Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 23: Difference between revisions

< Talk:Intelligent design Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 01:47, 21 November 2005 editFeloniousMonk (talk \| contribs)18,409 edits →The “fundamental assumption” of ID: A more accurate statement is "the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that a designer is needed for every ''irreducibly complex'' object"← Previous edit		Revision as of 02:48, 21 November 2005 edit undoKAJ (talk \| contribs)129 edits ID in the news today involving a Catholic CardinalNext edit →
Line 130:		Line 130:

	:A more accurate statement is "the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that a designer is needed for every ''irreducibly complex'' object." Thanks for catching that. ] 01:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)		:A more accurate statement is "the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that a designer is needed for every ''irreducibly complex'' object." Thanks for catching that. ] 01:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

			== ID in the news today involving a Catholic Cardinal ==

			http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051120/sc_nm/religion_evolution_cardinal_dc&printer=1;_ylt=AoIPzXnuBad2an5f.H9w1mUiANEA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

			] 02:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:48, 21 November 2005

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

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

Intelligent design/Archive 23 received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Please read before starting
Welcome to Misplaced Pages's Intelligent Design article. This article represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic.

Newcomers to Misplaced Pages and this article may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid here.

A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents ID in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of ID is too extensive or violates Misplaced Pages's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, and NPOV: Giving "equal validity" and the contributors to the article have done their best to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the POV fork guidelines.

These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are No Original Research (WP:NOR) and Cite Your Sources (WP:CITE).

Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Misplaced Pages's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON).

This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the article itself and not the inherent worth of Intelligent Design. See WP:NOT

Intro

I've replaced the majority viewpoint deleted from the intro on 13 November by Djewett , and I've shortened it a bit. FeloniousMonk 02:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Good work! I like this shortened version much better. The previous version, with the paragraph explaining the scientific method, seemed out of place to me. The specific critisms belonged (and were also found) other places in the article. This version is short and sweet, giving just a short summary of the minority and majority view, and I don't think anyone on either side of the issue would claim it is POV. -Paralle or Together? 04:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. It's an improvement, and neatly balanced at exactly two sentences for each side. FeloniousMonk 05:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Very good ant 00:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I concur with ant. The introduction fairly and accurately represents the intelligent design viewpoint while maintaining NPOV. Wade A. Tisthammer 01:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

RE archived material

This was in response to (and in support of) a comment by FM, now archived

Though nothing in WP policy excludes single-issue editors, it is considered desirable for contributors to gain experience editing articles over a wide range of areas. This experience, for instance, is useful in appreciating how to interpret NPOV as it applies to pseudoscience or minority views. This is particularly applicable if an editor has particularly strong views which he/she thinks are misrepresented. There are remedies, but gratuitously wasting other editor's time is not one of the remedies. From the contributions list, one cannot fail to notice that neither User:Tisthammerw nor User:SanchoPanza has this desirable experience.--CSTAR 05:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Experience is not a license to disregard Misplaced Pages policy whenever one deems it convenient. On the article was the claim "by Intelligent Design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex". I have never seen this argument before. My request was simple and (I believe) reasonable: in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy provide a citation of a leading ID opponent who claimed that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning. The purpose of this request was to ensure that this argument was not original research. FeloniousMonk failed to provide such a citation, as did you CSTAR. Pray tell, why do you think this request was a waste of time? Wade A. Tisthammer 00:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Relevant reading

Blinded By Science: How ‘Balanced’ Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality - Chris Mooney, Columbia Journalism Review. A valuable warning to Wikipedians about how attempts to balance the coverage can lead to biased, inaccurate and misleading reporting. FeloniousMonk 05:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Soundness of the design?

As I recall, there was something in ID about the "well-formedness" of biological structures, e.g., how the eye is so well designed to do exactly what it does. That point is refuted by pointing out all the awukward designs that result in suboptimal performance. The best examples is perhaps standing humans. Because we stand, we get low back pain, varicose veins, and hemorrhoids. Not such an intelligent design! Anyway, if that is a part of ID, then perhaps it ought to be in the article. Would anyone more knowledgeable than I care to give it a shot? -- Squidley, who forgot to sign in.

of interest

For some nice writing, interested parties should take a look at Charles Krauthammer's column on ID. Some of which I'd disagree with, but I loved "Intelligent design ... is a self-enclosed, tautological "theory" ... that admits that evolution and natural selection explain such things as the development of drug resistance in bacteria and other such evolutionary changes within species but also says that every once in a while God steps into this world of constant and accumulating change and says, "I think I'll make me a lemur today." ". - Nunh-huh 02:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Note also the article by George Will. It seems that there may be a growing divide between the intellectual right and the evangelical right. About time. Bill Jefferys 04:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I should like to point out that Krauthammer's statements regarding Newton and Einstein and God are somewhat misleading. Newton's belief system was traditionalist only to an extent: he also believed in alchemy and a variety of paranormal pursuits that were outside the mainstream traditional religion of his day. Einstein, as a young man, had jettisoned all of the traditional beliefs of a "God of Miracles" in favor of a "God of Order". This God of Order he never truly defined, and it could have ranged from a true deity in a modified sense to the laws of physics or of math.

For more information on this subject, you may wish to see various books written by Michio Kaku, Stephen Hawking or Brian Greene, as well as several Einstein biographies.

Jim62sch 20:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Kansas, the supernatural and astrology

User:KillerChihuahua removed the following from the Portraying Intelligent Design as science section, referring to the talk page but without any obvious reference on this page.

While modern science looks for natural explanations of phenonema, without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural, Intelligent Design proponents contend that science must allow for both natural and supernatural explanations. In Kansas, the board of education has voted to redefine science to include supernatural explanations of natural phenomena. In court, Behe indicated that his definition would include astrology as a science, but under subsequent questioning said that this was a historical reference.

At the least these seem to be noteworthy points, and the second link to the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Trial transcript (on talkorigins) leads to a wealth of information on ID proponents responses to questioning. ...dave souza 17:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The introduction of the article has to be very tight and it is the currently the resolution of much discussion. I think what KC meant was that it is desirable to propose this addition in the talk page first, such as where to place it. As far as the content goes, I don't see anything incorrect with what you wrote. Although I always hesitate to make any generalizations about what ID is, since what its proponents claim it is seems to automagically mutate depending on circumstances.--CSTAR 18:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

What my summary said was "Rv edits... Pls see talk page for major edits" and it was a revert of a fairly sizeable addition. I had intended to post immediately following, but was called away from the computer. However, CSTAR's assement of my meaning is accurate. Considering that every change here is usually followed by a 3 week debate about the entry, the phrasing, and whether the addition has somehow undone a precarious "balance" it may be desirable to gain concensus prior to a major addition to the article.

Now my two cents on the addition: might it not be better suited to add to ID Movment rather than ID? The events in Kansas, while noteable from a movement perspective, add nothing to our understanding of ID nor of the rebuttal of ID from a scientific perspective. One puppy's opinion. OTOH, it may be that something(s) may be clarified by Behe's statements, and/or other points of the paragraph. KillerChihuahua 20:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, and indeed Behe's testimony seems to suggest ideas of ID which differ considerably from the party line, as well as his disowning the bits of Panda he didn't write. I'll stand back and let wiser heads think about where best to put these points, will be grateful if someone can add them as appropriate ....dave souza 00:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The “fundamental assumption” of ID

The Misplaced Pages article has claimed, "the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that a designer is needed for every complex object." I suspect this is original research of the straw man kind. I have never seen this assumption in any ID literature, and the article provides no citations. I have however seen ID statements that seem to point in the opposite direction.

Dembski himself claims that not every complex entity is designed; the added criterion of specification must be used before a design inference can be rationally made; hence the term complex specified information. See this web page where he admits that chance can generate complex (albeit unspecified) information.

I have found a creationist source that comes at least close to contradicting claim. Gary Parker's section in What is Creation Science? describes creation science applied to biology--which is apparently just intelligent design theory (as he describes it). In it he notes that creation does not argue from design per se, but the kind of design we observe. He notes that some things (e.g. a snowflake) can be brought about naturally (page 46), but other things (as airplanes) cannot. Snowflakes have some complexity, so this seems to be a counterexample this alleged ID claim. Another one might be this web page which also cites snowflakes for an example. So it seems, according to ID, that some kinds of complexity can be made naturally but others cannot. If so, the claim that the fundamental assumption of ID is that “every complex object requires a designer” is false.

This “fundamental assumption” appears to be original research of the straw man kind. I request an authoritative citation of this alleged assumption be given. If none can be provided, it seems prudent to remove it from the Misplaced Pages entry. Wade A. Tisthammer 01:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

A more accurate statement is "the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that a designer is needed for every irreducibly complex object." Thanks for catching that. FeloniousMonk 01:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

ID in the news today involving a Catholic Cardinal

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051120/sc_nm/religion_evolution_cardinal_dc&printer=1;_ylt=AoIPzXnuBad2an5f.H9w1mUiANEA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

KAJ 02:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Categories:

Misplaced Pages