constitutional separation of church and state

The qualification The term", previously at the beginning of the third lead paragraph, was redundant with the first paragraph of the "Overview" that summarizes the issue a bit more explicitly, which begins with "The term "intelligent design"...". Thus the words were unnecessary and superfluous in the third lead paragraph, since the whole affair began after Edwards v. Aguilard. If there are any remaining doubts among readers whether this refers specifically to the term or to the set of concepts, or both, they may proceed to read the article to learn the specifics of how the term came to be utilized by intelligent design advocates.

Hopefully this addresses part of the "redundancies" referred to by one of the commentators at the FA review. ... Kenosis 17:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me like an improvement. Both the term and the "concepts" of "intelligent design" originated post Edwards, though of course the concepts are essentially the same as certain versions of creation science. The sentence isn't very informative in the use of "involving", and by replacing that word with "that teaching "creation science" in public schools violated" the context is made a lot clearer. It also allows the sentences after it to be tightened up, shortening the paragraph overall. More on that later. .. dave souza, talk 22:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please look at over the article in making these assessments. That is almost verbatim what the first sentence of the fourth paragraph (first paragraph of the Overview) says. ... Kenosis 02:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

But much condensed, as befits the lead. That paragraph was introduced into the overview, introducing a brief and incomplete mention of origins before going onto the "overview" which mixes fragments of history with current concepts and claims. In my opinion Edwards is important enough to justify that position, but the whole "overview" section would benefit from splitting with, firstly, a history/origins of the intelligent design concept section which would include the present "origins of the concept" subsection redefined as "previous teleological arguments" or predecessors, and "previous use of the phrase" rather than "origins of the term. The second section on "Concepts" would include all but the first paragraph of the present "overview" bit, and the "Irreducible complexity" subsection onwards. Judging by this, the overall meaning of theistic realism also merits prime mention. The history of the concept(s) from the 1960s to the present needs clarified, while the history of the movement in the ID movement article also needs straightened out, and the timeline is still only a start. So much to do.. ..dave souza, talk 11:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

One of the comments in the FA review described it as a "forest through the trees" issue. Before taking serious aim at a reformatting of the whole article, the participants will need to look at the whole article carefully and be familiar with where every bit of content is presently placed. Though I don't necessarily object, it would require a lot of work. Another thing to keep a heads-up for here, IMO, is that history and substantive concepts are deeply intertwined on this topic. ... Kenosis 12:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Fully agree, which is why it's easier to tweak the lead. For very valid reasons a lot of the closely argued content predates Kitzmiller, and could benefit from reviewing and simplifying in the light of recent knowledge. For example, in the Defining as science section, footnotes 144 – 148 provide essays rather than citations, and it should be possible to cite these points. In the meantime I'll try to pull together the timeline to get to grips with the history. .. dave souza, talk 14:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"Fine-Tuned Universe"

Under the topic of "fine-tuned universe," the author states the following:

"Proponent Granville Sewell has stated that the evolution of complex forms of life represents a decrease of entropy, thereby violating the second law of thermodynamics and supporting intelligent design. Critics assert that this is a misapplication of thermodynamic principles."

After reading Granville Sewell's article linked under citation 82, I would move citation 82 to the end of the first sentence above since he is a proponent of the theory not a critic as the second sentence states. I read the article expecting Sewell to be a critic due to the location of the citation.

This is a topic that greatly interests me as my thermodynamics professor asked us to prove or disprove the origin of life using the 2nd law on a test. (It was a bonus point question.)

I for one am thankful that science is finally opening its eyes instead of squeezing them shut against any possibility other than that life originated by pure chance and that increasingly complex organisms can come from less complex organisms. Common sense does not lead one to such conclusions, in my opinion.

My last comment is that the article does not take the theory of intelligent design seriously--calling it a "claim" rather than a theory. But, really Darwinism/Naturalism is also a THEORY or a CLAIM. . . No one really knows what happened when life began or sprang into existence. No one has observed the leap from one species to another through natural selection alone. I just wish Darwinism/Naturalism was more often taught as a THEORY so that scientists would be true scientists and explore other possibilities as well. Stayinguptoolate 06:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your great insight. I am glad that you were able to prove that life doesn't exist. Though you might want to familiarize yourself with, say, abiogenesis, scientific method, theory and objections to evolution before you speak next time. Reinis 08:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Reinis, your sarcasm is a violation of our WP:CIVIL policy. Please don't make such comments. Gnixon 15:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Really?...seems to me they're just accurate comments based on the apparent ignorance of life-sciences and science itself displayed by "Stayingup". Oh, and when was sarcasm banned? I didn't get the memo on that. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you recognize that that sort of sarcasm is uncivil. Gnixon 01:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Recommendations for the article (User:DLH)

Detailed problems/recommendations follow:

Evidence for intelligent causation

The following introduction statement only states the criticism, not the ID position:

• It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer.

As an article on ID, this should instead summarize the ID position: Intelligent design tests for evidence of intelligent causation. It is an empirical form the teleological argument for the existence of God. DLH 05:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

See NPOV: Undue weight. You cite a pro-ID wiki - not a RS. ID has no tests for evidence of intelligent causation, and is no more empirical than any other teleological argument: see Kitzmiller. ... dave souza, talk 08:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

See, for example, Astrology, where the subject of the article is primarily being described instead of criticized, even though all the "not science" objections raised against ID could be applied equally there. Gnixon 14:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Apples and rocks. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Astrology is not being used by the Christian right in their efforts to overthrow science and the First Amendment to the US Constitution in an attempt to establish theocracy. ID is. Tevildo 00:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That may motivate some of us to rail against ID in our personal (or professional) lives, while dismissing Astrology as harmless, but those emotions shouldn't affect the tone of Misplaced Pages's coverage. Gnixon 01:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent Designer

Similarly this section begins by stating the critics position, not the ID position:

• "Intelligent design arguments are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid identifying the intelligent agent they posit."

ID and critics' positions should be balanced. e.g. by stating:

• Intelligent design limits its statements on the nature or identity of the designer to what can be inferred from evaluating empirical evidence. Critics claim it intentionally avoids identifying the posited intelligent agent. DLH 05:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Proponents also state this – for example, see numerous statements by Johnson such as "the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion. ...This is not to say that the biblical issues are unimportant; the point is rather that the time to address them will be after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact." .. .. dave souza, talk 08:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

DLH's point here is also correct, and follows from a simple reading of WP:NPOV. I find it incredibly revealing that an editor of this article would disqualify a statement because an ID proponent might say it. Gnixon 15:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I find it incredibly revealing that an editor would deliberately misunderstand another editor's statement as "disqualifying...because an ID proponent might say it." The simple fact is, ID proponents state what the article already says: that ID arguments intentionally avoid identifying the intelligent agent. DLH's point is incorrect by proposing to add a claim that only critics say this. That's not NPOV. -Amatulic 21:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

My apologies to DS for misreading his comment. Gnixon 01:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

ID Origins, First use, First ID Publication vs ID movement

I find this article missleading with numerous false or contradictory statements regarding the origins of Intelligent Design, the first ID publication and the ID movement. The statements relating to origins, first use, first publication etc. need to be harmonized with facts to justify FA. e.g. at least with those listed in the following articles and compilations:

• Timeline of intelligent design

,

Reference should be given to much more detailed comprehensive compilations of references to "intelligent design". e.g. to:

• Intelligent design timeline

e.g. the following statement in the introduction is false and missleading:

• "Intelligent design" originated in response to a 1987 United States Supreme Court ruling involving constitutional separation of church and state."

"Intelligent design" was used by advocates and critics from the 19th through the 20th century before 1987. "Separation of church and state" is not in the constitution and Chief Justice Rhenquist recommended against using this phrase.

The following introduction statement is similarly missleading:

• "Its first significant published use was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes."

The Overview similarly incorrectly states:

• "The term "intelligent design" came into published use after the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard that to require the teaching of "creation science" alongside evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause, which prohibits state aid to religion."

e.g., Following are some of the significant books and articles prior to 1989:

1986 John Barrow & Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Oxford University Press.

1985 July 26-29: Walter R. Thorson presents "intelligent design" at an Oxford conference, PSCF 39 (June 1987): 75-87

1984 Charles B. Thaxton et al. The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (ISBN 0802224466)

1983 Raymond G. Boblin and Kerby Anderson, The Straw God of Stephen Gould (JASA 35 (March 1983): 42-44)

1982 Hoyle, Fred, Evolution from Space, Omni Lecture, Royal Institution, London, January 12, 1982; Evolution from Space (1982) pp 27-28 ISBN: 0894900838;

1979 James Horigan's book Chance or Design refers to "intelligent design".

• Recommend the following statement in the introduction:

Intelligent design principles were presented in early publications by Horigan (1979), Thaxton et al. (1984, 1989), Barrow & Tipler (1985), Thorson (1985), Johnson (1991) and Behe (1996).

with respective references to:

Thaxton, Bradley & Olsen The Mystery of Life's Origin(1984), Barrow & Tipler The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1986), Pandas and People (1989), Johnson Darwin on Trial and Michael Behe Darwin's Black Box (1996).DLH 05:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This topic of earlier teleological arguments and previous uses of the phrase is fully covered in the article. Use of the phrase as a term began with Pandas, and as its publisher Jon Buell has more recently stated this was "the first place where the phrase 'intelligent design' appeared in its present use." . . dave souza, talk 08:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

International status

This section is one sided against ID. e.g.:

• "Intelligent design has received little support outside of the U.S."

Some editors refuse to allow counter evidence. Recommend adding:

• "Yet, by 2007 ID events had been held in Canada, Czech Republic, Norway, and the UK, with growing international interest. DLH 05:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Institutions in Australia, Canada, Netherlands, UK have held origin courses including intelligent design.DLH 07:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment DLH's many objections here are a textbook example of the sort of the policy- and guideline-devoid disengenous objections from ID promotors long term contributors to this article have had to contend with. Before anyone cries foul I'll point out that User:DLH has in his 1.5 year at Misplaced Pages yet to make any meaningful contribution to an ID related article but has an established history of using Misplaced Pages articles to promote ID views and rhetoric while discounting the mainstream view and ignoring WP:NPOV, as well as link spamming ID-related articles to his pet project, an ID wiki researchintelligentdesign.org: . FeloniousMonk 05:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Very curious. I seem to recall having tried to make numerous editorial improvements, particularly to balance the discussion, many of which were systematically reverted by one FeloniousMonk. How is it that critics are free to criticize, but efforts to actually state ID positions or balanced statements are reverted? DLH 06:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Your "improvements" of late have consisted of original research on flimsy evidence: above, you seem to be citing your pro-ID wiki. A few "events" and "origin courses including intelligent design" hardly constitute much support, but evidence from reliable sources can be considered in context. .. dave souza, talk 08:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The ad hominems from FM and DS, directed at DLH, are entirely inappropriate, especially considering that he has raised several legitimate issues in good faith and a civil manner. Gnixon 15:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you might have a very bizarre concept of ad homs. Ad homs criticise the person only, not their actions. If you'll not, both FM and Dave were criticising the user's actions and contributions. I assume that we understand each other. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

FM calling DLH's objections "disingenuous" is equivalent to the ad hominem of calling DLH "disingenuous." "DLH has yet in 1.5 years to make any meaningful contribution" is, likewise, essentially an ad hominem. I apologize to DS if I misunderstood his tone, which came off as a personal attack when I read it after FM's comments. Gnixon 01:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review

• Harmonize outline structure. It makes no sense to have this a lonely subsection. It should be moved up to the same outline structure as surrounding sections.DLH 06:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit down to relevant Peer Review subject matter. This section has numerous comments extraneous to "peer review" that should be moved to other sections or deleted as redundant. e.g. reference to the "wedge strategy" should be deleted as it is already mentioned four other times in the article.

The following sentences belongs under "scientific Method" not "Peer Review": "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 on empirical evidence." . . ."The issue that supernatural explanations do not conform to the scientific method became a sticking point for intelligent design proponents in the 1990s, and is addressed in the wedge strategy as an aspect of science that must be challenged before intelligent design can be accepted by the broader scientific community." DLH 06:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Present both Pro/Contra ID positions. The section goes to great lengths stating as fact the critics position that there are no ID peer reviewed articles and burying at the bottom the ID position that there are peer reviewed articles. The should summarize the ID position first with references, and then the critics position.

This should refer both to the Design Institute's list of ID publications, and to Dembski's annotated list of ten articles: "Ten Peer-Reviewed ID Articles (with Annotations), William Dembski, Expert Witness Report, The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design, March 29, 2005, Appendix 3, p 28-30."DLH 06:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Reconcile publication statements. Stating that there are no ID peer reviewed publications is internally inconsistent with stating that Myers article was published. DLH 06:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Harmonize Overview with Peer Review

The Overview only mentions the critics position, not the ID position. i.e.,

• "However, no articles supporting intelligent design have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals nor has intelligent design been the subject of scientific research or testing.'

Recommend changing the Overview to read:

• ID proponents list articles they hold support ID and have been peer reviewed, while critics say no articles supporting intelligent design have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.DLH 06:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Correct statements on Meyer's article.

The "STATEMENT FROM THE COUNCIL OF THE BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON" nowhere states the article was withdrawn. It was only disavowed based on claimed inappropriate subject matter. The editor Richard Steinberg, states that the article was appropriate, and that editorial policies were followed. The statement on its being withdrawn need to be corrected. DLH 06:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• State both sides of editorial policy argument. TO be NPOV, Steinberg's position on editorial procedures, policy and subject matter need to be stated as well as the critics position.

DLH 06:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The following statement is misleading by citing out of context. "In sworn testimony, however, Behe said: "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."" In Darwin's Black Box, Behe says the same thing for evolution. This reference to Behe should therefore be balanced to state:

• Behe has stated that neither evolution nor intelligent design provide detailed rigorous accounts of how any biological system has arisen. with both citations.

DLH 06:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Scientific Research

The Overview and the Peer Review section combine Peer Review with Scientific Research cf:

• " nor has intelligent design been the subject of scientific research or testing.'

• Separate out Scientific Research into its own section.

Recommend separating discussion on Scientific Research into its own section separate from Peer Review as this addresses different subject matter. e.g., the following section should be separated out:

• "The debate over whether intelligent design produces new research, as any scientific field must, and has legitimately attempted to publish this research, is extremely heated. Both critics and advocates point to numerous examples to make their case. For instance, the Templeton Foundation, a former funder of the Discovery Institute and a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that it asked intelligent design proponents to submit proposals for actual research, but none were ever submitted. Charles L. Harper Jr., foundation vice-president, said: "From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review.""DLH 06:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The statements referring to Templeton, ID and research proposals contain several false statements. i.e. Templeton never asked ID to submit proposals, and Dembski had submitted a proposal.

The article needs to be corrected/harmonized with the facts. See:

• Media Misreports Intelligent Design Research and the John Templeton Foundation

• In response to errors and misrepresentations stated in the February 28, 2007 ResearchID.org blog post:

• [http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/correction-to-the-templeton-foundations-latest-about-id/

Correction to the Templeton Foundation's latest about ID]

• Proposal to the Templeton Foundation

• Templeton sponsored ID conference

• Refer to ID research. The section should refer to research questions ID proponents are proposing and to research that is being funded by the Design Institute etc. See:
• ID research questionsDLH 06:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

DLH 06:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Your pro-ID wiki shows a lot of vague "questions" and no evidence of any scientific research. Don't seem to be any reliable sources there supporting your assertions. .. dave souza, talk 09:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the tough question is how to represent ID proponents' claims that they have proposed research without performing WP:OR to dismiss them. Gnixon 15:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm - while it's verifiable, is simply proposing research really notable? Doing it (and publishing it) should surely be what's required for a science topic to be taken seriously by an encyclopedia. Whether ID applied for Templeton funding or not, its near-total (total?) absence in the scientific literature is very telling (especially when one considers that even homeopathy makes an appearance there). Anyway, we certainly have sources pointing to the absence of ID in scientific journals, so no fear of WP:OR on that particular point. --Plumbago 15:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it verifiable? What's presented above seems to be a wiki blog, a primary source giving the Templeton Org's response to the wiki blog, and links to Dembski's blog. Please present verifiable sources that fully comply with WP:RS, with assessment by secondary sources to avoid original research in interpreting primary sources. Again, the "research questions" ID proponents are proposing according to the ID wiki seem to be vague philosophical queries, a long way from being a proposal for scientific research. Surprisingly enough. .. dave souza, talk 16:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it's verifiable that ID proponents claim they have proposed research, which is all I'm saying. Is it notable? It might have a place in a discussion of whether ID performs research. Gnixon 02:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Religion and leading proponents

This section appears biased, pushing Foresters argument on creationism. This should be deleted. If it is kept, it needs to be condensed and balanced with corresponding evidence for agnostics and moslems advocating ID. For it to be kept, a corresponding section should be placed under Evolution emphasizing the number of atheists including Dawkins who advocate evolution. Recommend adding the following:

• ID proponents include Moslems, agnostics, and former atheists (e.g., Mustafa Akyol , David Berlinski , Andrew Flew )

DLH 07:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Convert section to an article on Origin theories and religion.

All origin theories have philosophical implications separate from the theory itself. It is inappropriate to focus on ID and prevent similar discussion in Evolution.

Recommend converting this section to a separate article that addresses the religious beliefs of practioners of origin theories. Include sections on Evolution, Intelligent Design, and Creation Science. DLH 07:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

See Kitzmiller. Also note "leading" proponents: Akyol appears to be a creationist making some references to ID, and Flew may be a proponent but has hardly "led". ,,, dave souza, talk 09:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

DLH, that is a great vomitous spew you have favored us with, but the more you write, the more obvious it is to me that you will only be happy if this article is written in the same style as the articles on that other wiki, and is essentially an advertisement for the Intelligent Design position. Now ask yourself, seriously, how likely is this to happen? --Filll 12:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Filll, characterizing DLH's comments as "a great vomitous spew" is extremely uncivil and an extremely inappropriate response to his/her polite comments. It seems to me that DLH favors ID, but that in no way disqualifies him/her from helping to improve this article---in fact, his/her knowledge of the subject and interest in it is a strong qualifier. DLH's comments, in my opinion, are far from suggesting that s/he wants to turn this article into an advertisement for ID. For the most part, his/her comments amount to simply suggesting that Intelligent Design is presented in the same style as, say, Astrology. The latter is hardly an advertisement, in my opinion. Gnixon 15:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Gnixon, once you and DLH have basically discredited yourselves, you create a certain image of yourselves and your suggestions. And frankly, I think "intelligent design" is presented the way I would like to see "astrology" presented, especially if there was a dishonest, lying and cheating bunch of intolerant jerks pushing for it to be introduced as science in the classroom. In that case, sure, present them the same way. Why not? But to do that, lets not lighten up on intelligent design, but instead crack down on pseudoscience and assorted horse puckey like astrology even harder.--Filll 18:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It's important to remember that it's not the mission of Misplaced Pages to shoot down Intelligent Design and Astrology. Gnixon 20:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please be clear on one thing: the Misplaced Pages neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth. .. dave souza, talk 21:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is saying "give equal validity to minority views." I just don't understand why most of the article should be about debunking ID instead of describing it. WP:UNDUE isn't about making all of Misplaced Pages's articles about pseudoscience topics turn into debunkings. It's okay to indicate the strength of moral repugnance many scientists may feel toward ID, but it's not okay for the article to adopt that POV. Our readers are intelligent enough to decide whose perspective to accept. Gnixon 01:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

These objections and proposals appear to turn WP:NPOV on it's head, giving the minority viewpoint precendence over the majority view and treating the ID movement's spin of the facts as fact. DLH, have you even read WP:NPOV? Because until you acknowledge that the scientific community (which has dismissed ID as not science alonside the courts) is the majority view there's nothing here to dicuss. This huge list of complaints about the article reads just like a Discovery Institute press release. Literally. Odd nature 22:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Excessive size

Sheesh, this page is (was) 439 KiB long! Archiving, anyone? Reinis 12:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

At first glance, everything before #Cardinal Schoenborg does not support ID could be archived without losing anything currently under discussion. Think that's a good cut off point? .. dave souza, talk 12:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to consider something like miszabot for archival. It's very easy to set up and it's pretty flexible. Gnixon 15:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, archive away! Maury 18:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. -Amatulic 21:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Sherriff, Lucy, Creationism and evolution can co-exist, says cardinal, The Register, October 05, 2005.
2. Gledhill, Ruth, Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible, The Times, October 05, 2005.
3. Sheriff, Lucy, Intelligent design 'not science', says Vatican astronomer, The Register, 21st November 2005
4. Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy Barbara Forrest. May, 2007.
5. "The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a 'wedge' that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the 'thin edge of the wedge,' was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." Wedge Document Discovery Institute, 1999. (PDF file)
6. ^ Wedge Document Discovery Institute, 1999.
7. "The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a 'wedge' that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the 'thin edge of the wedge,' was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." Wedge Document Discovery Institute, 1999. (PDF file)
8. Forrest, Barbara (May, 2007), Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy (PDF), retrieved July 10, 2007 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link).
9. "The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a 'wedge' that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the 'thin edge of the wedge,' was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." Wedge Document Discovery Institute, 1999. (PDF file)
10. The Origin of Intelligent Design: A brief history of the scientific theory of intelligent design, Jonathan Witt, Design Institute
11. Intelligent Design Timeline ResearchID
12. ID conferences, debates and other events
13. ID at the academy
14. Mustafa Akyol Why Moslems Should Support Intelligent Design
15. Interview with David Berlinski
16. Flew wins Johnson award

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• FA-Class Creationism articles
• Top-importance Creationism articles
• WikiProject Creationism articles