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 00:39, 8 December 2005 editJim62sch (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers23,810 edits →"not all proponents are religious" needs an example ← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:10, 8 December 2005 edit undoJim62sch (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers23,810 edits →Suspected Original Research (again)Next edit →
Line 1,902:		Line 1,902:

	Tacitly by implication in my opinion but the main question is, let's stop this. Let's have the most accurate citation presented now, and let's confirm it is appropriate. If not, the line goes. If accurate, the line stays. End of story ] 20:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)		Tacitly by implication in my opinion but the main question is, let's stop this. Let's have the most accurate citation presented now, and let's confirm it is appropriate. If not, the line goes. If accurate, the line stays. End of story ] 20:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

			Will any of this nonsense ever end? Wade writes and writes and writes and says the same (no)thing the same way sideways 200 times over. The never-ending requests for citations have been supplied and then rejected more times than a millipede could count on its feet. The terms specious and spurious seem to have no meaning as the same specious, spurious arguments keep spawning themselves in a continual stream of slightly revised and reworded drivel. Thus the objection of "not this again" is valid.

			'''''That''''', is the end of the story.

			] 01:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

	==Content moved from the article==		==Content moved from the article==

Revision as of 01:10, 8 December 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.

Recap

Concerning Wade A. Tisthammer's suggestion that the article incorrectly claims that ID must (by its own reasoning) imply a Irreducibly Complex designer.

Let's recap something here from the discussion on this page: Please stop claiming that your "request was denied." Here is the order of events as I have seen it (massively paraphrased):

Wade asks "where did you get this idea?"
Several editors post cites from Dembski, Behe, Dennett, Dawkins.
Wade complains that the precise wording doesn't exist in the cites.
Wade repeats his questions, adding "My request was denied."

Here is the order of events if your request had actually been denied:

Wade asks "where did you get this idea?"
Several editors post responses saying Wade doesn't matter, and they refuse to discuss the matter.

Now, if you want a quote, which involves the precise wording, go to WikiQuote. This is Misplaced Pages, where summary is by and large the method used. I currently am trying very hard to have a productive discourse with you regarding Irreducible complexity, which has several definitions which contradict each other. If we ever get anywhere, we may have something of value to add to this article, or the Irreducible complexity article, or both. It may even transpire that we will find that the sentence you have such difficulty accepting is inaccurate, based on the definition of IC. But, you spend more of your time making a vaugue and innacurate general accusation against the editors on this page at large, that your "request was denied." Please cease. This horse is past dead, it is bones. Stop beating it. KillerChihuahua 00:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's first get it straight what my request actually was. The argument: the intelligent designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning. My request: please give a citation of a prominent ID opponent who makes this argument (to ensure that this argument is not original research. My request was denied. There were no citations given to meet my request. Let's take one of the provided citations as an example:

"If complex organisms demand an explanation, so does a complex designer. And it's no solution to raise the theologian's plea that God (or the Intelligent Designer) is simply immune to the normal demands of scientific explanation. To do so would be to shoot yourself in the foot."

If the phrasing were "Critics argue that the designer must itself be complex" I would have no objection. But this isn't the argument under discussion. The argument is "by Intelligent Design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex." And the citation here doesn't contain that argument under discussion. The citation does not even mention irreducible complexity, nor does it claim that the designer must be irreducibly complex, nor does it say that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning, nor does it even say that the designer has to have any kind of complexity by intelligent design's own reasoning. This citation does not meet my request of a prominent ID adherent claiming that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning. Is it clear now that my request was denied? --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Wade,

KC raises very good points, logical ones even, ones that need no bleeding citations. As for the reply to her points I say, "Yawn".

Jim62sch 01:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Wade, stating a series of very specific and ridiculously narrow set of criteria for a cite and then claiming that since the cites offered don't meet your criteria is proof that your request was "denied" is a very good example of a setup. Your request for cites was not "denied" - your criteria for what you will accept is absurd. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 01:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

One of my criteria was that the citation actually contain the argument I suspect was original research. Do you find this to be a "ridiculously narrow" requirement? If so, I would like to see a good explanation why. Was my request for a prominent ID opponent making the argument "ridiculously narrow" given what I said above regarding Misplaced Pages policy? I would like to see a good explanation why. Why is my request for a leading ID opponent who makes the argument (to ensure the argument is not original research) absurd? I would like to see a good explanation why. --Wade A. Tisthammer 04:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention out of step with WP:V and WP:RS, which provide the only criteria editors need to meet. FeloniousMonk 01:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to see a good explanation why you think my request was out of step with WP:V and WP:RS. Felonious, earlier you said my idea of a suitable citation in line with Misplaced Pages policy. When I asked for an explanation you refused to give any. With all due respect, I think some sort of explanation is needed in accusations like these. BTW, that's not the only criteria editors need to meet methinks. There also appears to be some criteria listed in here (see above where I cited them). --Wade A. Tisthammer 04:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I think KC explains the issue to you above accurately and sufficiently as to why your personal criteria for what constitutes acceptable evidence is not getting much traction. I merely pointed out that there are established policies and guidelines at Misplaced Pages for what constitutes sufficient support that the rest of us do our best to adhere to. I've never meant to say your idea of what is a suitable citation in line with Misplaced Pages policy. If it read that way, it was one of my many typos. It has always been my position that from what I've seen your personal idea of what are adequate supporting citations has always been out of step with Misplaced Pages's policies and something that needs to change. Also, please don't split up other's comments by replying to each out of order, it makes it very difficult to follow a thread. FeloniousMonk 04:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Felonious, neither you nor KC has given me any explanation why my criteria are "ridiculously narrow" especially after what I cited regarding Misplaced Pages policy above. You said that my "personal idea of what are adequate supporting citations has always been out of step with Misplaced Pages's policies" and again I'd like to see some explanation why. I don't think you can make accusations like this without justification and without explanation, particularly regarding my citation of Misplaced Pages policy above to support the reasonableness of my request for the citations. --Wade A. Tisthammer 04:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

You insist that there be a single cite which must use the precise words "irreducibly complex" rejecting out of hand any cite which is clearly speaking of the ID concept of IC if it does not use the precise words you chose
You insist that the cite must be from a "leading ID opponent" which is against WP policy even if you defined who you'd accept (and since you haven't accepted Dawkins I don't know who you'd think qualified)
You ignore that most scientists aren't ID "opponents", considering the issue to be a matter of sense vs. nonsense, not two competing "theories"
You ignore that no "leading ID opponent" uses the term "irreducibly complex" except to dismiss it as "nonsense"

All of which adds up to: scientists avoid the term "irreducibly complex", since that is an ID proponent term, not an ID opponent term, thus your very narrow and unreasonable requirements ensure that it will be virtually impossible to find a cite which satisfies you. If that were not enough, you don't specify what you mean by "leading ID opponent" which probably isn't germaine anyway as WP policy is authoritative sources, period. Not proponents or opponents of any fad whatsoever. Dennett throroughly debunks the idea of a designer, but he refers to any supernatural explanation as a "skyhook" which I am going to guess would be rejected by you because "the word 'designer' wasn't even mentioned!" completely ignoring that it is clear what Dennett is talking about. In spite of your near-constant mention of WP:CITE, it nowhere states that citations must use the precise language of an opinion they consider to be idiotic nonsense. That is like trying to find a quote from Gandhi with a specific "hate phrase" - he spoke against hate and violence, and rarely used their phrases.

Does this clarify anything for you at all? KillerChihuahua 10:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Partially. I'd be interested in knowing why you don't think accuracy is important. The argument says that the designer must possess a specific kind of complexity. There is a significant difference between the designer being irreducibly complex and the designer merely being complex, especially as it applies to this argument. (Remember, if you changed the viewpoint to "Critics argue that the designer must be complex" I would have no objection.) So it's perfectly acceptable that the citation say that the designer possess this kind of complexity. Let me give you an example. Suppose I put forth a claim that a certain leaf is purple. You grant that the leaf exists but ask for a citation regarding this specific color. But the citation I provide merely says that the leaf has a color. This would not be an acceptable citation because it doesn't address the matter at hand. If you don't think that precision and accuracy is important here, would you object to changing the argument from "the designer must be irreducibly complex" to "the designer must be complex"? I suspect you would object, because you yourself believe the "precise words" (i.e. the kind of complexity being referred to) is important. Let's not get hypocritical.

You claimed that my request from a leading ID opponent is against WP. It appears I must go over the issue yet again. The claim: that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning. The Misplaced Pages entry states “critics argue” this. Do they? Is this viewpoint a majority, significant minority, or extremely small minority? Looking at Misplaced Pages policy

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

My request was simple: a citation of any prominent ID adherent who makes this argument to show that the argument is not original research (I doubt one would find it in commonly accepted reference texts, but this would be acceptable too I suppose). This request has been repeatedly denied. Not one of the proposed citations met my request; not one of them consisted of a leading ID opponent claiming that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning. Indeed, many of the citations didn't even mention irreducible complexity! One cannot just throw citations willy-nilly and claim the problem of finding a suitable citation has been solved. The citations have to be relevant to the matter at hand. Given Misplaced Pages policy above, I would like you explain why my request is "unreasonable" and "narrow."

Dawkins does qualify as a prominent ID opponent, unfortunately the citation never mentioned the argument under discussion. Dawkins doesn't even mention irreducible complexity, doesn't say that the designer has to be irreducibly complex, doesn't say that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning or even say that the designer has to have any kind of complexity by intelligent design's own reasoning. This goes far beyond not having the "precise words," it doesn't even remotely paraphrase the claim under discussion.

The next item on the list said that most scientists aren't ID opponents. Is this true? I was aware that most scientists are currently against ID. I do not believe that ID has gained majority acceptance yet.

Many prominent ID opponents use the term "irreducibly complex" particularly when attacking ID (as the anti-ID argument under discussion certainly does). Yet you cannot provide a single citation of any prominent ID opponent claiming that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning. Doesn't this suggest that the claim might indeed be original research? And even if you don't think so, note that you're still required to provide a citation if you want this viewpoint to stay in the Misplaced Pages entry. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes, rhetoric is best understood by reading between the lines rather than by looking for definitive statements.

Jim62sch 01:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Subheader

Wade, I for one would really appreciate it if you would stop mis-characterizing your refusal to accept any offered cites, or quotes, offered as basis for content as "This request was denied." KillerChihuahua 19:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua, let's recap what my request actually was. I requested a citation of a leading ID opponent making the argument (that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning). This request was, I think, quite reasonable (see above regarding Misplaced Pages policy). Yet this request was denied. Citations were given, but none of them were of a prominent ID opponent making the argument; e.g. claiming the designer was complex but not even mentioning irreducible complexity, nor claiming that the designer had to be irreducibly complex, nor claiming that the designer had to be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning. I for one would really appreciate my request being granted instead of people pretending it was. Otherwise, I think I am quite accurate in claiming that "This request was denied." --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a lifeform could have evolved to a point where it would be capable of designing irreducibly complex structures, while still being reducibly complex itself?

Alternatively, are you suggesting a supernatural entity might not abide by natural laws, and thus be neither complex nor simple? -- Ec5618 20:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Both are possibilities. Humans are not irreducibly complex, for instance, since they can survive without an appendix (though it is disputed whether or not certain components in the human body, e.g. blood-clotting, are irreducibly complex; yet Behe himself says that perhaps the designers are life forms very different from our own, not requiring irreducibly complex structures to sustain their existence in page 249 of Darwin's Black Box). So if human-like entities were to create an irreducibly complex system (say, a mousetrap) this would be a counterexample of a reducibly complex designer creating an irreducibly complex structure. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Behe applies his IC argument to biological structures, not entire organisms. Any reasoning that flows from from applying it to entire organisims is original research. FeloniousMonk 20:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Really? Then the argument "by intelligent design's own reasoning, designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex" is original research and should be removed. Or if you meant that "by intelligent design's own reasoning..." the designer must possess irreducibly complex biological structures, then would it be prudent to point out that Behe--the leading ID proponent of irreducible complexity himself--claims it's possible for the designer to not require irreducibly complex structures to sustain it (in page 249 in Darwin's Black Box)? Note that I can cite Behe, so this is not original research, whereas you have absolutely no citations of a leading ID opponent making such arguments, despite my repeated requests. --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Stay with me here. We don't need this. -- Ec5618 21:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right Ec. --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not humans are irriducibly complex is not relevant. Your basic point is then that a reducibly complex structure might be capable of producing irreducible complexity.

This might technically be true. Obviously, if irreducible complexity is fundamentally unprovable (and no-one has yet been able to create or suggest a scientific way to test IC) this assertion is fundamentally unprovable as well.

Still, you may have a point. Guys?

If IC could exist, which is the basic premice of this article, then, even if we assume humans are not IC, it must be conceivable that we might be able to construct an IC object or system. Which would invalidate the claim that 'the designer of a IC system must be IC itself'. -- Ec5618 21:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

My basic point is that it might be possible for an organism who does not possess irreducibly complex biological structures to create something irreducibly complex (as Behe himself admits in Darwin's Black Box). It isn't the case that IC is untestable. Indeed, many ID opponents even say that IC has failed such tests. If you want to prove that a given system is not IC, simply point to a component that can be removed that doesn't stop the system from functioning (some claim this has been done with the blood-cascade).

I've seen some anti-creationists make a similar mistake (to the ire of other anti-creationists) claiming that creationism is untestable and non-falsifiable, whereas other anti-creationists enthusiastically claim that the creationism is not only testable but fails empirical tests miserably, having mountains of evidence against their claims (regarding the age of the Earth etc.). Claiming that a theory is untestable robs one the power to attack it with evidence. One cannot consistently claim that the theory is both non-falsifiable and has been refuted with evidence. We certainly don’t want to have the inconsistent attitude of “The claims of intelligent design theory are untestable and not falsifiable. Coming up next, demonstrating the falsehood of intelligent design theory’s claims.” (Come to think of it, that kind of inconsistency seems present in the Misplaced Pages entry.) --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Strictly speaking that's true, in the interests of thoroughness though consider that Dembski refers to an "irreducible core" of a "functionally integrated system." - which unless I'm misunderstanding this can be read to mean that any integrated system which contains a "core" which meets Behe's "irreducibly complex" description, then that system can be (loosely) considered irreducibly complex, or at least irreducibly complex-related. In other words, if you take out the appendix the person can function, but what about the blood clotting factors? They are one of Behe's "irreducibly complex" examples, are they not? So since a human requires blood clotting factors to function, then the human is an "irreducibly complex system" per Dembski. Or is this a misunderstanding on my part, or is Dembski's description irrelevant? KillerChihuahua 21:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It's difficult for me to tell without seeing Dembski's quote. But I can give you one piece of advice: when it comes to ID and irreducible complexity, I think it's best to stick with what the leading ID proponent of irreducible complexity himself says. We're more likely to get the actual views from the horse's mouth (even IDers can misunderstand fellow IDers). And again, it should be noted that even Behe claims it’s possible for the designer not to possess irreducibly complex structures to sustain it (page 249 of Darwin’s Black Box). --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Here: KillerChihuahua 21:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

See especially the paragraph which begins "A functional system is irreducibly complex if it contains a multipart subsystem (i.e., a set of two or more interrelated parts) that cannot be simplified without destroying the system’s basic function." KillerChihuahua 21:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I suppose it depends on what Dembski means by "simplifies." If by that he means the simple removal of a part (as he apparently defines it elsewhere, e.g. here) his description would match Behe's, otherwise (as does appear to be the case with the later text) I suspect not. Given the other text, it seems that humans are not irreducibly complex, since it is possible to design a simpler organism that performs the survival function. --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: in other cases the article seems to switch back to Behe's definition then forward to Dembski’s, so now I'm uncertain. Still, it may be worthwhile reading it, particularly the "argument from irreducible complexity" as it may allow people to better understand the actual ID position (Dembski clears up some misunderstandings). It also mentions how ID could be refuted. --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The actual ID position shifts like snow drifts in a swirling wind. It would be much easier to take ID seriously, or at least be able to stomach it, if it didn't reinvent itself every five minutes.

As for refuting ID, I think most of us have figured that out: one cannot introduce a non-provable entity into a scientific argument. Sorry, but it really is that simple.

Jim62sch 02:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

This is all besides the point. We don't have to work out whether humans are IC or not, or whether a non-irreducibly complex designer is possible or not (although validating the latter as a theoretical possibility may help to show the difference between the complexity and IC and thus resolve this impass).

Rightly or wrongly ID sees a critical difference between complexity and irreducible complexity (which is the crux of ID), and does not deny the possibility of non-irreducibly complex evolution. The statement under question in the article misleads the reader into believing that critics argue that by ID's own reasoning, a designer must be irreducibly complex. Certainly, so far we have not seen a citation to that effect. This is an objection to the italicised concepts and thus needs a citation including those concepts, or the statement should be changed to "Critics argue that a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be complex". That's all we're asking for! ant 04:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Removing my own sarcasm. KillerChihuahua 11:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Actully, KC, I didn't find it sarcastic at all, it is factually accurate and is a good proposal("...If you and Wade still aren't satisfied with the quotes, can we replace it with "Critics argue that a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be complex. According to Intelligent design, that designer could have evolved in Darwinian fashion, with no designer at all needed." ") The article itself already states in another place that ID allows for Raelian ideas that aliens developed life on this planet. I think it's great, and am sure it satisfies Wade's objections as to original research, so go ahead. ant 13:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Where does an ID proponent explicitly (and seriously) say that the designer evolved through a Darwinian process? (Behe, in addition to claiming astrology was science, has recently claimed that it could be time travellers). If not, that is original research by you. All the IDists've said is that the designer has "a different type of complexity", plus the usual handwaving. They won't do this of course since claiming that God is attributal to a process that they've disparaged and don't like for its supposed moral implications is blasphemy. Jay Richards and Guillamo Gonzalez came up with:

A final common objection is: Who designed the designer? This is generally offered as a knockdown argument sure to stop design theorists in their tracks. But if taken seriously, it would have Alice-in-Wonderland consequences. For example, Stonehenge looks like someone built it, but who built the builder? And what about the unknown author of the Gilgamesh epic? Who authored the author? We don't know. Should we, therefore, refuse to infer design?

umm, logic or handwaving? — Dunc|☺ 14:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me like waving a dead chicken. Eventually, I'll figure out the reference to Alice in Wonderland, non sequitur that it is. (I might need chemical help, though).

The example offered by Richards' and Gonzalez' does manage to point out what I've said all along (see other posts) about ID, religion and anthropomorphosis. "If I build, then I must've been built (by something)." However, from a logical standpoint this assertion is false as there is no reason to assume a designer. The best one could do logically is to assert that “I might have been built”. However, “might” does not magically mutate into “must” or “could not have been”.

Jim62sch 00:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Religious views on ID

Vatican official astronomer sayd ID is not science and does not belong in science classrooms http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051118.wvati1118/BNStory/International/

and a version which doesn't require paying $16.00 to access: Yahoo news or ABC news KillerChihuahua 14:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Irreducibly complex

I still have not located the article (still looking, though) where I saw at least 4 different definitions of IC given by Behe and Dembski. However, I have located these, which may help:

Irreducible Complexity 3 definitions: Behe's original, Dembskis, and Behe's "Evolutionary" definition. From the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design.
ID's irreducible inconsistency revisited a new definition of IC given by Dembski, contradicting his earlier definition, from TalkReason.
Definitional complexity from EvoWiki.

Which at any rate shows there is some modification of, and disagreement of, the definition of IC. KillerChihuahua 13:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but largely needs to be fenced off into the irreducible complexity page which apart from not being good on the definitions, includes examples that Behe doesn't think are IC, but which Gish (etc) do. — Dunc|☺ 14:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Good point, I was looking for a ref I mentioned to Wade, but they might want this over at the IC page... taking it there now. KillerChihuahua 14:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Irreducible complexity of elementary particles

Are there any articles on the irreducible complexity of quarks, photons etc.? Can some ID supporter provide me with a link? --ChadThomson 04:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Why does an article on quarks, leptons, W-bosons, muons, etc., need to be provided by an ID supporter? In any case, as I point out in my almost completed essay, no one has put theoretical physics into the same boat as evolution yet.

If you really want to learn about sub-subatomic particles (of which a photon is not one), I would suggest that you avail yourself of A Brief History of Time and The Universe in a Nutshell (both by Stephen Hawking), Hyperspace and Parallel Worlds (both by Michio Kaku) and The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene.

Jim62sch 11:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't recall saying that photons are sub-atomic particles. I hope no one thought "Gee Chad is stupid; he thinks photons are sub-atomic particles. Way to go Jim!"

I'm really hoping this essay is NPOV. I'm assuming what you meant by people "stupefying" their brains with ID was that the idea is stupid. I don't think that's too NPOV and I hope such childish antics aren'tisn't even hinted at in the essay. What's truly stupefying is that you don't seem to know what "stupefy" means. Can someone really "stupefy" their brain? Well you've stupefied mine. --ChadThomson 11:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Chad, what does any of this have to do with improving the ID article? Please take your physics questions to a library or a physics forum. This page is for discussion related to improving the article. Further, your making personal attacks against people who offer useful answers (the books Jim62sch mentioned are all very good) is not only not productive, it is trolling. KillerChihuahua 12:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Chad,

KC raises very good points. Additionally, your continuing belligerence and regurgitation of previous posts is becoming quite tiresome. And yes, my good man, I know what stupefy means; in fact, its oldest meaning is "to make stupid", thus a reflexive use of the word presents no problems syntactically or logically. While you're at the library looking up the physics books I mentioned, check out the OED.

In any case, KC is correct, the purpose here is to discuss ID, and to look at the article carefully and skeptically, i.e., in the best tradition of science. And that is precisely what my essay does. (Whether or not you find any of it to be "childish" is of no concern as methinks thou art the wrong person to be the arbiter of what constitutes childishness.) In any case, the essay provides a very straight-forward and logical progression in getting to its main points. In fact, one might even say that it evolves with each paragraph.

Jim62sch 12:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Jim, when you say no one has put theoretical physics into the same boat as evolution yet, aren't you forgetting about Behe's enthusiasm for the big bang, and of course the theory of Intelligent Falling...dave souza 20:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Dave,

You have a point. I should instead have noted that the general populace (or at least that small portion believing in ID) hasn't put it in the same boat, probably because it poses no threat. Evolution is seen as bringing a de facto death to the divine spirit that allegedly lurks in humans, but the big bang is safe. This is likely to change when people realize that the current inflationary trend in the universe calls for a death of life by the Big Cold (my term, no one needs to look it up or seek citations). Of course, the Earth will have been incinerated by the sun long before that, but somehow an absolute end always scares the fecal matter out of people.

As for IF, I always feel as if I'm being crushed by an unseen force. :)

Jim62sch 00:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

<HUMOR>silly people - IF and FSM are myths! The truth is out there if you only seek!</HUMOR> KillerChihuahua 00:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

ID and evolution

What scientific theory or theories is intelligent design in opposition to? And what topic does intelligent design make an argument about?

I thought that ID examined the topic of evolution, specifically "biological evolution" (which redirects to Evolution). I wonder why, then, FM would revert my change to the intro? Uncle Ed 00:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Ostensibly, ID seeks to disprove the modern evolutionary synthesis, what ID proponents term "Darwinism", and to prove design. The subtext of ID is to unseat materalism. FeloniousMonk 00:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with all 3 parts of that, FM. I just don't understand why you'd revert my intro change. (More below). Uncle Ed 00:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Because it was incorrect - ID posits no "approach to biological evolution" - ID is already accurately and sufficiently described in the intro using it's own terms. Lastly because your change flouted the longstanding definition reached by consensus. FeloniousMonk 00:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

In the words of Steven Weinberg, a Nobel Prize winning physicist and renowned atheist, a man whom ID-ists like to note once said that he "admired" Phillip Johnson (an ID founding father (designer?)), “Even though their arguments did not invoke religion, I think we all know what's behind these arguments. They're trying to protect religious beliefs from contradiction by science. They used to do it by prohibiting teachers from teaching evolution at all; then they wanted to teach intelligent design as an alternative theory; now they want the supposed "weaknesses" in evolution pointed out. But it's all the same program -- it's all an attempt to let religious ideas determine what is taught in science courses.”

Jim62sch 00:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Jim, that sounds about right, too. And if what my co-religionist Jon Wells says is any guide, there is a hefty battle preparing between religion and science.

But I don't agree with Wells just because he's in the same church as me. There are factions, sad to say, even in a church with less than 6,000 adult members in the U.S.

My approach is different from his: I believe in science and in religion equally. I'm looking for what they both say that is true. Religion has been around a long time, but that's no guarantee that any particular doctrine is correct. Science, well except for chemistry and physics, it's barely out of its infancy: look at medicine, only 150 years ago there was no germ theory of disease. And climate science was teaching a new ice age not 40 years ago, only to turn around and preach global warming.

Anyway, now that you know what POV I endorse, the question before us is how we can cooperate to craft unbiased, accurate articles about the encounter between religious believers and scientists / science supporters.

I want the ID article to express precisely what the differences are between Intelligent Design and the most common scientific theories about biological evolution. Some ID proponents say that "guidance" and "evolution" are incompatible; some "evolution" supporters say that evolution is an "unguided, unplanned process" which nevertheless is compatible with mainstream religious views. Is all this accurate? Uncle Ed 01:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, I would say the article the differences are between ID and evolution sufficiently already. FeloniousMonk 01:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It would be nice for ID proponents to actually SAY what ID is, instead of just incredulity arguments against evolution. AFAIK, ID makes no positive explanations regarding the biodiversity of life on Earth. Why do we find a biostratified fossil layer? Why is there a nested hierarchy of species? Why are there homologies? Why are there a limited number of phylogenetic trees based on comparative analyses of comparative morphologies, genetics and the aformentioned fossil layer? A theory requires more than saying that we can apply explanatory filters that can "reliably" point toward intelligence. You have to say HOW that intelligence works in the place of variation and natural selection. --JPotter 17:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Revert explanation

The intro was changed to say "Intelligent Design (ID) is an approach to biological evolution which argues...", which I reverted. I'm not certain how ID could be construed as an approach to biological evolution, since as I understand it it seeks to refute it. Regardless if someone believes in scientific explanations, religious explanations, or both, that doesn't make sense to me. Thoughts? — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I reverted Ed's mistaken description once too. FeloniousMonk 00:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you reverted the description. ID seeks not to expand upon biological evolution but to bury it.

Jim62sch 00:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, the "approach" they take to evolution is that, while the "facts" of evolution might be correct (in that new forms of life gradually appeared), the "theory" of evolution as being guided only by natural selection is unsatisfying.

I think the destruction that Wells and company have in mind is the notion of unguided evolution, i.e., evolution not guided by God. Isn't their argument something like (1) evolution requires intelligent guidance; (2) only a near-omnipotent supernatural being could have guided evolution; therefore (3) evolutionary materialism is impossible, and God must exist?

Not that I'm asking WP to endorse this argument: far from it, this is textbook example of a Misplaced Pages:POV. But recall that NPOV requires clear, accurate and fair descriptions of all significants POVs relevant to a controversial topic. Uncle Ed 03:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I applaud. This article seems to have been written by people with an anti-ID point-of-view. There is no objectivity. They seem to have not read about ID from actual ID materials (but rather from anti-ID materials and the press), hence the assertation that ID's goal is to "bury" evolution. --ChadThomson 07:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

There's no shortage of evidence that a goal of ID is to unseat evolution:

"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 ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng 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."

That's just one of many quotes from the leading ID proponents. The assertion that ID's goal to unseat evolution is exceptionally well-supported. FeloniousMonk 17:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm telling you guys, you are treating it as a movement here not as a concept. You always talk about "their approach" and what "they seek to do" and "their goals," "their argument" if you can't separate the concept from the proponents how can you possibly write objectively about the concept? Obviously they are not separate in your heads. --Ben 19:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

In fairness, it is a movement. And a concept. Regards, Ben Aveling 19:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

True, it is a movement, but there's a separate article for that. This article is about the assertion itself. I do think that if the idea stinks scientifically it will die on its own merits or lack of thereof, there's no need to attack it indirectly by attacking the movement in the same page; and if a bad movement has a valid idea, it is neutral and fair to let the idea stand on its own merits but expose the movement for what it is. By all means nail the IDers for promoting creationism if that's their game, but at least review the concepts of ID on its own merits.

Secondly, I agree with FeloniousMonk and Jim, ID and the theory of evolution are antithetical explanations of the development of life, therefore ID cannot be an approach to evolution.

I understand what you mean by evolution in your context, Uncle Ed, that life appeared in increasingly complex stages. However, it confuses the term evolution to use it in this way, since it also embodies the concept that each stage actively transformed (evolved) into the next stage, whereas ID implies that in one or more areas passive external modification occurred and has nothing to say on the 'evolving' aspects. ant 02:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

FM, you don't seriously think that quote is talking about evolution? It's talking about materialistic naturalism. Materialistic naturalism is the Evolution movement, so to speak. It's not evolution. As for Ant, first of all, ID doesn't imply passive external modification, but rather active (hence design). Moreover, if I say, my opinion of the world around me is constantly "evolving", it doesn't mean that the process is completely internal to me with no outside influence. Of course, it's very handy to say that evolution in the biological sense intrinsically excludes outside influence, but I'm sure that you'll have trouble providing a peer-reviewed article that says this. This definition of evolution has only arisen in conflicts between people who believe in a creator and people who don't. In the scientific community it just would never come up. So I disagree, bare-bones evolution can accomodate ID. But I must say that the ID movement and the Evolution movement are mutually exclusive on most points. --ChadThomson 05:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair correction, I was unclear and incorrect, thank you. ant 13:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

"Materialistic naturalism"? Reminds me of the videos I've seen of the old days when the "Evil Empire" controlled a large portion of Europe, when Materialistic Atheistic Red Fascistic Communism" was the bugaboo of civilized society. It's one of those terms like "Tax-and-spend Liberal" that have no value other than to try to demean the philosophy the are attacking.

Anyway, would you care to provide an example of what "non-materialistic naturalism" might be? After all, I'm guessing that you're into Manichaean dichotomies, so I'd be very interested in your answer.

Jim62sch 00:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Aristotle, for one, held to a non-materialistic naturalism. Materialism is the metaphysical assertion that all of reality consists of mere matter. Naturalism is a system of thought that says all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes. The modern uses of the terms do overlap somewhat, but are often found used together, and are commonly accepted by both materialists and non-materialists. SanchoPanza 22:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

While you are correct regarding Aristotle, the ID/religious definition of "Materialistic Naturalism" is unrelated to Aristotle.

Jim62sch 01:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't aware there was an ID/religious definition of materialistic naturalism. How are they using the phrase differently? SanchoPanza 02:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's just say that materialistic receives heightened emphasis and is meant to be synonymous with atheism. That's essentially the point of the religious anti-evolutionist's progression: Evolution = Darwinism = Materialistic Naturalism = Atheism. Think of it as being used in the same manner as the ever-popular "Bleeding Heart Liberal" tag. The purpose for using the phrase is not to strive for accuracy, but to attempt to tear down the arguments of a discipline, group or person.

Jim62sch 10:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Essay: In Principio Creavit Homo Deos -- Pt I

See personal essay at User:Jim62sch/essay01

This is wonderful, and obviously a great deal of work. I hope you don't take it amiss if I suggest that it might be better placed on your talk page, or a sub of your talk page, rather than on the Intelligent design talk page. KillerChihuahua 01:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. :) If I had a talk page, I'd put it there. I haven't had the time to set up a page (or even a bio).

Jim62sch 02:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Are we allowed to edit it, to fix spelling/syntax and or factual errors? -- Ec5618 09:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District_trial_documents

12 As Professor Behe testified, there are no
13 peer-reviewed articles in science journals reporting
14 original research or data that argue for intelligent
15 design. By contrast, Kevin Padian, by himself, has
16 written more than a hundred peer-reviewed scientific
17 articles.
18 Professor Behe's only response to the
19 intelligent design movement's lack of production was
20 repeated references to his own book, Darwin's Black
21 Box. He was surprised to find out that one of his
22 purported peer-reviewers wrote an article that
23 revealed he had not even read the book.

Closing statements (Pg. 47) - Roy Boy 18:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Watchmaker Analogy

In what way is pointing out that ID is a continuation of the exact same pro-creation argument going back to the Romans a major change? I think it is a major and important point for the context of the page. And when did 2 people become "consensus", particularly when 2 people support the change (myself and Johann Wolfgang)?213.78.235.176

It's a perfectly acceptable point to be made in the article, just not in the intro, that's all. The intro is where the term/concept is defined and the two viewpoints outlined. The historical background of the argument is better placed in the "Origins of the concept" section IMO. I see that it's not mentioned there, so congrats on adding something new to the article. FeloniousMonk 02:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I would agree that it makes the intro long, but I do think it's a good place for it given that the Watchmaker Analogy is so well known and can form a "hook" for people recognise the issues quickly, which surely is part of the idea of an introduction? 213.78.235.176 02:45, 30 november 2005 (UTC)

I didn't consider using it as "hook," which is an interesting thought. But I think for an encyclopedic article we should stick to the guidelines for intros, one of which says an intro should be "a concise paragraph defining the topic at hand and mentioning the most important points. The reader should be able to get a good overview by only reading this first paragraph." As good of a point as yours is, it's not one of the most important or central to understanding ID, I think. What ID is, how proponents define it and what they say it does, and how the scientific community receives it are the necessary bits in the intro, at least in my view. Others are sure to disagree... FeloniousMonk 02:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, try that. I'm off to bed so if you don't like it you'll have to fix it yourself! 213.78.235.176 03:28 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Did someone else add 213.78.235.176's Watchmaker Analogy content to the article? I thought I saw it. If not, I will. FeloniousMonk 18:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, .176 did it - see ] edit titled " 03:24, 30 November 2005 213.78.235.176 (?Origins of the concept - More discussion of ID's context) " KillerChihuahua 18:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

general design theory

People consciously design such things as houses, chairs, meals, gardens, etc. I hoped that this "intelligent design" thing would help me do a better job designing things. I hoped it would somehow be related to the "design science" Buckminster Fuller talked about. Perhaps by describing some way of inspecting a chair (or other designed object) and finding out whether it was intelligently designed, or simply slapped together without much thought. I would find this useful even if it gave nonsensical results for non-designed objects.

The current article claims

The scientific method is based on a methodological assumption of philosophical naturalism to study and explain the natural world,

which seems to imply that the scientific method cannot be used to "study and explain" unnatural objects such as chairs and rockets.

Well, OK, that's fine -- I can study and explain those things under the heading of "engineering" and "crafts" and "art". Does this really lead to the conclusion that "analyzing how chairs are designed" is "unscientific", although "artistic"? --DavidCary 04:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

"The scientific explanation" as quoted was no doubt written as it was because we are discussing the natural world, not chairs and rockets. Ever heard of Rocket Science?

Jim62sch 00:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: Engineering degrees are Bachelors of Science, so anything involving engineering in the context mentioned by David Carey is considered a science.

Jim62sch 22:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Repeated objections and ignoring of consensus

Guettarda asked a very relevant question here earlier with "Regarding the whole "original research" thing, citations were offered, but were either not acknowledged or dismissed... What are we supposed to do with people who ask questions, and when the questions are answered just repeat the question?" I think today, not mention the last three weeks, prove that this is pressing question here. The talk page is dominated by repeated objections from several who constantly reject all answers and evidence as insufficient. Several weeks ago, there was consensus that such behavior was likely not and good faith and was disruptive. The question still stands and I'll put it to you now: What are we supposed to do with people who ask questions, and when the questions are answered just repeat the question? FeloniousMonk 05:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I have an answer: provide relevant citations. For instance, if an individual suspects an argument to be original research, cite a prominent adherent who uses that argument. If such a citation cannot be provided, admit this.

Of course, if one for whatever reason just doesn't want to provide such a citation even after the individual cites relevant Misplaced Pages policy, there is the option of not bringing up the topic again. To bring up the topic again invites rebuttals. --Wade A. Tisthammer 06:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, I didn't mention any names, yet you assume it is you I'm referring to. I wonder why that is? Your response only compounds my point. Please respect consensus and stop raising tendentious and specious objections incessantly. FeloniousMonk 07:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

FM, Wade did not say that he assumed you were referring to him. --ChadThomson 08:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

FM, this is bullying ant 11:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

No ant, the correct way to express this is to say "FM, you are making me feel bullied". Play the ball, not the man. Guettarda 14:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Exactly how is trying to resolve ongoing, long term disruptive behavior by asking for the opinions of others bullying? FeloniousMonk 16:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Felonious, I have another possible solution. Would you consent to mediation? I would like to try that before I resort to arbitration. --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Wade, take a look at the process as outlined on WP:DR.

Quite frankly, were you to "resort to arbitration" your request would be rejected as you have not attempted to resolve this via other means. Rfc comes before arbitration, and almost always before Mediation. KillerChihuahua 21:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Hence my request for mediation before I resorted to arbitration. If you wish we can do an Rfc first. I have no experience in doing an Rfc, but I'll see what I can do. --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I advise you not act in haste. I don't advise you go for an Rfc, either. KillerChihuahua 21:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Then with all due respect, what do you advise? We've been discussing the issue in the talk pages for a while now. --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Wade, your basic point is still that a reducibly complex structure might be capable of producing irreducible complexity.

This might technically be true. If IC could exist, which is one of the basic premices of this article, then, even if we assume humans are not IC, it must be conceivable that we might be able to construct an IC object or system. Which would invalidate the claim that 'the designer of a IC system must be IC itself'.

Also, if intelligent life could design new life, that life would be intelligently designed, without the need for supernatural intervention. Therefore, intelligent design needn't require a supernatural entity, though the ID movement (and perhaps capitalised ID) clearly strictly believes in a supernatural cause.

Still, even though this article deals with ID (caps), it refers to IC (still a vague concept, to my knowledge, though it was conceived of by a ID proponent). IC suggests, in my interpretation, that specific complex structures could come into being only through intelligence; they could never form through natural selection. It also suggests tests can be devised to distinguish between IC structures and complex structures.

If we treat IC as a vague concept, it does not strictly require the intervention of a supernatural entity. If we treat IC as a specific, (testable?) concept, as specifically proposed by Behe, then the concept may be inherently linked to Behe's interpretation of ID, and to supernatural entities as well.

Still, I'd like to see:

Behe suggesting IC requires a supernatural entity.
the difference between the vague concept and the specific concept clarified.

Am I missing something? Please assume I have seen none of the quotes shown to Wade. -- Ec5618 11:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

1 is inherent in the idea: the so-called designer's only purpose within the theory is to explain the creation of the natural world and must therefore be super-natural, unless it is assumed that he/she/it has evolved in some way which is a rather unreasonable position from which to argue that the real world is too complex to have evolved. But then, the whole idea is unreasonable in the literal sense of the word and I'm sure that someone as mealy-mouthed as Bahe would have carefully avoided pointing this out to the fools that listen to him. ID IS simply the assertion that god(s) exist; not mentioning the gods does not change this central point. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and tastes like a duck...213.78.235.176(forgot to sign it, sorry)

That last post was from 213.78.235.176 who is violating wikiquette by not signing his comments. Also, he called me a fool. So there you have it. This may shed light on his credibility. --ChadThomson 12:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

If you accept foolish arguments then what does that make you? Let's call a spade a spade here. Anyway, I was not specifically referring to you. 213.78.235.176

Please use the "unsigned" tag, Chad, ok? I forget myself occasionally. Its not "ignoring Wikiquette" to forget to sign. KillerChihuahua 12:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Mr. IP address I would request that you keep your thoughts on the intelligence of contributors to yourself. It would raise your credibility and might help people to listen to what you say. Generally speaking, I think anyone who believes in God would feel insulted by what you wrote. Insults only alienate, we are trying to arrive at consensus. And also, do the wikipedia community a favour, sign up! As for KC, if you saw an unsigned post saying that you were a fool, what would your reaction be? --ChadThomson 12:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Why would anyone who believes in a god or gods be insulted by what "Mr. IP Adress" said? Aren't true believers supposed to be able to rise above all that? "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." Did you forget that one?

Jim62sch 00:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I still didn't specifically say *you* were a fool, just that anyone that accepts the argument "I don't understand this, therefore god(s) must exist", which is what ID boils down to, is foolish. Also, I have no problem with insulting people who believe in God just as they have no problem insulting athiests. Rational argument is the only credibility I need and the snide remarks are thrown in here for free, since I can't use them in the article itself! As to signing up, I do not live somewhere where I would be happy to use my real name (broken legs and worse could arise from the edits I did to the article on Elizabeth the First - I'm not joking) so an IP address seems as good a pseudonym as any. 213.78.235.176 12:41 30 November 2005

Ok Mr. IP address, I understand. First of all, that's not what ID boils down to. READ ID LITERATURE E.G. DARWIN ON TRIAL. You haven't done that. It has nothing to do with understanding anything. (One of) the argument(s) (true or not) is that some biological structures are too complex to be explained wholly by natural selection. It's not that "we don't understand how that evolved". Of course you'll deny this, but you are not credible for one of two reasons: 1. You have never read the relevant literature by IDists themselves, or 2. You forgot what you read. This whole article is a blatant critique of ID. It should be retitled "Criticisms of Intelligent Design". You are going right along with it.

Secondly, you may have been thinking about people that say "I don't understand this, therefore god(s) must exist" in your post regarding fools , but it certainly appears you were referring to people who listen to that "mealy-mouthed Bahe ". You weren't "specifically" referring to me? Well pretend I see an African American and I say "Blacks are stupid idiots and should be killed." When he says "that's rather hateful", would it be logical for me to say "Well, uh, um, sorry, but, uh, I wasn't referring specifically to you."? That's just ridiculous. And by the way, no one knows killerchihuahua's real name, but it's much easier to communicate with her because she isn't a number. --chad 13:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

First of all, that's not what ID boils down to. Yes it is. The whole argument relies and uses examples of systems which the pro-ID side claim to be "irreducibly complex". Over the centuries this argument has been used again and again and every time the examples have later been shown to be reducible, including most, if not all, of Behe's. Since this has happened so often it is clear that the only thing the examples have ever actually had in common is that they were touted because they were not understood at the time; once they were understood they fell by the way side. Therefore the ID argument has been shown many times to be caused by a lack of understanding rather than any actual characteristic of the universe as a whole. As to insulting people, ID insults everyone - the people who believe such a silly idea and those who spend their time in genuine pursuit of knowledge. 213.78.235.176

You are right about the article being a critique and I feel it is rife with POV which I tried to avoid in my edits, but it is difficult to not write what sounds like POV about what is clearly and obviously a myth which has been disproved over and over and over again. It would be regarded as very POV to say that in the article yet it is the case. The flaw in "noPOV" is that it takes the stance that there is no such thing as fallacy – no idea no matter how cockeyed has no supporters and WP tries not to offend anyone. Yet ID has no more evidence or validity than Holocaust Denial, and I can't see that being defended from the nPOV standpoint. Such are the dangers of political correctness, I guess. 213.78.235.176

No ID argument holds any water in any shape or form and never has. Behe is probably just in it for the money – maybe not but I'd like to think so – but his work is damaging the education of children around the world and as such is a threat to civilised society. We have spent a lot of time and effort to not live in a world of superstition and ignorance and if you don't like the fact that I and others will not stand idly by while someone moves us back on that track in order to sell some books and gain some notoriety then tough luck. 213.78.235.176

This is a deeply important issue. But, I'm happy to have that debate here rather than have revision wars on the article itself. Why not do some editing yourself? Put in the examples of ID arguments which do not boil down to filling gaps in knowledge with magic-pixies, explain why the designer of the entire universe and every living thing should not be interpreted as a supernatural being, tell people why blind spots and excruciating toothache are intelligent designs and not problems we're lumbered with due to the unguided nature of life on Earth. Demonstrate for the reading public why diseases and old age are good ideas which show the hand of a designer. The article text is open to all and I for one would not let it be be just reverted out again (time permitting, offer only applies when awake or caring, this is not a proposal of marrage). 213.78.235.176

And finally: being black or white is not something one does from choice and is not therefore open to critisism in the way that following an empty and futile cause which harms others is. 213.78.235.176 30 November 2005 15:36 (UTC)

Ec, thanks for being so constructive! While I agree with your summary of these issues within the arguments pro- and anti-ID around this point, these are explanatory background and not the editorial point being addressed. However, I'll address them first:

" 1. Behe suggesting IC requires a supernatural entity."

In the pursuance of this topic Wade has supplied a citation by Behe which specifically states that the designer need not be irreducibly complex.

(Note here I believe Behe is speaking of the logical conclusions inherent in the concept itself. In contrast to the more open logical possibilities of the concept itself, he also apparently personally prefers the possibility that the designer is supernatural, as that logical possibility makes the most sense to him. This personal preference of one of the concept's possibilities in no way limits the logical possibilities.)

Note also that Darwinists believe in an undesigned designer which creates irreducibly complex objects: man.

" 2. the difference between the vague concept and the specific concept clarified."

I don't think there are two kinds of IC, a specific IC which logically requires a supernatural element and a vague IC which does not. The essential concept of IC as I understand it is that some existing complex structures have no feasible path of development by chance or physical laws which allows them to remain functional along the way (and therefoe could not for example be naturally selected for).

It is a logical corollary of this concept that not all complex structures are IC, i.e. that some can evolve, and directly inferrable from that that there may logically be evolutionary pathways which can produce intelligent life avoiding irreducible complexity all along the way.

In short, while the concept of IC implies a designer, and obviously a complex one at that, the converse that a designer must be IC is not logically inferrable.

Going back to Wade's point it is simply that the article's statement "Critics have argued that by Intelligent Design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex" appears to be original research, and if so should, I gather, be modified to something like "Critics have argued that a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be complex"

In order to show that it is not original research, a citation has been requested which shows this argument being made by a leading ID opponent as per policy. The citation should conclude that the ID must be irreducibly complex, not just complex, and also attribute the argument as to being by ID's own reasoning or words to that effect.

Many citations have been offered, all of which fail one or more of these points.

It's a pity that this request should have generated so much resistance. While I'm sure it occurred unintentionally by both sides due to a misunderstanding of Wade's point, I still feel that Wade deserves an apology for being accused of wasting time on it as his motivation has been somewhat maligned through the process. ant 13:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Wade's point is specious on it's face. As has been explained to you and Wade many, many times in the past, the article says clearly ID's reasoning, not Behe's. Demanding a cite for Behe having said it is a non sequitur, and one being used in a transparent attempt to bowdlerize the article in my opinion.

One more time for your benefit, The premise of all ID is that complexity implies design. All ID reasoning goes on to assert that a certain sort of complexity, what they call Irreducible Complexity, requires a designer to occur. This is widely recognized as one of ID's central tenets.

Now you can claim as Wade has that Behe says irreducible complexity does not necessarily require a designer. But reading the entire book and not one select quote, what Behe actually argues is that though he cannot exclude irreducible complexity arising without a designer, he believes he's shown that it is it so remote and improbable that a designer is the only reasonable conclusion. Read Darwin's Black Box.

You can try to argue that the statement "by Intelligent Design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex" is original research as ant does here. But in so doing ant ignores the fundamental assumptions of ID: that complexity implies design, and that a designer is needed for every irreducibly complex object. By arguing it's original research, ant is arguing for a logical contradiction. Now if ant is arguing that complexity does not imply design, and that a designer is not needed for every irreducibly complex object, then Behe's out of job, and we can all go home.

In the end, it's obvious to those here well read on the topic and studying it for more than a few years that the real original research is the specious objection that 1) a claim about "ID's reasoning" requires a cite from Behe, 2) and the notion that complexity does not imply design, and that a designer is not needed for every irreducibly complex object by that reasoning.

This hopefully is the last time I have to explain this to ant and Wade. FeloniousMonk 16:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Felonious, you are distracting from the issue, and you are also confusing the tenets of ID with reverse logic.

The statement starts with "Critics have argued that ...", not "ID argues that..." therefore we need the critic who did so, not the ID proponent. Not that it makes much difference, because:
Behe's tenet that irreducible complexity implies a designer is not the same thing in reverse, that the designer must be irreducibly complex! Behe specifically states the opposite, that the designer need not be IC!

Your quote here completely misses the point which needs to be addressed:

"... what Behe actually argues is that though he cannot exclude irreducible complexity arising without a designer, he believes he's shown that it is so remote and improbable that a designer is the only reasonable conclusion"

Yes, yes, IC implies Designer. Agreed, quote then that ID argues that IC implies a designer.

But to answer Wade's objection you need a citation from a leading opponent stating the reverse, that by ID's own reasoning, Designer must be IC.

Do you see it is the other way around? So please stop assuming the IC=>Designer logic justifies the statement in question, and find the citation by a leading ID opponent for the question at hand: Designer itself must be IC.

You say hopefully this is the last time you have to explain this, but with all due respect it is your own lack of understanding which is preventing the consensus. ant 18:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It's a common argument that turns up in many places - attributing it to a single critic is misleading. And, as I pointed out below, that argument is also dealt with in a separate Misplaced Pages article. It's highly misleading for you to suggest that "it is your own lack of understanding which is preventing the consensus. Guettarda 18:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

<"you need a citation from a leading opponent stating the reverse, that by ID's own reasoning, Designer must be IC" ... "please stop assuming the IC=>Designer logic justifies the statement in question, and find the citation by a leading ID opponent for the question at hand: Designer itself must be IC.">

Again, we already have a cite that covers that, number 61: Richard Dawkins: "If complex organisms demand an explanation, so does a complex designer. And it's no solution to raise the theologian's plea that God (or the Intelligent Designer) is simply immune to the normal demands of scientific explanation. To do so would be to shoot yourself in the foot." And Richard Dawkins is a prominent ID critic, BTW.

<"with all due respect it is your own lack of understanding which is preventing the consensus">

Hmmm, two weeks ago ant also wrote here "I've spent no more than an hour or two reading the web about ID for the first time ever" . In contrast, I've been studying ID specifically since it first appeared, over 13 years ago. I own and have read every major book from every significant ID proponent, along with their articles and have attended many of their lectures. I've also read every significant book and article on the topic. I'll let others judge who may have a lack of understanding. FeloniousMonk 18:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Hint: the citation needs to mention the word 'irreducible'. Strike.

As to your ad hominem attack, if I, after so short a time, can show you a fault in your reasoning, that's plain embarrassing to yourself. Let's leave the man out of it and argue the point.

Find a citation by a leading ID opponent as per policy arguing along the lines that by ID's own reasoning the designer must be irreducibly complex. Just one, any one will do. Or simply change the text to remove 'by ID's own reasoning' and 'irreducibly'.

FM, this is really basic. ant 19:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Felonious, you can read many books written by intelligent design adherents and still not understand it. How? You can badly misconstrue what they're saying. Here's a book I recommend: The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate by Del Ratzsch. Evolutionists have frequently misunderstood their opponents (not surprisingly, the misconstrued position is often much easier to attack than the real thing); though to be fair creationists have also been guilty of this. You yourself appear to be guilty of this as well. For instance, you have come with the impression of a "fundamental assumption" of ID that does not appear to exist. You have claimed that "a designer is needed for every irreducibly complex object" and have not backed down from this assumption even when I cited the leading ID proponent of irreducible complexity who flatly contradicted this alleged assumption. You have also proposed an argument that is clearly non sequitur. Suppose ID claims that an IC system requires design. It doesn't logically follow that the designer must therefore be irreducibly complex. It is logically possible for the designer to have a different kind of complexity (e.g. a non-irreducibly complex human building a mousetrap; since humans can survive without an appendix). You have also proposed citations claiming to support the argument "by Intelligent Design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex" that do not even mention irreducible complexity, much less claim that the designer is irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning.

Consensus has been that we already have a citation that sufficiently supports the content, incessant, disruptive objections notwithstanding. Despite the many opportunities given, you and Wade have failed to make the case that the cite is insufficient. Continuing to argue this over and over ignores consensus and has gone beyond disruptive. You both need to accept consensus and drop the issue, and find some other way to contribute to Misplaced Pages other than repeatedly disrupting this page. FeloniousMonk 19:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Pretending I haven't made the case that the citations are insufficient doesn't make it go away. But let's go over one of my cases against the provided citations again just for kicks. The claim: that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning. The Misplaced Pages entry states “critics argue” this. Do they? Is this viewpoint a majority, significant minority, or extremely small minority? Looking at Misplaced Pages policy

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

To use an example, let's take this quote:

If the wording was "Critics argue that the designer must itself be complex" I would have no objection. But we are dealing with the claim that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning. The citation above doesn't even mention irreducible complexity, doesn't say that the designer has to be irreducibly complex, doesn't say that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning or even say that the designer has to have any kind of complexity by intelligent design's own reasoning.

None of the proposed citations consist of a leading ID opponent making the argument (that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning). One cannot vote to pretend otherwise. But for the moment, let's pretend that consensus trumps Misplaced Pages policy regarding original research and citing your sources. Apart from mediation, one still has the option of not bringing up the topic again. Notice that most of my posts here regarding the argument ("by intelligent design's own reasoning...") are in response to other people who have brought up the subject somehow. If you don't want trouble, don't ask for it. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

FM, you are being appalingly disruptive. You have blatantly ignored my logical argument and reasonable request above by appealing to 'consensus'. You have wasted weeks with this tactic.

You cannot condone original research with even a full, let alone a near, consensus.

Find a citation by a leading ID opponent as per policy arguing along the lines that by ID's own reasoning the designer must be irreducibly complex. Any one will do. Put your best one up here now. Or we must change the text to remove 'by ID's own reasoning' and 'irreducibly'.

At the very least stop misdirecting the discussion. ant 20:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

ID claims that there is a certain level of complexity which can only arise through the intervention of a creator. If the creator is not itself beyond that point then by definiton anything that s/he creates has in fact been created by non-complex processes internal to the creator and therefore can not be complex enough to require a creator since all the processes that led to it were reducible; thus complex systems imply non-complexity. This is an internal contradiction QED. The alternative, for bonus points, is that the creator is at or beyond that point of complexity. In this case s/he must have, by the axioms of ID, have been created. This leads to infinite regression and thus is devoid of information content. Does that help? 213.78.235.176 21:26 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Not level of complexity! Type of!!

Look at people producing a computer. The computer is an example of irreducible complexity, i.e. there is no step-wise always-functional naturally-selected pathway by which it could feasibly have evolved without a designer. Now, as per Darwinists, the people themselves have evolved without a designer. They are very complex, but not irreducibly complex, because there is a feasible step-wise always-functional naturally-selectable pathway of evolution in their ancestry.

Ok? So, the people are more complex than the computer, but the computer is the only one that is irreducibly complex and designed. The designers are undesigned. This is what is meant by irreducible complexity, and it is a lot different to plain complexity. That's why they don't speak of levels of complexity as you just did. There's no point in that argument, as you pointed out. That's why I'm saying that we all need to have a good understanding of ID from the minority view when editing this article. ant 22:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The type of complexity you are talking about is an artifact of current knowledge (either yours specifically or mankind's in general). You see computers as reducible whereas I, as a programmer of 27 years experience who has actually made computing circuits in silicon, know that they are actually reducible and that during their long process of evolution by unnatural selection not a single component we use today in computers was pre-ordained by its indispensability. This is why over the centuries the examples put forward for ID have changed, they are simply illusions caused by the current location of the "boundary between knowledge and ignorance" . 213.78.235.176

And, of course, computers did evolve in the real world and we call them brains. They show a full spectrum of complexity from little bundles of nerves up to huge whale neocortexes and almost all display a large degree of resiliance and redundancy. 213.78.235.176 213.78.235.176 23:55 30 November 2005

I don't think it's an internal contradiction. Suppose for instance that humans were not intelligently designed but are the product of undirected evolution. Humans can create metallic robots with computer brains. Sometime later the human race becomes extinct but the robots survive. Aliens discover the robots (yes, I know I ripped this off of the movie Artificial Intelligence). Does the fact that the designer (humans) evolved naturally make a design inference for robots illegitimate? Does the fact that the designer evolved mean that natural processes are reasonably sufficient for creating robots? No it does not. --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

If the creator (the humans in this case) are reducible then there is by definition no need for their functions to be carried out by a special package labeled "human". If that is the assumption (and it was what I was debating) then the robots could have been naturally created by those functions occurring without the input of the humans. Thus, a reducable creator can not be proven by the existance of any other object and the argument comes down to (im)probabilities and one man's improbable is another's "why not?" In other words, for ID to be proof of a creator then the creator in question must be non-reducable or we must have an objective standard for "improbable". Such a standard can only be attained by perfect knowledge of the universe, which we are somewhat short of at the moment! 213.78.235.176

However, a non-reducible creator introduces the sigularity of the creator's creator's creator...ad infinitum. These two facts combined with the history of ID-type arguments being knocked down by progress in science for centuries leads me to apply Occam's Razor and confidently state that there is no need to introduce the ID version of a creator and that any creator at all is probably the result of the ignorance illusion I refered to above. 213.78.235.176 23:55 30 November 2005

You're not thinking clearly, in that you keep switching between the basis of ID's own reasoning (in which there is such a thing as irreducibly complexity) and the irreconcilable view that there is no such type of irreducible complexity which requires a designer. You've just switched to the latter view in order to 'disprove' ID by an infinite regression purportedly using its own reasoning. But your point depends not on ID's own reasoning but on contrary thinking. My example is valid and your logic does not hold if the argument is based on ID's own reasoning, i.e.: given that there is such a thing as irreducible complexity, it is clear the designer need not be IC. (Simply substitute an IC object for the computer in my example).

Argue that there is no IC if you like - but if you want to base an argument on IC it does not follow that a designer of IC objects must be IC.

Out. ant 04:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm discussing both points but to be clear, here's specifically what I'm saying about the reducible creator idea: Such a creator can not be distinguished from natural actions by what it has created since by definition (of reducible complexity) none of the sub-actions involved in that creation can require the existence a creator to carry them out (otherwise the creator would have been non-reducible at least in regards to this particular creative function). Therefore, accepting the possibility of a reducible creator is to also admit that natural forces could have produced the same result. So an ID theory in which the creator is reducible invalidates even non-reducible creations as proof of a creator by internal logic rather than external argument. 213.78.235.176

My argument as to why this is is that the perception of (biological) IC is simply an illusion caused by imperfect knowledge and there is actually no such thing. However, that is not internal to ID, that just seems common sense from looking at history. 213.78.235.176 11:30 1 December 2005

As I have said in the past, this isn't something that needs to be hashed out here - it's dealt with in a lot more detail at Teleological_argument#Objections_and_counter-argument. Why fight about it here, where it's given only passing mention, and ignore it there? Guettarda 14:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Because this is the article we're talking about? 213.78.235.176 15:37 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Teleological argument is related, but not the same. FeloniousMonk 16:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

With regard to the charge of "original research" being made by some here, I have recently received a paper by Elliott Sober, philosopher of science at the University of Wisconsin, that makes exactly the argument that ID critics have been making here. Dr. Sober has given me permission to circulate the abstract. The paper has been submitted to the scholarly journal Faith and Philosophy.

Intelligent Design Theory and the Supernatural – The “God or ET” Reply

Elliott Sober

Abstract: When proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) theory deny that their theory is religious, the minimalistic theory they have in mind (the mini-ID theory) is the claim that the complex adaptations found in nature were made by one or more intelligent designers. The denial that this theory is religious rests on the fact that the identity of the designer remains unspecified; a supernatural God or a team of extraterrestrials could have done the designing. The present paper attempts to show that this reply underestimates the commitments of the mini-ID Theory. The mini-ID theory, when supplemented with the well-established scientific thesis that the universe is finitely old and the thesis that causes in nature precede their effects, entails the existence of a supernatural intelligent designer. It is further argued that scientific theories, such as the Darwinian theory of evolution, are neutral on the question of whether supernatural designers exist.

Bill Jefferys 19:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Suggested compromise

I like Ant's proposal supplied somewhere back up there, with some clarification thus: "Critics argue that from their understanding of the ID argument, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be complex. Intelligent design proponents acknowledge this argument and consider it possible, though implausible, that the designer could have evolved in Darwinian fashion, with no designer at all needed. Critics then say: if the designer could have evolved, why not the allegedly irreducible complexity?, while noting the ID preference for a supernatural explanation."

to cite Reply to My Critics where Behe argues that human "intelligence depends critically on physical structures in the brain which are irreducibly complex.. it may be that all possible natural designers require irreducibly complex structures which themselves were designed. If so, then at some point a supernatural designer must get into the picture." "implausible... that the original intelligent agent is a natural entity" (please check exact quote)

Everybody happy? ...dave souza 21:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems reasonable. I would accept it. Unfortunately, I doubt you'll find many anti-ID adherents (e.g. FeloniousMonk) who will be willing to accept the compromise. --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

No. It's too weaselly and misrepresents what they think. The IDists don't seriously think that God evolved through a Darwinian process. They do not take seriously that it's space aliens, time travellers. When they're pretending to be scientific they might mention this, but it's all nudge-nudge, wink-wink we know who the designer is.

There's a difference between attacking the theory and attacking the adherent. The theory does not include theism any more than the finite age of the universe does. Newton may have believed he was “thinking God’s thoughts after him” but that doesn’t make Newtonian mechanics religious because atheists can still think of alternate reasons why the universe consistently operates in mathematical patterns. Additionally, how does it misrepresent what ID adherents think? Dave's compromise explicitly mentions that ID adherents "consider it possible, though implausible, that the designer could have evolved in Darwinian fashion."

Here is a defence of the argument from recently by Jay W. Richards and Guillermo Gonzalez :

Of course not. We can detect design without knowing the origin of the designer. ID will stand or fall on the evidence of nature, not from red herrings and question-begging attempts to dismiss it by definition.

A serious argument or more handwaving? — Dunc|☺ 22:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It strikes me as serious. Suppose for instance we find robots on Pluto. The mere fact that we don't know anything about the identity/origins of the designer does not in the least make a design inference illegitimate here. --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

There is of course a difference between asking who made the robots (which assumes that the answer isn't mommy robots and daddy robots) and postulating a being for which the question "what was its creator" is not applicable. There is a very important difference between this "superlative creator" and just another previous generation, and that difference is specifically the question of origin. Richards and Gonzalez's quote seeks to shield this difference from view with "handwaving" but it is germaine to the issue of what exactly constitutes the ID theory's creator. In real science the place of this final creator is currently occupied by questions of the origins of the universe itself which is a mystery but introducing a creator of the universe simply pushes the question back one step and adds no information. People who would like to deny the right to ask for that step to be taken need to say what it is that makes their final creator special in respect of origins. 213.78.235.176 00:15 1 December 2005

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. The robot scenario seems to prove quite well that just because we don't know of the origins/identity of the designer doesn't make a design inference illegitimate. It seems little more than special pleading to say that a design inference is somehow illegitimate in principle with biological structures, merely because we cannot discern the identity/origins of the designer. Are you saying that, what makes the a design inference illegitimate, is if the designer is uncaused? At least when it comes to biology, we cannot discern scientifically if the designer was uncaused. With ID and the universe you may have a point, however. I've been skeptical of the validity of ID and the universe as a genuinely scientific theory, though it may have some important consequences for philosophy. --Wade A. Tisthammer 03:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The difficulty here is that there are two types of IC which are regularly conflated: instant-IC which appears in a local and singular way, such as when a person puts a house of cards together, and evolved-IC such as a modern computer processor which does exhibit IC but only as the end result of years of development where the features which are IC today were previously independant of each other (or missing altogether) and in every case were not required to become irreducible in order to form a working processor. This evolved IC is a very different thing from the former: two boulders which have jammed together to form a rock-arch are not the same type of evidence for a designer as the St Louis Arch.

Let's be honest here – ID is not concerned with proving that a chair had a carpenter, it is really concerned with whether or not our biological systems have a designer (which is why the above quote just handwaving, it is trying to distract from the real objective here, replace Stonehenge with chairs), and that is very much the second type of complexity as we see when we turn to the fossil record. You say that in biology we can not discern if a designer was uncaused and that's true, but we can certainly discern if an organism is the result of development over time without need of recourse to a creator. In the evolution of humans, where is the gap at which a creator had to step in to explain the next step? For that matter, where in the whale's evolution do we see evidence of intelligence, with those silly little back legs which don't even poke out of the animals' sides anymore?

The robots example is also slightly dangerous because it appeals to our biological predudice: we assume a-priori that a "robot" does not have a mummy and a daddy and did not evolve, we assume that it has instant IC like the house of cards. Is that assumption always going to hold, even on Pluto? I don't know that our understanding of the universe is so complete that we could rule out even such alien evolution. 213.78.235.176 12:16 1 December 2005

I think the suggested text fits the citations well. We all know who IDists really think the designer is, but we're not arguing that here - that's movement. We're presenting the theory and it's theoretical possiblities here. Preferences by the IDists of one possiblity doesn't cancel the others, and the theory must be judged as presented. By all means attack them for the Trojan Horse technique, but the horse itself is something else. ant 23:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem was the proposed language did not address the fundamental points made by Dawkins and other critics: that applying ID's logic consistently to it's own claims results in a logical paradox and infinite regression. Any language that ignored these points itself missed the point. The proposal was OTBE anyway almost as soon as it was made. FeloniousMonk 00:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Robots on Pluto? At some point reason went seriously missing from this discussion.

Jim62sch 01:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It does not result in a logical paradox and infinite regression because the designer need not be IC! Darwinists prove that: evolved man (complex but not IC) produces IC object (eg a watch). Can you hang on to that or refute it please? ant 04:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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

I've edited the passage to question to remove the word "irreducibly" from all references to complexity in favor of relying on direct quotes from Dawkins, who make a much stronger point anyway.

Behe and his irreduciable complexity are completely out of the section now, and all points are properly attributed to substantial supporting citations. I hope Wade and Ant find this acceptable and now will move on to contributing to the project in a more constructive fashion. FeloniousMonk 23:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Better, since by quoting Dawkins you irrefutably remove the possibility of original research at least when it comes to that claim. But "the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that every irreducibly complex object requires a designer" still remains. Are you going to delete that as well? --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you joking? This is a serious question. KillerChihuahua 23:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I am not joking. The argument that "by intelligent design's own reasoning..." has finally been removed. Why should it be unreasonable for me to have the alleged “fundamental assumption” removed as well, given its apparent nonexistence? --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

That every irreducibly complex object requires a designer is a fundamental assumption in ID is well established and widely accepted:

"The argument from IC to ID is simply: 1. IC things cannot evolve 2. If it can't have evolved it must have been designed" ... " Behe's argument that IC cannot evolve is central to ID, so it deserves our attention. His method is to divide evolution into what he calls 'direct', which he defines in a special way, and 'indirect' (everything else). He finds that direct evolution of IC is logically impossible, and indirect evolution of IC is too improbable." --Pete Dunkelberg. Irreducible Complexity Demystified

We could present it as an attribution, but as for deleting it, that would misrepresent what ID says IC does. FeloniousMonk 23:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

No, the "fundamental assumption" is what more likely misrepresents what ID says and does. Felonious, the quote you offered is from a hearsay source (as I pointed out earlier). And if you don't think evolutionists can mischaracterize their opponents, I invite you to read Battle of Beginnings. If ID really contains this as the fundamental assumption, you should be able to find it within the ID literature itself. Can you do that? And about my citation of Behe (the leading ID proponent of irreducible complexity) who flatly contradicts this alleged assumption? Isn't this good enough evidence that the alleged fundamental assumption should be removed if you have nothing better than hearsay and conjecture? --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

A 'hearsay source'? You'd better read WP:RS and rethink that objection. Dunkelberg is what is called a 'secondary source.' Dunkelberg is widely recognized critic of ID. His writing cites primary sources. As a recognized 'secondary source' citing what he writes here is perfectly acceptable according to WP:RS Evaluating_secondary sources.

Please stop moving the target and applying your own rules here. We've tried to accomodate you many times, and you're never satisfied with the compromises.

To summarize, according to Misplaced Pages's guidlines, WP:RS, Dunkelberg's "Irreducible Complexity Demystified" is a perfectly acceptable source that supports exactly what the passage states. FeloniousMonk 01:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Felonious, you better read Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither-Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate and rethink your objection if you think hearsay is admissible, reliable evidence. Evolutionists have frequently misconstrued the opposition in controversial debates like these (similarly, creationists have misconstrued evolution). Again, if this assumption really exists in ID, if it is not a straw man, you should be able to find in the ID literature. --Wade A. Tisthammer 03:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't sure, you started off with "remove this" instead of asking for a cite - which I'll be candid, a cite for the assertion that the central keystone to ID is that Irreducibly complex objects require a designer is, to me, odd coming from someone who reads the DI site. Let's back up a little - what precisely do you think in the new statement is not fully substantiated in the cites? KillerChihuahua 23:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree with FM and KC. I myself was a little wary of the "IC designer" part in the article, though for different reasons, but FeloniousMonk has offered a good compromise. As for the "fundamental assumption" quote - in the past I think Wade has brought up that IC is primarily Behe's baby and isn't the fundamental assumption of all IDists, but since Dembski also deals with it in his newer research, I think Wade's argument falls through. IC being the fundamental assumption of ID isn't original research - it is in fact by and large what their whole argument hinges on now that Dembski has tied his idea of SC to Behe's IC. There are citations given for this fundamental importance of IC - FM includes one in his comment, I linked to more evidence. No objective person is going to be removing this anytime soon. -Parallel or Together ? 00:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Even in his eariler books Dembski invokes IC. In No Free Lunch, he claims irreducible complexity constitutes a particular instance of specified complexity. FeloniousMonk 00:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Dembski may involve irreducible complexity in some of his articles, but he does not (as far as I know) say that it is the fundamental assumption of ID that all irreducibly complex objects require a designer. Note that in many articles, Dembski and other ID adherents argue for design using e.g. complex specified information and the explanatory filter--all without even mentioning irreducible complexity. Behe himself discusses the origins of life without appealing to irreducible complexity in Darwin's Black Box. Whatever the fundamental assumption of intelligent design might be, it does not appear to necessarily involve irreducible complexity. --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: I am not disputing the fact that irreducible complexity is a major part of the ID movement. However, what I’m talking about is the fundamental assumption of ID that all irreducibly complex objects require a designer. This is very different from merely claiming that IC is a major part of the ID theory. For one thing, this "fundamental assumption" is flatly contradicted by the leading ID proponent of irreducible complexity himself (Michael Behe). --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Try Dembski as a source: KillerChihuahua 01:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The full Dembski quote: "Intelligent Design is a theory of biological origins and development. Its fundamental claim is that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology, and that these causes are empirically detectable." --William Dembski, Intelligent Design, Downer’s Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity, 1999, p. 106 Available here

That pretty much seals it for that objection. I'll be adding this to the article. FeloniousMonk 01:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you, as if you didn't already know, but Wade will refuse this citation as well. He will argue that he doesn't use the word irredicibly in front of complex, so that this quote is no good. Of course, Wade argued against the sentence that just read "complex" initially, after which you changed it to say irreducibly complex and this whole mess got started... maybe we could go back to the orginial version that said that a designer was needed for every complex object. This (1) is backed up by this Dembski quote and (2) leaves open the possibility to mean either IC or SC depending on the ID proponent. People who want to read up on IC or SC can (gasp) check out the links that are copiously cited in the article from both sides of the "debate." Wade would no longer have any serious objections, I assume. Unless he wants to say Dembski isn't a reliable source either... -Parallel or Together ? 01:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The original version of the claim (that a designer is needed for every complex object) is demonstrably false, as I pointed out earlier. This belief is not backed up by the Dembski quote, because he doesn't say that every complex object is designed, only that some (e.g. the information-rich structures of biology) are. Indeed, I was able to provide citations proving that Dembski does not believe that every complex entity is designed (read the whole thing to learn more). I think we should all be careful about not creating straw men. Note how easy it is to misconstrue the opposition here. A straw man was created very easily and unintentionally. That is why I find hearsay inadmissible in controversies like these. And that is why I have requested we get “the fundamental assumption” of ID straight from the horse’s mouth. --Wade A. Tisthammer 03:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The Dembski quote does not establish that the fundamental assumption of ID is that every irreducibly complex object requires design. And why have you ignored my citation of Behe, the leading ID proponent of irreducible complexity?

KC and FM: sheer brilliance. Many thanks!

Jim62sch 01:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I've also reworded the passage from: "the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that a designer is needed for every irreducibly complex object" to: "the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that certain types of complex objects, generally those held to be irreducibly complex and/or specifically complex, require a designer."

That should satisfy Wade's latest objection and still carry the gist of the objection. FeloniousMonk 01:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, at least we've gotten rid of the straw man here. But now we have the claim:

At the same time, the postulation of the existence of even a single uncaused causer in the Universe contradicts the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that certain types of complex objects, generally those held to be irreducibly complex and/or specifically complex, require a designer

Is this argument original research? Or to the very least, can you explain why an uncaused designer contradicts this claim of ID? Since ID does not claim that all complex entities require a designer (thanks to the death of the straw man), there is no way of knowing if the designer needs to have been intelligently caused (without knowing the physical makeup of the designer). I don't think you can claim a contradiction anymore even if original research were admissible. --Wade A. Tisthammer 03:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Wade - do you know what original research is? I get the impression from your comments that you don't. Guettarda 03:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I've often thought of the same thing for Felonious, given some of his earlier objections against me (for example, in one instance I did some research of my own making--which I combed from sources and provided plenty of citations; Felonious subsequently accused me of original research in this instance). Anyway, from what I understand original research entails (among other things) you cannot just make up arguments against a theory you don't like. Citations are needed for such things. --Wade A. Tisthammer 03:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

And citations have been provided. Many of them. However, you don't need to provide citations for "common knowledge" - since this idea is the subject of another Misplaced Pages article, it's pretty close to "common knowledge". So how does references + coverage in separate WP article = OR? Guettarda 04:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Just for those who are wondering, according to Misplaced Pages's original research policy, the phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication. In other words, most of the ID literature is "orginial research." Not meant to be a justification, just an observation. However, on a more serious note, unless Wade is enacting a subtle parody on ID proponents constantly shifting their arguments when their original points are refuted by the scientific community, I suggest that we find more constructive ways to fix the article. It can always be better, but I don't feel that bickering over this point, especially now that we have been at it for a while, is helping the article much. It is more like a pissing contest. The article has been ~~dealt~~ changed to deal with Wade's original complaints, and if there are other problems with the article then we should find them and fix them before going right back to what amounts to the same point, more or less. When we have dealt with some other issues, we can come back to this if Wade or others desire. Any thoughts? Anyone else want to take a break from attempting to destroy/maintain the "who designed the designer" section? -Parallel or Together ? 04:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe this argument is common knowledge. See above what I said about the alleged contradiction. Given the new "fundamental assumption" the argument even seems non sequitur. --Wade A. Tisthammer 05:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you FM for the edit. I think we should also point out here that Wade was not being disruptive at all as he had a valid point and a sincere motivation in bringing the error to everyone's attention. It's simply that a lack of understanding of the actual ID position prevented the point being understood for so long, and he has done the article a service for accuracy. ant 04:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Can we change 'requires' to 'implies', since ID states that increasing ISC increases the odds of a designer, rather than having certainty? ant 04:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

FM, with all due respect, the new re-write is too convoluted and weasely. Next you're going to change it to "Some people think (3 footnotes) that design might imply a designer (4 more footnotes), and this might possibly be taken to be a fairly important part of the Intelligent design argument, but we're not absolutely sure and Wade doesn't think so at all." Please remember - while its important to respect the input of all editors, this article is "Intelligent design" not "Intelligent design full of weasel-words so Wade won't object." The fundamental argument of ID is that design means a designer, and that should stay in. Put it back to "the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that a designer is needed for every irreducibly complex object." We're not saying every irreducibly complex object requires a supernatural designer, but anyone who has read Behe and Dembski knows the entire ID argument rests on their presumption that certain complex objects are proof of design, and that's their whole basis. Without that the whole thing falls apart. Now that Dembski has thrown in his lot on the side of IC, there can be no rational objection to this phrasing. Rewriting the whole article to satisfy one POV is not a good idea. KillerChihuahua 12:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

After reading KC's point I agree. The sentence is too long and clumsy. However, accuracy is vital, and KC's suggestion is not quite accurate, for two reasons:

The ID position appears to use the statistical science concept of statistical proof, where the odds are so significantly high that scientifically speaking it can be taken as reliable. This is not the same thing as certainty or absolute proof. Thus ID acknowledges that it may be possible for an IC object to be undesigned - it is just so unlikely, that a designer is implied. However, when one looks at the entire array of known IC objects, while not every object might require a designer, as a whole group the cumulative 'statistical proofs', for all practical purposes, do.
As Wade pointed out, it is IC and/or SC. Not apparently major issue but we should nevertheless be accurate in case.

So if we're going to present the fundamental claim of ID here at all then I'd like to suggest something along the following lines:

"contradicts the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that a range of certain types of complex objects implies a designer"

On the other hand, this kind of destroys the critique somewhat, so perhaps it'd be better to go with a critic's quote. ant 14:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

KC, you seem to forget the reason why I wanted "the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that a designer is needed for every irreducibly complex object" removed to begin with; this "fundamental assumption" does not appear to exist. The leading ID proponent of irreducible complexity himself flatly contradicts this assumption, and although Dembski sometimes involves irreducible complexity in some of his articles, but he does not (as far as I know) say that it is the fundamental assumption of ID that all irreducibly complex objects require a designer. Note that in many articles, Dembski and other ID adherents argue for design using e.g. complex specified information and the explanatory filter--all without even mentioning irreducible complexity. So while IC may be an important part of intelligent design theory in many cases, it does not appear to be the fundamental assumption (something closer to a fundamental assumption would be the idea that intelligent design is empirically detectable). So far, none of the Dembski citations provided so much as mention this alleged fundamental assumption. Can anyone provide any real evidence at all that this "fundamental assumption" actually exists in ID? And what about my citation of Behe (the leading ID proponent of irreducible complexity) flatly contradicting this claim? Doesn't that suggest that this "fundamental assumption" regarding irreducible complexity might be a straw man? --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Nope. KillerChihuahua 21:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

May I ask why? Behe is the leading ID proponent of irreducible complexity. One cannot, for instance, ignore the fact that Behe flatly contradicts the alleged "fundamental assumption" of ID regarding irreducible complexity merely because of wishful thinking on the part of some anti-ID adherents. So do you have any real evidence at all that this fundamental assumption actually exists in ID as opposed to being a straw man? If so would you care to present it here? --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Because other statements he and Dembski make contradict it. Your use of Behe's quote is selective. FeloniousMonk 23:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

By all means, provide any Behe statement that contradicts it (same with Dembski). But I suspect you have none. For instance, let's look at one of the statements provided:

Intelligent Design is a theory of biological origins and development. Its fundamental claim is that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology, and that these causes are empirically detectable

Dembski doesn't even mention irreducible complexity here, much less claim that the fundamental assumption of ID is that all irreducibly complex objects are designed. This is something of a moot point though, since the Misplaced Pages entry removed the fundamental assumption and replaced with another, more accurate fundamental claim (which, as I explained earlier, renders the "contradiction" argument a bit non sequitur--BTW what about the original research issue I mentioned earlier?). --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

What about it? KillerChihuahua 23:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't original research still against Misplaced Pages policy? One is not permitted to make up arguments against a theory one doesn't like in a Misplaced Pages entry, especially non sequitur ones. "Who designed the designer" is of course a popular criticism and should be mentioned, but original research should not be included. --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep, still against policy. Good thing there isn't any OR in the article Intelligent design or we'd have to add a footnote or two. KillerChihuahua 00:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Supernatural causes (i.e., an itelligent designer) cannot be detected emprically, they can only be inferred via a belief in the supernatural.

Jim62sch 00:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

KC,

Not to be critical, but you seem to have forgotten to add the word "hundred" after "a footnote or two".

Jim62sch 01:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed articles

Guettarda: before, reverting, look at the content of my edit, and the reference. Read the reference. Then, objectively, decide whether it should be reverted. I took the info for my edit directly from the DI website. I actually was just browsing when I found the list of peer-reviewed articles referencing ID, and recalled that the article said there are none. So I corrected the false info in the article. Note, that none of Behe's articles are in the list, so he likely meant that none of his articles were peer-reviewed. --chad 06:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I read it, and Guettarda was right to revert your addition. It was factually incorrect. No ID publication has been validly published in any peer reviewed scientific publications, despite what the DI claims. The only one that was has been retracted by the journal that published it, which stated that "contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by an associate editor." Their statement also added that "there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity." FeloniousMonk 06:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, let's change it to DI claims that ID-supportive articles were published in peer-reviewed journals. --chad 06:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's the link to Behe's testimony , and a recap of it . FeloniousMonk 06:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll have to heavily edit my edit now :-) --chad 07:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep, welcome to wikipedia, where rewrites are rewritten, edits are edited, and criticisms are criticised... ;-) FeloniousMonk 07:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

How's that FM? --chad 07:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

FM, that's how! :"D Roy Boy 07:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The DI website isn't under oath. - Roy Boy 07:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, RoyBoy! But Behe was saying 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. That is not to say that ID was never discussed in a quasi-positive light in a peer-reviewed article. The DI website provides a list of articles that do just that. I think the edit is fair. It makes the whole peer-review issue more objective without (horrors!) adding to the credibility of ID, which seems to be in line with the apparent central goal of the article.--chad 07:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Quite, and I haven't reverted your tweaks; but I'm unsure how ID being "discussed in a quasi-positive light" qualifies as "Scientific peer review" as the header implies science is being reviewed; and indeed what was the result/response (conclusion?) in those publications of argument(s) for ID as a theory? - Roy Boy 08:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood. I don't think I said that a peer-review is a "discussion in a quasi-positive light", I said the articles which have been peer-reviewed and published in mainstream journals discussed ID in a quasi-positive light. Peer-review doesn't involve a response to an article such as "your article is true" or "your article is false". Peer-review is a editing of the text by experts to determine if the article was accurate in its portrayal of the facts being discussed, and if the questions it asks are relevant. The result/response (conclusion) was, "yes, we'll publish your article in Journal X. So to say it backwards,the articles were published in a scientific journal, the pre-requisite for publication in a scientific journal is peer-review. --chad 08:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Peer review is far (far) more like a response to your article than an editing of the text. Peer-reviewers never (in my experience) edit your text. They may suggest ways in which it can be improved, or point out holes in it. But editing is out of the question. And peer-reviews often end up with statements akin to "your article is true" or "your article is false" (though rarely as black-and-white as that). --Plumbago 09:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay. However you want to define peer-review, the fact remains, articles referring to ID in an apparently positive light, written by ID proponents, passed peer-review, and were published in mainstream Journals, at least according to DI; and I think it would be very stupid of DI to lie on this one. If you look at the ref (no. 46 in the wp article on ID), you'll see a pretty elaborate list with descriptions of the articles themselves (with direct quotes) and the names of mainstream peer-reviwed journals where they were published. It would be very strange to concoct a hoax like this, because it would be so easy to disprove, simply by looking in said journals and seeing if the articles are really there. I think the section on peer-review is relatively unbiased now, and factually correct (of course, minor edits could be justified). --chad 09:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Is anyone suggesting a hoax? I don't think so. However, the list merits consideration (presumably done elsewhere, but here we go again ...) :

4 "featured articles" (whatever that means);
4 "peer-reviewed books";
3 "trade books";
6 "peer-reviewed articles in science journals";
7 "articles in peer-reviewed science anthologies";
5+ "articles in peer-reviewed science anthologies/conference proceedings"

Of these, only the 6 in science journals are worth serious consideration here (which is not to say the others aren't interesting, just to simplify the list to premier sources). Of these, one is the infamously retracted paper by Meyer, two by Denton appear to be about "natural law" rather than ID (though the DI claim these as ID), and the other three I've not had time to look at (though they've got rather technical titles that don't immediately suggest ID). I'll have a go at those later. It's hardly a stunning list for a vibrant new scientific force. Almost every scientists I know has, individually, a more impressive list than this. Not that size counts or anything ... --Plumbago 09:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Size may matter, but not in the case of the question: do peer-reviewed articles with pro-ID content exist in mainstream scientific journals? The answer is an undoubted yes. This wp article said that there are none (or at least appeared to say there are none). To add some objectivity and strip the article of some of it's POV I edited the section on peer-review to reflect the fact that said articles exist. Feel free to add that there are only six of them, which is less than obscure scientists such as ] have had published. I don't care, but whatever the case, I have made this article more factually accurate for once, and I think accuracy is something we all love. --chad 09:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I would certainly agree that there appear to be articles in science journals out there. My concern would be that of the ones I've looked at, one has been retracted and two others don't appear to be about ID (though, because they suggest non-Darwinian processes may be in operation, they are claimed as such - an old YEC trick). However, there are still three out there which look plausible. I'll try to have a read of them to see if they mention ID at all. My suspicion is that they'll allude to non-specific difficulties (note : not impossibilities) in applying evolutionary theory to particular molecular processes, and won't directly mention ID at all. However, I may find the reverse. But it would be unfair to suggest in the article that ID hasn't published a thing if it turns out that there's a proper (unretracted) reference to it out there in the scientific literature (specifically peer-reviewed journals; books/anthologies/conference proceedings/etc. don't carry as much weight in scientific circles). --Plumbago 10:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

See http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html basically the DI is lying. And this is easy to demonstrate by looking at the articles in question; either they like the Sternberg article got in through a trojan horse method or they're not about ID as science. And we've had this discussion before since Mark's linked back to this very page. — Dunc|☺ 10:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, that does tend to confirm my suspicions. The article needs changing to reflect this. At the moment in one paragraph it says there's papers, only for the next but one paragraph to demolish the leading contender. However, it's probably worth mentioning the DI's list - that they've so dubiously produced one is something of an indictment. --Plumbago 10:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

If those papers are mentioned at all, IMHO they belong in the movement article not the ID article. Right now all we can put in the article is that the DI falsely claims to have published peer reviewed papers on the subject of ID. That is the DI doing something false to make their position look more "scientific" which belongs in the Movement article, not here. There are no valid peer review articles on ID, so we cannot sensibly put anything about that in this article - unless it is in a criticism section, where we state that there are none. KillerChihuahua 12:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so Talk Origins is more authoritative than DI? Talk origins doesn't give any specifics, it does describe parts of the article that can be misconstrued as pertaining to ID, DI does. And TO does not address:

M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.

In this article, Behe and Snoke show how difficult it is for unguided evolutionary processes to take existing protein structures and add novel proteins whose interface compatibility is such that they could combine functionally with the original proteins. By demonstrating inherent limitations to unguided evolutionary processes, this work gives indirect scientific support to intelligent design and bolsters Behe’s case for intelligent design in answer to some of his critics.

Talk origins gives an example of an article on ID that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. In all fairness, we should say that "although DI describes how these articles support ID, critics argue that they simply don't."

Something else I've found interesting is the fact that KC and Plumbago seemed to have been suspecting (hoping?) this was impossible all along, and a very small undetailed critique of the notion that the articles were supportive of ID was enough to convince them that their worst fears had not come to pass. Please, there are two sources with conflicting information, and we must ask: who is more motivated to mislead? Personally I think the outright lying that KC is apparently accusing DI of is rather a bizarre idea. I think a person, desperate to prove that it is impossible for anything supportive of ID to pass peer-review, might completely miss the points in an article that is supportive of it, especially after being confronted with a list of peer-reviewed articles (horrors!).

And more to the point, 2 questions.

1. Who is more capable of understanding ID's position? ID-ists, or their critics?

2. What, therefore is more credible?

a. An IDist giving a list of articles with descriptions showing how they support ID, for example "In this article, Behe and Snoke show how difficult it is for unguided evolutionary processes to take existing protein structures and add novel proteins whose interface compatibility is such that they could combine functionally with the original proteins. By demonstrating inherent limitations to unguided evolutionary processes, this work gives indirect scientific support to intelligent design and bolsters Behe’s case for intelligent design in answer to some of his critics.

b. or a critic saying, the article says nothing of the sort and in no way supports ID, directly or indirectly.

It is simply unfair that anti-ID-ists take any bit of support for ID say its a lie or a fallacy or ridiculous (usually with no basis) and then use it to attack ID. It seems like if I could give you a peer-reviewed journal with an article titled Intelligent design: A new scientific horizon you would deny that the journal was really peer-reviewed, or you would say that the reviewers were basically cretins, or anything, but you wouldn't accept it. You can just accept that maybe, possibly, we might be able to find an i.c. structure, maybe, there is a designer, maybe, for crying out loud, there really are articles supportive of ID in peer-reviewed journals. It's pointless to argue with you people. But in order to collaborate on making this article NPOV we have to look at what ID says about itself, and have that be the focus (with criticisms of course!). People compare ID with UFOs, look at the UFO article for a model. The purpose of the article isn't to discredit, it's to describe what people think about UFOs. Let's look at what people think and say about ID, starting with the originators, then with some critics, that would be NPOV and objective. It can never be objective if every cited argument for ID is struck down and removed from the article because somebody found a reference criticising the argument. --chad 14:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The purpose of the article is to be unbiased and accurate. I don't have time right now to post a ton of sources on the subject, but as noted above, only one article ever made it into a peer reviewed publication and it has been withdrawn. I will do this (if others have not already) as soon as I can. KillerChihuahua 14:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is one to get it started: (this is about the one and only, since removed) KillerChihuahua 14:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I knew about Meyer (and Klinghoffer article) as I had done extensive research on the article for a discussion I was having with, you guessed it, a creationist about two months ago. I wrote the following last night but decided to wait for Chad's response:

And actually the word objective gives me a sudden urge to check on the objectivity of your cite. Wouldn't ya know it, I did extensive research on the situation involving S.C. Meyer and the "controversy" surrounding it; for a debate with a creationist I had a while back. I particularly found comment 14932 incisive. But I digress, I look forward to your objective findings from those publications.

So I guess Chad's answer to my question of what the response was to the Meyer paper (as its the only one with any validity), is he wasn't aware of any. Dunc's link provides the answer I was looking for:

Publishing, however, is not an end in itself. Scientific ideas mean nothing unless they can withstand criticism and be built upon. (See Elsberry and Gishlick et al. for criticism of Meyer .) Publishing such poor papers only hurts the cause of ID as science.

Interestingly, the link also says, "One peer-reviewed intelligent design article has now been published, albeit in a fairly minor journal that focuses on taxonomic description." This is from an anti-ID website. Is this "the infamously retracted paper by Meyer"? If so, can a citation be provided? It seems almost implausible that talk.origins wouldn't get wind of it if it were true (if so, talk.origins should be e-mailed). Additionally, other negative web pages here and here do not mention it, emphasizing my request for a citation if this indeed were the allegedly retracted paper.

There are apparently other pro-ID articles in one peer-reviewed journal, albeit that might not "count" as the journal appears to be pro-ID. --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

ISCID was set up by Dembski. FeloniousMonk 23:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't surprise me, since Dembski is a very prominent ID adherent. Still, he's he's hardly the only member there. --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

And Misplaced Pages has ten of thousands of active members... doesn't mean I'd consider every one of them competent to speak on matters of biology. Indeed it doesn't surprise me Dembski is there, and it should hardly surprise you that as a result we can discount it as a scientific journal. - Roy Boy 06:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, there ya have it... objectivity indeed. - Roy Boy 17:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

And here's more:

Dembski: "I think at a fundamental level, in terms of what drives me in this is that I think God's glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world, the origin of biological complexity and diversity. When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God's glory is getting robbed. And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he’s done — and he's not getting it." ("The design revolution?" TalkReason.org 2004)

Jim62sch 00:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The peer review section was accurate and factual to begin with. Meyer's article was already mentioned there and directed reader to the Sternberg peer review controversy article for more in-depth coverage. FeloniousMonk 18:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Article from a journalist/professor who attended a lecture and interviewed Behe - he did a lot of checking, read it, its full of humor and interesting info: The Minnesota Daily "Perhaps when the number of supporting publications rises to the level of “horse feces” (929) the professional community will grant ID some respect." KillerChihuahua 21:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Good stuff, and horse feces is up to 937 since October 11th. More publications in less than a month than ID has had since... well since ever. - Roy Boy 22:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. I need to fertilize my garden anyway. No matter how much my plants evolve, they still need to have fecal matter spread upon them.

Jim62sch 00:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Behe & Snoke article

Abstract - Gene duplication is thought to be a major source of evolutionary innovation because it allows one copy of a gene to mutate and explore genetic space while the other copy continues to fulfill the original function. Models of the process often implicitly assume that a single mutation to the duplicated gene can confer a new selectable property. Yet some protein features, such as disulfide bonds or ligand binding sites, require the participation of two or more amino acid residues, which could require several mutations. Here we model the evolution of such protein features by what we consider to be the conceptually simplest route—point mutation in duplicated genes. We show that for very large population sizes N, where at steady state in the absence of selection the population would be expected to contain one or more duplicated alleles coding for the feature, the time to fixation in the population hovers near the inverse of the point mutation rate, and varies sluggishly with the {lambda}th root of 1/N, where {lambda} is the number of nucleotide positions that must be mutated to produce the feature. At smaller population sizes, the time to fixation varies linearly with 1/N and exceeds the inverse of the point mutation rate. We conclude that, in general, to be fixed in 108 generations, the production of novel protein features that require the participation of two or more amino acid residues simply by multiple point mutations in duplicated genes would entail population sizes of no less than 109.

Neither the words "intelligent" nor "design" appear anywhere in the article
"We strongly emphasize that results bearing on the efficiency of this one pathway as a conduit for Darwinian evolution say little or nothing about the efficiency of other possible pathways. Thus, for example, the present study that examines the evolution of MR protein features by point mutation in duplicate genes does not indicate whether evolution of such features by other processes (such as recombination or insertion/deletion mutations) would be more or less efficient."
This is a simulation modelling paper - it's results are only as good as the equations used to produce it.
- Lynch (Protein Science (2005), 14:2217-2225) replies to this paper:
  - "It is shown here that the conclusions of this prior work are an artifact of unwarranted biological assumptions, inappropriate mathematical modeling, and faulty logic"
  - "Although the authors claim to be evaluating whether Darwinian processes are capable of yielding new multi-residue functions, the model that they present is non- Darwinian (King and Jukes 1969). Contrary to the principles espoused by Darwin, that is, that evolution generally proceeds via functional intermediate states, Behe and Snoke consider a situation in which the intermediate steps to a new protein are neutral and involve nonfunctional products. Although non-Darwinian mechanisms play an important role in contemporary evolutionary biology, there is no logical basis to the authors’ claim that observations from a non-Darwinian model provide a test of the feasibility of Darwinian processes. Moreover, given that the authors restricted their attention to one of the most difficult pathways to an adaptive product imaginable, it comes as no surprise that their efforts did not bear much fruit."
- Behe and Snoke reply to Lynch:
  - "We subscribe neither to triumphant views in some circles that our paper disproved Darwinism, nor to overwrought ones that it supports some grand anti-science conspiracy."
  - They also claim that some of his criticisms were misleading. It's not for me (or us) to evaluate that claim.

When it comes down to it, simulation modelling is simulation modelling. It presents an interesting "what if" scenario if you choose your parameters carefully. It creates a region of possibility, but it's only really meaningful when it can be supported by experimental or observational data. If your model fails to support the "reality" of established theory, the first question is whether your model is right. Behe & Snoke do not claim that "reality" is wrong, they simply present an interesting modelling result. Lynch rather effectively takes down their model. It remains to be seen whether Behe & Snoke pursue this further and address Lynch's concerns about model selection, etc.

For our purposes, it doesn't matter whether Behe & Snoke are right or wrong. The question is whether this paper can be considered a publication related to intelligent design. DI claims that it supports DI. Behe & Snoke make no such claims. In short, the DI summary appears to be misleading. So should you take their word on it? Guettarda 16:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Simulation Modeling is essentially a Gedanke experiment like Schrödinger’s cat (http://en.wikipedia.org/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat). It proves nothing, postulates not much (and certainly nothing empirically testable or provable) and is merely, as Guettarda said, a big "what if". "What ifs" can be fun, but so can be playing solitaire.

Jim62sch 00:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Now, steady on. While the above criticisms of modelling are perfectly sound, let's not whale on modelling too much. Only by modelling something successfully can we really claim to have understood it. Observations are fine and dandy (and the cornerstone of science), but if you can't tie them together into a coherent model of the world, you're probably missing something somewhere. Of course, I say this as a modeller ... ;) --Plumbago 10:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Plumbago -- no offense intended. I suppose if someone said something similar about computer science I'd have to get in a word or two. We must protect that which puts bread on the table. :)

I suppose I could have said modelling using specific criteria and real-world obeservations...etc., since that was the crux of what I was saying. (See Guettarda's comment above, "if you choose your parameters carefully")

Behe's and Snoke's modelling was highly flawed, and as with anything Behe does, the modelling was designed (no pun) to achieve a pre-determined outcome.

Jim62sch 11:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

No worries. I'm just teasing really. Modelling, especially in the biological sciences, involves a fair bit of educated guesswork at times because the processes involved (and even entities involved) are typically poorly understood (at least at the level one would like). So most modellers I know are well aware of the limitations of what they do (and what they can get away with). When in doubt, use a linear function until you know better. It's no accident that one of my colleagues refers to us as "muddlers". Cheers, --Plumbago 13:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Fundamental Questions

Here's what I understand to be fundamental in Intelligent Design studies (pulled from mostly chapter 1 of The Design Revolution by Dembski):

1) Are there signs of intelligence? (Physical properities of any object—organic or inorganic—that necessitate design.) Design theorists say yes.

2) If so, what are they? Here design theorists work in categories. The top-level super-set sign of intelligence is specified complexity. All other signs of intelligence are a subset of SC. The most notable of these subsets is Behe's irreducible complexity. Other subset signs proposed are (1) information mechanisms (2) certain chemical compositions (ie. anything that has TNT is intelligently designed, because TNT is never found in nature without it) and (3) notable, detailed pattern matching (ie. the heads on Mt. Rushmore look like specific people)

3) Are we sure that the proposed signs necessitate design?

4) If so, the do living things have any of these signs?—ie. Is the flagellum really irreducibly complex? Is DNA actually an information-passing mechanism? Are any of the cellular compounds like TNT in that they are never found in nature except where intelligence puts them?

But the tricky part is that their study raises other philosophical questions that are left only to intuition. What is intelligence? Does it exist? If it does exist, is intelligence natural, supernatural, or both? If there's a supernatural element to intelligence, how does it interact with nature? (ie How does the soul command the body? Where is the connection? The pineal gland?) On the other hand, if there isn't a supernatural element to intelligence, how do we explain awareness? (ie "It is impossible that our rational part should be other than spiritual; and if any one maintain that we are simply matter, this would far more exclude us from the knowledge of things, there being nothing so inconceivable as to say that matter knows itself. It is impossible to imagine how it should know itself."—Pascal, Pensées)

But if you take "intelligence" in a sort of plain meaning and not dig into these vexing questions, it should be clear that there are physical properties of inorganic objects that lead us to empirically conclude that they are designed. Nobody is going to argue that even a scrap of newspaper was formed without a designer. So what is it about that scrap with ink, and any other object that is plainly designed, that announces its special origin? That is the fundamental question of intelligent design. The rest is extrapolation. David Bergan 02:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Newspaper, as with any "object", doesn't reproduce, hence cannot inherit information nor be subject to natural selection (also, a newspaper is not a natural object, like a rock, so through logical inference we could see it is apart from the natural world, and therefore was designed... take that a baby step further, if we know what a newspaper origins are and/or what its purpose is, like watching what other people do with it, then it becomes a no brainer). As to intelligence indeed that is an under scrutinized area in the discussion generally, but is covered pretty well IMO with this. Excellent post by the way... and if you think the article does not cover/link to these memes sufficiently, please make your case. - Roy Boy 06:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, Roy. In short, I agree with just about everything you said. Yes it is easier to "know" that a scrap of newspaper was designed because the origin process is readily observable and its purpose is obvious. But the fundamental question for the sake of ID is still "what specifically tells us the the newspaper was designed?" It actually isn't the fact that it has a purpose... because there are other things that we confidently say are designed of which we don't know the purpose (ie. the heads on Easter Island). And it isn't the fact that we know the origin process... because there are other things that we confidently say are designed of which we don't know the origin process (ie. a Stradivarius violin). I would say that those two things certainly contribute to our confidence in asserting the newspaper was designed, but they aren't signs of intelligence themselves.

Dembski's catch-all of specified complexity of course applies. (Calculate the odds of getting the newspaper without intelligence, and if it exceeds 10^-150 then it's designed.) But it gets cumbersome because it is not at all obvious how to calculate those odds. That's where the other signs come in. For instance, one might take the chemical makeup of the paper or ink and say that these compounds are not natural. (Which would be an empiricism-based argument.) Or one could argue that since the newspaper transfers information, it is therefore designed. (Which is also an empiricism-based argument.)

My main point is that the concepts of ID are applicable to both the organic and inorganic. The physical properties that lead us to acknowledging design in the inorganic realm are the same principles that are tried with organic ones. The difference is that hardly anyone calls ID a load of bs if it focuses only on inorganic objects. In my opinion, design theorists have a shaky case on the organic stuff, but a pretty solid case on the inorganic. Even though I think their arguments are scientific (empirical) in both realms, I think biological systems have too many variables to say conclusively at this point that their structures necessitate design. David Bergan 17:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

First two times I read this you lost me, so I got drunk, played some poker tonight and re-read the above. I think I was trying to read between the lines too much; trying to give you the benefit of the doubt I guess.

No, "their" arguments are not empirical for anything. It is certainly easier to make an empirical case for man-made objects; but that's true for an ID pseudoscientist or a bright 5 year old; both of whom if they wish can apply common sense. Easter Island rocks being out of place and "facing" (I use the term loosely) the same way is evidence enough for design. The fact its a face makes it again, easy.

The reason I emphasized the context of newspapers because I conducted a thought experiment as though I had never seen a newspaper before in my life and did not know about written language. Ergo, I may need other information to make sense of a newspaper, if I suddenly encountered a lot of them. However, that in it self is pretty arrogant of me, as a newspapers dimensions (and folding) by itself would lead a "savage" (loosely again) to discern design; without the need of scientific methodologies like ink testing, which necessitates they understand the concept of written language; making the test slightly redundant. And if there are pictures in the newspaper, again easy.

As to biological systems, there is no basis with which to assert design, let alone conclusively decide on design. Biology is an exciting field of study because there is so much yet to learn... I have seen little to indicate ID is willing to wait for us to actually get a grasp of it prior to forming their opinions. - Roy Boy 07:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: "1) Are there signs of intelligence? (Physical properties of any object—organic or inorganic—that necessitate design.) Design theorists say yes." Design Theorists say yes because they want that to be the answer -- in fact Dembski has a number of quotes where he essentially admits this.

Re items 2, 3 and 4, I've said it before and I'll say it again: the concept of irreducible complexity is anthropomorphic in origin, i.e., the assumption that simply because we produce things of irreducible complexity, items in nature that are deemed by IDists to have irreducible complexity must have been designed by intelligence. There is no logical reason to assume that this is the case, and the argument itself is lacking in parsimony as one must introduce a non-provable supernatural or paranormal entity into the process.

Jim62sch 13:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Design Theorists say yes because they want that to be the answer—Are you saying that when you look at things like a iPod, a camera, a newspaper, or Santa's jalopy you don't think that they were designed? If you do think they were designed, why do you think they were? If you can answer that question, then that would affirm the existence of signs of intelligence.

the concept of irreducible complexity is anthropomorphic in origin—It could be anthropomorphic in origin, but in argument it is empirical. 100% of inorganic irreducibly complex objects (of sufficient complexity) are designed. In other words, where we know the causal history of an IC object there is a 1:1 correlation with a designer. With respect to anything organic, we don't know the causal history (nobody took pictures of the first bacterium's flagellum) but do recognize the IC similarity. David Bergan 17:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I had dealt with this elsewhere, but a quick few points:

There is no nexus between what I said and a discussion of iPods (although the counter-argument (such as it is) offered here only serves to strengthen my point re anthropomorphism).

Re the "we know the causal history of an IC object there is a 1:1 correlation with a designer" -- we know no such thing. It is merely assumed. I've asked this question before, I'll ask it again: why is it that IDists cannot accept the random element of Evolution*, yet can wholeheartedly accept a "designer" (read: God, all arguments regarding aliens notwithstanding) arising from nothing out of nowhere or nowhen?

If they really thought about it, they'd realize that Big Bang theory has the same "problem".

Jim62sch 13:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It's been said before (and what hasn't on this page?) but I'll say it again. Without getting into the detailed theory, ID focuses on "signs of intelligence" in biological entities (usually molecular scale) that have only relatively recently come under study and about which it's doubtful that we have the full story on yet. Meanwhile, they ignore "signs of stupidity" at virtually every other level of biology. Organisms having anatomical or physiological features that are just out and out stupid (or installed back-to-front, etc.). If I've been designed, I want my money back. --Plumbago 13:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I touched on it a while a back. Anyone up for an Unintelligent design article? At the very least it should be redirected... which I will do now. - Roy Boy 16:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The existing one you created for the book could be hijacked instead. Unless anyone was planning on writing a treatise on it, I reckon it could be consigned to a footnote on the page. --Plumbago 18:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Meanwhile, they ignore "signs of stupidity" at virtually every other level of biology.—That's a good point, but how much can we learn from a sign of stupidity? For instance, we think any given newspaper page is designed. But what if we read a newspaper page that is filled with inane Dr. Seuss-isms, flattery toward inept leaders like George Custer or Kim Jong Il, rants against the color of the sky, prayers to blades of grass, and recipes for bad casseroles? (This would be a college newspaper page.) It's still English newsprint, and every sane person would acknowledge that it was designed... even though it has no comparable value to, say, anything written by Shakespeare.

You seem to be saying that if you had a Cadillac and found out that the glove compartment was broken (or even just functioned in a non-intuitive way), you would go so far as to say that there was no engineer for the car.

If I've been designed, I want my money back.—Again, I have my doubts about biological/organic/human design, too. But we have to keep open-minded. What if the grand conclusion was that the designing entity was not omnipotent and/or omniscient... but instead a retarded alien? David Bergan 17:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

... who happened to make sure that their mistakes looked just like the product of a long series of historical "choices" that made sense at the time working with what was available. I'd still want my money back. --Plumbago 18:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Most designs are done that way. Necessity is the mother of invention; human intelligence is always improvising its resources to make things more livable or comfortable. It's not unlikely that non-human intelligences (if any exist) would be much different. David Bergan 20:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Dembski says nope, the designer can't be aliens: "The fine-tuning of the universe, about which cosmologists make such a to-do, is both complex and specified and readily yields design. So too, Michael Behe's irreducibly complex biochemical systems readily yield design. The complexity-specification criterion demonstrates that design pervades cosmology and biology. Moreover, it is a transcendent design, not reducible to the physical world. Indeed, no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life." FeloniousMonk 18:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

In terms of the fine-tuned universe aspect, that designer (if one exists) would have to be more than a retarded alien. But the designer of Earth's life (if one exists) isn't necessarily so... Nor is there substantial evidence that the suspect in the case of the universe is the suspect in the case of life. The guy who designed the wheel isn't the one who designed the car. David Bergan 20:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

That does narrow the list of possible designers down somewhat. Dembski does give his game away a bit there. Anyway, I have the feeling I won't be getting my money back. --Plumbago 18:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

You could always ask for a store credit, good for your next time you're back, just in case the Hindus have it right. FeloniousMonk 19:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Just curious Plumbago... how much money did you pay? Or, more to the point, how much are you asking for? David Bergan 20:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

David,

I'd answer your response to what I wrote, but I'm thinking that you're being TIC, thus rendering any response on my part unnecessary.

Jim62sch 02:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Why not an intelligent selector?

Something I can;t understand is why a God who marks the sparrow's fall (Matthew) can't produce species by judicious pruning like a divine gardener rather than having to pop up with another miraculous bodge every time an ecological niche changes....dave souza 20:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

That's perfectly reasonable within intelligent design. One way of designing is by selection. Humans design superior dog, horse, corn, and soybean breeds by selecting and mating. (If you recall, Darwin's book about natural selection begins its point by explaining artificial selection like this... then make the claim that nature goes about selecting fast dogs and horses in its own way: by killing the slow ones before they reproduce.) You and I design wikipedia posts by selecting latin characters. Design isn't always an engineering task, selection is a method of design, too. David Bergan 20:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

We'd better get started on that 'supernatural selection' article. FeloniousMonk 21:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure. But you need sources more notable than me, though... David Bergan 22:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

To the extent that ID has an argument, it's that there are features that could not be selected for by piecemeal, but instead have to be created magically all at once. When you take this away, you're left with supernatural selection, which immediately slits its own throat with Occam's razor. Alienus 01:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Heck, ID slit its throat with Occam's razor when it was designed and presented as science. It works fine as theology, but once it adopts the pretense of being a science -- slit, spurt, blood all over.

Besides, I'm getting really tired of the argument posed as a query, "How can you look at a flower and not see an intelligent designer?" Gee, I don't know, maybe because it isn't symmetrical?!? In fact, I can't think of one living thing on this planet that's symmetrical. Yeah, many things come close, but I want perfection from a designer. After all, if we lowly humans can design perfectly symmetrical items, I'd think a supernatural sooper-dooper designer should be able to do the same.

I feel much better now.

Jim62sch 02:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you feel better; sometimes you just gotta vent that frustration before you explode. I have to admit that I'm always befuddled when I hear arguments along the lines of "How can you look at X and deny that it was the work of God?", where X is something nice or pretty. I just don't see the connection betwee X and God, no matter how cool X is. Also, it seems like special pleading that X is chosen and not Y, where Y is something horrible. Anyhow, that was just my bit of venting. I'll shut up now. Alienus 05:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

See Charles Darwin#Religious views for young Darwin getting just that feeling about the nasty wasp that leaves its young to feed on live but paralysed grubs. Interesting links and comment about IC failing and IDers turning to SETI at Ars Technica, I see that we already have the SETI team refutation footnoted..dave souza 11:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

For the love of me, I still can't figure out why a supposedly "intelligent" designer make something as useless as an appendix, for example. BTW, here's more about that SETI and ID thing.--Chinfo 12:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Clearly, it's to test your faith. Alienus 13:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Since Man is made in God's image, presumably He has one for reasons beyond our ken. ...dave souza 17:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Presumably. Alienus 05:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Which either means that we're supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent, omniomnient...or that we'd better pray that God doesn't get appendicitis...can you just imagine the wrath?

Jim62sch 00:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't the argument of an appendix being useless an argument from ignorance? Not that there aren't better examples, the useless appendage one just seems a bit of a shot in the dark ant 02:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually it is not. In fact, the lack of a need for an appendix comes from changes in our diet from herbivore to omnivore. In fact, the appendix appears to be a vestigal organ that evolved in earlier version of man (possibly the Australopithecine genus). Were we to live long enough, we would likely see that the organ became phased out as we continue to evolve.

Jim62sch 15:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Alleged allegations

Chad, where did you find the basis for this edit ]? I can find nothing which confirms this statement. KillerChihuahua 14:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Gee, one wonders what the purpose of Chad's edit was? I mean, it certainly couldn't have been a POV edit meant to discredit Evolution, could it?

Jim62sch 01:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

That scared me, I thought you were talking ot me. I had no idea a new Chad had shown up --chad 05:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC) (chadthomson)

I am sorry - and glad I put the link to the edit in, too! We have 3 Bills and 2 Chads and... well, ok, there's only one puppy so far. KillerChihuahua 05:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Dembski responds to SETI critique

But in fact, my criterion for design detection applies to the very signals that Shostak’s SETI Institute is looking for. Yes, as narrow bandwidth transmissions, the signals are simple to describe. But they are difficult for purely material processes to reproduce by chance. So we have simplicity of description combined with complexity in the sense of improbability of the outcome. That’s specified complexity and that’s my criterion for detecting design.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/541

And anyone having read Part II of the Design Revolution would have noticed immediately that Seth Shostak's statement, "If SETI were to announce that we're not alone because it had detected a signal, it would be on the basis of artificiality. An endless, sinusoidal signal - a dead simple tone - is not complex; it's artificial." lines up precisely with Dembski's observation that a "specified complex object" would have "low specification".

Let me give you an example. Consider two coin-flip patterns, each 300 flips long. The first pattern is all heads. The second pattern is 2 heads, a tails, a heads, 3 more tails, 2 heads, 10 tails, 1 heads, 7 tails, 2 heads, 1 tails... and repeat this sequence until the pattern gets to 300. The probability of both, strictly speaking, is identical. $2^{-300}$ You are no more likely to get pattern #1 in 300 coin flips than pattern #2. The difference in the two patterns is the complexity of the specification. The first is a very simple specification... it can be represented by one simple rule. 300 Heads. The second has a complex specification because it involves several rules. Dembski says that part of meeting his specified complexity criterion is having "low specification" (and goes into detail with math and such justifying it). So in other words... he and Shostak agree completely. Shostak's "Very modest complexity, found out of context" pattern is the same concept as Dembski's "low specification" pattern.

Consider Shostak's statement where he distances SETI from ID, "Well, it’s because the credibility of the evidence is not predicated on its complexity. If SETI were to announce that we’re not alone because it had detected a signal, it would be on the basis of artificiality." The error is merely in his choice of words. Dig deeper and it reveals that the two are very similar. First he talks about ID looking for "complexity". Yes the phrases "irreducible complexity" and "specified complexity" have "complexity" in them. But Shostak assumes that by "complexity" design theorists mean something overly complicated... pattern #2 is more complex than pattern #1, for example. And he is portraying design theorists as looking at overly complicated systems as proof for design... when in his field design is recognized by simplicity (pattern #1s). This right here is a false comparison. Shostak's pattern #1s are equally complex in terms of probability as pattern #2s. What he's doing is comparing the specification of SETI's desired patterns against the sheer probabilities of IDs patterns. In specification, they both look for the simple. In probabilities, they both look for those that would be immensely improbable by nature alone.

Shostak's insistance that SETI is searching for "artificiality" acknowledges precisely this. What makes something artificial? The fact that its natural occurance is immensely improbable (ie complex in that regard), coupled with a modest, easy-to-describe (low specification) pattern (ie non-complex in that regard). Shostak and Dembski are saying the same thing... therefore SETI's critique is based only on ignorance or prejudice. David Bergan 20:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Or a simple difference of opinion. Take your pick. FeloniousMonk 21:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Except that they have the same opinion, as I just showed. It's only a difference of words that actually have the same meaning. Which is probably ignorance. I doubt Shostak read a lot of Dembski before writing his article. David Bergan 21:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with your and Dembski's take on it. Shostak paints a compelling picture. Also, Dembski's been shown to make exaggerated claims, as most well know. It would be interesting to know how much of SETI's actual procedures Dembski read prior to his claims to which Shostak responds. Either way, as a SETI researcher, Shostak is qualified to speak on their procedures, and the criticism stands. FeloniousMonk 02:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with your and Dembski's take on it.—What in particular do you disagree with? Is it not clear that Shostak's concepts are identical to Dembski's? If they are not... then could you point out how the two are different, and provide examples. Otherwise, I can't help but think that you are disagreeing based only on prejudice. David Bergan 15:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, Oh, wait a minute, what is it SETI stands for? Wait a minute, I'll get it...it's, uh, the Serarch for, uh, uhm, oh, yeah, the Search for Extra-Terrestrial, uh....oh, boy....uhm...oh, I remember, Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence. 'Nuff Said?

Jim62sch 00:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It's true that SETI's search and the IDists search for intelligence use some of the same criteria. There are two major differences though. SETI's assumption is that if they find complexity that it was created by some kind of biological aliens that probably evolved themselves on another planet. The IDists imply it to be a creator God. Also, in the sources of information, DNA, protein structures and the like, that the IDists search for complexity, there are better reasons to find such complexity than applealing to a creator God, namely evolution by natural selection. --JPotter 01:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep.

Jim62sch 01:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious on this one, and I ask because it has such bearing on the article and, (I suspect) the editors attitudes and writings - (now try and keep the ID movement's well known motivation out of ID for a second, imagine another group of people present a theory) - why is it that a theory which indicates a causer, which may or may not be supernatural, is necessarily religious rather than scientific?

I mean, imagine someone finds some radical proof we all accept that something we all thought was natural is actually artifical, and must have been placed here from outside the planet... um, oh I don't know, say, just for example, a map of the stars looking towards Earth from a position many light-years away. If the example isn't good enough, please imagine one - the point is something that we'd all accept as proof.

Now if it is possible that there is a god, must the theory not accept that a god might bethe causer?

Or can science, without proof either way, deny the possibility of a god? ant 03:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no problem with an outside, or artificial cause. One has only to show evidence through the so called scientific method. The problem is ID has yet to advance a theory subject to normal scientific principles. Untill that time it is foolish to squander energy on this clear distraction.

As to the existence of God, nobody can prove he does or does not. Of course it is impossible to prove through science anything that is supposed to be beyond the realm of science. --Nomen Nescio 03:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

"Nomen Nescio" as an alias, eh?, excellent! -- almost as good as Nemo Oudes. :)

Anyway, Nomen is correct, science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a deity because the concept is not falsifiable as it is based on non-scientific disciplines such as religion, spirituality, mythology, etc.

Ant, the theory does not "indicate" a causer, it infers one via anthropomorphism. There is a logical fallacy ion the argument, "As I can design I must have been designed". As for alien intervention that merely moves the question back a step and we are thus left with the proposition, who designed the aliens?

Jim62sch 14:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to point out one thing: SETI is not considered to be the most rigorous of "sciences" by anyone I can think of. While it certainly captures the public imagination, it is riddled with innuendo, unexplored terminology, and enough assumptions to make the most trusting scientist do a double-take. That SETI continues as a program is probably more due to its popularity than its rigor. SETI@home, those plaques on the Pioneer and Voyager probes, that publicity stunt of a message from Arecibo: all great PR and all of limited scientific utility or validity beyond the initial flight-of-fancy. After all, the Drake Equation, which is arguably the most famous conclusion to come out of the work, is riddled with problems -- not the least of which is that there is no definition of intelligence that anybody agrees upon. Dembski is exploiting a rather porous part of the astronomical sciences when he should be looking at studies of intelligence from people who are actually experts in the subject (cognitive and behavioral scientists, sociologists, etc).

Shostak's work is definitely not hurting anybody, but the dream of optical SETI is, like SETI endeavors of the past, mostly fluff.

--ScienceApologist 03:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

David, what exactly was your purpose in this large essay on the Talk page? Did you have any point to make about improving the article? At all?

If you wish to discuss ID and SETI and intelligence and so on, please find a forum - there are many. This is wasting space. WP is not infinite. The servers are not here for you to wax eloquent about your observations and/or beliefs unless you have a concise point which addresses the article.

Sorry if I sound testy but enough is enough. KillerChihuahua 12:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The article lists a critique against ID from SETI. However, if one unwraps the critique they find that it actually explains the search for intelligent causation exactly as the design theorists explain it. Therefore, the truth is that it is not a critique but only an opinion based on ignorance (or prejudice, or both). Keeping this critique in the article as stated is misinformation... which is not what an encyclopedia should be promoting. David Bergan 15:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

As was pointed out earlier, while SETI has engaged the public's imagination, it is rather sloppy science. It makes far too many assumptions that were anthropomorphically conceived to be real science. SETI looks in a very narrow band of possibilities, assuming for instance that messages will be in certain mathematical formats, that life must evolve on planetary systems with a chemical structure very close to our own, that messages would be within the EM spectrum in which we are looking, etc.

In essence then, a repudiation of ID by something that is on the cusp between science and pseudo-science really does not merit inclusion in the article.

Jim62sch 22:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is Wiki Violating its own POV rule

First paragraph of this article implies intelligent design has no merit at all; whereas, the first paragraph of evolution implies it is indeed fact.

Intelligent Design has THREE critism sections. Evolution doesn't have any critism sections.

Why is wiki Biased? You make a Change to Intelligent Design, that further riducules it and it stays. You dare to question any validity of Evolution, and its a Near-Instant Revert, and mods warning you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.115.141.10 (talk • contribs)

So, you've noticed that evolution is not actually criticised on scientific grounds, but are drawing the wrong conclusions. Philosophical criticism of evolution, in a sense, can be found in Social implications of the theory of evolution.

Believe me, there are plenty of editors here who would not hesitate to put scientific criticism of evolution in said article. Alas, there is no such thing. -- Ec5618 10:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Gosh, since evolution is all wrapped up and all problems are solved beyond any criticism I guess there won't be any more papers published in this field such as Submarine hydrothermal vents and associated gradient environments as sites for the origin and evolution of life John A. Baross, Sarah E. Hoffman Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 15(4):327 (1985) Endomion 05:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that's not true. Discussion continues, but this is not criticism of evolution, it is debate about specific points. Since not everything is understood, it's logical that there would be discussion of its finer points. There is agreement about the more general points through. Creationist works almost invariably cite mainstream science in their attempts to discredit evolution, but the discussion is not a criticism, but a discussion. -- Ec5618 07:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the two articles "imply" these things to you because you yourself have a bias. No one just makes a "change" to this article, from either the scientific or pro-ID viewpoint, without considerable discussion. I haven't ever edited the evolution page, but I'm guessing that if you made edits there that were immediately reverted, they were perhaps not consensus edits... try discussing on the talk page first. If your edits are scientifically verifiable, I'm sure that consensus would be to include them. -Parallel or Together ? 11:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The first paragraph says ID is controversial, but then gives its proponents case: the second para gives scientists criticism. It should perhaps be emphasised that ID (for at least its more scientific proponents) accepts evolution as a fact: their argument is how far the theory of natural selection can account for developments. I'd also like to see the intro include a link to the movement: a suggested add on to the first para -

This claim to scientific validity is the justification for the campaign by the Intelligent design movement "to defeat materialism" and replace it with "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." ...yours hopefully, ..dave souza 11:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

oh, and there is a criticism section at evolution#Criticism of evolution...dave souza 11:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

As well as a whole article devoted to the evolution/creation debate. -- Anon.

Dave,

Your point is valid, but I wonder if including that change to the first paragraph mightn't be just a bit too militant (although certainly no more militant than some of the edits (since reverted) made by IDists to the article). Let's see what others have to say.

Jim62sch 14:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no violation of the NPOV. Please see WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience. KillerChihuahua 14:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

KC,

I wasn't saying or implying that there was any violation (sorry if you misunderstood) and as I noted, I think Dave's point is valid. Again, sorry if I didn't state that clearly enough.

Jim62sch 15:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

To explain a little, this is an idea relating to earlier fully valid comment by KC that this page should focus on the theory and refer the wider implications to the movement article. It's closely based on part of the intro to that article, which is quoting ID proponents, though I thought the link to the reference didn't need to be duplicated here, I do think it's a worthwhile addition to avoid confusing the science with the movement...dave souza 16:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, strongly. Perhaps the comment I made earlier was poorly phrased, perhaps I was unclear. If ID were a religious movement with no claims to science then there would be no WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience issues. Evolution is a scientific subject which makes no religious claims; your comparison is inept. KillerChihuahua 16:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

KC is right on both points. And this article does focus on the theory. FeloniousMonk 18:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

One more time for the record:

Misplaced Pages uses the "neutral point-of-view", which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. That means we should present both sides to any dispute or debate. (see: NPOV, Why should Misplaced Pages be unbiased?
Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. (see: NPOV, Undue weight
The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly. (see: NPOV, Pseudoscience)
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 qua 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. (see: NPOV, Giving equal validity)

FeloniousMonk 18:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I grovel for my ineptitude: the main point is the suggestion that the intro links to the intelligent design movement and points out that ID is the (pseudo)scientific wing giving (self deluded or fraudulent) justification for the (political) ID movement: bracketed comments left by me for the reader to work out themselves, and don't forget that this sentence is followed by the science viewpoint. To me, the open ID intention to dictate a new "theistic science" fully justifies the hostile reaction from scientists. Anyway, another draft sentence:

This claim to scientific validity is used by the Intelligent design movement as justification for their campaign to introduce ideas of "theistic science".

Better suggestions for phrasing would be appreciated. ...dave souza 18:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm being dense, but in what way does your suggestion improve the intro? The points made in your post above are well covered in the Intelligent design movement article, there is a disambig page, there is a section completely devoted to the movement, with link to main article: in short, what are you proposing and how would it improve the article Intelligent design? (oh, and stop groveling, it makes me nervous! :D) KillerChihuahua 19:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

the points made are pretty well covered in the Intelligent design#Intelligent Design as a movement section, but to me the movement is so integral to the pseudoscience that it should be linked at the outset. No one would be interested in these daft "theories" if they weren't part of an attack on the basis of science. Just my suggestion. ...dave souza 19:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Dave, what came first? ID or the ID movement? Reflect on the question and decide if an article on ID really needs to start off talking about the movement. And also, with all the flak given for using the word "Darwinism" I would like to give some flak myself: who thought up the term "Intelligent Design Movement". I'm inclined to think it wasn't ID proponents. --chad 05:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, since the concept was created by (religiously motivated) people, I'd have to say the movement and the concept were either formed at the same time, or the movement preceded the concept. -- Ec5618 07:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Ec5618, please, re-read the article on the movement and re-evaluate your statement. Ask yourself, is it logical to think the movement could come first? I don't. So ID was created by religiously motivated people? (By the way, why is "religiously motivated" in parentheses? It's as if the important thing is that the concept was created by people, unlike evolution wholly by natural selection, and oh yeah, by the way, the people were religious. Remove the parentheses from the thesis of your sentence before someone else sees, then you can delete my comment.) I agree they were religious, I also don't see how this is relevant. Their religion led them to criticise the notion that the universe came about without God, and well, they studied the facts, and found a lot of holes in Darwin's theroy and the things that have grown out of it. If someone doesn't believe in God, the thought wouldn't enter their head to criticise Darwin's basic idea, because its the only idea so far to explain life without the need for God. ID-ists have done more to force Darwinists into rethinking many things and finding experimental proof of autocreation than anyone I've heard of. They have taken the most difficult parts of autocreation and brought them to light. Regardless of whether you believe in irreducible complexity, the examples brought up by ID-ists have yet to be answered except for by saying "we'll answer later, when we've done some rigged experiments". But the rigging only proves ID's point, that these things could have evolved, but not without rigging. That's the premise, the movement was created as a way to spread this premise, and in the end, to have people realise the repercussions of the existence of a rigger. --chad 08:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I stand by my statement: when the concept was forged, so was the movement. That it was forged by religiously motivated people is indeed not relevant here.

Also, at one point I came into this discussion wide-eyed and willing to give ID a chance. I did everything I could to show ID in the most positive light imaginable (within the premises of the available facts, of course). Though I don't edit the article as actively now, I like to think that my adherence to NPOV still remains strong. But I'm afraid you're mistaken. ID was created out of religious zeal, not a combination of religion and a 'study of facts'. Everything suggests that the 'facts' are selected, in what I can only attribute to bad faith, to cast doubt on evolution, in the most laughable way. Many ID websites, for example, use argumentation that any biologically inclined student is able to debunk by age 17. In scientific circles this would not be accepted, but ID proponents use these arguments personally, in their books and oratories.

Did you hear that Darwin recanted and became a christian on his deathbed? (Never mind that he was born a christian, grew up to be devout, and never 'recanted')
Did you hear that the eye could not have been the product of evolution, because it is IC. (Never mind that IC can evolve, and that pathways showing how the mammalian eye could have evolved are available). -- Ec5618 09:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Ec5618: I certainly hope you weren't addressing these rebuttals of so-called ID claims at me. I have never said that Darwin recanted on his deathbed, because I never thought that it really mattered; neither have I (or Behe et al) said that the eye is IC. That's just ridiculous. And also realise, that pathways showing how something could have evolved are a way of copping out, again. Let's see a "pathway" that shows the first mutation that took place in the organism, what DNA it affected, the chances of the mutation occuring, the reason why the organism was more fit to survive, and shows the second mutation in the same light, as well as all the mutations thereafter leading to the many varieties of mammalian eye including the neural pathways that control them and make them different (e.g. whale vision and human vision require completely different neural pathways). No one has been provided with such a pathway (we won't even go into experimental proof of such radical changes). Of course its irrelevant because the majority of the scientific community knows it happened, and it won't listen to people asking "how?". Of course, it is very likely that such a thing did happen, as DNA between mammals is similar, and the eyes of various species aren't as different as they are the same, and yet, it is no surprise that the notion of IC is attacked without even thinking about it. First the Darwinists say "there is no such thing as IC" and then go to great lengths to prove it with thought experiments. Then they say "IC can evolve" as if that's fact. I mean, you might say "IC could evolve", but even that is an oxymoron, because the definition of IC is something that can't evolve, at least according to Darwin. So one of three things is true, either IC has been discredited because there is real evidence that anything can be reduced, or IC has not been discredited but it can (by way of oxymoron) evolve (without any real experimental proof), or IC is very possible and poses a problem which should be addressed. Leave god out of it if you please, but please don't say there is no problem. The eye is a bad example of IC, but there are plenty of other examples to which darwinists simply say "You are ignoring the fact that IC can evolve." --chad 10:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that you were an idiot, believe me. Just that many IDists (or creation science adherents) don't know, and don't care to know, what they're talking about.

The eye was definately used as an example of an organ that could not possibly evolve. The argument misquotes Charles Darwin as having stated that even he found it incredible.

As for IC, according to Behe's original defintion, the concept refers to systems that require all components to be place to function. It says nothing about the system coming about. So the eye, if it were to fail if a single component were removed, would be IC. Ofcourse, IC more often used to refer to systems that supposedly could not possibly form through an evolutionary process. Still, according to the original definition, mixed with current biological knowledge, IC can evolve, because the working and purpose of any component can change over time. You know this, surely. Are you saying you will not be satisfied unless someone explains the exact working of the process? I quite like this quote: "My country has this to say on laymen: "A lunatic will ask more than a thousand scholars can answer." (Nomen Nescio)"

Finally, importantly, even if major holes did exist in evolution, that would not make alternative concepts more valid. Or, in other words, science does not deal with the supernatural, and will always look for a naturalistic answer. Some people have tried, and they invariably feel they have succeeded in finding most, or enough, of those answers, while others have not tried, for whatever reason. Why should that latter group be heard in this matter of science? -- Ec5618 13:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Chad, thank you for asking me to question what came first? ID or the ID movement? This seems a useful source. Also, you're right to question the relevance of the argument about it being "forged by religiously motivated people": the same could be said of the theology graduate Charles Darwin when he was investigating natural history. ...dave souza 13:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Chad,

For current proof of structural mutation at the microbial level, I suggest the you look into Avian Flu. This disease, which had not been infectious at the trans-species level has mutated to become so.

Jim62sch 23:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is Wiki Violating its own POV rule, cont.

Okay, i can't answer all your objections, haven't got the time. First of all, Nomen is misrepresenting the facts when he says that "IDists (or creation science adherents)... Charles Darwin as having stated that even he found incredible." First of all, what does even he mean. Perhaps it should be even He? ;-). Fact is, Darwin did find the eye incredible, but he had faith in his theory, and therefore he basically said that "the eye did evolve through small steps and I won't have it otherwise". Also, you're implying that science is intrinsically oxymoronic by these two assertions: 1. Any thing that cannot be falsified is not science 2. Science "will always look for a naturalistic answer". What if there is no naturalistic answer for some things? Is the answere "Well, that's impossible because it's not scientific."? If so, the very basis of science—that all answers can be found naturalistically—is unfalsifiable, which makes science qualify as a fallacy (if we believe what you say) and the faith put in science is very much like religious faith. And just a note, your quote about lunatics is really quite irrelevant and no one will say, "you know what, I am a lunatic, so you have a point there." It's just argument language that goes nowhere.

Dave, good point. But please, provide me with a reference of an ID-ist using the term "ID movement" originally (i.e. not as a rebuttal of an attack on ID).

Finally, Jim, did the avian flu virus mutate into some new HIV virus? It's actually still the flu and may be a distant "descendant" of a flu that effected pterosaurs, but we certainly can't say with a hint of certainty that it evolved from a herpes-like virus, or from something like smallpox. And moreover, viruses are considered by many (if not most) to not be organisms, and they certainly aren't as complex as, say, echo-location in bats and whales. Not that I'm saying avian flu necessarily didn't evolve from a completely different virus or from some proteins and nucleotides misplaced by a bacteria, I can't say that necessarily, because there's no way for anyone to falsify that. --chad 05:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Chad,

When the answer is not readily available, simply saying, "A deity or Intelligent Designer musta done it" is a cop out: a sign of intellectual weakness and analytical laziness. For example, we knew that the sun went around the Earth (and 20% of Americans still "know" that), until Galileo showed otherwise. We knew that malaria was caused by bad air, until the protozoan parasites causing the disease were isolated. We knew that witches floated. We knew that all of the languages spoken on Earth were due to the hullabaloo at the Tower of Babel, until linguists proved otherwise.

Saying that science is oxymoronic based on the two criteria provided is oxymoronic in itself. There is nothing oxymoronic (you really should have said paradoxical) about the relationship between falsifiability and a naturalistic explanation, in fact the two criteria are mutually supporting. Any explanation that includes a supernatural or paranormal entity is not scientific because it is not testable. There is simply no way to collect objective data to prove or disprove the theory. Therefore, any assertions based on supernatural or paranormal entities belong in the realms of theology and mythology.

Finally, you completely misunderstood what I said about the avian flu. Reread my comment. (And BTW, HIV appears to have been a trans-species mutation of a virus (SIV) found in chimpanzees.)

Jim62sch 10:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

SIV to HIV is not surprising, considering how close genetically chimps and humans are, but that's not the same thing as speciation and no reason for glee that more "evidence" has been found supporting darwinism. And sorry about the oxymoron/paradox slip-up, I work as a translator/editor and my English is kinda screwy now. I'll repeat what I said in a different way to make it more understandable: science posits that all answers about nature are to be found in nature; yet the idea that all answers about nature can be found in nature is unfalsifiable; yet science must be falsifiable. This is the great paradox. The very basis of science is unfalsifiable by its very nature. --chad 11:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Glee? I was making a point based on your HIV example. It seems to me that you have a strong tendency towards unsubstantiated inference, which would make you not the best of scientists. (No, that's not an ad hominem attack, it's an analysis based on your posts).

Anyway, how is "the idea that all answers about nature can be found in nature" unfalsifiable? It's falsifiable if one can find proof that we do not eventually find the answers in nature. The problem is, we do. Many of the great mysteries have been solved, and more are being solved every day. That many people cannot comprehend the logic or proofs behind the solutions is not the scientist's problem. True, there are still mysteries yet to be resolved, but we will get there without invoking a leap in illogic that involves the need for a paranormal solution.

Jim62sch 00:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Call for new editors

This is really sad. Clearly, some of you are solely bent on knocking ID, and are using this to further your own viewpoints. Can we please get fresh editors, who can provide a breath of fresh air and stop this? Before, I asked for one other article that is structured like this one. KC, FM and others failed to provide one. So, again I ask: is there any other article that has such an outrageous structure, designed solely to mock and knock the subject? The answer is no. I researched this. Observe: http://en.wikipedia.org/Global_warming_controversy The vast majority of scientists support global warming, and yet the global warming articles don't contain the OVERWHELMING criticism of the minority viewpoints designed solely to disprove the belief. The bottom line is that this article has been hijaaked by a group of wiki editors who have a personal grudge against ID and its proponents, as is evident by the often terse responses here. So, I implore those who have dominated this article to turn things over to different editors and to start treating ID like EVERYTHING else in wikipedia. Trilemma 19:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The global warming argument page presents both sides, and more significantly it;s about science, not an attack on the basis of modern science in favour of a particular interpretation of religion. Note that ideas for edits are being discussed here: feel free to have "different editors" make proposals within NPOV guidelines on pseudoscience. ....dave souza 20:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The argument for the format of ID is that it is held by a minority of scientists and is not provable, scientifically. Well, the exact same thing is true for the minority opinions on global warming, and many other beliefs, none of which have a comparable format. Calling ID an 'interpretation of religion' is a trite misrepresentation of the belief. Trilemma 20:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, Dave is correct, and Trilemma's comparison is inept. ID is not science. Global warming is. It might be an area of contention, but it is science and real scientists are doing research in that field. The only research scientist, and I use that term loosely, involved in ID is Behe; he has announced plans for real research and testable hypothoses (sp?) but as yet has not made them public. KillerChihuahua 20:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

More to the point, the GW pages are not balanced - they are built out of compromise with people pushing very hard for the inclusion equal treatment of minority viewpoints. They're also a bad precedent because the two chief proponents of the minority pov ended up banned from Misplaced Pages (in one case) or banned from climate change articles (in the other case). The GW articles are not balanced, these ones are (more or less). Bad example. Guettarda 20:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Guettarda is right. The Global warming article is out of step, and warrants some significant copyediting to bring it back into line. FeloniousMonk 21:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it more likely that with no other article on wikipedia conforming to your idea of 'balanced', this article is in fact the one that needs to be brought back in line? Trilemma 21:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

No-one said there were no balanced articles on Misplaced Pages, just that your example is faulty. -- Ec5618 21:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It turns out that no formal process is required in order to become an editor, so nothing's stopping you from making an attempt at changing this page. Of course, not everyone's necessarily going to agree with your suggestions. Of course, given that the name you chose is a popular but deeply flawed apologetic argument made famous by C.S. Lewis, I'm going to guess that you just might have some problems with bias. Alienus 21:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Trilemma's comment "Calling ID an 'interpretation of religion' is a trite misrepresentation of the belief." is significant. I didn't do that: what I was saying is that ID, as the basis for the intelligent design movement, is part of an attack on the basis of modern science in favour of a particular interpretation of religion. Repeated testimony by the main ID proponents openly confirms that. The use of the word "belief" emphasises the point: ID is a religious belief, not a scientific hypothesis. ...dave souza 21:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Alienus, you hit at a valid point: I would have problems with bias, every bit the problems with bias that current editors have, only from the opposite end of the idealogical isle. I am indeed a fan of C.S. Lewis, the greatest philosopher of the past 150 years.

dave souza, while many ID'ers also are Christians, ID is not a movement of theology or limited to one religion. There are agnostic ID'ers, Buddhist ID'ers, etc. ID deals with scientific principles, not religious dogma, which is why people from varied religious denominations embrace it.

Saying ID is a push to embrace a particular religion is like saying evolution is a push to embrace athiesm, because a great deal of evolutionists are athiests.

Finally, ec5618, I don't understand what you're getting at--did I accuse people of saying there are no balanced articles on wikipedia? On the contrary, I think a great deal of articles on wikipedia do an admirable job of attaining balance. This is not one of them. My point is that this article stands apart from every other article in terms of its format and its overwhelming sledgehammering of criticism. To say that this article has it right in format is to inculpate every other article on wikipedia. Trilemma 22:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

<Does spit-take> Agnostic and Buddhist IDists? name 5. --JPotter 22:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Lewis the most important philosopher of the past 150 years? ROFL.

Anyway, see "Intelligent design is not creationism", - see the replies in there, I won't bother repeating them. Or are those quotes in there quote mined? — Dunc|☺ 22:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see verifiable proof of ONE Buddhist or Agnostic IDist, the heck with 5. As for the statement that "a great deal of evolutionists are athiests", it is not only wrong, but it would be irrelevant if it were true (besides,. you need to define "a great deal" -- it is as meaningless as "more than a few" or "a significant number" or any other such tripe.

Had your charge against Dave that he stated that "ID an 'interpretation of religion'", one would merely answer, "And?". As that is precisely what ID is, your point would of little value to the discussion. Additionally, pointing out that ID is creationism masquerading as science is hardly trite; it is part of the crux of the argument against ID as a science. In fact, in today's NYT (it's always good to broaden one's reading horizon) we have the following quote: "Derek Davis, director of the J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies at Baylor, said: "I teach at the largest Baptist university in the world. I'm a religious person. And my basic perspective is intelligent design doesn't belong in science class." Mr. Davis noted that the advocates of intelligent design claim they are not talking about God or religion. "But they are, and everybody knows they are," Mr. Davis said. "I just think we ought to quit playing games. It's a religious worldview that's being advanced.""

C.S. Lewis the greatest philosopher of the last 150 years? The funnier part is C. S. Lewis as a philosopher. He was no more than a theologian and Christian apologist. Your bias is showing.

Jim62sch 01:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

"more significantly it;s about science, not an attack on the basis of modern science in favour of a particular interpretation of religion." Dave, can you see that this is a biased POV? Behe has a degree in biochemistry, not religion. Guillermo Gonzalez is an assistant professor of astronomy, not religion. You are, of course, entitled to your POV that ID is pseudoscience, and I, for one, certainly favor having that POV represented on the page. But it's unfair to present this as an unbiased perspective in the article, particularly when proponents of ID deny it. I, myself, am not a proponent of ID...but I would like to see the playing field leveled, and I am a proponent of fairness.

above section copied from diffs which blanked part of this section, comment by Lutepisc Alf 23:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

duncan, I didn't say CS Lewis was the most important philosopher of the past 150 years; I said he was the greatest. There's a difference. You can make the case that other philosophers were more important in terms of cultural impact, but I feel that none were as great as CS Lewis, the single most articulate Christian philosopher since the time of the the writing of the New Testament.

alf, that was a tremendously well made point. Trilemma 23:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Re "none were as great as CS Lewis, the single most articulate Christian philosopher since the time of the the writing of the New Testament": thank you for both proving my point and destroying your own argument. It's things like that that make life so much easier.Jim62sch 01:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

And precisely how does my admiration for CS Lewis have the slightest bearing on the article? Your comment comes off as profoundly arrogant and endemic of an undercurrent of a superiority complex here. I don't mean to sound accusatory, but it's just an honest observation. Nothing personal, I just think this article has devolved into sectarian squabling and tendentious fits of might.

No one has yet to ever truly address my points, let alone those of alf, and it shows why we need new editors for this article. Trilemma 02:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

No, Lutepisc (via Alf) misses the point. The article only presents "ID is pseudoscience" as an attributed viewpoint, not as a fact. As long as the scientific community continues to view ID as pseudoscience it will have a place in the article as significant view held by the majority viewpoint. FeloniousMonk 00:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Read the archives, ID is only about biology. Someone's degree in astronomy is irrelevant. And yes Mike Behe does hold a degree in biochemistry. He also thinks that humans and chimpanzees are related and share a common ancestor that lived 5-7 million years ago.He does not have a problem with the so called "macroevolutionary theory. Behe is one of the more benign ID researchers. Steven Meyers, Dembski, Johnson are another story. --JPotter 00:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear "Trilemma". Please stop interspersing your comments within the text of others. Put your comments at the end. This is Wiki policy, and you are violating it. Bill Jefferys 02:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, it is an honest mistake. Trilemma 02:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Trilemma, I think you misunderstood my comment, perhaps even unintentionally, so I'll explain. The bias problem I spoke of is that you're plainly biased. This is proven by your claim that Lewis was a philosopher, when in fact he was just another apologist (as Jim62sch pointed out). The difference is vital: Philosophers seek truth, while apologists are certain they have it already, and therefore want to force it down everyone else's throat at any cost. Your role here is clearly that of an apologist, as you wish to bias this page towards your religion. I find this deeply offensive. Alienus 05:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Call for new editors, cont.

What happened:

Trilemma mentioned C.S. Lewis in a response to an attack on his credibility based on his nickname.
Trilemma stated his opinion that C.S. Lewis sought truth (i.e. was a philosopher), and in his opinion did it exceedingly well.
Various users used this statement against Trilemma, and most severely Alienus, who as far as I can tell has either never read C.S. Lewis or has read him, but forgotten what he read. C.S. Lewis was an atheist evolutionist turned Christian evolutionist. If anything, C.S. Lewis is a good example of how evolution can be believed by Christians. Why people are claiming that he "forced what he was certain to be truth down everyone else's throat" is beyond me, when he really has a lot to say for the cause of Evolution in light of widespread religion. And what this has to do with ID is even more beyond me. If you want to ask why someone has a particular nickname, fine. But I think its inappropriate to use someone's nickname or opinion of some person against them when it comes to constructively editing an article that has nothing to do with either nicknames or whether or not C.S. Lewis was a philosopher.

Further observations. I would suggest consensus on the fact that everyone (with the exception of a very few) is biased. Some people are so biased that they will claim they are not biased. That only proves my point.

The problem with this article is that it's not a discussion of ID. I can learn practically nothing about what ID-ists believe from reading this article. I only can learn that they've said stupid things (which darwinists have done as well). I can learn about a few of the issues they find with Darwinism. I learn about their religion. I don't have a clear picture of what they believe, and why they believe it. If I had no idea about ID before I read this article I would think one of two things: (1) ID-ists are idiots or (2) ID-ists are liars and con-artists. Neither of these can possibly be true, which presents us with a trilemma, because Behe et al seem to be intelligent decent people with good intentions. There really has to be some reason why people believe in ID. The main editors on this article are bound and determined to find cites of people who support their POV. A NPOV article on ID would display both POVs, making it NPOV. This article fails to do that over and over and over again. It is obvious. IMBO (in my biased opinion) this article should discuss all the arguments for ID, not just i.c.. It should include quotes from proponents arguing coherently for ID rather than making them look like idiots and liars (the former is for all intents non-existent in the article). The best strategy for making the article NPOV would be having ID proponents arguing against ID, and mainstreamers arguing for it. This approach would also assist in making the editors more objective in general, and assuming this isn't the only wp article we work on, it would help make wp in general more objective.

So let's answer the following questions about ourselves:

Am I biased?
Do my edits and discussions reflect my bias?
Do I want the article to be unbiased?
What can I do to reach this goal?

--chad 06:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep in mind that CS Lewis, while having nothing to do with the article was brought up by trilemma, and the statement made by trilemma re CS Lewis indicated a strong bias. Your take on Lewis as having been an atheist is interesting, although not supported -- in fact, he talks of reading his Bible in a search for clues as a young teen. His only mention of atheism entering his young life was when he called his instructor, W. T. Kirkpatrick, "a hard satirical atheist." But, more than enough on this subject.

Yes, everyone has some bias as we all see the world through the prism of our own thoughts, beliefs, experiences, etc. Moreover, while the aim of many of us is perfect objectivity it is a goal we are unlikely to reach fully. However, this does not translate to an indictment that "The main editors on this article are bound and determined to find cites of people who support their POV. A NPOV article on ID would display both POVs, making it NPOV. This article fails to do that over and over and over again." This statement in and of itself shows your own extreme bias, to which you alluded.

Enough for now.

Jim62sch 11:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Jim, read the article, and keep this question in mind: Is this NPOV? Don't keep the answer "yes" in mind, keep the question in mind. And please, address my points, not my wording. After re-reading the article, tell me if it displays ID-ists with at least a shadow of credibility? Or does it, like I suggested, seem to say they are either idiots or liars? If you disagree with my assertion, could you at least try to conclude why I would have that impression, and assume that if I had the perception, it is likely that others will as well. I'll try to make a few changes, but I've got to work. --chad 12:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Chad,

Would you prefer that the article left out any criticism of ID, failed to report that there are problems with ID's assertions regarding peer review, failed to note the connection between ID and religion, failed to note that it simply does not -- no matter how much people might tend to wish otherwise -- qualify as a science, etc.? You need to remember that ID is a minority viewpoint. (In fact this is somewhat akin to the debate in the fifties and sixties between the "Big Bang" of Gamow and the Static Universe of Hoyle. The Big Bang was scoffed at until in 1965 background radiation was found, proving that the big bang was the correct theory. However, that's the end of the parallel, both Gamow's and Hoyle's theories were scientifically sound, parsimonious, falsifiable, etc.; these same traits simply cannot be said about ID as it presupposes, nay, requires a supernatural entity.)

No matter how much ID literature I have read, all I have been able to see are objections to its major premises. But, I've been a skeptic most of my life. Look, there are even parts of theoretical physics, a discipline that is one of the most scientifically rigorous out there with which I disagree -- items ranging from Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle to Ed Whitten's M-theory -- but my disagreements are solid scientifically, because the science itself is solid. There is just no real science in ID, therefore to pretend there is, and to create an article without all of the caveats so IDists would feel more comfortable would be plain wrong.

In other words: no, I do not think the article says that IDists are stupid or are liars. Additionally, there are sufficient links to IC, SC and other portions of ID that one can get a good understanding of ID. But, as this is an encyclopedia, not a book by Behe or Dembski, we can hardly fit in every fact regarding ID.

In fact, I have an idea for you to try: apply Carl Sagan's "baloney test" to ID and tell me what you come up with.

Jim62sch 17:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Chad needs to read again NPOV, Giving equal validity, NPOV, Undue weight, and NPOV, Pseudoscience. His objections betray a flawed understanding of the policy. Misplaced Pages articles advocate no single point of view, but are to present both sides to any dispute or debate, per NPOV, Why should Misplaced Pages be unbiased?.

Also, his characterization of the article is itself a bit skewed; the statements in the article from both sides are well-cited and easily verified, per WP:V. Any review of the cites shows that they are accurate and credible, per WP:CITE and WP:RS. Since the viewpoints and their supporting cites are both significant and accurate, Chad removing them or rewriting them to present ID in a more favorable light goes against both the policies and goals of Misplaced Pages. FeloniousMonk 18:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Jim, I was not the one who brought up CS Lewis; someone else did in precipitously questioning my possible bias.

Really, no one is addressing the points made by myself, chad, alf etc, which demonstrates the need of new editors here. The way these points are being handled, and the attitude expressed by some (not FM, who has always remained civil in discussion) shows this.Trilemma 21:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, let's try this: one of you put forth a concise list of your points and then they can be answered, assuming your points are germaine to the article.

Also, if someone was "precipitously questioning" your "possible bias" in the anticipation that you would show your cards, it looks like they won the hand.

Jim62sch 23:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Getting back to ID as science. Does science not mean there has to be peer review? If so, just add the articles supporting ID that were published in the scientific journals. Should they be absent the scientific method does not apply, and ID is not science.--Nomen Nescio 23:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

To what do you refer by 'win the hand', Jim? Why do my personal beliefs matter more than yours; why do you attempt to disqualify my points based on my personal beliefs and yet ignore your own bias?

As to my points, my number one point is that there is no other article structured like this one on wikipedia. None. No other so called 'pseudoscience' article is structured this way, with overwhelming criticism and structural bias. The fact that this article stands apart from every other article out there says that it needs significant work done on it. People need to stop working toward knocking and mocking ID and start doing a service to wikipedia, instead of a detriment. Now, that's my number one point, not involving the points of other members on the board who have posted concurring opinions. Trilemma 23:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Trilemma, the other pseudoscience articles need work, in some cases a lot of work. This article has had more attention from more editors than any other pseudoscience article, because its the only one that more than a handful of fringe thinkers take seriously. This pseudoscience, in fact, is actually being taught in some US schools, in science class not philosophy or religious studies. So the ID article has benefited from a great deal of careful attention, because its the only currently viable pseudoscience (and by "viable" I mean not completely dead.) I find it ironic, at the very least, that you use that very fact as some kind of "flaw". Your thinking is vacuous, your reasoning spurious, your issues aren't, and your "number one point" is backwards. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 00:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

That, dear friend, reveals your own bias and the overwhelming bias shown by some on here, and does nothing to address the point. The fact that every other article follows a more respectable format says that this one's format is incorrect, not that every other article needs work. Misplaced Pages is not the place to wage a personal crusade against ideas you don't respect.Trilemma 00:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely correct - WP is not the place to wage a personal crusade. I'm glad you finally got that. Your bias, my bias, no one's bias nor their personal beliefs matter - those need to be set aside, to the extent we are capable. KillerChihuahua 01:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Trilemma,

Re "win the hand", I don't see a need for elaboration as my English was quite straightforward.

As for the rest of your post, it seems to me that you clearly want to see an article that shows the true glorious genius of ID. That's just not going to happen in this forum. You complain of a POV bias, and yet seek a different one. If I might suggest something, it might do you some good to do a bit more research before raising points that are inaccurate at best. The purpose here is not to "knock and mock" ID, but to balance its objectives and beliefs (the minority view) with the overwhelming body of evidence that shows it to be a pseudo-science (the majority view). This article gives sufficient space to the various books available on ID, so that someone wishing to know more on ID (i.e., the nuts and bolts) might acquire them. Trust me, the article on M-theory hardly explains the complexities of, or problems facing, that theory: one needs to read a book or ten on the subject to comprehend it fully. Jim62sch 01:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Killerchihuahua: I never did not 'get that', while on the contrary, it is yourself, Jim and others who do not understand this, and have used the article as a means to launch a crusade against ID through overwhelming structural inadequacy and saturated criticism, something which you in fact make no effort to deny and instead insist on justifying the policy. Then, you go on to assert that every other article has it wrong and you, only you, have it right.

Now, let's explore another article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Jesus-Myth

The 'Jesus myth' argument is one held by a tiny minority of academics and goes against the majority opinion of qualified individuals. Yet it is not represented as ID is here, and, still yet, I do not attempt to make it so. I do not seek to overwhelm the article with structural bias or use it as a pedastool to disprove the (silly) belief. The Jesus-myth article, while presenting a viewpoint held by a tiny majority, represents the proper format of wikipedia articles.

And Jim, I am in no way attempting to make the article into one 'uplifting' ID, nor has a single comment made by me come anywhere close to suggesting such a statement. On the contrary, you take the sectarian outlook of: If you're not on my side, you're trying to bias it to the other side. This is a cheap rhetorical trick. I don't want the ID article to 'affirm' ID, I just want it to present it without overwhelming structural bias, saturated criticism and subterfuge mockery. Trilemma 01:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This is getting nowhere. I understand WP:NPOV. I am not on a "crusade." I do not appreciate your continual hostile accusations. Your tone is becoming more and more strident and your accusations more inaccurate. Please make a concise and clear suggestion, with cites, for improving the article. KillerChihuahua 01:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

KC, I think you ought to reread the article before accusing me of hostility. I find far more hostility in statements made by yourself and Jim, amongst others, such as your 'vaccuous' comment and Jim's digression into attacking CS Lewis. The far more harsh, accusatory tone has come from those in defense of this current format and in vehement personal opposition to ID.Trilemma 01:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Trilemma,

Please provide your ideas, with citations, of what could be done to improve the article.

Jim62sch 01:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I'll repeat that my primary goal in bringing this up was, as the title suggests, demonstrating the need for new editors in this article, not particularly myself. This is not out of laziness; rather, particularly given my extensive discussion on these pages, I believe that the followers of this page would react better to others involving themselves in the process, particularly those who have had no prior role in the article.

Additionally, I sought to provide evidence of structural and personal bias overwhelming the article, which I feel I have done succesfully. I have pointed out that no other article uses a format remotely similar to this, even those that stand on little or no academic merit and stand in the face of widely held professional opinions, such as the 'Jesus-myth' article (which, while I disagree with the theory absolutely, I also absolutely endorse the structure of the article, which is proper--note that it contains a format similar to the one I initially proposed, which is neither confusing nor giving de facto bias to the theory, as some accused). Secondly, Jim and KC, amongst others (notably excluding FM), validated the second element of my complaint by engaging in ad hominem attacks and going so far as to insert and then attack CS Lewis in the discourse surrounding Intelligent Design. The digressions, hostility, disrespect and unwillingness to listen to points show the clear personal bias in the current ID wiki community, to go along with the overwhelming structural bias.

Now, I will return to direct, specific reccomendations. The structure of the article should conform to the generally practiced format of wikipedia articles, such as the Jesus-myth articles. Introduce the belief, discuss its followers and its status in America and worldwide, make the points for, make the points against. Show that a large majority of scientists do not agree with ID. Link to sites of both sides of the argument, and end. The article should be that simple.

Note that I in no way wish to make the article pro ID, nor have I ever said anything of the sort. I fully expect that the article should explicate the status of ID as a viewpoint held by a relatively small number of scientists, as the Jesus-myth article states that the viewpoint is held by a very small number of academics. That, dear friends, is an example of an article being proper. This is not. Trilemma 22:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Small note: If your goal was not to insult everyone who has edited this article, perhaps you would have done better to choose a less agressive header than the one you chose.

Small request: When you edit, would you please edit by section and leave a useful summary? I have the hardest time finding where you've added new comments so I can reply.

The structure is fine. There are thousands of articles on WP, with many differences, and this one conforms to WP:STYLE.

One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 23:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

KC, I'll take note of that request, though I'm not sure what you mean by edit by section...I do reccomend checking the history tab and looking at the difference link, which is the way I cover new additions. I find it to be much easier than wading through the huge discussion page. In any case, I'll fill in the edit summary box for future edits.

While my title could be misinterpreted, my intent was not to insult anyone. By pointing out your bias, I'm not trying to insult you. I think that you're a very good member of the wikipedia community, but also that this is an article you should recuse yourself from, and allow fresh voices to set it right

And, you continue to claim that the format is acceptable, when I have showed that it is far different from all other articles on wikipedia, and much different from comparable articles. Simply put, I don't think there's veracity in your claim, and I hope that the community sees this and moves to reform it. Trilemma 23:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Please read the following before asserting that there are no other articles like this on WP:

Ufology

Biblical scientific foresight

Dianetics

Graphology

There are many others...I just thought I'd share a few.

Jim62sch 01:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

fixed the links -- Ec5618

Jim, some of those aren't even remotely comparable in format. The only one that really is set up to voice both the points for and points against, is the Biblical scientific foresight article, which is structured much more like my proposition for this article, and much more like the Jesus-myth article, which, strangely, no one has criticized as being improperly formatted. The point stands: the format seen in the Jesus-myth article, along with most if not all other comparable articles, is very different from the format here, and ought to be practiced in this article, too.

And, is it not true that roughly 90% of your own activity has occured on this article, Jim? I think this is a prime example of using wikipedia as part of a personal crusade against something.

If I had registered and spent 90% of my time editing the Jesus-myth article and attempting to overwhelm it with criticism and structural bias, I would hope it wouldn't have been accepted. And, this structural bias shouldn't be accepted. Trilemma 01:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Trilemma - thanks, it will help to have an edit summary.

With all due respect to Trilemma and Jim62sch, there are no "comparable articles" on WP, because there is no other pseudoscience which is currently being presented as "science" in the same way. It makes this a different situation than reporting on Alchemy. We don't have to worry about stepping on toes when we describe Alchemy as protoscience and not science, and mention the mysticism and mythology involved. No one has launched a serious effort to put Alchemy in place of Chemistry, or "teach the controversy" between it and Chemistry. Alchemy is Old News, not current, not taken seriously by anyone other than a few crackpots. The Alchemy article probably needs attention, but it is not that important to have the positions of notable proponents entered, because they are all dead and either forgotten or better known for something else. There is less data on their positions as well. Some day, ID will be Old News also. Not today. When it is old news, we might very well edit this down to a much briefer, and less sympatheic, article.

Dianetics could certainly use some work. No one is suggesting psychiatry school teach that instead of psychiatry, though.

Quite frankly, the Jesus myth is irrelevent to this discussion. KillerChihuahua 03:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe the Jesus-myth is most pertinent to this article. Just like ID, it is a belief put forth by a small minority of people qualified in the field. They put forth this theory the same as Behe, etc. put forth ID. You can not argue for permeated structural basis on the precept of "new" vs. old news, and your statement about having to "worry" about ID seems to only further my statement that this article serves as a means to a personal mission held by some editors to discredit ID.

Misplaced Pages shouldn't be a place where 'worrying' about current issues affects the approach to the structural format and delivery of article content. If you worry about ID, then the thing to do is to join an anti ID group like the ACLU, not to use wikipedia to further your personal agenda.

There needs to be more uniformity to articles in this area, as there are for articles relating to other fields. And, I think it's plain to see that the best format is the one used for the Jesus-myth article: Simply document the belief, its genesis, its points, its counter points, and link to pertinent websites. Going beyond that basic format does a disservice to the wikipedia community. Trilemma 03:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

the Jesus-myth is completely irrelevent to this discussion. It is not pseudoscience, so Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view#Pseudoscience does not apply.

I don't worry about ID, do you?

KillerChihuahua 04:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

KC,

Good points. You're correct that there are no other articles like this one; I just selected a few that were vaguely similar. (Can I use the excuse that it was late and I was tired?)

Anyway, the bottom line is, as you said, ID is not old news -- in fact, it is a hot-button issue. And that is precisely what has led to both the length and structure of the article. Reading through the archives, one can see that every effort has been made to address the concerns of IDists within the bounds of the NPOV guidelines. However, it is beginning to seem as if an entire rewrite is being suggested, and that to me seems ludicrous, at best.

Jim62sch 11:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

KC, it could be said of the Jesus-myth that it is pseudo history: that is, it is not accepted by the vast majority of historians, and it stands against much historical record. The reason it is directly analogous is because it deals with the treatment of a belief not accepted by the majority of qualified individuals. Despite its lacking in historical merit and status as a minority belief, there is no movement to overwhelm it in structural bias, including none by me. That is not the job of an encyclopedia, that's the job of a special interest group.

Your idea, too, that the subject matter's relevance to contemporary affairs dictates the size of its aritlce is off base: many of wikipedia's largest and most thorough articles involve subject matter not relevant to contemporary affairs, such as old wars.

However, if you insist on adjusting the size of the article to the current state of it in contemporary society, then I can at least see its merits. But, there we are talking about a quantitative approach to article design. What I am bringing up here is the qualitative approach. Simply put, it's acceptable to have a large article, but it is not acceptable to overwhelm the article with structural bias. I have no problem with explicating ID's status as not being accepted by the mainstream scientific community, but this may not infringe on the structural integrity of the article.

The fact that you talk of 'needing' to provide bias against ID because of its state in American society shows that you're allowing yourself to edit on a personal bias. It's editorial vigilanteism. Dividing things into simple sections of "arguments" and "counter arguments" works, as the Jesus-myth article shows. That is the most effective and most concise format.

And, some of the editors that work on this are working on a personal mission to debase, dimean and mock ID. When 90% of an editors edits come in one article, with a clear point of view, this speaks of obvious POV. It is not wikipedia's place to attempt to disprove ID, as the article does now in its structural bias.

And Jim, rewriting the article is hardly ludicrous. I'd be more than happy to. Trilemma 22:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Call for new editors, cont. 2

Jim, you seem to be terrfied of the article becoming a pro-ID one. No one has even implied this. No one has suggested giving ID undue weight. No one has suggested moving the scientific majority assertion that it is a pseudoscience. This is all hogwash. If Trilemma seems upset, that doesn't mean everyone should ignore the points he's making (she's making?). Seriously, take a look at the Jesus-Myth article for insights. The arguments for both sides are equally convincing to the reader, even though by majority opinion Jesus-Myth is pseudohistory, i.e. the idea doesn't represent history the way most people agree it unfolded. Just because people choose not to believe that Jesus didn't exist in light of the evidence for his existence, doesn't mean he necessarily existed. Same goes for ID, just because people choose to disbelieve in a designer, because they feel there is evidence against him, doesn't me he necessarily doesn't exist. That's the point of NPOV: neither of the POVs is necessarily true, but there is evidence for both which causes people to believe in one or the other. We can say most people believe in one or the other, but not in a manner that suggests that that makes the particular POV necessarily true. Also, the main criterion given for ID not being science is that it isn't falsifiable, but somehow the article goes to great lengths to show that i.c. is falsifiable, s.c. is falsifiable, the idea that the universe is fine-tuned is falsifiable, which basically means that ID is falsifiable, making unfalsifiability an irrelevant "proof" that ID is not science. Why is is that people do not go to such lengths to disprove the notion that the Earth is flat? I mean, it's natural to believe it is round. Obviously it's not so natural to believe that there was no designer. The very rigour which goes into this ID article proves that ID has something to say which does one of two things: it either fills people with zeal to falsify it, or it answers questions people have been asking about how this complex universe came to be, and the fact is, most people out there are theists, not deists, atheists, or agnostics, meaning that ID fits in very well with the majority's opinions on the supernatural and evolution. The article should leave the reader open to make his or her own decision about whether or not ID is true. This article first says its not true because it can't be falsifiable and therefore is not science (which apparently is the only thing we can say "true or false" about) and then goes on to falsify it. The article shows the perfect example of fallacy --chad 04:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Well spoken! My personal bias is for ID but I've contributed to articles on both sides, and to both sides of the same article. NPOV is good, but I'm mainly interested in making articles flow better when they are read. Less is more. And with all these eyes the thing should be constantly improving, like a Zen rock garden. Not everyone who comes in here has an agenda. Endomion 04:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Yet many do. The more vexing problem is not everyone who comes here has a clue about Misplaced Pages's goals and policies. FeloniousMonk 05:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Chad, with all due respect, you're mistaken about what the goal is here. Misplaced Pages's goal is not to present an ID article that's sympathetic toward ID. Misplaced Pages's only goal is to accurately describe the subject and the related viewpoints. If ID's critics have presented damning evidence, written scathing reviews or made a more compelling case than ID's proponents, that's not our concern. Our only concern is to accurately and thoroughly present both sides of the topic in proportion to the majority viewpoint, which happens to be the scientific community's, and this the article does. FeloniousMonk 05:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

FM, first of all, I'm not saying the article should be sympathetic to anything. I've said this before: "No one has suggested giving ID undue weight." Please don't say that I vie for making the article pro-ID anymore. Further, I'm not sure you have your statistics straight. You say "the majority viewpoint the scientific community's ." Are you aware of how that sounds? Read it, re-evaluate, and I hope that this was a typo, because if it isn't it shows you are biased and simply trying to make your point by what appears to be deliberately misleading (albeit unsuccessful) statements. If you support the current status of the article, than the article must be biased. This is my conclusion (perhaps deluded, perhaps incorrect, but certainly in line with the discussion here): you share Jim's terror that the article will become pro-ID, and in protecting yourselves (the world?) from such a ghastly turn of events, you do everything, to keep the article anti-ID, pro-Atheist (I'm not saying you or Jim are necessarily Atheists, but for agnostics, atheist POV seems preferrable to theist POV, hmmm...), although, I say it again, boldly, confidently, the majority of people are theists, and 60% of Americans believe in either ID or Biblical creationism (perhaps not in so many words, but they believe God had a hand in creation). You may say such a majority is not significant. I say it certainly is significant enough to make a change in the article, along the lines of "ID is considered by the majority of mainstream scientists as a pseudoscience, but many lay people find it more compatible with their beliefs and experiences than other alternatives." This would be far more descriptive of the matter at hand, and what the controversy is about. --chad 07:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view." Neutral point of view: Pseudoscience FeloniousMonk 23:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It has been said that the views in this article should be weighted "in proportion to the majority viewpoint, which happens to be the scientific community's". A nationwide poll of 1,202 American adults was conducted by Zogby International from Saturday, August 25 to Wednesday, August 29, 2001. The results of the question "Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statement: 'The universe and life are the product of purely natural processes that are in no way influenced by God or any intelligent design?' Strongly agree 12% Somewhat agree 12% Agree 24% Somewhat disagree 13% Strongly disagree 56% Disagree 69% Not sure 7% I look forward to help bringing this article into better agreement with the majority viewpoint. Endomion 14:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, ID claims to be science. The scientific community says it's not, but pseudoscience. The scientific community is the majority being refered to here ("The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view."The NPOV policy on pseudoscience Endomion is confusing the general public with the scientific community. Were what is science decided by popularity in the general populace, astrology would be taught alongside astronomy. FeloniousMonk 23:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, FM, I must disagree. If what the general public believes were the litmus, astrology would be taught instead of astronomy. KillerChihuahua 23:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Endomion, the examples and perspective in your post do not represent a worldwide view. Please improve your thinking. A majority in the US does not indicate that there is a worldwide majority. Apart from that, the poll is obviously rather biased: no religiously minded person would suggest their deity had no influence to wield in the beginning. Furtermore, the opinions of lay people should be given less credence than the professional opinions of scientists active in the field. Evolution remains the majority viewpoint. May I look forward to you contributions also? -- Ec5618 17:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

NOTE restoring this entry after act of censorship

Ec5618, the Intelligent Design article itself puts the focus on America when it says, "The Intelligent Design movement arose out of an organized neocreationist campaign to promote a religious agenda calling for broad social, academic and political changes employing Intelligent Design arguments in the public sphere, primarily in the United States." For your second point, are you saying that any poll of the general population is biased because religious people might actually be polled? For your third point, all scientific orthodoxy is the "majority viewpoint" until challenged. Copernicus overthrew the Aristotleans, Newton overthrew the Copernicans, Einstein overthrew the Newtonians. Endomion 19:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, were you going to offer any concrete suggestions or are you content to complain? If it's only the latter, then we can move along now. If you do intend to come up with some suggestions, keep in mind that the majority opinion of laymen on a technical issue is of little value. I bet non-plumbers have some pretty silly ideas about plumbing, but we don't let those ideas dominate the entries for pipes and toilets, now, do we? Alienus 08:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if you noticed, but the talk-pages on plumbing-related articles don't seem to be so active, and I would hardly call describing biology including cells and RNA and the like is in any way parallel to repairing toilets and drains. If we were talking about medicine for instance, I wouldn't be keen to argue either, as doctors know how to treat people, I don't. But when it comes to the opinion of the majority that God had a hand in creation, and that opinion resulting studying nature to see if God exists or not and finding that it appears (as far as we can tell now) that some things can't be explained from a purely natural standpoint (although I'm sure an explanation will be conjured up soon enough), I have to argue for displaying the point of view of the majority. Scientists have admitted that the complexity of some things is too great to be reduced using our current knowledge of science. Lay-people hear that, and being the theists they are, are quite upset that scientists cannot explain certain things with just the natural, but vehemently deny the supernatural, as if the very idea is a heresy. Theists are upset because, they feel God in their bedroom at night, when the pray, they find comfort in Him when they mess up and feel the need for forgiveness and acceptance, among other things. Theists are at a loss. I personally am confused when it comes to the fact that mainstream science hasn't been able to answer most of ID's questions except like this: "First of all, you aren't doing science so we could just ignore you like we do ufologists. And secondly, we'll have the answers sooner or later, we'll prove you wrong at some point, so you already are wrong." There has really been no reply to the actual point made by ID that I've heard of. There was a rigged experiment that showed that if you keep flagellum-less bacteria in very unnatural conditions for a while and manipulate them, they'll take unused proteins to form a flagellum. If the conditions aren't controlled very carefully, the bacteria die before anything can happen. The funny thing is that people know this happened naturally without assistance from a lab technician. Ask why they think such an improbable thing happened and all they can say is that it did happen. Ask about all the other improbable things and they say they did happen. Anything else is pseudoscience or blatant religion. But let the thought enter your mind that maybe there was a designer, how would people ever find out about him if they're not allowed? So I can summarise by saying that this article does not show that 1. the majority of people believe God had a hand in creation, 2. the scientific community has copped out of addressing the issue at hand. --chad 08:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

chad, the examples and perspective in your post do not represent a worldwide view. Please improve your thinking.

Also, are you saying creationism is a subset of ID, and that support for creationism is support for ID? That's just comical. If 60% of Americans disbelieve in purely naturalistic evolution, that doesn't mean that they all believe in ID, nor that the majority of people in the world (yes, I'm including countries outside the US in that) believes in ID. In fact, I'm sure many Americans accept evolution, and still find themselves believing in the influence of a deity in everything. -- Ec5618 08:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

No, actually I wasn't saying Creationism is a subset of ID, I'm saying given the choice between godless evolution and ID (being taught in schools, for example) the majority would choose ID. Also, how can you believe in evolution and that a deity influences everything without believing the deity influences evolution? And if these people were asked how they might envision the deity influencing evolution, what might their answer be like? I think it would be very like ID. I had thought about the question myself, ID gave me a very good answer. And I believe that's what people are afraid of. If ID becomes even moderately well-known, people will start believing it, because it answers their questions, and we were so close to dividing God from his creation. Oh #$*%! --chad 09:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Science is no democracy. You can not vote, but you do need to apply the scientific method. Besides there are many psychosociological reasons for adhering to the supernatural. They are all valid but do not address the lack of scientific reasoning in ID. They belong in another discussion, i.e. religion.

Also, history has shown science is increasingly capable of explaining things religion could and can not. Nevertheless, some feel the urge to cling to their magical thinking, which they should, but that is not the same as negating what science has uncovered.

Furthermore, I fail to understand why non-scientists presume to know more of this subject than scientists. --Nomen Nescio 09:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

(Edit comflict. Nomen Nescio makes some good points though)

I'm sorry, but you seem to have misread. I said that many people believe in a deity, and believe that deity created or helped shape the world in some way, but that belief in such 'creation' doesn't preclude acceptance of evolution. ID however, does, as it holds that unspecific 'design' is the reason we exist, as opposed to some form of guided evolution.

And, you're right, ID does address a great philosopical need within many people. If anything, that suggests it's philosophy, and not science. Science is not meant to be comforting, while ID is clearly designed (hah) to be.

As for the scientific community copping out on this issue, I'm afraid that's simply not the case. When one studies a scientific field, there comes a point when it is no longer possible for one to explain the intricacies of what one has learned to laypeople. If you wanted to you could question the reasons given by the scientific community to explain why the sky is blue. I assure you, it would take a team of scientists a long time to make the case convincingly to a person determined to disbelieve. Scientists don't have that sort of time. -- Ec5618 09:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

My country has this to say on laymen: "A lunatic will ask more than a thousand scholars can answer."--Nomen Nescio 09:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Not that I expect any change in the cabal here but an important point about NPOV policies such as pseudoscience, undue weight and equal validity on view-comparison articles is that the majority view is to be presented as such - not as evident. This article fails since the majority view is presented generally as fact, rather than as the majority view. It also fails NPOV policy because the minority view of ID is not well presented here, but is given only severely limited space. It is briefly presented followed purely by criticisms at great length. Critique should include both the majority view and the minority view. Nowhere does Wiki policy state that the relative views should be given article space in proportion to their popularity, particularly not in an article dedicated to a single view. In fact by its title this is not a view-comparison article at all, and so the many heavily detailed criticisms should really be at a summary level rather, with details given in a debate article. That would be the view-comparison article.

Moreover the very fact that many intelligent and reasonable scientists find ID credible suggests that, policy aside, the majority viewpoint is in not actual fact evident, but rather only easy to assume so, and it is not so simple a matter to call ID pseudoscience as some here would like. This is reinforced by the many criticisms which are puerile or logically fallacious (such as the 'circular argument' claim, which a) is based on a faulty assumption that the designer must be IC, leading to an infinity of designers, but more clearly and importantly b) confuses an infite regression with the logical fallacy of a circular argument - please don't argue this example here, go read my unrefuted posts on the archives) ant 14:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Your statement .... the very fact that many intelligent and reasonable scientists find ID credible ... is most certainly incorrect. The majority of scientist reject ID as pseudoscience. Please show which leading scientists support ID! To be sure, not any obscure scientist, but scientist that frequently publish, give seminars, et cetera. More to the point, are internationally regarded as experts in their field. Which of course has to be relevant to this subject.

Even if your statement were true, it constitutes a logical fallacy by claiming that the number of supporters is relevant to the veracity of their claim. As I said somewhere else on this page: science is not a democracy. Votes don't count, scientific evidence does, see next point.

Aside from that, for ID to possess even a hint of science it must do more than just suggest there is a designer. The scientifc method, as you know, requires an explanation regarding this designer and how the design came to be. Furthermore, it must be possible for such a "theory" to be tested, falsified, through peer review. All of which is absent in ID which means it is unscientific. --Nomen Nescio 14:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Many scientists support ID? You do know that there are a greater number of scientists named Steve who support evolution, right? -- Ec5618 17:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

And don't forget "The Four Day Petition: A Scientific Support For Darwinism" It generated 8040 verified scientists signatures in four days, representing a 1,200% increase over the Discovery Institutes "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" at a rate 640,000% faster. FeloniousMonk 23:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Re Endomion's report on the Zogby Poll: did a lot of people vote twice? How can the total reported percentage exceed 100% (the numbers cited add up to 193%)? It is just this type of sloppy work that casts significant doubt on both ID and its adherents.

Re "many scientists support ID", please define "many".

As for what 60% (or 100 and something in Endomion's example) believe, I offer the following:

http://select.nytimes.com/2005/12/06/opinion/06kristof.html

Note that 20% of Americans think the sun goes around the earth and 50% think humans and dinosaurs were co-existent. 'Nuff said?

Jim62sch 23:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Nomen Nescio, Ec5618 and Jim all make valid points here. If ID proponents were to decide to withdraw their claim that ID is valid science, then the scientific community's response that ID is pseudoscience would be moot. The percentage of the public that believes in creationism/ID is irrelevant to the matter at hand. FeloniousMonk 23:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Call for new editors, cont. 3

I don't like to say this, I really don't, but it appears FM, Nomen Nescio, Ec5618 and Jim are being obtuse in this long drawn out discussion when fact remains fact: "many scientists support ID". Endomion never said "the majority of scientists" or "most scientists" or "a number of scientists that is significantly larger than...". He said "many". Which is true. Which makes all your refutations baloney. --chad 04:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Color me very obtuse then, because I don't even know what you are talking about. Clarify pls? KillerChihuahua 04:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Your not going to get too far with that tone, hair-splitting semantics, nor repeatedly calling for responsible, longterm editors to be run off the article. I think it's time to reevaluate your strategy here Chad, instead of ranting at your fellow editors. FeloniousMonk 04:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I for one would not object to having new editors. The entry on ID seems to violate Misplaced Pages policy regarding NPOV and original research on a number of occasions, and the article has proven very resistant to correction. --Wade A. Tisthammer 05:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The article's history tells a different story; it is edited daily by many different editors. Those edits that show an understanding of both WP:NPOV and WP:NOR among many editors who choose to contribute to the project through constructive editing, as opposed to other means. FeloniousMonk 05:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the article's history tells a different story from what you perceive it. Note the section I added below regarding suspected original research, for instance. Note also some misleading representations of intelligent design (remember, Misplaced Pages policy is to present the minority view as the minority view) even when the problem is brought to attention to the editors. For instance, the ID claim is that the fine-tuned physical constants are necessary for any kind of physical life (e.g. if the proton to electron mass ratio would be different, there would not even exist sufficient chemical bonding)--not just life as we know it. Yet the entry ignores this position and puts forth the objection "a different sort of life might exist in its place." Even if the ID position is wrong here, it should at least be accurately represented. --Wade A. Tisthammer 05:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

KC, read above to understand what I'm talking about. FM, I'm not saying anyone should be run off the article, I was replying to everyone ranting about how the majority of the scientific community disregards ID as science, and about how therefore Endomion was wrong in saying that "many" scientists agree with it. It's as if some of you feel personally insulted that someone would say such a perverted thing and so you try to refute it with irrelevant statements. Who cares? The discussion page isn't to discuss the merits of ID (or lack thereof, I presume). I would ask you, does majority viewpoint equal scientific viewpoint? If wikipedia policy is "inspired" then we can just shut up right now. But fact remains fact, the US (a relatively liberal society) can be assumed to be fairly indicative of the rest of the world. Even if it is not totally indicative, we can still safely say that the article misrepresents the fact that ID would be fairly attractive to many many people (we might be bold as to say the majority of people) by giving way more critique than support. Wade is correct in what he says, we can say, "he's correct, but in this case it doesn't matter for such-and-such reasons," or we can admit he's correct and do something about it. --chad 06:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The majority viewpoint is the viewpoint of the majority of scientists because ID purports to be science. Simple enough. Most people misunderstand lots of scientific phenomena. Twenty percent of Americans believe that the sun goes around the earth. Should 20% of articles related to that surface matter reflect this pov? As for the US being a relatively liberal society (I assume you don't mean this in the political sense) - as far as evolution goes, US views are totally out of step with the rest of the world. As for your assertion that "ID would be fairly attractive to many many people" - that's meaningless as per any Misplaced Pages discussion. Utterly unknown and unknowable, totally OR, and in no way something that could go into an article. Guettarda 06:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Guettarda, first, I'll assume this is from some source: "Twenty percent of Americans believe that the sun goes around the earth". Next, I'll wonder how the question was posed in the survey that led to such an answer. Finally, I'll ask you to seriously evaluate the following: run these puppies through a 10 minute discourse on elementary astronomy, and see what the result is. Describe using diagrams or whatever how the movement of the earth affects seasons and tides and stuff, then ask your question again. I'm sure that the majority of the people who answered the question incorrectly the first time will not be so pig-headed as to answer it wrong again. ID-ists for some reason (including scientists) are so pig-headed. --chad 08:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course, a 1000 scientists represent "many." However, compared to 1000.000.000 it constitutes a minority. Therefore using "many" as argument seems to be another logical fallacy. Majority and minority are the key words, not "many."

ID-ists for some reason (including scientists) are so pig-headed. Could you tell us what the percentage of proponents is in relation to the total amount of scientists? Furthermore, could you name these scientists and show they are reputable within their field?--Nomen Nescio 10:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Another point Chad, Wade and others are missing: this is an encyclopedia. As such, it relies not on the majority viewpoint of the masses, but on the majority viewpoint of experts. The editors have done a good job of presenting this viewpoint.

Chad: the 20% figure re geocentrism as it relates to the sun is derived from a link I provided yesterday -- seek and ye shall find.

Jim62sch 11:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there were a billion scientists out there. Majority and minority are the key words, but Endomion didn't say either, s/he just said "many" which makes the rant about majority and minority beside the point s/he was making. Nomen Nescio, instead of changing the subject, answer my point that 20% of americans "believing" that the sun goes around the earth is by no means parallel with people believing ID. And as to scientists, I'd name Behe as the perfect example (you know the others I'm sure). --chad 11:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Billion was to make the point, as you of course know. So, how does the number of supporters validate the ID statement? "Many" is clearly a distraction. What is the point of advancing this term!? Since "many" believe ID is true this is comparable to those believing the sun goes around the earth. However, you do have a point. Those who have been shown what we know of astronomy tend to change their view. ID believers continue to believe even when shown a mountain of evidence disproving it. Even the lack of evidence in support of ID does not persuade them. This phenomenon of not changing your opinion, contrary to evidence presented, is known as a delusion.

And why are you not telling us who these reputable scientists are, and what their percentage is?--Nomen Nescio 12:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Read the article to find out who the scientists are. And it's really beside the original point I was making: that Endomion was saying "many" not "majority", and so the rant was irrelevant. I haven't seen a mountain of evidence disproving ID, I've seen one study which involved a "rigged" experiment to prove bacterial flagella were not i.c. (strange, considering ID is supposedly unfalsifiable, and therefore it's "fundamental assumption" would also be a likely candidate for unfalsifiability). READ DARWIN ON TRIAL and other works by Behe and Dembski. I'm assuming your assumption that there is a lack of evidence is based on limited knowledge of the debate, knowledge comparable to the limited coverage wp gives to ID. And no, I'm not deluded, because I haven't seen any evidence presented. Wait a minute! You're saying so much evidence has been presented against ID that it is unreasonable to believe it ("delusional" in fact), i.e. enough evidence has been presented as to prove it's false, which means...I think we're getting to something here! I disagree that "a mountain of evidence" has been presented, but the very notion that that is possible goes against one of the "fundamental assumptions" of why ID isn't science. The strange thing is that people buy into all that absurdity. Now that is delusion --chad 14:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You misrepresent my words. Mountain of evidence showing: 1 ID does not qualify as science regarding the scientific method, peer review, et cetera, as you well know, 2 current theory (evolution) can explain the diversity we see around us and adheres to the scientific method. So, no suggestion that clearly is not capable of doing at least the same should be discussed, 3 that no reputable scientist supports ID, or "many" would not be needed as distraction, the percentage of these scientists would be to the point, 4 limited coverage is the result of point 3, 5 there is no debate (peer review!) among reputable scientists.

As to disproving IC, this does not make ID falsifiable. ID states there is a creator, whereas IC is supposed to be created. To show that something did not have to be artificial is a lot easier and different than disproving or proving a creator exists. Which of course is the real issu in ID. You are well aware of this and by asserting IC and ID are equal once again you are misleading us by introducing a logical fallacy. --Nomen Nescio 14:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

'reputable' by definition excluding those who find ID credible!

BTW I'm curious - what research is there on evolution (other than adaptation which ID accepts too)? ant 20:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Nomen, showing that a creator is not needed would indeed falsify ID. From an origins.org web page:

Called intelligent design (ID), to distinguish it from earlier versions of design theory (as well as from the naturalistic use of the term design), this new approach is more modest than its predecessors. Rather than trying to infer God's existence or character from the natural world, it simply claims "that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable."

Saying that intelligent intervention is necessary allows ID to make predictions; e.g. the prediction of serious and significant obstacles (irreducible complexity and complex specified information are often used as examples) that would disallow the naturalistic formation of those structures (since intelligent design is allegedly needed for that sort of thing). Applying it to the origin of life, if a scientist experimentally demonstrated a means on how to evolve life from non-life without artificial intervention, ID would be falsified (at least in this instance) because it shows that intelligent causes are not necessary to explain it. Similarly, if a known means to naturally evolve a certain IC system were demonstrated, ID would be falsified (at least in this instance). --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Nope, it wouldn't. ID doesn't hang it's hat on any single phenomenon. Disproving any one anecdote does not disprove an hypothesis. Guettarda 21:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It depends on what the "hypothesis" is. Obviously, many hybrid theories could be made regarding ID and naturalistic evolution. In part that's already been done. For instance, nearly all creationists have accepted speciation. An ID adherent isn't bound by a law to say that everything is designed. Still, this theory can be tested and falsified. For instance, I believe that ID is true regarding the origin of life (though not necessarily so with the rest of evolution). Can this theory be falsified? Absolutely. If a scientist experimentally demonstrated a means on how to evolve life from non-life without artificial intervention, ID would be falsified because it shows that intelligent causes are not necessary. Note that this sort of thing can be done for all design hypothesis. If that is done, ID itself is falsified.

In contrast, it is interesting to note that abiogenesis is not falsifiable. Any obstacle that comes up and one could say "There's a way to overcome it and we just haven't discovered it yet" (indeed, so far that has been the case with the known chemical problems of abiogenesis). --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Experimental demonstration of a means for evolving life from non-life would not falsify ID. If you show that it is possible to evolve life from non-life, it is not evidence that design was not involved. That's what you have to show to prove that ID is falsifiable, not that it could have happened some other way, but that it could not have happened by design. And that can't be done, because some kinds of designers ("Gods") can do anything. Thus, that such designers did the designing can never be disproved. Bill Jefferys 21:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You're forgetting something: ID says that intelligent causes are necessary. As I said earlier (you might want to read what I said again, perhaps a bit more carefully this time) this is what allows it to make testable predictions. If you show that artificial intervention is not necessary for the origin of life, bye-bye ID theory (at least in this instance). And again, note also that ID's rival here, abiogenesis, is not falsifiable. Think about it. Can you conceive of an experiment that would falsify it? --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Abiogenesis is unfalsifiable because it is not an hypothesis. There are hypotheses of abiogenesis, which are falsifiable. As for the rest of it - the problem with ID is that its proponents have not tried to supply falsifiable hypotheses. And while, I believe that ID is true regarding the origin of life is a testable hypothesis, the testable part here is "I believe that..." One can try to determine whether you actually believe the statement. But it is not an hypothesis regarding ID. Guettarda 21:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Abiogenesis (the belief that life arose from non-life) is a legitimate scientific theory. It certainly fits the definition at least as much as naturalistic evolution (the belief that all life on earth evolved via naturalistic processes) is. ID in regards to the origin of life is both testable and falsifiable. I gave an example of how the theory could be falsified, remember? To test the theory further, one can simply examine the predictions. Is it the case that there are serious and significant obstacles to the naturalistic formation of life? A minority of scientists say yes, most scientists (as far as I know) say no. Abiogenesis is plagued by chemical problems (e.g. in getting functional proteins, RNA and DNA via undirected chemical reactions), though it can be disputed whether or not these are "serious" enough to warrant a design inference. In any case, ID does put forth testable and falsifiable predictions as demonstrated by my example. Can we agree on this?

It is noteworthy that anticreationists have recklessly put forth the “non-falsifiable” charge against creationism, a charge that has come under attack by other anticreationists. Many anticreationists say that creationism is not only falsifiable but the evidence convincingly refutes it. Saying that creationism is non-falsifiable, after all, robs one of the power to falsify it and be consistent. Similarly, one cannot say, “ID is not a scientific theory because its fundamental claims are not falsifiable. Coming up next, demonstrating the falsehood of ID’s fundamental claims.” Strangely enough, I'm almost given that impression with this Misplaced Pages entry. --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

No, abiogenesis is not a theory - legit or not, and not an hypothesis. It's a word that expresses a process which has been inferred. There are hypotheses of abiogenesis. Problems are in the hypotheses, in the proposed mechanisms. These hypotheses and models are testable and falsifiable - if they weren't, then you could not be speaking of problems with them. Guettarda 22:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Why, pray tell, is abiogenesis not a theory? The process of abiogenesis may be inferred, but then again so is evolution; so it's not clear why abiogenesis isn't a theory. It certainly fits the definition of a theory (it is a belief that purports to explain data). Consider this definition of evolution, "theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations." Is this a theory? Obviously yes. I would even go so far as to say that it is a legitimate scientific theory. Similarly, we can define abiogenesis as the theory that "life on Earth has its origin in inanimate matter and that the differences are due to naturalistic modifications (as undirected chemical reactions) thereof" and this does seem to fit the definition of a theory. Tell me, why is evolution a theory and abiogenesis is not? --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Is gravity a theory? Is time travel a theory? Is predation a theory? No. "A belief which purports to explain data" is most definitely not a theory. To begin with, a theory is an hypothesis which is overwhelmingly supported by the data. It's logically untenable to call something a theory and call it untestable.

Abiogenesis is not a theory. More germanely, it is not an hypothesis. An hypothesis requires a "how". Abiogenesis is a "what". True or not true, it's a what, not a how. So it isn't an hypothesis. There are various hypotheses related to abiogenesis. But it's neither a theory nor is in an hypothesis. Oh, stupid me. I'm talking to Wade. Have you even read a word I said? Well, I suppose you read the first six words. If you had read beyond then you would not have asked the question you did. Oh well. Guettarda 23:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Gravity is what is known as a phenomenological theory in the philosophy of science. So technically gravity is a theory. Your definition of a theory (“a theory is an hypothesis which is overwhelmingly supported by the data”) is not quite correct, at least among the majority of philosophers of science and dictionaries. There are many theories in science that are no longer accepted (the caloric theory of heat for instance) but are still theories. Incidentally, abiogenesis includes a "how": naturalistic processes (e.g. undirected chemical reactions).

I have read what you said Guettarda, but be aware that an individual can still read what you say and disagree. --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

<"I have read what you said Guettarda, but be aware that an individual can still read what you say and disagree."> Hopefully Wade will also keep this in mind when his objections and claims fail to gain traction here. FeloniousMonk 23:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not forgetting anything. ID says simply that there was an intelligent designer. It attempts to prove this by showing that naturalistic processes cannot do the job (that is, it claims to be able to falsify the hypothesis that naturalistic processes can~~not~~ do the job). However, ID does not, as you claim, entail that naturalistic processes cannot do the job. There could very well be an intelligent designer even if naturalistic processes can do the job. Bill Jefferys 22:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You said, "I'm not forgetting anything. ID says simply that there was an intelligent designer." Okay, it seems you did not take my advice to read what I said carefully. Looks like I'll have to rebeat myself. From an origins.org web page:

Called intelligent design (ID), to distinguish it from earlier versions of design theory (as well as from the naturalistic use of the term design), this new approach is more modest than its predecessors. Rather than trying to infer God's existence or character from the natural world, it simply claims "that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable."

Saying that intelligent intervention is necessary allows ID to make predictions; e.g. the prediction of serious and significant obstacles (irreducible complexity and complex specified information are often used as examples) that would disallow the naturalistic formation of those structures (since intelligent design is allegedly needed for that sort of thing). Applying it to the origin of life, if a scientist experimentally demonstrated a means on how to evolve life from non-life without artificial intervention, ID would be falsified (at least in this instance) because it shows that intelligent causes are not necessary to explain it. In short, ID does not “simply say” what you claimed. ID instead has a rather fundamental claim to make here, one that is very falsifiable (confer Dembski’s explanatory filter). --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

That's one take on it. As Guettarda point out ID doesn't hang it's hat on any one notion, though. FeloniousMonk 22:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

"Saying that intelligent intervention is necessary allows ID to make predictions; e.g. the prediction of serious and significant obstacles". These are not predictions. To say that "intelligent intervention is necessary" is meaningless - necessary for what? Necessary to overcome obstacles? If so, then the obstacles are not predictions of the hypothesis, they are an integral part of the hypothesis. Or do you mean necessary for something else? Guettarda 22:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by "hang it's hat on any one notion"? If I my guess on its meaning is correct, you are re-iterating the fact that many hybrid theories between ID and naturalistic evolution could be constructed. Even if true, this doesn't seem relevant, since any instance of an ID claim ("artificial intervention is needed for X") can be disproved (as I said earlier), and by disproving all of them all such hybrid scenarios can be disproved. Certainly at least ID in the case of the origin of life is quite falsifiable (even though abiogenesis is not). --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, suppose you're right, Wade (you're not, but I'll humor you). How does showing that abiogenesis could happen naturally disprove ID? For example, abiogenesis might be possible, but flagella might not be possible naturalistically. In order to falsify ID (as you define it) by this route, one would have to make a list of every possible complex system and show that each of them can arise naturalistically.

Falsification in science is different. All you have to do is to show that one predicted consequence of a theory is experimentally wrong, and the theory is dead. You haven't provided a falsification procedure. If someone shows that abiogenesis is possible, ID-ers will simply move the goalposts again.

This is an example of how ID doesn't hang its hat on any one notiion. Bill Jefferys 22:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said earlier, many hybrid scenarios of ID and naturalistic evolution could be made. One could believe ID is necessary in one case (as the origin of life) and not others (the evolution of other species). But even if true, this doesn't seem relevant, since any instance of an ID claim ("artificial intervention is needed for X") can be disproved (as I said earlier), and by disproving all of them all such hybrid scenarios can be disproved. So, here we have a falsification procedure to falsify all hybrid scenarios. --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's say we fallsified (in your sense) every single scenario. What's to prevent you from coming up with another one ("Oh, but what about this new one I just thought of?") You can always move the goalposts, so ID is not falsifiable. Bill Jefferys 23:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

What's to prevent me from coming up with another one? Simple. If every single scenario has been falsified, there just aren't any more "other ones" for me to come up with. ID and its hybrid scenarios would be falsified, and so ID is falsifiable (unlike abiogenesis). --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Please give me a list of all possible scenarios. Then we can go at it.

I assert that such a list can't be made, because there are infinitely many such scenarios. Bill Jefferys 23:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, let's try this. A hybrid scenario would be combining one or more instances of an ID claim ("ID is necessary for X") with naturalistic evolution. To disprove all hybrid scenarios, one could show a means how life and its various types could have evolved naturally without artificial intervention. This would disprove all hybrid scenarios. ID--hybrid and otherwise--is falsifiable (using the definition of ID I have described). --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Nonresponsive. You don't understand falsification. But I am out of here. FM is right, I am feeding a troll, and I won't do it any more. Bill Jefferys 00:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

From the Discovery Institute website:

What is Intelligent Design?

Intelligent Design holds that the universe and its living things are not simply the product of random chance; an intelligent cause is behind their existence.

Nothing here about a designer being necessary. Bill Jefferys 22:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

From the same article:

One useful definition of Intelligent Design can be found in the book, Darwinism, Design, and Public Education, edited by Stephen C. Meyer and John Angus Campbell. The definition presented in this book holds that Intelligent Design is “the theory that certain features of the physical universe and/or biological systems can be best explained by reference to an intelligent cause (that is, the conscious action of an intelligent agent), rather than an undirected natural process or a material mechanism.”

Just "best explains," nothing about a designer being necessary. Bill Jefferys 22:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, please read what I say carefully. If you did that, you might have noticed that I was able to cite a source that included the fundamental claim of intelligent intervention being necessary. I can do so again. From this web page

Question: "What is the Intelligent Design Theory?"

Answer: The Intelligent Design Theory says that “intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable.” (William Dembski, Intelligent Design, Downer’s Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity, 1999, p. 106)

The quote is apparently accurate, as this seems to be the fundamental claim of ID. Elsewhere, Dembski himself says

Within biology, Intelligent Design is a theory of biological origins and development. Its fundamental claim is that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology, and that these causes are empirically detectable.

Another source

Intelligent Design simply states that undirected, natural causes are not sufficient, and intelligent causes are necessary, to explain the complex, information-rich structures of living systems.

And again:

Intelligent Design is the view that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are detectable through observation and scientific inquiry.

Oversimplified descriptions of ID aside, can we establish that the fundamental claim of ID is what I have claimed it to be?

It appears that ID experts are not in agreement about what ID is. Just another way that it is not falsifiable. You can't falsify a moving target. Bill Jefferys 23:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence that ID experts do not agree with what Dembski said was the fundamental claim of ID? --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I just did. Bill Jefferys 23:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you did, unless an argument from silence counts as evidence. Just because a person doesn't mention the claim doesn't mean the individual disagrees with its existence. --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

My comments do not illustrate a hybrid scenario. They show simply by example why ID is not falsifiable. Bill Jefferys 23:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

But, I explained to you a procedure how ID could be falsified, did I not? Can you at least explain why think the procedure would not work? --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

See above. Bill Jefferys 23:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

No. Let's not feed the trolls people. FeloniousMonk 23:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. (Although I'm disappointed that no one pointed out one of the greatest flaws in Wade's reasoning, but doing so now would just spawn another never-ending debate.)

Jim62sch 00:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Revert of Endomion's Intro edits

I reverted a different version of the intro by Endomion, as it wasn't discussed on the talk page first. I gave my reasons as "revert to last version by FeloniousMonk -- intelligent design movement isn't as important for intro, maintain balanced pro-ID paragraph one and scientific critism paragraph two structure". I didn't want to just revert it without putting Endomion's version on the talk page, in case there are others who feel this way. I don't feel his version violates the NPOV policy, just that the previous structure had been agreed upon by everyone to be a good compromise, and perhaps there are some who feel it might be POV. Here is Endomion's version:

Intelligent Design (ID) asserts that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from "an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection." Proponents claim that Intelligent Design stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the origin of life. Opponents counter that intelligent design amounts to religious doctrine shrouding itself in the trappings of junk science.

The modern Intelligent design movement coalesced in 1996 at the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. After a decade the CRSC has published no data in peer-reviewed journals to support their claims. 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 their claims cannot be tested by experiment and propose no new hypotheses of their own.

By the way, this isn't an invitation to start debating endlessly about the merits of intelligent design! I am just trying to be courteous to Endomion. This page is already too long (no matter how frequent the archiving, it just fills right back up). -Parallel or Together ? 05:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

My change to the first paragraph added a summary of what the opponents felt about ID to balance the statement about what the proponents felt, if you delete this, fine, my personal bias is towards ID. My change to the second paragraph attempted to show specifically why the "The scientific community largely views Intelligent Design not as valid scientific theory but as neocreationist pseudoscience or junk science." rather than making a blank statement. Since you like it better that way, that's fine too. Endomion 05:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It's actually not bad. --JPotter 07:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Except that it introduced a factually incorrect factoid, that ID movement started in 1996 at the CSC (it actually was in 1992 at SMU, according to Johnson), into the intro of the article, which is for the concept. As well as being inaccurate it also made an already long article longer. The existing intro is accurate, focused, and concise. FeloniousMonk 08:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Even here you misrepresent the creationist (my) side. I didn't say it started in 1996, I said it coalesced in 1996. "Launched by Phillip E. Johnson's book Darwin on Trial (1991), the intelligent-design movement crystallized in 1996 as the Center for the Renewal of Science" . Endomion 12:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

You may not have said so, but the difference between "started in 19XX" and "coalesced in 19XX" is trivial to the average reader. Guettarda 12:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I needed to establish a time baseline to demonstrate that the movement had not published anything in an accepted journal for about a decade, in order to make a dispassionate statement about the shortcomings of the movement, rather than have the original paragraph make an unsourced value-judgment on behalf of the whole "scientific community". Elsewhere in this article I have tried to remove what appears to be an independently-researched opinion poll of scientists and statisticians that fine-tuning was not valid, but this was restored. I'm taking my dog out of this hunt. Endomion 14:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Endomion, I wasn't saying I liked the other way better. I just reverted your additions because there was no discussion on the talk page and there are some editors who might not like the changes you included. I was trying to make sure that everyone had a chance to see the edits first. As I said before, the version you changed was agreed upon by nearly everyone. I put your version here to see if it garnered the same consensus. I, for one, tend to side with the scientific community on the issue of intelligent design, but I don't want my bias to show through by not giving everyone a chance to discuss things first. Like I said, I am trying to be courteous to you: I didn't just erase your contribution: I am making sure everyone else agrees to it. As you can see, FeloniousMonk doesn't, and people from the pro-ID side might not either. -Parallel or Together ? 08:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Good point FM. Here's a suggested improvement to the second paragraph....dave souza 10:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The Intelligent design movement seeks to promote this as "theistic 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 their claims cannot be tested by experiment and propose no new hypotheses of their own.

Disagree. Pseudoscience stays in the intro, do not take it out. If it were up to me I would change intro to "Intelligent design is a pseudoscience..." Its been discussed ad nauseum and there needs to be a very strong reason for changing it. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 12:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Having reviewed this, find I have to agree, and the opening should basically stay as it is, but the addition of The intelligent design movement seeks to promote this as "theistic science". at the end of the first paragraph would, in my opinion, clarify the context. ...dave souza 13:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I would concur that would be a valid addition to the intro, if it doesn't confuse people about science, theistic science, and pseudoscience. KillerChihuahua 14:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Adding the neologism 'theistic science' only muddles the issue. ID proponents are clear that they believe ID to be actual science, not some subset of it. FeloniousMonk 16:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

How about The intelligent design movement promotes in the guise of science what leading researchers insist is unscientific on the grounds of being unfalsifiable ? Endomion 03:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

As this is the ID article, not the ID movement article, there's a small issue with focus. Also, unfalsifiability is only one of several grounds for ID not being science. I appreciate that you're trying to find a compromise, but IMHO this is going in the wrong direction. KillerChihuahua 03:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Well at any rate I will only participate in this Talk page, I don't like revert wars. Endomion 03:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"not all proponents are religious" needs an example

From the article, in the "Religion and leading Intelligent Design proponents" section: "Though not all Intelligent Design proponents are motivated by religious fervor,...".

I seriously doubt there's a prominent proponent of this theory that isn't religiously motivated... please either remove this assertion or add an example. Jules.LT 19:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The tricky part is proving a positive i.e. that all are religiously motivated. Certainly most are. The problem comes when some of them keep their cards close to their chest and pretend that it's not important. — Dunc|☺ 19:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the burden is on the other side, since all known ID proponents are avowed theists, and the ID movement, when speaking to its natural constituency, freely admits to religious motivation. Alienus 19:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

In Frederick Pohl's Heechee Saga he postulates a race of aliens so advanced they are moving to collapse the universe and tune the natural laws and create a new, improved one. ID proponents may very well exist who subscribe to intelligent design without having a supernatural deity in mind. Endomion 21:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't address the question: the possibility that a designer might be an alien does not have anything to do with id proponents, their beliefs and motivations. KillerChihuahua 22:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah - raelian intelligent design -- the problem is though none of those is a member of the ID movement (who rather hypocritically consider them absurd) so that's really something else entirely (the IDists don't take seriously their suggestion that it could be space aliens or time travellers or multiple gods) — Dunc|☺ 22:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

But the Raelians are still religious, theirs is still religious ID. Guettarda 22:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

If believing in the possibility of extraterrestrial civilizations is a religion, someone better get the courts to stop government funding of SETI research on church-state separation grounds. Endomion 03:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The beliefs of the Raelians goes a little beyond believing there may be some vague form of alien intelligence in the universe. The Raelians attribute our existence to specific aliens. -- Ec5618 07:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

See Raëlism. They are a religious (or "quasi-religous") group, and they base their beliefs on specific revelation. Since they provide specific mechanisms they are a little more scientific than traditional ID (I could see some of their ideas as being testable/falsifiable), but they are still clearly a religious group. Guettarda 16:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

What does Frederick Pohl's Heechee Saga have to do with anything? Isn't ID out there enough without getting into bad science fiction? Besides, by putting aliens into the loop, one just moves the search for this mysterious designer back a step (I think I noted that somewhere else).

Also, I agree with Alienus regarding the burden of proof.

Jim62sch 23:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

"Guilty" until proven innocent eh? Obviously you think the concept is entirely a political ploy and don't care one whit about the content. Good luck with that.--Ben 23:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, you know what I think. Good luck with that.

In any case, it is the movement that is theo-political, not necessarily the alleged science, so your post should be on the ID Movement page.

The content, were you to read through the various posts, is what we have been discussing all along. The content of ID boils down to this, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..." Period. No matter how much camouflage is used to reshape and remake the premise, ID has no basis in science (as has been shown, repeated, stated, re-stated ad nauseum on these pages).

Jim62sch 23:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be clear by now that not all ID scientists believe in ID theory because of religious reasons. Behe for instance is a Roman Catholic, a religion that has no theological objections to evolution (and Behe himself had none). Right or wrong, he honestly believes that ID is scientifically superior. --Wade A. Tisthammer 05:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

And you know what Behe "honestly believes" how? If he "honestly believed" in ID, why has he done no research in that field? Guettarda 06:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I've read of Behe's work. Unless you have evidence that he's lying, I suggest we take him at his word. Additionally, he has done some research into the field (at least in terms of a college student reading up for a presentation, e.g. here).

I'll be right back, I have to go type up Behe's nomination for a Nobel.

Jim62sch 00:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Origins of the term

In the light of current research I propose that in the Origins of the term section the statements about Of Pandas and People and Darwin on Trial be modified as shown in the following draft paragraph:

"The term intelligent design came up in 1988 at a conference in Tacoma, Washington, called Sources of Information Content in DNA," according to Stephen C. Meyer, co-founder of the Discovery Institute and vice president of the Center for Science and Culture. Meyer, who was present at the conference, attributes the phrase to Of Pandas and People editor Charles Thaxton. Early drafts of the book which date from 1983 onwards used the terms creation and creationism, but following Edwards v. Aguillard the phrase intelligent design was substituted in 1987, and subsequently appeared in the first edition of Of Pandas and People of 1989, which is considered the first modern Intelligent Design book. The term was promoted more broadly by the retired legal scholar Phillip E. Johnson following his 1991 book Darwin on Trial in which he wrote that the Academy of Science "does define science in such a way that advocates of supernatural creation may neither argue for their own position nor dispute the claims of the scientific establishment" and argued that "Definitions of science... could be contrived to exclude any conclusion we dislike or to include any we favor". Johnson went on to work with Meyers, becoming the program advisor of the Center for Science and Culture and is considered the "father" of the Intelligent Design movement.

This more clearly shows the timing and context of the introduction of the term. Linking of years is now deprecated, and should be reviewed throughout the article ...dave souza 13:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I just need more coffee - pls let me know if I followed this correcly, the clarification in sequence from what is currently in the article is that the earlier versions of P&P did not use the term? KillerChihuahua 14:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry not to come back earlier. The clarification is that early drafts of Panda referred to creation/ism, the Edwards verdict ruled out teaching creationism, then the next but one draft of Panda changed the term to "intelligent design". In Johnson's book, developing at the same time, he argued that the definition of science excluded the supernatural explanations he favoured, so that definition should be changed. See the Dover trial transcript for the evidence. ...dave souza 16:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

That's covered in the Of Pandas and People article - sorry, but the main difference I see in your proposed change is making this article (Intelligent design) longer - and its already very long. KillerChihuahua 16:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Not to say it isn't relevent - I concur that the changed text is highly relevent to the origins of ID. I'd just like to see a much shorter way of incorporating that,if it is to be included. KillerChihuahua 16:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"The term intelligent design came up in 1988 at a conference in Tacoma, Washington, called Sources of Information Content in DNA," according to Stephen C. Meyer, co-founder of the Discovery Institute and vice president of the Center for Science and Culture, who attributed the phrase to Of Pandas and People editor Charles Thaxton. Drafts of the book which used the term creationism changed this to read intelligent design after Edwards v. Aguillard ruled out teaching creationism in 1987. The first edition of Of Pandas and People of 1989 is considered the first modern Intelligent Design book. The term was promoted more broadly by the retired legal scholar Phillip E. Johnson following his 1991 book Darwin on Trial which advocated redefining science to allow claims of supernatural creation. Johnson went on to work with Meyers, becoming the program advisor of the Center for Science and Culture and is considered the "father" of the Intelligent Design movement.

Shorter version: Johnson's references and trial link could go in footnotes. As the conference postdated use of the term in a 1987 draft of Pandas, that whole bit could be deleted so the paragraph starts – The term appeared in drafts of Of Pandas and People, editor Charles Thaxton. Earlier drafts used the term creationism, but when Edwards v. Aguillard ruled out teaching creationism in 1987 the term intelligent design was substituted. (and then the rest of the paragraph) ...dave souza 17:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Still too long, how about this with a footnote?:

The phrase, as a replacement of the original term “creationism” subsequently appeared in the first edition of Of Pandas and People in 1989, which is considered the first modern Intelligent Design book.

01:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

All the suggested rewrites fail to illustrate the central role the Discovery Institute played in the term's modern usage. Omitting Johnson, the institute, or Edwards v. Aguillard, or shuffling them off to a footnote has the net effect of bowdlerizing the passage. The current passage in the article is accurate, complete, and not onerously long. FeloniousMonk 02:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

FM,

I wasn't suggesting removing the rest of the text; I was merely suggesting adding that ID was originally referred to as creationism (i.e., just adding the text I italicized in my original post). The footnote would only have applied to that specific addition. In addition, you're correct, all of the rest of the info is necessary, thus I would never suggest removing it. I suppose I could have expressed my edit better.

Jim62sch 11:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

All good points. The following draft puts things in sequence better:

In 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard ruled out teaching creationism, and that word was changed to intelligent design in drafts of Of Pandas and People. Stephen C. Meyer, co-founder of the Discovery Institute and vice president of the Center for Science and Culture, reports that the term came up in 1888 at a conference he attended in Tacoma, Washington, called Sources of Information Content in DNA. He attributes the phrase to Charles Thaxton, editor of Of Pandas and People which was published in 1989 and is considered the first modern Intelligent Design book. The term was promoted more broadly by the retired legal scholar Phillip E. Johnson following his 1991 book Darwin on Trial which advocated redefining science to allow claims of supernatural creation. Johnson went on to work with Meyers, becoming the program advisor of the Center for Science and Culture, and is considered the "father" of the Intelligent Design movement.

It’s slightly longer than the original which doesn’t mention Edwards v. Aguillard, but if space is critical it can be brought down to about the same length by omitting ", called Sources of Information Content in DNA" and " which advocated redefining science to allow claims of supernatural creation". ...dave souza 18:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Creationist POV fork, take 4? 5?

See Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Biological_evolution_(disambiguation) KillerChihuahua 21:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

You'd think that after the first two or three... FeloniousMonk 21:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

or 11 or 12...

Jim62sch 01:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposal: Intelligent Design Controversy article

The Creation article is brief and to the point. The Evolution article is somewhat longer but not unduly so. Both articles do not contain extensively footnoted objections from either side, because these issues have been relegated to a Creation-Evolution Controversy article. I propose that this article be radically trimmed down to something on the order of the Evolution article with only the most important notes and references cited. But since I am an Inclusionist Wikipedian, I propose that all of the trimmed information be transferred to a companion Intelligent-design_controversy article. Endomion 02:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

If you can figure out how to spin off a sub-article that is not a WP:FORK, you will have lots of friends on this talk page. Unfortunately, ID and IDMovement, Teach the controversy, etc have all already been spun. Putting the criticism in a different article would be a POV fork. Have any other ideas? (that aren't POV splitting?) KillerChihuahua 03:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

As if extensively cited and supported content is a bad thing. It's not as if Misplaced Pages isn't under fire for spurious content or anything (Jimbo on CNN and Talk of the Nation within the last 24hrs defending its content and method).

The footnotes are so 'extensive' because ID proponents have constantly raised specious objections to the article's content being 'original research' and the like.

I don't see a need to bifurcate the article, and doubt it could be done without negatively affecting the article's completeness or accuracy. And any attempt to actually bowdlerize the article with a POV fork would face wide opposition in my opinion. FeloniousMonk 04:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

An 'Inclusionist Wikipedian'? So that why you recently nominated Neo-Creationism for deletion... Hmmm. FeloniousMonk 04:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

A POV fork is when someone creates, oh, say (just for giggles) an article called Neo Zen Creationism to get around the Misplaced Pages-mandated neutral point of view established at Zen Creationism. The current ID article tries to do too much. There is a handful of good information immersed in a sea of rhetoric railing against ID's pretensions to be valid science. The concept of Intelligent Design itself needs to be separated from the controversy, in precisely the same way an article about the Iraq War references separate articles about the Criticism of the Iraq War, Popular opposition to the 2003 Iraq War, American popular opinion of invasion of Iraq, Protests against the Iraq war & Popular opposition to war on Iraq, without including all the information from those articles in the main Iraq War article. Endomion 03:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Your reasoning offered here is as flawed as the reasoning offered by for the deletion of the Neo-Creationism article. As is your definition of what constitutes a POV fork:

"A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Point of Views on a certain subject are treated in one article." from: Misplaced Pages:POV_fork

ID's proponents have created much of the controversy through their duplicitious aims and methods, which are implicit in their arguments for ID the concept. You can no more separate the concept of ID from the controversy surrounding than you can separate the concept from its proponents. FeloniousMonk 04:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Suspected Original Research (again)

The "who designed the designer" objection is a popular one for anti-ID adherents and should be mentioned. But I do not believe original research should be mixed in here. For instance, it is true that the objection of the "infinite regression" of designers has been made, but do critics really call it circular reasoning? Perhaps, but it might be useful to provide a citation here, considering that the claim seems to confuse what circular reasoning is.

Circular reasoning is an argument where a premise assumes the truth of the conclusion, e.g. "X is wrong because it is wrong." Circular reasoning is not a recursively applied solution (e.g. the idea that all effects have causes, and all causes have effects).

Additionally, previously I raised questions and criticisms regarding this statement:

the postulation of the existence of even a single uncaused causer in the Universe contradicts the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that every complex object requires a designer

I pointed out that this was false; this was not a fundamental assumption of ID (and gave citations to support my claim), encountered stiff resistance, but eventually it was removed. Next (21 November 2005) there was this

the postulation of the existence of even a single uncaused causer in the Universe contradicts the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that every irreducibly complex object requires a designer

I pointed out this was false; this was not a fundamental assumption of ID (and again gave citations to support my claim), met stiff resistance, but eventually it was removed. It was replaced with this (2 December 2005):

the postulation of the existence of even a single uncaused causer in the Universe contradicts a fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that a designer is needed for every specifically complex object

It has not escaped my attention that the format of the argument is very similar. Have there been prominent ID opponents who have actually made these arguments? Or are they, as I suspect, original research?

I will admit my bias here: I do believe the arguments are non sequitur. How does an uncaused causer of complex specified information (CSI) contradict the assumption that a designer is needed for CSI? We are not told, and the article gives no references of anyone making this argument. Can anyone give a citation of a prominent ID opponent making this argument? Or is the argument what I suspect it to be, original research? To the very least, can someone explain the reasoning behind this argument?

I suspect there are more cases of original research in the Misplaced Pages article, but for now this will do. --Wade A. Tisthammer 05:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Not this again... The only original research has been the repeated, specious objections.

But if supporting cites for the passage are provided, you'll likely just reject them again based on your own personal understanding of WP:V.

Your last three claims of original research failed when it was shown the content was original research. I'm not inclinded to entertain further objections in this manner or on this particular content. FeloniousMonk 05:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd be interested in knowing why objections failed given that I was the one who provided citations to support my claims. I gave a clear example of a prominent ID adherent (Dembksi) demonstrating that not all complex objects entities needed to be designed. I gave another prominent ID aderhent (the leading ID proponent of irreducible complexity no less) regarding the irreducible complexity claim.

And now I have noticed the similarities between all three arguments. Felonious, did you just make up these arguments? Or can you cite a prominent ID adherent who makes them (at least, the one under discussion now)? To the very least, can you explain your reasoning here? --Wade A. Tisthammer 05:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I'd rather not get into it again with you. FeloniousMonk 05:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean "again"? This is the first time I've talked about this argument. The fact that it's similar to previous ones only raises the suspicion that you've been making these up. Can you at least explain your reasoning here behind this new argument? Do you have any evidence at all that prominent ID adherents have actually made the argument? --Wade A. Tisthammer 05:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

"Again" because you ignore or dismiss all evidence provided against your claims. What evidence do we have that you have suddenly reformed and are willing to deal in good faith with your fellow editors? AGF should not be a suicide pact. Guettarda 06:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You do recall my reasons for rejecting the "evidence," right? I asked for a prominent ID opponent making argument X to show that argument X was not original research. None of the citations that were presented to me did that. For instance, regarding the claim that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning, many of the citations didn't even mention irreducible complexity. So of course I am going to dismiss such citations! Additionally, haven't you and Felonious dismissed evidence to the contrary, e.g. when I gave a citation of Behe flatly contradicting an alleged fundamental assumption of ID?

Additionally, even if you think that the citations were somehow sufficient evidence (despite the fact that did not mention the argument) for previous cases, that still doesn't give you or anyone else a free pass to ignore Misplaced Pages policy regarding citations. You should at least attempt to provide a citation here. If the citation works, the argument stays. Agreed? Presumptuous whining won't get us anywhere. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I remember you rejecting citations despite the fact that they were adequate to support the statements made, I remember you saying "I am just asking for X" and when you were given that you changed to "not good enough, it doesn't answer Y"; I remember you repeating something irrelevant about p. 249 over and over, and saying that it doesn't matter what logic says, if Behe says it isn't so, well, it isn't so; I remember that I answered a question of yours about Y, and you promptly saying "yes, but what about Y" when my comment had quite specifically dealt with X. I remember that you appear not to even have the manners to read people's answers to your questions - I remember answering a question and you then promptly posting the exact same question further down the page in reply to something Felonius said, after I had replied. Based on my observations I think you are trolling. Guettarda 20:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Really Guettarda? Please give one specific example of the "I am just asking for X" claim. I suspect you won’t do so because your charge is false. For the most part I recall repeatedly requesting a citation of a leading ID opponent making argument X, and this request was repeatedly denied (is history repeating itself here?) rather than being granted. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree with Guettarda. This is why I am reluctant to engage with Wade any longer. FeloniousMonk 20:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Then you should also be reluctant to put such arguments in the Misplaced Pages entry if you're too reluctant to provide relevant citations when original research is suspected. Your personal feelings are not a license to ignore Misplaced Pages policy here. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention that he mischaracterizes both the sentence in question and his record in raising past objections. Read the entire passage: "Unlike with religious creationism, where the question "what created God?" can be answered with theological arguments, this creates a logical paradox in Intelligent Design, as the chain of designers can be followed back indefinitely in an infinite regression, leaving the question of the creation of the first designer dangling. The sort of logic required in sustaining such reasoning is known as circular reasoning, a form of logical fallacy." The sentence Wade objects to, the statement on circular reasoning, merely describes the statement before it. Not the sort of thing that requires a cite to support. FeloniousMonk

How did I mischaracterize the argument? You did not explain how. And the accusation of "circular reasoning" does not simply describe the sentence before it. Why? Circular reasoning is when a premise of an argument assumes the truth of the conclusion (e.g. "X is morally wrong, therefore it is unethical"). It is not, repeat not the same thing as a recursively applied explanation (e.g. the idea that every event has a cause, and every cause is an event; an event has a cause, that cause has a cause, which also has a cause...). If you think the charge of "circular reasoning" merely describes the infinite regression argument you have badly misunderstood what circular reasoning is. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

For God's sake, guys, what difference is there between the first two arguments admitted to be inaccurate or original research and the 3rd? Stop playing the fool and provide a citation which mirrors the argument or remove the line! Surely the best way to put an end to this is to provide the citation Wade is requesting?! Why resist it with irrelevant citations or sighs about 'not this again' when you are the ones not providing a citation which mirrores the argument? Or is this original research? Tell you what, put up the most accurate citation now, and let's confirm it is appropriate. If not, the line goes. If accurate, the line stays. End of story ant 14:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not recall that any of Wade's referenced statements were admitted to be inaccurate or original research. I recall many cites being given, Wade not accepting them, and the wording being changed. KillerChihuahua 15:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Tacitly by implication in my opinion but the main question is, let's stop this. Let's have the most accurate citation presented now, and let's confirm it is appropriate. If not, the line goes. If accurate, the line stays. End of story ant 20:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Will any of this nonsense ever end? Wade writes and writes and writes and says the same (no)thing the same way sideways 200 times over. The never-ending requests for citations have been supplied and then rejected more times than a millipede could count on its feet. The terms specious and spurious seem to have no meaning as the same specious, spurious arguments keep spawning themselves in a continual stream of slightly revised and reworded drivel. Thus the objection of "not this again" is valid.

That, is the end of the story.

Jim62sch 01:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Content moved from the article

Added to the article by 63.224.61.216 (talk · contribs):

Proponents of intelligent design respond as follows. First and as noted, they argue that the question of the designer's identity crosses from science into theology, leaving the purview of design theory. Dawkins has argued that "If complex organisms demand an explanation, so does a complex designer." Design theorists would say, rather, that complex, specified entities that came into being are best explained by intelligent design. And thanks to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Big Bang cosmology, and our consensus understanding of the earth's origin no more than a few billion years ago, methodological materialists and design theorists alike agree that everything in our physical world came into being. However, if a complex, specified being existed that had not come into being but rather always was, it would, by definition, not have been brought into being by a designer or anything else. Second, philosopher and design theorist Jay Richards argues that the "who designed the designer" objection not only doesn't refute intelligent design, it doesn’t even address it. It merely changes the subject, like asking "Who designed the designer's mother." Non sequiturs are not refutations but fallacies. Finally, design theorists note that the 'who-designed-the-designer' objection, if applied consistently, would invalidate all design inferences, a clear reductio ad absurdum. "Was Stonehenge designed?" "Yes, we can safely infer this from such-and-such features of the structure." "Then who built the builder? Who designed the designer? Ha! Q.E.D." Such an objection is ludicrous, design theorists argue, and not merely because humans built the ancient structure.

I've removed this because it was misplaced in the "What (or who) designed the designer?" criticism section and nested criticisms are not the wiki way. If someone can think of a way to work this back into the section describing the ID position, feel free to take a swack at it. FeloniousMonk 06:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

<sarcasm>That was a close one FM, I hope no one saw that in the article, it might have given the wrong impression. As we all know the question "who designed the designer" is very relevant as IDists sincerely believe the designer to have evolved from a more simple form via natural selection! The designer is an organism. The fact that 63.224.61.216 (talk · contribs) would right-out deny that ID-ists believe that is not only ridiculous, it's just wrong. He's being so incredibly misleading about what the controversy is really about. It's people like 63.224.61.216 (talk · contribs) that prove that "teaching the controversy" is impossible, because ID-ists always misrepresent it by saying things like "the designer didn't evolve" when the actual point of their argument is that s/he did evolve from simpler forms, but at the same time s/he (it?) is irreducibly complex. Can't they see that their argument is a fallacy? The wikipedia community (the world?) should thank Felonius Monk for this act of unbiased objectivity. He has removed an outright lie from the article! </sarcasm> As for why it does belong in the "What (or who) designed the designer?" section: it can logically go nowhere else. Leave it there. It would be funny to put it higher in the article. It's like FM arguing that he is unbiased before anyone has even suggested that he is biased. The paragraph is too relevant and contains too many direct quotes to be left out. FM, you say it should be moved or removed, and I think you are aware it can't really be moved, which leaves us with one option. On another note: I suggest that Mr. (Ms.?) IP address register. In doing this, s/he will raised his/her credibility another notch. --chad 07:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, OK, sure, my moving the content out of the article had nothing to do with the fact that nested critisisms make for poor articles, or that the content was not up to wiki standards for grammar or logic.

Nested criticisms are widely frowned upon at wikipedia, and soon to be part of the NPOV policy: NPOV: Nested Criticisms, Proposed wording "The use of nested criticisms is strongly discouraged under the NPOV policy. Nested criticisms often occur when two editors who support different viewpoints about an article's subject. When one editor adds a source criticizing the article's subject, the other adds a criticism of the critic. This pattern often continues with responses adding "critics of critics" and "critics of critics of critics" and so forth. Often criticisms of the critics stray substantially from the original article's topic. They can make the article difficult to read and create a source of bias." While your busy reading, you may want to brush up on WP:NPA. FeloniousMonk 08:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, sorry for the "personal attack". But I noticed you removed a very readable and comprehensive description of the origin of the movement from the ID movement article some time ago. This was also made by our good friend Mr. (Ms.?) IP. How about accepting that there indeed are good arguments for ID, and bad arguments against it (and vice versa)? Let's just do that, and all together try to show this fact in the article. --chad 08:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, apology accepted. I don't consider arguments for or against ID in terms of "good" or "bad" here. Such distinctions are irrelevant to Misplaced Pages's goals. I only consider content in terms of being informative, accurate, verifiable, and necessary. Any other criteria is beside the point in relation to this article and the project's aims. Instead of assuming I'm here promoting some anti-ID agenda, try assuming that I'm trying to maintain a factual and balanced article. You can add WP:FAITH to your reading list. FeloniousMonk 08:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

That was surly and peevish . As you and I both know that was not nested criticism, despite what you claim in your edit summary. Along with WP:NPA and WP:FAITH please read WP:POINT as well. FeloniousMonk 08:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to make a point, you yourself said that the information needed to be put in a different place because it was in the criticisms section and amounted to "nested criticism". You yourself removed it from there and suggested adding the information, but in a different place. You should have just deleted the content you didn't like and hoped nobody noticed instead of what appears to be pretending to be democratic. It seems to me that you have no intention of allowing that bit of information refuting the ridiculous "who designed the designer" argument"to stay in the article. The argument is ridiculous and it has been refuted time and time again. A reasonable thing would be to add a note that there was once an argument about "who designed the designer" but that that has been debunked. Or, even more reasonable would be to remove the embarrassing argument from the article altogether. --chad 10:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Your opinion about the "who designed the designer" question being "ridiculous" is irrelevant to the article, as is mine or any other editor's here. What is relevant is that the question has been raised by critics of ID and many find it find it to be compelling and significant. The fact that so many ID proponents even respond to the question is proof enough of it's significance . That they dismiss it is expected, considering their goal is to duck the issue of God while promoting a form of creationism by positing an unnamed 'designer.' Interestingly, other, more forthcoming theists, Jehovahs Witnesses no less, recognize and raise the question as well . FeloniousMonk 16:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

He could have just deleted it, with the edit summary "Removing unsourced undiscussed content - please discuss major changes on talk page prior to making them".

KillerChihuahua 11:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I do commend FM for moving this to the talk page. And it is sourced, with quotes. I just wish Mr. IP would join the discussion :-)--chad 12:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I conur, however he gave us his ideas, now its up to us to go through them and determine how to best utilize them. KillerChihuahua 12:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Another POV fork (Intelligent Design and Creationism)

headsup boys - this is the 7th or 8th from the same contributor... — Dunc|☺ 15:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, the article doesn't contain a single source, reference or link. In fact, prior to becoming AfD it contained the {{unsourced}} boiler, with good cause. -- Ec5618 19:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Will zero pro-ID representation on the ID page be sufficient?

Even sourced pro-ID edits are immediately reverted. This isn't worth my time. Endomion 20:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I suspect you're right. It really has been getting ridiculous. I mean for crying out loud, this Misplaced Pages is supposed to be about ID! The majority view should be represented, but so should the minority view. --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

To which souced pro-ID edit do you refer? -Parallel or Together ? 23:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Categories:

Misplaced Pages