Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Andrew Lancaster (talk | contribs) at 22:33, 15 April 2014 (→Suggested first para). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

view · edit Frequently asked questions Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning Intelligent design (ID). To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question. Q1: Should ID be equated with creationism? A1: ID is a form of creationism, and many sources argue that it is identical. U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and Phillip E. Johnson, one of the founders of the ID movement, stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast creationism as a scientific concept. Not everyone agrees with this. For example, philosopher Thomas Nagel argues that intelligent design is very different from creation science (see "Public Education and Intelligent Design", Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 36, no. 2, 2008). However, this perspective is not representative of most reliable sources on the subject. Although intelligent design proponents do not name the designer, they make it clear that the designer is the Abrahamic god. In drafts of the 1989 high-school level textbook Of Pandas and People, almost all derivations of the word "creation", such as "creationism", were replaced with the words "intelligent design". Taken together, the Kitzmiller ruling, statements of ID's main proponents, the nature of ID itself, and the history of the movement, make it clear—Discovery Institute's protestations to the contrary notwithstanding—that ID is a form of creationism, modified to appear more secular than it really is. This is in line with the Discovery Institute's stated strategy in the Wedge Document. Q2: Should ID be characterized as science? A2: The majority of scientists state that ID should not be characterized as science. This was the finding of Judge Jones during the Kitzmiller hearing, and is a position supported by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. Scientists say that ID cannot be regarded as scientific theory because it is untestable even in principle. A scientific theory predicts the outcome of experiments. If the predicted outcome is not observed, the theory is false. There is no experiment which can be constructed which can disprove intelligent design. Unlike a true scientific theory, it has absolutely no predictive capability. It doesn't run the risk of being disproved by objective experiment. Q3: Should the article cite any papers about ID? A3: According to Misplaced Pages's sourcing policy, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, papers that support ID should be used as primary sources to explain the nature of the concept. The article as it stands does not cite papers that support ID because no such papers have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Behe himself admitted this under cross examination, during the Kitzmiller hearings, and this has been the finding of scientists and critics who have investigated this claim. In fact, the only article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that made a case for intelligent design was quickly withdrawn by the publisher for having circumvented the journal's peer-review standards. Broadly speaking, the articles on the Discovery Institute list all fail for any of four reasons: The journal has no credible editorial and peer-review process, or the process was not followed The journal is not competent for the subject matter of the article The article is not genuinely supportive of ID The article is published in a partisan ID journal such as PCID If you wish to dispute the claim that ID has no support in peer-reviewed publications, then you will need to produce a reliable source that attests to the publication of at least one paper clearly supportive of ID that underwent rigorous peer-review in a journal on a relevant field. Q4: Is this article unfairly biased against ID? A4: There have been arguments over the years about the article's neutrality and concerns that it violates Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy. The NPOV policy does not require all points of view to be represented as equally valid, but it does require us to represent them. The policy requires that we present ID from the point of view of disinterested philosophers, biologists and other scientists, and that we also include the views of ID proponents and opponents. We should not present minority views as though they are majority ones, but we should also make sure the minority views are correctly described and not only criticized, particularly in an article devoted to those views, such as this one. Q5: Is the Discovery Institute a reliable source? A5: The Discovery Institute is a reliable primary source about its views on ID, though it should not be used as an independent secondary source. The core mission of the Discovery Institute is to promote intelligent design. The end purpose is to duck court rulings that eliminated religion from the science classroom, by confusing people into conflating science and religion. In light of this, the Discovery Institute cannot be used as a reference for anything but their beliefs, membership and statements. Questionable sources, according to the sourcing policy, WP:V, are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight, and should only be used in articles about themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources. See also: WP:RS and WP:V Q6: Are all formulations of intelligent design pseudoscience? Was William Paley doing pseudoscience when he argued that natural features should be attributed to "an intelligent and designing Creator"? A6: While the use of the phrase intelligent design in teleological arguments dates back to at least the 1700s, Intelligent Design (ID) as a term of art begins with the 1989 publication of Of Pandas and People. Intelligent design is classified as pseudoscience because its hypotheses are effectively unfalsifiable. Unlike Thomas Aquinas and Paley, modern ID denies its religious roots and the supernatural nature of its explanations. For an extended discussion about definitions of pseudoscience, including Intelligent Design, see Pigliucci, Massimo; Boudry, Maarten, eds. (2013), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem, University of Chicago, ISBN 978-0-226-05179-6. Notes and references ^ Phillip Johnson: "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." Johnson 2004. Christianity.ca. Let's Be Intelligent About Darwin. "This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy." Johnson 1996. World Magazine. Witnesses For The Prosecution. "So the question is: "How to win?" That's when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing"—the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do." Johnson 2000. Touchstone magazine. Berkeley's Radical An Interview with Phillip E. Johnson "I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science."…"Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth?"…"I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves." Johnson 1999. Reclaiming America for Christ Conference. How the Evolution Debate Can Be Won Dembski: "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory," Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999 Wedge Document Discovery Institute, 1999. "embers of the national ID movement insist that their attacks on evolution aren't religiously motivated, but, rather, scientific in nature." … "Yet the express strategic objectives of the Discovery Institute; the writings, careers, and affiliations of ID's leading proponents; and the movement’s funding sources all betray a clear moral and religious agenda." Inferior Design Chris Mooney. The American Prospect, August 10, 2005. "ID's rejection of naturalism in any form logically entails its appeal to the only alternative, supernaturalism, as a putatively scientific explanation for natural phenomena. This makes ID a religious belief." Expert Witness Report Barbara Forrest Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, April 2005. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., pp. 31 – 33. ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., 4. Whether ID is Science, p. 87 "Science and Policy: Intelligent Design and Peer Review". American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2007. Retrieved 2007-07-19. Brauer, Matthew J.; Forrest, Barbara; Gey, Steven G. (2005). "Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution" (PDF). Washington University Law Quarterly. 83 (1). Retrieved 2007-07-18. ID leaders know the benefits of submitting their work to independent review and have established at least two purportedly "peer-reviewed" journals for ID articles. However, one has languished for want of material and quietly ceased publication, while the other has a more overtly philosophical orientation. Both journals employ a weak standard of "peer review" that amounts to no more than vetting by the editorial board or society fellows. Isaak, Mark (2006). "Index to Creationist Claims". The TalkOrigins Archive. With some of the claims for peer review, notably Campbell and Meyer (2003) and the e-journal PCID, the reviewers are themselves ardent supporters of intelligent design. The purpose of peer review is to expose errors, weaknesses, and significant omissions in fact and argument. That purpose is not served if the reviewers are uncritical "Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington". Biological Society of Washington. Retrieved 2007-07-19. See also Sternberg peer review controversy. Wilkins, John (9 November 2013), "The origin of "intelligent design" in the 18th and 19th centuries", Evolving Thoughts (blog) Matzke, Nick (2006), "Design on Trial: How NCSE Helped Win the Kitzmiller Case", Reports of the National Center for Science Education, 26 (1–2): 37–44 "Report of John F. Haught, Ph. D" (PDF). Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (NCSE). 2005-04-01. Retrieved 29 August 2013.

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

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative views High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Intelligent design Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Maintained

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows: Neutral point of view as applied to science: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89

Archives by topic: Philosophy sources​

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Trying to stick to topic

@Dave, trying to stick to topic. Dave, what our article indeed states is that ID is a form of the teleological argument presented as science, but which is not science as usually understood (like the court found etc). I have no problem with that, and indeed even the ID people seem to accept it when pushed, but you seem to have a problem with it, and our article is confused and badly sourced as a result. I say that you are in conflict with this, because having concluded that ID is not really about modern science as normally understood, that it is in fact about a subject most people today would categorize as philosophy and theology, you and others are arguing (without sourcing) that the article must be written in the opposite way, not as philosophical, and not using philosophy sourcing. You take the position that we must keep it distinct from any implication that it has to do with philosophy and theology. Indeed, we are hiding links, and distorting sources. At the end of the second paragraph we even distort the ID people themselves who pretty much also admit that this is not modern science as normally understood but actually a philosophical/theological questioning of how modern science is normally understood. Instead we make this one key thing they get right impossible for readers to get. My two proposals above aim to smooth this problem away. What is controversial about saying we should sure it is clear that expert sources constantly (not occasionally) treat ID at its core as a name which can and should be applied to a bigger and older theological and philosophical debate?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, ID is prominently and explicitly presented as science: the "philosophical/theological questioning of how modern science is normally understood" is essentially anti-evolution creationism. If you want some change, please provide your sources and precise proposed wording. . dave souza, talk 08:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thought for the day: What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse." It isn't. . . dave souza, talk 09:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Dave, I do not get the point you are making here and how it relates to this discussion. Are you disagreeing or agreeing with me that ID is not science, but rather a philosophical/theological creationist position?

Actually, I think you are in conflict with yourself on this. You seem to want to treat ID as a science subject while also insisting it is not science. It is not a science subject. A questioning of science is not science itself, and similarly a proposal to have a new type of science is not science either. I agree with the court cases which this article cites about that. The implication for Misplaced Pages policy is that this article is about a philosophical/theological subject, and should be sourced and contextualized appropriately.

The popular movement has its own article, and the legal debates and education debates are also extensively covered. This article is about the concept of intelligent design itself which both critics, and supporters, and indeed to some extent even Misplaced Pages, all see as being based upon a version of the teleological argument. Representatives of the movement itself have apparently admitted that this is not compatible with normal modern science, and so they admit that to the extent that they claim to be science, at least under pressure, they admit it would be a new type of science.

I continue to think that the positions of some editors of this article about the subject of this article being a type of "scam" ignores the fact that no one doubts that they really do believe in the teleological argument, and that really is what they mainly present to the public. We are obfuscating this fact on purpose, as explained in the words I cited by you at the beginning of this thread.

• Your words which I was discussing: The relationship of anti-evolution ID pseudoscience to the theological teleological argument is rightly covered in the article, but these remain two distinct topic areas and there is no justification for conflating them.
• Very concrete: I asked for sourcing justification for that position, which is guiding editing of the article. There is nothing vague about this question.
• Secondly, and more specifically, I pointed to the last part of the second paragraph which seems to me to distort the sources, and indeed it seems to be designed to befuddle readers. I have given more extended comments above.

I am asking for sourcing justifications, and the onus is on defenders of questioned sourcing to respond.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, I don't quite see the distortion of the sources you do. Where in the second paragraph does this occur? Also, do you have a source to support your claim that " movement is ultimately about is arguing the teleological argument versus modern science, which are two things that they see as incompatible"? I know the leading theorists of ID don't agree (emphases added):

As I explained repeatedly to reporters and cable-news hosts, the theory of intelligent design is not based on a religious text or document, even if it does have implications that support theistic belief (a point to which I will return in Chapter 20). Instead, intelligent design is an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution.

— Meyer, Stephen C. (2010). Signature in the Cell. HarperOne. p. 4.

In any event, it is very much a live possibility that design in cosmology and biology is scientifically detectable, thus placing intelligent design squarely with in the realm of science.

— Dembski, William A. (2005). In Defense of Intelligent Design.

In its legal analysis, the Court takes what I would call a restricted sociological view of science: "science" is what the consensus of the community of practicing scientists declares it to be. The word "science" belongs to that community and to no one else. Thus, in the Court’s reasoning, since prominent science organizations have declared intelligent design to not be science, it is not science. Although at first blush that may seem reasonable, the restricted sociological view of science risks conflating the presumptions and prejudices of the current group of practitioners with the way physical reality must be understood. On the other hand, like myself most of the public takes a broader view: "science" is an unrestricted search for the truth about nature based on reasoning from physical evidence. By those lights, intelligent design is indeed science.

— Behe, Michael J. (2006). Whether Intelligent Design is Science.

-- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@ Andrew, it's hard to see why you're confused: sources are cited in the relevant paragraphs. Taking one example, Kitz 24–25 notes that "The concept of intelligent design (hereinafter “ID”), in its current form, came into existence after the Edwards case was decided in 1987", before going on to say that John Haught "succinctly explained to the Court that the argument for ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God." Perhaps you thought that because the argument for ID is the same as the teleological argument, the two are the same? Please note that An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching About “Gaps” and “Problems” in Evolutionary Theory are Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier Forms of Creationism, that's obviously not the case with the traditional theological argument. Per p. 68, ID aspires to “change the ground rules” of science, not something that's intrinsic to the teleological argument. So, precisely what wording are you proposing, and what sources are you suggesting citing in support of this change? . . . dave souza, talk 17:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Let me understand, this argument: Because ID is not scientific, it is inappropriate to show its deficiencies as science? One should not, in the article on the Flat Earth, point out that the Earth is not, in fact, flat. Because the primary motivation for belief in a flat Earth is a particular interpretation of the Bible, one should only discuss those biblical texts? Or, is it because one presents evidence of the flat Earth not being science by citing the overwhelming majority of geologists, that one is arguing that science is only what a group of people (in this case, geologists) think? TomS TDotO (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

That's not the debate. I think that here it is in shorthand:

• Group "A" (North, Andrew et al) notes that some/most motorcycles have 2 wheels, and some have three, and wants all wording to be consistent with that.
• Group "B" (Souza, Gaba et al) says that 3 wheeled motorcycles are either ignorable, or wants to say that the "Motorcycle" article is only about 2 wheeled motorcycles. And they put in statements like "motorcycles have 2 wheels". Group "A" says that such statements need to be re-worded.
• "2 wheeled motorcycles" = The modern ID maneuver, which claims that ID is scientific
• "3 wheeled motorcycles" = other types of ID, not necessarily claiming to be science.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Misterdub, I think that an analysis of the sources and quotes is analogous to and puts a finger on the core of the of the debate here and the rationale for both "sides". And to that end, I would argue that context is important, and ask the following question.....in your opinion is the context of those sourced quotes referring to a particular ID (e.g. the DI version) or a blanket statement about all ID? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry TomS, I do accept that this is not simple and so I do not blame anyone for an honest misunderstanding. However you are misunderstanding me. In fact though, it is interesting that the following response can also work as an answer to MisterDub and Dave souza, who I would have thought understood me better:

• I am not at all opposed to this article including scientific expert sources to show the deficiencies of ID as science. That is exactly what we should do.
• I am also not at all opposed to our article rightly saying that the ID movement presents itself as scientific and obfuscates the fact that what they mean by science does not match up to what most people would mean, which is misleading. No problem.
• The issue I am trying to point to is that within philosophy, it is not universally agreed, in fact I would say it is controversial, to say, as Dave does that "to “change the ground rules” of science" is "not something that's intrinsic to the teleological argument". I believe that at the very least there is no consensus for it, even if people like Dave himself, and Ayala, do want to believe it. As I mentioned before, people like Darwin and Hume clearly saw an issue with this. This is one of the oldest philosophical debates there is, though not the most commonly discussed any more, most famously presented by the dieing Socrates in the Platonic dialogue Phaedo.

I think we are coming closer to understanding of my point? I think the discussion has already achieved agreement on the fact that this statement of Dave (the quotes in the last bullet encapsulate it again) is an intrinsic assumption guiding the way our article is written. What is a source for it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

@ Andrew, source please for your contention about the situation within philosophy, with quotation making exactly the point you're trying to assert. Your references should explicitly discuss intelligent design. . . dave souza, talk 08:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

My question is clear Dave, and as I said there are thousands of years of sourcing for it. I asked you for a source for your statement. What is your source for believing that the thousands of years of debate are closed? Are teleological understandings of any type concerning how nature should be explained compatible with normal modern science? I am not saying there is one consensus answer to this, I am saying there is not. You are saying that there is one. You are saying the article should be structured based on that final answer which is apparently a consensus amongst experts. Anyway the wording I am asking for you to source is your own wording, and you have worded it several ways now, so you should understand it, right?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh really? You're the one that's arguing that changing the ground rules of science is a standard feature of teleological understandings. Doesn't follow. . dave souza, talk 11:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, I don't agree that Dave's statement guides the article. Honestly, it doesn't even seem that this discussion is relevant to this article. I don't really care if the teleological argument tries to change the ground rules of science; this isn't an article on the teleological argument, it's about the purportedly scientific theory called ID. It sounds like you should be having this conversation on the that page. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 13:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, I'm not understanding or seeing the relevance of your last post. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it is best to note a few points, hoping some might help give traction:

• Yes indeed Dave that is what I am saying. It is good, IMHO, that you and I now have been able to confirm a clear difference in positions in a way we both seem to understand, that can be examined in ways relevant to the article. Please that I am claiming no consensus, but you are. Correct?
• Dave, as a source for it not being a consensus, I have for example cited Sedley's book many times, as well as the Thomist critics of ID. One of the points you hear Thomists and other Aristotelians make about modern science, which comes straight from Socrates, is that if we do not consider the ends of nature when trying to explain it, then our descriptions will be inaccurate and distorted. (Aristotle's whole scientific corpus is teleological.) This is not dissimilar to what the ID guys finally backed up into is it?
• I can see how the discussion between Dave and I might no longer be easy to link to the article proposals above, so two comments to make there:
• First looking at North's summary of my position, I think North you are only summarising one point which is an old point often made, about how ID has a broader sense. But there is this newer point I am discussing with Dave, and it is really about the narrow focus of this article and not telelogical arguments more generally.
• Second, that point, as I mentioned, relates for example to the last part of the second paragraph.
• Concerning that, as I understand it, this has evolved over time, but has always been meant to pay lip service to the demands which go right back to the FA review and beyond, that the article should, as per WP policies, make an effort to state the position of the ID folk the way they would want it. This is actually not so easy, given their specific obfuscations. But I think we are quite deliberately not really even attempting it. And the reason for this is what Dave and I are discussing.
• It seems to be one area that leads to criticism of the article over the long term.
• What I understand to be happening is that we are citing their opinion in terms of what their critics would say, but their critics (except for Thomists and other such teleologists perhaps, who we do not mention, and whose positions would be almost impossible to fit into the current form of the article) all believe, as does Dave, that there is a big black line between science and theology. However teleologists of a traditional stamp would not accept this, and when pushed it seems the IDM people also did not. But I think Dave feels it is important NOT to even try to be sympathetic to this theological position, so we report something which is mixed up and probably not really what anyone believes.
• I need to mention that definitely the ID explanations do not help, because they obviously obfuscate this conflict between modern science and teleology while it is clearly the core of the matter. (Dave do you not agree it is a core of the matter?) Writers who are expert in theology and philosophy, including Thomist writers I have cited here before, have actually criticised the IDM for the way that they present themselves as just explaining things in terms of matter and motion, or in other words for not being truly teleological in their explanations.
• Thought experiment which might help: Imagine a movement to teach Aristotelian physics as being an alternative to normal modern physics? Aristotle was not a creationist, but of course the most likely people to want to support such a movement would be creationists. (So believing in teleological causation can be distinguished from modern science, and also from creationism.) Question: in a way, is this not pretty much what the IDM movement is? But you would never get that from our article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

@ Anrew, another wall of text with no specific proposals and no citations from a source. Less of your forum stuff, please. . dave souza, talk 13:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Dave, how silly. Do you think posting things like this on the ends of threads stops people from noticing that there was actually a discussion about the article which you were involved in? You keep doing this and not realizing how obvious it is, and how bad it makes you look. Someone answers you in a way which stumps you, and then you pretend that the whole discussion was actually off-topic. It wasn't, and your own posts show it. There are concrete proposals, and questions and references to policy and how it relates to this article above. Indeed the starting point of the discussion was your own position about how the article is currently written.

Let's not play dumb? We have already seen several times that you and the knights in shining armour here are willing to kneejerk revert or reject any concrete edit I make or propose, including even several grammar fixes you later had to reinsert yourself. This has happened how many times already? I have no interest in repeating that circle. Once more let me also remind everyone of WP:NOTDEM.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, a couple of things: 1) You say " all believe, as does Dave, that there is a big black line between science and theology." Do you have sources to support this statement? I agree that the interplay between science and religion is still debated, but I don't think it's relevant to the article; I see no claim in the current article that science and religion are irreconcilable, nor should there be. The more relevant debate is whether or not science must restrict its explanations to natural ones (i.e. does science require methodological naturalism?), which doesn't necessarily throw into question the compatibility of science and religion. 2) You say that " obviously obfuscate this conflict between modern science and teleology while it is clearly the core of the matter." I don't think it is the core of the matter, and I'd like to see sources to support such a claim.

Andrew, are you student of theology or philosophy? I ask because it seems like you are compiling a list of disparate sources to substantiate a logical claim not made in any of them. For example, I don't see any sources discussing the accordance of either science and theology or modern science and teleology. While dialectics of this nature can be interesting, they don't belong here unless they can be traced to reliable sources. I just don't see that in this case, which gives the impression that you are trying to publish OR. Perhaps if you can clearly and concisely identify the problem(s) you see with the second paragraph, this conversation could progress to a resolution. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

MisterDub, yes I have an interest in philosophy. I came to this article as a member of the WP Philosophy project and I have worked on articles such as Science, Evolution, Teleology, and various articles about Aristotelian science (which is by the way not science according to modern norms, though within philosophy it is referred to as science). I am interested in the differences between different conceptions of science, and this is something a lot of editors have trouble with because obviously we grow up with the conceptions common today. Responding to your points:

• I have been a bit more specific, and I do not think it is me digressing here. I have pointed to the last part of the second paragraph of the lead as a bit which is apparently describing what ID supporters really think. So if you want, you can consider my point a straightforward sourcing clarification request. It is a normal thing to cite somewhere what the position of the criticized group is, but are we doing really doing it in a fair and clear way which draws out the relevant disagreements properly? In fact, the way I read it, this was more or less demanded as a sort of condition of gaining FA status in an earlier version of this article, but it seems this condition was never really met, and the article should loose that status for this and many other reasons. If we can avoid that, this would be better of course.
• I do not really think it is valid to make the distinction you do because the debate about whether science should restrict itself to "natural" "explanations" (please define what you mean by those; I guess you mean something like materialistic ones as per Thomas Hobbes, everything in terms of matter and motion, or efficient causes as Aristotelians would say), and the debate about whether science and teleological understandings of nature (all of them, including all teleological arguments) are really compatible. I think at least there is no consensus about whether these are two different debates.
• I don't see that we Wikipedians need to have a position about whether there might be a possibility of compatibility between modern materalist or naturalist, or whatever we want to call it, science, and some sort of teleological understanding of things. The point is that we know some people think the two things not compatible. Knowing this, we know that we should not report a consensus. In any case, concerning the IDM, when reporting what they think, we should be accurate.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, to address your points in similar fashion:

• I have responded to your recently created section below about the sources for this claim (please see that section for further commentary).
• Yes, those two debates are compatible, but one is discussed in reliable sources (i.e. the one arguing science's commitment to methodological naturalism), and one isn't. Like I said earlier, that may be an interesting debate, but it is not relevant here unless you have reliable sources. Do you have these?
• I agree with your last bullet point... I just don't know why it's relevant to this article. Does this article make the claim that modern science and teleological understandings (or what-have-you) are incompatible? Or compatible? I guess I don't see anything in the current article that touches on this matter at all.

I was asking about your interest in philosophy or theology for my own purposes; thank you for answering. I read quite a bit of philosophy myself, and honestly think it would be enjoyable to discuss similar matters in a different setting; however, I don't think that kind of discussion belongs here. Without reliable sources, I don't see a justification for a change to the section you identify as problematic. Moreover, given my reply in the section below, I think the questioned statement accurately reflects the cited sources. I'm not really sure why you would want to change it... or how you propose doing so. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

MisterDub, no problem, and thanks for that reply. I will respond further in the appropriate place where discussion has moved on to. But just on one separable point I think over recent months I have posted more than anyone concerning sourcing. I think I would not be exaggerating to say that attempts to post detailed sourcing discussions have been attacked, blocked, swamped, and resulted in people making threats, demands, etc etc. I do not see any point us all pretending this has not been happening. Short answer: yes of course there are such sources. Indeed I think your sourcing is not in disagreement with the broader sources available either. It is just that the reading of it is limited and distorted, so that the connections to the bigger literature become hard to see. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Science or theology? Both, in Dembski's mind

Gentlemen, I think attempts to define ID as either science or theology/philosophy are self-defeating. ID is a hopeful hybrid that tries to be both but winds up as neither and, being sterile, produces nothing in either field.

William Dembski: "Intelligent design is three things: a scientific research program that investigates the effects of intelligent causes; an intellectual movement that challenges Darwinism and its naturalistic legacy; and a way of understanding divine action. Intelligent design therefore intersects science and theology."

He admits in the same paragraph, "Many scientists think intelligent design makes for bad science (that it's just creationism in disguise), whereas many theologians think it makes for bad theology (that it misunderstands divine action)."

Naturally, he takes the opposite tack: "This book argues that these perceptions are mistaken and that intelligent design is just what the doctor ordered for both science and theology." Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 13.

The publisher misquotes (!) Dembski's book by inserting the word "movement" after "Intelligent design." You can see part of the quote in a Google book snippet. Yopienso (talk) 07:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

How many other books have been published that objectively, or attempt to objectively evaluate ID? Dembski appears to be trying to give a neutral presentation on the topic. If so, this book should be a major source for this article. Cla68 (talk) 10:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that is a helpful post Yopienso, because I think it points quite well to a bigger issue I am trying to explain. And that issue is that not everyone agrees about whether you can have something which is both science and theology. To believe that these things can be combined is in a sense against the normal principles of modern science as it is normally understood, and more like the way Aristotle and Aquinas thought. It is in a sense precisely this point which I think our sources exposed as the honest difference of positions underneath all the various smokescreens. Aristotle and his ilk argued that science is incomplete if it does not try to understand such things as what aims are trying to be achieved within nature, or in other words supernatural causes. Modern science follows Francis Bacon in disagreeing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The rub, here, of course, is that WP, on principle, must separate science from theology. Aristotle, Aquinas, Sagan, Dembski, and many others, have had a more holistic view. The key, in my mind, is to write an article that does distinguish between science and theology while preserving the view of ID's proponents that it's both. Ideally, the proponents would not be maligned for their ideas, but the article would simply describe them.

You will notice that Dembski's first proposition immediately compromises the definition of science from being strictly materialistic, which is rightfully the view WP adheres to, by presupposing intelligent causes.

Sagan? some may ask. In the last four chapters (of thirteen) of his 1980 book, Cosmos, based on the television series, Sagan veered into touchy-feely stuff. After brief quotes from ancient creation myths, he wrote on p. 258, "These myths are tributes to human audacity. The chief difference between them and our modern scientific myth of the Big Bang is that science is self-questioning, and that we can perform experiments and observations to test out ideas. But those other creation stories are worthy of our deep respect." This article has not accorded respect to the proponents of ID, probably because the strong-armed editors sincerely believe the editorial consensus is based on an opinion held by many of the sources that the proponents are purposefully deceitful.

Sagan then goes on to a serious discussion of an oscillating universe as believed by ancient Hindus and Mayans. By book's end, he masterfully and intriguingly included myths from around the globe. This is not to suggest Sagan waffled on the scientific method; on pp. 332-33 he made a sharp distinction between superstition and pseudoscience on the one hand and self-correcting science on the other, insisting "whatever is inconsistent with the facts must be discarded or revised."

My point is that this article needs to hew strictly to the scientific tradition while respecting the holistic views of ID proponents. Yes, show why ID isn't science! But dispassionately. As has been mentioned many times, it is the insulting tone to which many of us object. Yopienso (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Yopienso you just wrote the masterpiece of analysis of the situation here and for the neutral encyclopedic approach here! One side note response....I think that Sagan was an atheist who was indirect / circumspect in his wording to avoid offending, and that the touchy-feely stuff was a part of that. North8000 (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I think we need to remember our roles here. We're encyclopedia editors. Not culture war referees. Because there isn't, by any stretch of the imagination, any significant scholarship that characterizes ID as some ethereal, abstract Aristotle>Sagan>Dembski over the "strictly materialistic" philosophical debate the way it's been posed in this thread. So that's where the "neutral approach" flag being waved here rings hollow. It's not "neutral", at all. It's "corrective"...as if the science sources have it all wrong, the education sources have it all wrong, the "separation of church and state" sources have it all wrong, the courts have it all wrong...what? "Corrective" isn't "neutral". And I swear, North8000--atheist? How many times now have you raised this? Seriously, you play the culture war card at least as shamelessly as the most egregious atheists/theists weighting in these discussions. The "I'm an atheist", "he's an atheist" ?? Stop it already. Put away your Culture War script, Go To a good library and Research this Topic, like a researcher - not a "rescuer". (The "masterpiece of analysis"? No insult intended for Yopienso but his epiphany analyzing Sagan and "Cosmos" and his analysis of Sagan's "touchy feelies" is not a reliable source on the topic Intelligent Design.) Professor marginalia (talk) 07:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a need to discuss Yopienso's attempt to colour in. I think Yopienso's first paragraph is clear and correct and I agree. I think that demands that this article should at least report the position of a party accurately go right back to the FA review and beyond and are really quite a cold and dry bit of policy. I can see Professor Marginalia's point as a general point to be concerned about in cases like this, but I just do not think it is encompassing what Yopienso really said about this real case. Yopienso did not say we need to be neutral about science and its distinction from theology, except when we report the opinions of someone. Actually Yopienso has said the opposite. But that is what policy and common sense always demand, and surely PM is not debating that? The article is currently not even attempting to do this, and being concerned about that does not make one touchy and feely. Indeed I think that the defenders of the present fuzzy compromise are all doing it for nice warm and fuzzy "corrective" reasons, as they make clear time and time again. The present article does not make a clear point about this at all. Furthermore North clearly mentioned being an atheist as a response to what he perceives as repeated insinuations and accusations to the effect that anyone worried about this subject must be anti-evolution. Let's not pretend we do not know that. You can accuse North of over-reacting or misinterpreting if you want, but I think that would be altogether less interesting. My suggestion: focus on Yopienso's first paragraph and be fair. Is it really wrong? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

"My suggestion: focus on Yopienso's first paragraph and be fair. Is it really wrong?"

ok, here it is: "Gentlemen, I think attempts to define ID as either science or theology/philosophy are self-defeating. ID is a hopeful hybrid that tries to be both but winds up as neither and, being sterile, produces nothing in either field."

Why are we talking about what Yopienso thinks ID is? Or North8000? "The Real Case"? This is an Encyclopedia, not an Oracle. (And no, North didn't "clearly mention it" because of perceived anti-evolution blah blah blah. It's a *years* long now "atheist" card trick. Did you fall for it ? Why? -- you're giving him a pass here. Why? The thread doesn't justify this "he's only" excuse. You're bringing in the "he's only" business from some otherworld dialog, which I'm saying none of us should do. See the above, my "we're encyclopedia editors, not culture war correctors") It IS WRONG. This isn't our call. Professor marginalia (talk) 09:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

My comment on on the good approach put forward was regarding the "let's cover it, not bash it" theme. And the "bash it" approach has been pursued by creative sourceless editor constructions that "Intelligent design" excludes intelligent design in sources, and refers only to a particular modern initiative which purports to be science. And the same people defended (and beat up people who changed it)what was previously in the article that ID is limited to the Discovery Institute, despite that being blatantly in conflict with sources which show that even the modern ID preceded it. So let's quit the crap implying that we are "creating" rather than following sources. We are instead trying to repair an unsourced editor-creation that is in conflict with sources. North8000 (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Put a citation needed tag on the unsourced claims and they should be sourced soon enough, or removed if nec. Almost every sentence is already sourced now, many sentences cited to multiple sources. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

LOL. The sourcing on this article is in impenetrable thickets of nested and interlocked footnotes, a sign of heavy synthesis. Discussion on the talk page about them has happened before you know? When I came looking here in August last year for the first time, as an experienced Wikipedian the first thing you think is that the footnotes in the lead show there is something wrong. PM, you are obviously distorting the point being made which is not that we should be interested in Yopienso's opinions or Carl Sagan's, but that we should follow Misplaced Pages policy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yopienso, some interesting quotations there from Dembski's book. Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology. However, that is of course a primary source from 1999, and all speculation about how significant they are, or what they signify, is original research. This ID article does cover the book in the #Religion and leading proponents section, with quite a large quotation, and shows it in the context of expert third party opinion. Does anyone have another third party source discussing this? As for the speculation by others, the same need for a source applies. . dave souza, talk 12:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If the book is an expert third party opinion, then why isn't used as a primary source for this article? Cla68 (talk) 06:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Rephrase this please. It's not clear what you're asking. (Dembski's book is a primary, not a "third party" opinion) Professor marginalia (talk) 06:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I think Cla68 that a third party opinion and a primary source are two different things. But debating about that would not be very useful. The question I raised, which led us to here, is how are we currently sourcing our version of ID's own opinions about the boundary between science and non-science. What is the primary source for the wording at the end of the second paragraph of the lead for example? I have mentioned above that in my opinion it is a hybrid that is neither clear, nor clearly the position of any real person the way that they would choose to express it in an encyclopedic and critical context. I think someone should try to answer that question. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Lead, second paragraph, last sentence; sourcing request

To focus upon the way I understand that we are currently expressing the views of the ID supporters about what we might call the proper definition of science, or the boundaries of science, this is what we currently have:

The sourcing for the opinions of the ID proponents is this enormous footnote:

• Meyer, Stephen C.; Nelson, Paul A. (May 1, 1996). "Getting Rid of the Unfair Rules". Origins & Design (Book review) (Colorado Springs, CO: Access Research Network). Retrieved 2007-05-20.
• Johnson, Phillip E. (May/June 1996). "Third-Party Science". Books & Culture (Book review) 2 (3). Retrieved 2012-06-16. The review is reprinted in full by Access Research Network.
• Meyer, Stephen C. (2000). "The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories". Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe: Papers Presented at a Conference Sponsored by the Wethersfield Institute, New York City, September 25, 1999. Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute 9. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press. ISBN 0-89870-809-5. LCCN 00102374. OCLC 45720008. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
• Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). , Whether ID Is Science, p. 66
• Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). , Whether ID Is Science, p. 68. Lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also include astrology.
• See also Hanna, John (February 13, 2007). "Kansas Rewriting Science Standards". Guardian Unlimited (London: Guardian Media Group). Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2007-02-16. Retrieved 2014-02-28.

It looks like synthesis, and I do think that it is synthesis (at least as a text meant to representing the IDM's position as opposed to their critics). Can someone untangle and pick out a single statement (or maybe two) from the IDM which can help us? This type of impenetrable footnote in a lead is definitely not what is recommended in WP, and it was raised as an issue when this article was nominated for FA status. We should let our readers see the differences between the positions of the IDM and their critics. (It is actually a very critical and interesting point.) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope, don't see your claim supported here: both ID proponents and the critical assessment of their claims show their aim being to change science, to "overthrow materialism". Where are there differences? . . dave souza, talk 12:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

From the very first source:

An astonishing number of theists argue that science ought to be methodologically "naturalistic"—the demarcation criterion non pareil. "You can't put God in a test tube," Ratzsch quotes the philosophical naturalist Eugenie Scott as arguing, and therefore "science acts as if the supernatural did not exist. This methodological naturalism is the cornerstone of modern science." Scott is right, many theists affirm: God may be real but He is empirically inscrutable. It is thus best that we acted, as we reason about the workings of nature, as if God were away on other business.

But that cannot be correct, argues Ratzsch. Methodological naturalism prejudges the shape of reality in a way that any "truth-seeking" science can ill afford— Stephen C. Meyer "Getting Rid of the Unfair Rules"

As I stated in the section above, the debate is not about science and religion, but science's commitment to methodological naturalism. Do we need this many citations supporting the statement? No. But the statement remains true, as an accurate reflection of those sources. I'm very curious to know how you thought this was synthesis... did you not look at all?!

An openness to empirical arguments for design is therefore a necessary condition of a fully rational historical biology. A rational historical biology must not only address the question "Which materialistic or naturalistic evolutionary scenario provides the most adequate explanation of biological complexity?" but also the question "Does a strictly materialistic evolutionary scenario or one involving intelligent agency or some other theory best explain the origin of biological complexity, given all relevant evidence?" To insist otherwise is to insist that materialism holds a metaphysically privileged position. Since there seems no reason to concede that assumption, I see no reason to concede that origins theories must be strictly naturalistic.

— Stephen C. Meyer "The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories"

This rigorous attachment to "natural" explanations is an essential attribute to science by definition and by convention.

— Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District p. 66

It is notable that defense experts' own mission, which mirrors that of the IDM itself, is to change the ground rules of science to allow supernatural causation of the natural world, which the Supreme Court in Edwards and the court in McLean correctly recognized as an inherently religious concept. Edwards, 482

U.S. at 591-92; McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1267. First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to "change the ground rules" of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. (28:26 (Fuller); 21:37-42 (Behe)). Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces.— Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District pp. 67-68

I couldn't find easy copies of the other two articles (by Johnson and Hannah), but I think you get the point. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Johnson and Hanna work for me, I've added the former archiveurl to the article. . dave souza, talk 16:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, dave souza. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Point of order: I have put a break under this post although discussion went on from the above reply to my requests. This is because I am not really sure that the posts below are relevant to the sourcing issue I was raising.

• MisterDub and Dave the most obvious first thing to say is that if the passage we are discussing is intended to represent the IDM movement's own position, it is striking that we are only using critics. I do not at all wish to say that we should be neutral about everything, but when reporting the position of a group with a position, it is a normal demand, which was made at the FA review, that somewhere in there we should actually accurately report it as they would.
• But the second point to make is that the relevance of these citations to the concern I raised is also not at all clear. These quotes from critics and secondary sources all seem to agree with the point I was making, just using different words. It seems interesting and relevant that you guys do not see that I might claim that the quotes agree with me. It strikes me at this point as worth remarking that philosophy is an enormous "field" (indeed it almost is beyond being a field by its very nature) and you need to keep in mind that while you guys, with your big interest in a small part of it, are used to terminology like "demarcation debate" (just to give an example) these terms are not always used very widely and sometimes obscure their connection to other terminologies, and a much broader literature. That you guys can not see the connections yourselves between the words you cite and place in the article, and points being made by me, shows how important it is to make them more clear.

Going back to the original point I was making, I said that the IDM disagree with people who say you can not conflate science with the philosophical or theological questions which are about more than "nature" narrowly defined as matter and motion. In other words, to make them sound silly, they want super natural causes considered. I pointed out that this is a argument they have consistently backed into when under pressure, and that it is also one point which does have some pedigree in philosophy. It is effectively a criticism of modern science as a whole. Of course I have no problem with us saying that by criticizing it, while pretending to be part of it, they have been criticized of course. As mentioned this is also something that Thomists have criticized them for, coming from the opposite direction.

Back to the point. I was saying that the wording in our article is not making the issue clear, not letting our readers understand what they really said and what it really means. We are more jargony and compressed than our jargony and compressed sources. I see no response to this concern above. I repeat my request for one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Only using sources from critics? Did you not just list three sources from ID proponents? And please don't tell me what my interests are: I'm not interested in ID or metaphysics at all. In fact, I tend to think metaphysics is the kindergarten of philosophy. Either way, it's getting difficult to believe this discussion will come to a decisive close. I don't know how you think these sources agree with you, and I don't foresee resolution of this matter without a common reading of the sources. Until you can present reliable sources that actually support the changes you want made, this conversation is going nowhere. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

MisterDub, yes our thickets of footnotes mention all kinds of things, and as I said this in itself is not good, but bad. In order to avoid the accusation of synthesis, I ask someone to try to pick one or two sources only, ones which are clearly representative and not from a questionable context, and demonstrate a clear case that our text represents it in an undistorted way. My request to justify the current sourcing is open.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's finally resolve a few items

Let's tackle some of the debated sentences. Step one is to make their assertion clearer vs. inadvertently weasel worded in their vagueness, vagueness which makes it impossible to resolve in this environment. A current sentence/statement is:

• "presented by its proponents with the claim that this is a scientific theory"

Noting that in its context, this refers to intelligent design. To force clarity to resolve this, despite being poor prose, let's at least temporarily make that substitution (thus also splitting the sentence) making it:

• "Intelligent design is presented by its proponents with the claim that it is a scientific theory"

Now to force clarity, lets require that we clarify whether the sentence refers to "all" (as the current wording implies) "some" or "most" intelligent design:

1. "All intelligent design is presented by its proponents with the claim that it is a scientific theory"
2. "Most intelligent design is presented by its proponents with the claim that it is a scientific theory"
3. "Some intelligent design is presented by its proponents with the claim that it is a scientific theory"

To try to move this along, I am going to BRD make this as a two stage edit (with the "middle" choice on the second stage) If you revert me (presumably on the second edit) please substitute a clear statement from the above so that we actually move forward on resolving it. After we get it resolved, we can smooth out the grammar problems induced by this in ways that doesn't change whatever we come up with. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I sympathy with your concern. But I don't what to make of the three choices of the second stage. "all/most/some such-and-such is so-and-so" means to mean there are more than one (or many parts of one) such-and-such. Is your intent to speak of all/most/some intelligent designs: That Behe has one, that Dembski has another, ... Or that there are different things which are called intelligent: The is the ID of the bacterial flagella, the ID of the beginning of life, the ID of Mt. Rushmore, ... Or, to take a totally different issue, something perhaps better presented by the choices "ID is presented by all/most/some of its proponents ..."? TomS TDotO (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

<ec> Not good proposals, please discuss these ideas before editing: I've reverted to maintain clarity. The whole sentence is in the specific context of this modern form of creationism, "It is a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God presented as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea." If you've got a source saying that some other "intelligent design" isn't presented as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins", please discuss the source here. With quotations if the text isn't readily available online. . dave souza, talk 12:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflict, responding only to TomS. My concern is merely to remove ambiguity in order to cause this to move forward in some direction vs. the current weasel wording which (in this environment) has prevented such progress. That said, I think that it is implicit that we're talking about it in the context of the origin of life/ man/ the universe. North8000 (talk) 12:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It's explicit that we're talking about a modern relabelled form of creationism, a specific relative of the generic "argument from design" (an older theological argument which has occasionally been called the "argument from intelligent design"). . dave souza, talk 12:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

If we were to modify the wording of few sentences to have them say what you just said in your first few phrases in this post, then I think that 70% of this eternal grief would be resolved. Or is that too simple/controversial? Would you support that? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Caution: the occasional use of the phrase shouldn't be given undue weight by featuring too prominently in the lead. While some rewording could be considered, particularly in the body text, this point is already well covered at the start, between the hatnote and the lead itself. While my recollection is that occasional uses can be found, a source is needed and, disappointingly, I've had to request a citation for the TA article lead, as this point isn't supported by Wildman, Wesley (2010), Religious Philosophy as Multidisciplinary Comparative Inquiry: Envisioning a future for the philosophy of religion, State University of New York, page 261.. . . dave souza, talk 16:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Side issue: Yet again this article's illness spread to other articles. Dave on the talk page of that article and I think this one too you have said in various clear words that you could see that I was able to source "argument from intelligent design" as a term for arguments from design generally. All these discussions were in recent months! I do not believe this was not from the source you now claim to be the citation, and indeed how can you treat that lead as the work of others to begin with? I would also raise a secondary concern that you might now go and starting adding more footnotes to the opening sentences of that lead. Why must we fill the leads of every article with footnotes? Was this point being disputed? No, it was just spillover from the disputes here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

We should make clear that both ID proponents and old- young-earth creationists deny ID is creationism. ID proponent. Creationist. Slate, thanking Tom Willis, William Dembski, and Nick Matzke for their input. Yopienso (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, they would, wouldn't they? The second source is YEC, and like the Slate article predates the discovery of the missing cdesign proponentsists link. The only explicitly OEC source seems to be the disco toot itself. This was well covered at Kitz, which noted an explicit statement by defense expert Fuller that ID is a form of creationism, and "Although contrary to Fuller, defense experts Professors Behe and Minnich testified that ID is not creationism, their testimony was primarily by way of bare assertion and it failed to directly rebut the creationist history of Pandas or other evidence presented by Plaintiffs showing the commonality between creationism and ID." Fair point that maybe this needs to be shown more clearly in the body text. . . dave souza, talk 17:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You're missing my point. The article is not a trial on the validity of ID; it is a description of it.

I'm correcting my OEC error; I meant YEC. :O Here's a 2013 disclaimer from the YEC side. And Pennock, while demolishing the claim that ID is not creationism, becomes a RS for the claim. "ID claimed to be free of religious commitments and to be based entirely upon science and to have nothing to do with creationism."

My argument is that an article about ID must define it as they do, i.e., the very first words should not be "ID is a form of creationism." Even if it is. That wording misconstrues ID as it is promulgated and is offensive to both ID proponents and YECs. Certainly the article should also give the mainstream view of ID. Yopienso (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yopienso, I think I am in agreement with you. For some time, I've thought the first sentence of the article should be "Intelligent design is the belief, presented as a scientific theory, that 'certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.'" I think it may be best to include "presented as a scientific theory" in this definitional statement as well, as the DI defines ID as a scientific theory. (I added this to the quote in my first sentence, segregated by INS tags.) Of course, I would have the very next statement explaining that it is a form of creationism; perhaps you wouldn't agree with this part. If you are proposing something along these lines, I'd support you. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest, "Intelligent design is the proposition, presented as a scientific theory, that 'certain features . . .'" I would put the disclaimers in the last paragraph of the lede, for two reasons: 1. The lede first should describe the subject of the article before refuting it, and 2. The casual reader will read the first paragraph and skip to the last.

Further suggestions: 1. Change the first two sentences of the second paragraph to, "The leading proponents of this version of the argument are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States. Although the argument purposely avoids assigning a personality to the designer, many of its proponents privately believe the designer to be the Christian deity." 2. Split the 2nd paragraph between "evidence of design." and "The scientific community." 3. Delete the 3rd paragraph; it belongs in the article on the movement. Yopienso (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a fair proposal. Would you make it its own section on the Talk page so it gets the attention it deserves? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

If anything, I think that needs to be rephrased to avoid the word claim, per WP:CLAIM. The sentence should read, "Intelligent design is... presented by its proponents as a scientific theory." The all/most/some addition North8000 wants is unnecessary and, frankly, wrong. ID is the name of a purportedly scientific theory, and this is the article about that theory. That theory (ID) is presented by its proponents as science. End of story. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Dave's revert (and refusal to pick / substitute any clear statement when doing so) has plunged it back into the vagueness which has perpetuated and stymied the resolution of the problem here. North8000 (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

How is it vague? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

First, the "universe" of what readers might be thinking this meaning of intelligent design is about is those meanings relating to the origin of life/man/the universe. And if someone would just allow / not block the clarity of those first sentences to say which of this "universe" that they are referring to, I think that we would either have been solved, or set the stage for finally resolving the issues. North8000 (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is just absurd. We simply cannot avoid calling a purportedly scientific theory, whose name is intelligent design, anything but. The problem is that you're trying to pander to ignorance--honestly, that seems to be your SOP on Misplaced Pages--and it makes Misplaced Pages sound dumb. Please stop trying to make Misplaced Pages sound dumb! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed MisterDub. I also second your statement on the word "claim". I don't think the word belongs. Whether its "junk science" or "loosely veiled creationism", none of the adherents would say that they are "claiming its a theory". So thanks for that edit. Ckruschke (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Misterdub, that makes no sense. You wrote all of that in response to a simple request for clarity instead of ambiguity. North8000 (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Clarity, I like. Clarity is referring to a theory by its name. Clarity is not equivocation. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

(I hit the "save button too soon) Misterdub, that makes no sense. You wrote all of that in response to a simple request for clarity instead of ambiguity. And I do have a lot of empathy for the average reader who in this case is typically an intelligent person who knows little about the topic. If you choose to call that something negative, I don't agree with you. I do published writing in immensely technical fields which has been used as sources by other wikipedia editors. Even those publications are written to inform rather than impress, albeit with readers that are at a higher knowledge level on the topic at hand than a typical reader here. If you call knowing your audience and writing for them something negative, then we disagree. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Informing readers is a laudable goal. The locus of our disagreement is that I don't think your proposals accomplish that. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually I haven't put forth any proposal that is intended to be that / the finish line. My proposal and edit (as I indicated) were only to shed some daylight on the core questions so that they can be resolved. North8000 (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

But your proposal and edit has its own ambiguities, as I pointed out. I don't know what it means. It was so ambiguous that I suspected that you meant something else altogether. TomS TDotO (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Dave, in response to your request for a 'source saying that some other "intelligent design" isn't presented as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins', I wonder: haven't we discussed these before? (I tried to find comments, but I couldn't). Anyway, I think the clearest example would be Robin Collins, a proponent of intelligent design who says that intelligent design is not science, e.g. . --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. There's another primary source on the touchy-feely bit, Dave, with expert third-party opinion here.Also contributing were Robin Collins (suggesting that "intelligent design" should be regarded as "not as a part of science but as a hypothesis that could potentially influence the practice of science"). It would be well to remember that just as evolutionists hold a wide variety of conflicting views, so do ID proponents. Yopienso (talk) 03:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Robin Collins is obviously arguing for Intelligent Design to change its focus because it isn't science. He's arguing for ID to be reformed--and he's clearly a fringe view proposing changing the focus of the ID movement. So it isn't true that Collins said "ID isn't presented as science." He says the opposite, that it is presented as science but that it's a flawed approach to do so.

And of course ID proponents, like evolutionists, have their differences.  ?? Of course! But the evolution article is about evolution, not evolutionists. And it's about the predominant, consensus definition of evolution, and not the entire immense universe of unique exceptions. It doesn't resort to weasel words like "some think evolution means" out of consideration to the outliers, like saltation (which, rightfully, not only merits no mention in the lead, but doesn't appear described anywhere in the article). WP:Undue applies. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

In the lead, I'm concerned not with the content but that there's too much awkward sentence construction packed in. It's as if there's a traffic jam at the top of the page as editors try and muscle everything they think needs to be said at the very front of the line. This isn't a billboard. Can't we relax a bit on this urgency to say everything in one mouthful? Can't we write for readers who use wikipedia as an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary? Professor marginalia (talk) 06:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Collins was adding his voice to the debate about just what ID is. He prefers to call ID metascience rather than science, explaining, "A major disanalogy between the ID hypothesis and other scientific hypotheses is that the ID hypothesis fails to be scientifically tractable . . ." This is a more comprehensive article by Collins that briefly addresses why Aristotle's framework of causes was dropped.

For one example of how the Evolution article shows conflicting ideas, see the subheading "Speciation": Defined by Ernst Mayr in 1942, the BSC states that "species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups". Despite its wide and long-term use, the BSC like others is not without controversy, for example because these concepts cannot be applied to prokaryotes, and this is called the species problem. Some researchers have attempted a unifying monistic definition of species, while others adopt a pluralistic approach and suggest that there may be different ways to logically interpret the definition of a species. (More awkward writing.) There's nothing wrong with showing controversy within the field. Au contraire, there would be something wrong with hiding it behind a monolithic front.

My point: The ID article should explain that some proponents present it as strictly scientific while others present it as the intersection of theology and science. It should explain that proponents and critics disagree on whether or not ID is a form of creationism.

I am concerned about the content of the lede and heartily agree with your dissatisfaction with the style, too. Yopienso (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree: Collins is adding his opinion of what the ID program should become if it is to have any bearing on science, not what it is. And I guess I still don't see how he's not a fringe view with the metascience argument.google peek Who is actually practicing ID metascience today? Professor marginalia (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure, he's saying that. But the reason he is saying that about the program is because he thinks the hypothesis is not science, because it is not "scientifically tractable" and "lacking this characteristic is no small matter, since it is what allows scientific hypotheses to provide detailed explanations and predictions, and it gives scientists something to work with." Put it this way: Take three propositions: 1) Intelligent design is presented as science by its proponents. 2) Robin Collins is a proponent of intelligent design. 3) Robin Collins does not present intelligent design as science. These three propositions are not unqualifiedly consistent. 2) and 3) are obviously true. 1) is only qualifiedly true. Final point: Of course his is a fringe view—all proponents of intelligent design are proponents of a fringe view. If you mean to say that he is the only proponent of intelligent design who does not present it as science, I would suggest you look at the many others such as Robert John Russell (see the aptly-named "Intelligent Design is Not Science and Does Not Qualify to be Taught in Public School Science Classes" (2005) ), and Christoph Schönborn (). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Late to the party, and many things to comment on:

• @Dave, of course you are wrong that intelligent design being used as a term to apply teleological arguments not presented as science is "occasional". I have demonstrated that it is constant. It happens even in your favorite sources like Padian and Matzke.
• The point for WP policy is that no expert source is treating the term as something with a clear mathematical style definition. Can you agree with that? (I would really like you to answer this.)
• And if this is the case then (as I have pointed out to North in the past) there is nothing stopping WP from having our own way of breaking up subjects for discussion on WP, BUT the real issue is that we must not make it sound like all the expert sources do the same when they do not.
• We could easily fix such concerns by adding wording referring to the way that the term is sometimes used more broadly. I think many proposals have been discussed and dismissed without really understanding the need. (Also, until I arrived here, there were unfortunate efforts made to pretend that this is against some sort of WP policy, which is nonsense.)

A second theme to address is this question of whether ID claims to be science. We are really getting ourselves confused about that, and it is a dead end discussion. The point is that the IDM claim to be science, but also make it clear (sometimes) that they do not mean science as it is understood by most people. We can not ignore this word game, because it is not in itself "wrong" to have a different definition of science. The word "science" really is used in several ways, and their way is more compatible with Aristotle and Aquinas. (Complication: Supporters of those guys do still exist, and some of them complain that the IDM themselves are hypocritically mixing up the two types of "science".) So identifying and pointing to the word game is the trick for editors here. Tricky, but it should be possible to handle, if this talk page were not so darned awkward and defensive. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC) NOTE FOR CLARITY, concerning the second "theme" I understand myself to be in agreement with Yopienso and Atethnekos. I am not sure it is useful to combine it with the points North is making. In practical terms I had been thinking the way to address this point is in the last bit of the second paragraph.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Re your first point, Andrew, you keep saying this but repeatedly fail to provide the requested citation. Please do so. . dave souza, talk 16:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Dave you keep implying you have questions to me open. What request are you saying is open? (And of course if I give a detailed answer, will you then repeat your cycle of demanding I write and then complaining about a wall of words?) Please do be constructive and clear if you are interested in breaking the cycles here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

" origin may be dated conveniently to the publication of Phillip Johnson's book Darwin on Trial, in 1991, though the school owes much to an earlier work by biochemist Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985)....without a doubt the most important Intelligent Design publication was biochemist Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box (1996), which set forth the challenge to Neo-Darwinism in strictly scientific terms...More recently, Behe's thesis was restated by mathematician William Dembski in several books, wherein he developed the notion of the design filter...The undisputed leader in the movement is the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, a public policy think tank used by the Intelligent Design camp as their intellectual launching ground to produce books, talks, and videos to promote the teaching of Intelligent Design in schools." Fowler and Keubler, 2007. It's unmistakable that the majority of sources describe ID as the brainchild of Johnson, Behe and others in the DI camp. It's an embarrassment of riches, there are so many reliable sources on ID that define it just as it says on the mainspace here. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Caveat wrt Fowler and Kuebler: Please note that the article currently calls ID "a form of creationism," while the Christian publishing house says F & K distinguish among "four leading schools of thought: Neo-Darwinism, Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Meta-Darwinism." The authors explain ID textually and graphically on p. 25. They fully introduce ID on pp. 31-34 and say why they disagree that it is creationism. Yopienso (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Improving the lede

I've been asked to start a new section for some suggestions I made above wrt the lede.

• Eliminate "is a form of creationism" from the first sentence, changing it to.

"Intelligent design is the proposition, presented as a scientific theory, that 'certain features . . .'"

• Put disclaimers in the last paragraph of the lede, for two reasons:

1. The lede first should describe the subject of the article before refuting it, and

2. The casual reader will read the first paragraph and skip to the last.

• Change the first two sentences of the second paragraph to,

"The leading proponents of this version of the argument are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States. Although the argument purposely avoids assigning a personality to the designer, many of its proponents privately believe the designer to be the Christian deity."

• Split the 2nd paragraph between "evidence of design." and "The scientific community . . ."

The topic of the new third paragraph is that ID is rejected by the scientific community.

Change "overturn" to "modify," "alter," or "expand."

Change "replaced" to "augmented."

• Delete the old 3rd paragraph; it belongs to Intelligent design movement. Yopienso (talk)

I have copied the article lead to my sandbox and made most of the changes Yopienso proposed here. Two differences:

1. I added the claim that ID is creationism to the third paragraph
2. I have highlighted proposed word changes in the third paragraph with DEL tags

I'm not quite sure I agree with changing the words in the third paragraph, hence why I have not made that change in the sandbox. I think overturn and replaced give a far more accurate description of the centrality of methodological naturalism to modern science than the proposed terms. I also think that the last sentence in the second paragraph (beginning, "Their concepts of irreducible complexity and specified complexity...") needs grammatical revision, as it seems to break the flow. I think a simple change, such as changing the structure from "Their concepts" to "ID proponents have proposed concepts...", would be a step in the right direction. In any case, thank you, Yopienso, for producing a viable suggestion! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yopienso - Somewhat astonishingly, for me, I agree with every one of your suggested changes. However, I can also see MisterDub's point on Para 3, but this is kind of a minor issue for me.

Kudos also to the clear/concise presentation of what you want to do and why. Was able to read through it and digest your suggestions very quickly. Ckruschke (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Thanks, guys. MisterDub, I like your draft. I had not realized my suggestion totally eliminated the word "creationism." It's imperative to include it. Suggested tweak:

"The scientific community considers intelligent design a pseudoscientific form of creationism because it lacks empirical support and offers no tenable testable hypotheses. The premise of intelligent design that evidence against evolution constitutes evidence for design has been criticized as a false dichotomy. Scientists have rebutted in detail ID's anti-evolutionary assertions. "

My rationale against "overturn" is that ID proponents agree with the scientific method except when it limits their ideas on design. "Undermine" is another possible alternative.

I would happily endorse your version without my tweaks. Yopienso (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Yopienso for putting this forward, while it may well point a way forward I'm concerned that this overbalances the NPOV structure of the opening paragraph by presenting an unchallenged fringe viewpoint as though it was fact. The current opening paragraph does have an acceptable balance, but I'm certainly willing to review how best to make it flow more clearly while clearly showing the majority expert view of what ID is. . dave souza, talk 16:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I have been following this debate for years and have for the most part avoided posting here, but I simply cannot let this pass without comment.

By removing "is a form of creationism" without some appropriate replacement you are removing one of the characteristic descriptions of what ID is. This does not better informs our readers, it is likely to mislead them. The first sentence of the lead should be the "article in a nutshell", and ID is most certainly not valid science and we should not use any form of words that might allow a casual reader to think that it is.

I suggest that (if it is to be modified and given that some editors here seem allergic to the use of the word creationism) the first sentence be changed to:

"Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific theory, that proposes that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

It is completely misleading to word the lead in any way that might allow the reader to draw the conclusion that ID is in any way accepted by the scientific community. The proposition that the casual reader will read the forst sentence and then "skip to the last" is entirely without foundation and nonsensical.

- Nick Thorne 16:21, 9 April 2014‎ (UTC)

dave souza, I don't think NPOV policy requires every paragraph to be balanced, but that the article itself be balanced. The entire lead should be neutral, but the exact structure is amenable. I think Yopienso's proposal retains this NPOV while addressing common complaints.

Nick Thorne, perhaps you started writing your comment before Yopienso's latest post, but I want to make sure you realize that the claim of ID being creationism isn't being removed, but moved. I have it in the last paragraph of my sandbox, and Yopienso suggested a similar placement. Maybe you'll also object to moving the claim to the last paragraph, but I just want to make sure you know that it is in the proposal. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

MisterDub, the point of layout policy is that placing the mainstream view of ID distant from the fringe claims in this way effectively gives the fringe viewpoint credence: Nick Thorne is absolutely correct about this, and his proposal would certainly be one way forward. The issue of ID being anti-evolution creationism relabelled is central, and there may be a better way of highlighting this at the outset. . dave souza, talk 16:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess I don't see that this proposal gives any more credence to ID than the current article, but I'm open to suggestions, including Nick Thorne's idea of labeling it a pseudoscientific theory at the outset. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thinking about this, the central issue is that the first paragraph should describe what ID is according to reliable third party sources. Per WP:WEIGHT we "must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view." Certainly describing ID as pseudoscience is one way of clarifying the majority perspective, as is making it clear that ID is creationism relabelled. . . dave souza, talk 17:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Very basic problem with the logic here. Sources say all kinds of things that we want to fit in the article but they can not ALL be in the first sentence.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggested first para

To clarify the majority and minority perspectives on the topic, a suggestion for the first paragraph:

Intelligent design (ID) is a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God, defined by its proponents as proposing that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." They present it as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea", but it has been shown to be a form of creationism which does not meet the accepted standards of a scientific theory.

Or something along these lines. . dave souza, talk 17:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see the point. Changing "proposition" to "pseudoscientific theory" corrects the problem. Let's please keep "creationism" for the rebuttal paragraph. Yopienso (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Dave, I think this simple swap is more clarifying than inserting the teleological argument. Yopienso (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Yopienso, that goes some way to resolving the problem. However, creationism is a well attested expert third party description and not a rebuttal: in my view it has to be early in the lead, if not necessarily in the first paragraph, to put the remaining description in context. Will think over some ideas of how this could be done, . . dave souza, talk 18:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I would still prefer to start with the definition of ID provided by the DI, instead of defining it in relation to the teleological argument. Maybe something like the following?

Intelligent design (ID) is the proposition pseudoscientific theory that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" that challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science, but the scientific community considers ID a form of creationism because it lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses. ID is a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God whose leading proponents are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States. Although this version of the argument purposely avoids assigning a personality to the designer, many of its proponents believe the designer to be the Christian deity.

Arguments in support of ID include irreducible complexity and specified complexity, which each assert that certain features (biological and informational, respectively) are too complex to be the result of natural processes. Proponents therefore conclude that these features are evidence of design. Detailed scientific examination has rebutted the claims that evolutionary explanations are inadequate, and this premise of intelligent design—that evidence against evolution constitutes evidence for design—has been criticized as a false dichotomy.

You'll notice that I moved the sentence referring to methodological naturalism to the first paragraph, which I think may sate Andrew Lancaster's concerns. Anyway, just some more ideas. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

We should describe ID the way it is described in expert third party sources right off the bat, not as it is described by the fringe group that promotes the idea. Not to do this is a direct and obvious failure to follow NPOV and FRINGE. Either state in the first sentence that ID is a form of creationism, or that it is pseudocience, anything less is simply counter to policy. - Nick Thorne 22:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Is that why the Astrology article mentions pseudoscience in the third paragraph??? I'm willing to concede the point if consensus wants to have "pseudoscientific theory" in the first sentence, but failing to do so is not a violation of Misplaced Pages policy. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, other stuff exists, but that is not a reason to do the wrong thing here. Maybe the astrology article needs its lead edited, rather than repeating the same mistake here. The proposed changes seem more about giving wriggle room to the creationists, rather than informing our readers, which should be our primary aim in building an encyclopaedia. - Nick Thorne 23:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Nick. Nobody is denying that ID is a form of creationism. If there is an intelligence involved it is creationism, regardless of whether it is dressed up as bad science. This should be made clear at the outset to avoid giving undue weight to fringe theories. The present lead does this adequately without any need for change and should be kept.--Charles (talk) 07:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

That something is sourceable does not mean it has to be in the first sentence. We can not put everything in the opening sentence, or the opening paragraph. So can we please avoid making this a basis of an argument for any version? Also it is equally illogical to claim that moving something away from a first (or second or whatever) sentence means we are now saying the opposite. Please lets only use positions which make some logical sense?

@MisterDub, concerning your draft above I note that you have the IDM having two positions, if you see what I mean, which is indeed accurate: one is their "scientific" position (irreducible complexity etc) which is often presented (wrongly) as being consistent with normal modern science. The other one is their more "philosophical" position which admits they are questioning modern science. My concern: by placing these two positions in two different places we break the flow of discussion?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, no one is suggesting that we have to "put everything in the opening sentence". On the contrary, what I am saying is that we should put the core idea in the first sentence. ID is pseudoscience and there is no reason why we should not say that right at the start, in fact there is every reason why we should say it right there. Not to do so lends undue weight to ID and may fool the uninformed, casual reader into thinking that ID has some sort of respectability. What is your problem with simply stating the facts of the matter - at the very outset: "Intelligent design is a form of pseudoscience that..."? This position is well supported by the sources and provides a succinct description of ID without a lot of elaborate wording that looks to me like an attempt to hide the real facts in a lot of unnecessary, complicated and jargon filled verbage. - Nick Thorne 10:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Nick and Charles, as I said, I have no problem with stating that it is a pseudoscientific theory in the first sentence. I am merely objecting to the claim that it somehow violates Misplaced Pages policy if we don't. It may be consensus, but it's not policy.

Andrew, I'm not quite following. This latest draft was written with the intent of keeping definitional statements in the first paragraph, leaving additional information for the rest of the lead; I don't think IC or CSI meet this bar. Of course, I'm open to suggestions. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Misterdub, I am happy for us to agree to disagree on the question of whether or not it is policy, as that is not the main point. I am basically fine with the proposed wording as you have now modified it with "pseudoscientific theory" in the 1st sentence. That sets an appropriate tone at the start of the article and I have no strong opinion on the rest of the lead so long as it begins this way. - Nick Thorne 05:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Generally I'm happier with this paragraph with "pseudoscience" at the outset, however it's not just scientists that have identified ID as creationism, for more reasons than indicated, indeed these are the reasons identifying ID as pseudoscience. We could change "but the scientific community considers ID a form of creationism because it lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses" to "but educators, philosophers and the scientific community have shown that ID is a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses". . . dave souza, talk 06:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The shortened second paragraph works for me. Agree that IC and CSI are supplemental information which should have a concise mention in this paragraph, and with the "challenge" to methodological naturalism in the first paragraph, the "theistic realism" or "theistic science" issue can be left to the body text. To make the issues clearer, I suggest that we remove the "criticism" section header as that approach is deprecated, and have instead two sections, "relationship to science" and "theological implications". The latter could include the claim that ID is a bridge between science and theology, and the assessments of Miller and Ayala. dave souza, talk 06:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

@Nick Thorne. No, no policy or source tells us what to put in the first paragraph, not even that we need to put a "core" there. And secondly I think that sources as per WP:RS do not generally take the tone set by our article at all, which is far more similar to the tone one can find in the blogosphere. The tone I read is "people must be warned about this scam!" And if you look through the history of this talk page this is exactly the intended tone. It is written from the heart, not from the sources.

@Nick Thorne. Maybe helpful to note something we have discussed previously here which is that "creationism" is not a word with one simple definition, so it is not in itself a good word for clarifying. I have previously noted how the philosopher David Sedley says that he basically sees the terms creationism and intelligent design as meaning the same thing, and as being about the same thing, going all the way from ancient Greece to modern America.

@MisterDub. I was not clear I think because I tried to keep it short. :) I did not mean to say that IC and CSI should be part of the definition. My point is that ID kind of needs a double definition: is it science or is it a "philosophical" questioning of science (using the word philosophical in a very broad way)? It has aspects of both, and it does not like the boundaries most people put between the two. IC and CSI are just examples of the aspect of the IDM which is that it sometimes claims to be science. In a nutshell the IDM claims to be scientific, at least in the sense of doing research, while at the same time not really following the normal definitions of what science is. (But I do not think all of them do this dishonestly, because at least some of them are very happy to be open about their questioning of the orthodox boundaries of modern science. And so I do not see dishonesty as definitional. Also the question of whether "ID" is a term applied to all people with such beliefs is not one with any possible simple answer. There are clearly narrow and broad usages of the words, and our sources do not treat "ID" like a mathematically defined term.) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, first, I think you really need to reconsider WP:FRINGE, especially the second sentence "A Misplaced Pages article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is." I agree that it does not say exactly what we have to include any particular thing in the first sentence, but not including some form of words like "Intelligent Design is a pseudoscientific theory that..." does accord the idea more credit than it deserves, based on the available and appropriate (ie scientific) sources. We are writing this article with Misplaced Pages's voice and when dealing with fringe theories like ID, we need to be very careful how we craft the introduction to the topic. The sources are very clear, ID is the epitome of pseudoscience, it is one of its main defining characters and so this fact needs to be introduced at the outset, before introducing the concepts promoted by ID supporters. As for the word creationism, I am happy with committing it from the first sentence so long as "pseudocientifc theory" is there, I agree that it can be included later in the lead or even in the article body. - Nick Thorne 08:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to make it clear I have no problem with what you say here. It is just that we can do it in several different ways. We can choose from a range of different words, and we can put our sentences in different sequences. In fact we are not allowed to simply reproduce our sources. My concern is to avoid us heading once more down a path where people are saying that there are WP policies which force us to make very specific editing decisions. (Such discussions have happened here before I notice.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

dave souza, I have incorporated your suggestion into the proposed lead in my sandbox (or see below) and agree that we should remove the "Criticism" section. I also want to suggest removing some of the citations in the lead, as there are a couple sentences with 4+ REF tags. I think we can reduce these to, at most, two citations per sentence. I figure now is as good a time as any to do this. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific theory that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" that challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science, but educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have shown that ID is a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses. ID is a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God whose leading proponents are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States. Although this version of the argument purposely avoids assigning a personality to the designer, many of its proponents believe the designer to be the Christian deity. Arguments in support of ID include irreducible complexity and specified complexity, which each assert that certain features (biological and informational, respectively) are too complex to be the result of natural processes. Proponents therefore conclude that these features are evidence of design. Detailed scientific examination has rebutted the claims that evolutionary explanations are inadequate, and this premise of intelligent design—that evidence against evolution constitutes evidence for design—has been criticized as a false dichotomy.

Concerning idea to make the first sentence say "pseudoscientific theory" I unfortunately think it is not helpful. I do not disagree that ID can be called both pseudoscientific and creationist, but both terms have the same problem which is that they are going to be read as deliberately emotive words (perhaps they are meant to be) and not as neutral words. Indeed I think creationist is better. To try to explain what I mean, Aristotelian physics is also pseudoscientific in the exact same was as ID is. But if this was the opening sentence of an article on Aristotle's physics, then people would surely find that very odd word choice. Fact of the matter is that Aristotle's science is different to normal modern science, in conflict with it, an alternative to it, etc. Same with the ID's people conception of science. So in a way you are calling a pear a fringe type of apple, which would kind of miss the point from a pear's point of view. This wording is also by no means any sort of source based wording suggestion, because real RS sources do not write like this either. I am sure there are good intentions all over the place but to be very honest this still looks bloggy, adolescent and pointy to me, and it is hard to believe it is not intended to come across a bit that way. Even if I am just being over-negative, you know many readers will very understandably read it this way. Concerning footnotes, please prune more than this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, I disagree that creationism is a better word; I think pseudoscience accurately reflects the scientific air with which proponents present ID. I also disagree with your argument about Aristotelian physics. Again, I think you are making personal justifications not present in reliable sources. Do you have sources saying that Aristotelian physics is pseudoscience? I highly doubt any reliable source would. In contrast, ID is very well-known for being pseudoscience, as sources illustrate. It is our duty to represent the sources, not institute our individual judgments.

Also, could you explain how you think this suggestion is bloggy, adolescent and pointy (read, editorialized)? I think the tone of this proposal is an improvement over the current lead. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

MisterDub, you can find sources that say anything about Aristotle, and also about ID, but to use them properly you do not just cut and paste but you should actually look at the context. My point about Aristotle is that what people criticize his science for is the same thing that people call ID a pseudoscience for, ie it is something being presented as science which is not matching the normal understanding of what science is today (an understanding which the people doing the presenting do not however happen to agree with). Like I said to you, words can have different meanings in different contexts, for example "science". Ignoring that leads to distortion what our sources really say. But even accepting your outward argument, it makes no sense to say that you are just following sources. We can say that in all our best sources about ID there are many common themes, including that it is presented as a science, and that it is not following the norms of modern science. But we can not say that one of the most common themes is the term "pseudoscience". This is quite occasional. It is much less common for example than the use of the term Intelligent Design to refer to teleological arguments in general. Note once again that I am not saying the word is altogether groundless under certain understandings of what it might mean. But not every sourceable terminology can or should be used for the first sentence.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware Aristotle never claimed to be doing modern science, which is a defining characteristic of ID in the modern sense. Some sources state that ID is pseudoscience, multiple sources state that it is presented as science but is not science. Which is essentially the definition of pseudoscience. So, it's a well justified description.

We have even more good quality sources for the description of ID as a form of creationism, creation science relabelled, which is both the origin and immediate source of the arguments put forward by ID. Including a specific variety of the teleological argument.

So, I don't have a problem with the current wording and so far think MisterDub's revised version is good, likely an improvement. What I would have a problem with is Andrew's suggestion of showing an "in-universe" description without the majority expert view context at the outset. That goes against WP:WEIGHT and seems to propose giving "equal validity" to this pseudoscience. As for the teleological argument in general, that belongs in the article dedicated to that general topic. Obviously we make reference to that where sources show a relationship between the TA and ID. . dave souza, talk 19:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not follow the logic Dave. Aristotle indeed did not claim to be doing modern science. But our article is not making a distinction between different definitions of science. That's one of the very points. And yes we have sources saying X, and we have sources saying Y, so how does this prove we must say X? Concerning the "even more sources" I already said that I find creationism preferable to pseudoscience. I also already agreed that both words can be interpreted as correct by me, if you define them a certain way, but again this is not a reason to use those specific words. So nothing you say really makes any case for any option. OTOH...

• I raised a concern about why we would choose words that are obviously going to come across as emotive when plonked in the first sentence. Nothing you say addresses this. As far as I can see, the aim is to write emotively, and "warn people" or am I wrong?
• Your sarcasm about "in universe" citations is just sarcasm about WP policy as far as I can see, as was explained in the FAR. And you know very well that I am not asking for neutrality in all things, but only in the way we report specific real world opinions.
• Concerning the links between this article and the TA one, not sure what your point is, but you seem to be arguing against making the link clear in the lead? So you think the link is not very important to understanding what ID is? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, unless you are arguing the ID is not pseudoscience I fail to see the meaning of your argument which reads like an attempt at obfuscation. We should be aiming at simple and direct description of our subject. stating the fact that ID is pseudoscience at the very beginning does this. It is not emotive language to state the simple unadorned facts. The only people that are likely to be upset are the followers of ID and we are not writing the article for them. Frankly, I couldn't care less if the facts upset them. Any article on a fringe subject is likely to upset its followers if it accords the subject the weight it deserves. Too bad. Adherant's inability to deal with reality should not be our concern. - Nick Thorne 22:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that my point is so hard to understand. If we are aiming at simple and clear why use fuzzy emotive words? If something is not modern science, then "pseudoscience" is not the only word we have to describe that state is it? This word can be understood in different ways, but I think its most common use is as a sort of insult. I get it that there is an argument here that it has a neutral definition, but I think there is no way that readers will get that subtle point. Indeed I am not sure I have ever seen the word used that way except on this talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 04:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing fuzzy or emotive about it. It just states plain facts. Anything that is claimed to be science when it is not science is pseudoscience. If some people have a problem with that they can either go to other websites that may support their entrenched views or they can read on and learn about reality. Continuing to push this futile line of argument is beginning to look disruptive.--Charles (talk) 08:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, you are right: pseudoscience is not the only way we can describe ID. Terms that spring to mind include bullshit, nonsense, unmitigated clap-trap, woo, a lie, deliberately misleading politically motivated garbage, take your pick. Would one of those better suit your apparent agenda? No, I thought not. Let's just stick to the plain unvarnished fact that ID claims to be science when it fails even the most basic test of what science is and the combination of those two things is what makes it pseudoscience. End of story. It is not that I do not understand your argument, it is that your argument is nonsense like the ID that you seem to be defending. Misplaced Pages treats subjects that are claimed to be science according to the way they are described in the relevant (science) sources and they agree that ID is junk science. If you don't like that, perhaps you would be better editing at conservapedia, I'm sure they'll welcome your "arguments" with open arms. - Nick Thorne 08:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The version proposed by MisterDub above (or in his sandbox here) is a perfect replacement for the current lead: shorter, more concise and clearer. The current lead is entirely too long and whatever is not covered by this version should be moved into the article's sections if it's not present there already. Regards. Gaba 14:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

This discussion was focussed mostly on the first paragraph, the third paragraph is also important: I'll raise suggestions for tightening it up in a new subsection. . dave souza, talk 10:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I would like to thank Nick Thorne for being clear about what is intended by the use of the word pseudoscience. It is intended, it appears, to be an emotive word, for example like "bullshit". That's my point. I think it is obvious that this is in direct and clear conflict with some of the most clear policies on Misplaced Pages. Don't get me wrong about my personal opinions concerning ID, wording used for polemics might be correct and true, but it is not encylclopedic. So not all sources which we use should be used also for our word choice. Clearly we now see that we can not use this word, or this style in general. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Not at all, pseudoscience is an accurate and sourced description and should definitely be included. Are more editors here in agreement that MisterDub's version of the lead should go into the article? Regards. Gaba 23:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am in agreement. "Pseudoscience" comports with WP's mainstream stance; "creationism," however, does not, because there are many instances in which both proponents and critics deny that it is creationism. Yopienso (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with MisterDub's proposal as amended to include pseudoscience - Nick Thorne 01:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, once again you produce a nonsensical argument. Had I actually been suggesting that we use "bullshit" or one of the other rhetorical alternatives in my previous post you would be correct that this would be using emotive words. However, your insistence that emotive applies to the word pseudoscience, which is an accurate and concise term well supported by the sources, is arrant nonsense. I have been lurking on this talk pages for a number of years and I have seen time and again your apparent tactics of trying to water down anything you see as a criticism of ID, usually with spurious arguments like the one you are using here or trying to insert weasel words if you cannot get agreement for your position. I have decided that it is time to call you out on it. The only people that could possibly construe the word pseudoscience as being emotive when referring to ID are ID supporters themselves. Thank you for finally showing your hand and revealing your true position. Now I think it is time that you drop this particular stick and allow the rest of us to get on with building an encyclopaedia. - Nick Thorne 01:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with MisterDub's proposal as amended to include pseudoscience.--Charles (talk) 09:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree subject to including the substance of the third paragraph: proposals below. . . dave souza, talk 10:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

@Nick Thorne. 1. Can you please explain what you intended by using the word bullshit to begin with then. It seems to me that by saying that this word is a rhetorical equivalent to what is being said with the word "pseudoscience" then it means you admit that the word is not being chosen for its neutrality. If not, why not? It seems impossible to read it any other way. 2. You mention my true position above in a key and concluding part of your post. What is my true position according to you? Apparently you are accusing me of being an ID supporter who is pretending not to be. Please confirm if this is correct, and on what basis you have written this here. One thing I notice a lot on this special talk page is a lot of attempts to distort the positions of good faith editors who try to work according to normal WP norms.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

(Different) suggested opening sentences

No one really listens to me (probably for the best), but I thought I'd throw this out here anyway: I would suggest these as opening lines for the article:

Intelligent design is the doctrine that living things or the universe as a whole were designed and created by the purposeful action of an intelligent agent. This intelligent agent is normally identified as God. There is no substantive difference between intelligent design and creationism. The term "intelligent design" was popularized in order to evince an image of scientific respectability and obtain legal permissibility for creationism within public education. The scientific consensus is that intelligent design is baseless. According to this consensus, the existence of living things is to be explained by modern evolutionary theory including abiogenesis, and the existence of the universe as a whole is to be explained by Big Bang cosmology. The few natural scientists, philosophers of science and other writers who defend intelligent design are considered to be fringe thinkers.

Note, I don't say this should be the whole of the lede, just the first sentences. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Atethnekos, thank you for the proposal. It reads fairly accurately, but I think it is a step backward from what we are trying to do. I think it's important we show that ID is a purportedly scientific theory, not just a general doctrine. I find it interesting that you've listed (some of) the scientific theories that conflict with ID, but I don't think this is necessary. ID contradicts many scientific theories, and we needn't produce an exhaustive list here. I think it's more important to illustrate ID's challenge to methodological naturalism, which is missing from your proposal. And, on a grammatical note, the paragraph seems quite punctuated. Not that these issues can't be addressed, but I think Yopienso's proposal is a better starting point. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that it looks good to me. Probably would be good to add something that the most notable form is the modern initiative, the form which Misterdub is mistakenly treating as the only form, and implicitly asserting to be the only form. North8000 (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

ID is a specific form, as shown by good sources, the broader design argument commonly uses the phrase: see my suggestion for the third paragraph, as below. . . dave souza, talk 10:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, provide a source which says that ID is limited to that specific form; the core foundation assertion of one "side" of this debate. North8000 (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed there is no such source. Intelligent design is not a technical term with a standard clear technical definition in any field. It is used in both narrow and broad senses even in Padian and Matzke. Ayala's book review, discussed here many times, clearly could give a reader the feeling that he feels the broad sense is dominant and more correct.

@Dave. Problem is our sources frequently inter-mingle the broad and narrow meanings, without ever giving us a clear mathematical style definition of what ID "really" means. So it is WP editing judgement which has selected the narrow meaning for this article, not the sources and we should not present it as if it were otherwise. As a result, probably the best practical solution to your concern is to simply insert words like "broadly" or in a "broad sense", and/or "in a more narrow sense" or "more specifically" into sentences where appropriate. There is nothing stopping us doing this, and it gets around your concern.

@Atethnekos, perhaps a point of detail given the fact we are dealing with a reasonably loose popular term in this article, but I think Aristotle might create an issue for your third sentence, depending upon definitions of terms. He certainly sees nature, and therefore science, as involving final causes (intelligent design as per your first sentence?) but he is not a creationist according to most definitions given that his "creator" had no specific moment we could call creation, but is rather constantly creating or causing nature.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course "intelligent design" has several broad senses, but the term is most commonly recognised as referring to this particular version of creationism which incorporates a specific variant of the design argument. In accordance with WP:NAME. . . dave souza, talk 15:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

We have no consensus on what the most common usage is, nor any source which clearly gives one. But that is not my main concern. Simply the fact that there are several well known meanings, combined with the fact that these meanings overlap and are not always followed in any strict way even within one source, tells us that we need to at least alert our readers to this. Where in our article are we admitting what you admit in your , that there are several meanings? Please respond.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Third paragraph

The current third paragraph covers a lot of important context, but can be reworded more concisely to fit with the proposed first and second paragraphs. One good point raised above is that starting it with the IDM seems to divert it from the main topic: I've trimmed it to focus on the meaning and origins of ID. The new opening words aim to meet the requests to point to other usage of "intelligent design":

Though the phrase "intelligent design" had featured previously in theological discussions of the design argument, the first publication of the term intelligent design in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high school biology classes. The term was substituted into drafts of the book after the 1987 United States Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision, which barred the teaching of creation science in public schools on constitutional grounds. From the mid-1990s, the intelligent design movement (IDM), supported by the Discovery Institute, advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula, leading to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, where U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

This isn't the only way to cover the points, but I think it works better than expanding the first paragraph. . dave souza, talk 10:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I've opened a new section where I merge together the first two paragraphs proposed by MisterDub and this one to see where we are regarding consensus to replace the current lead. Regards. Gaba 16:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Potential RFC

There is one question that has been going on forever with no progress. In essence it is whether there should be wording which implicitly or explicitly states that ID is limited to the modern initiative or limited to variants claiming to be science (= pseudo scientific variants). Since (IMHO) fixing this aspect would require only a few minor wording tweaks in a few places, if folks would assent to that we could skip the process, but otherwise this has gone on too long with no resolution or progress towards such and I think that an RFC is probably needed. Since this question takes a bit to understand, I think that a very brief (like 2 sentence) explanation of structural arguments is needed as a part of defining the question. Since we want to make sure that the question is asked in a neutral manner, I'll be running that wording up the flagpole here. In the meantime I'll be working on it at User:North8000/temporary North8000 (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

What "few minor wording tweaks in a few places"? Please use this talk page to state specifically the wording you propose, the position where the wording is to go in the article, and the sources for this proposed wording. Thanks, . dave souza, talk 15:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Demanding sources for removing unsourced assertions is a blockade to any such fixes, which has been the situation here. North8000 (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

We seem to be getting complaints that the article is too well sourced, please be specific, and propose any article changes on this talk page. . dave souza, talk 15:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

"Too well sourced"? huh? My complaint is lack of sourcing for assertions that are in the wording. But either way I'll propose those tweaks to see if we're really at an impasse. North8000 (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, what change, specifically are you proposing? We cannot comment on the merits of the proposed change unless you are more specific. What statements, specifically, lack sourcing?Farsight001 (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

First fix, change the first paragraph of article from:

• Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism, the belief that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection," presented by its proponents as a scientific theory. It is a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God presented as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than a religious-based idea.

to:

• Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism, the belief that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection". It's most prominent form is presented by its proponents as a scientific theory; a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God presented as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than a religious-based idea.

North8000 (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Source, please, for the implied "less prominent form of creationism" using that definition and called by that name. (Note the general use of creationism these days to refer to 20th century anti-evolution, as made explicit by the reference to natural selection). . dave souza, talk 16:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I just dialed back a far-reaching unsourced claim. Saying it needs a source to do that is backwards and a blockcade. North8000 (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

How can you have "It's most prominent form" without its less prominent form? Please explain. . dave souza, talk 19:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The current statement is that it is the exclusive form. That is a much more far-reaching unsourced claim than any implication created by dialing it back. If you have better wording to dial back the claim of exclusivity and are willing to do it, then we might have a solution. North8000 (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

If I were to make a statement about ID, I'd start with the first sentence in the lead proposed recently: ID is the name of a purportedly scientific theory that claims to see evidence for a designer, thereby falsifying evolution and other naturalist, scientific explanations. Philosophers of science and the scientific community—the relevant authorities—find the claims of ID to be baseless and, due to its historical development in the American creation-evolution controversy, conclude that ID is a pseudoscience promoted by creationists (mostly Christians associated with the Discovery Institute) in order to circumvent court rulings in the USA prohibiting the teaching of creationism. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed replacement for lead

Ok, I've put together the proposal by MisterDub for the 1st and 2nd paragraphs and that by dave souza for the 3rd paragraph. This is the combined new lead proposal:

Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific theory that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" that challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science, but educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have shown demonstrated that ID is a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses. ID is a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God whose leading proponents are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States. Although this version of the argument purposely avoids assigning a personality to the designer, many of its proponents believe the designer to be the Christian deity.

Arguments proposed in support of ID include irreducible complexity and specified complexity, which each assert that certain features (biological and informational, respectively) are too complex to be the result of natural processes. Proponents therefore conclude that these features are evidence of design. Detailed scientific examination has rebutted the claims that evolutionary explanations are inadequate, and this premise of intelligent design—that evidence against evolution constitutes evidence for design—has been criticized as a false dichotomy.

Though the phrase "intelligent design" had featured previously in theological discussions of the design argument, the first publication of the term intelligent design in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high school biology classes. The term was substituted into drafts of the book after the 1987 United States Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision, which barred the teaching of creation science in public schools on constitutional grounds. From the mid-1990s, the intelligent design movement (IDM), supported by the Discovery Institute, advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula, leading to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial in which U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

I say we gauge consensus with a straw poll to see where we stand on using this as replacement for the current lead. I'll open a section below. Regards. Gaba 15:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Straw poll

• Support inclusion of new lead. Gaba 15:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of new lead, we can continue to discuss minor refinements and improvements. . dave souza, talk 16:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of new lead. NathanWubs (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. Support. Guettarda (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment That's about 30 changes. Most of them good, but there are also steps backward on the main problem. North8000 (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Looks like an improvement to me. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support, with one exception (see below). Yopienso (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support minor suggestion below. - Nick Thorne 22:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose until Yopienso's suggestion below is incorporated. Cla68 (talk) 11:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Discuss new proposed lead

I think the proposal a good example of quality crowd-sourced content. It defines the topic dispassionately from the mainstream view while faithfully presenting the proponents' assertions. It acknowledges past use of the term while showing a historical discontinuity between early and present usage. After reading only the lede, a person would have a reasonable understanding of the ID.

One exception: "have shown" in the first paragraph is too conclusive and borders on scornfulness. Even the Union of Concerned Scientists differentiates between creationism and ID. I suggest changing "have shown" to "argue" to maintain neutrality. Yopienso (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, when it came to an impartial judgment, the point that ID is creationism relabelled (more specifically creation science relabelled) was shown conclusively. We can't use "argue" as that gives "equal validity" to discredited pseudoscience. Perhaps "have demonstrated that" which leaves a little wiggle room for the minority who find the demonstration unpersuasive. By the way, more reliable sources still find a differentiation between creation science and ID, e.g. Scott & Matzke 2007 discusses how they overlap, and notes "creation science remains the larger of the two movements and generates much grass-roots activity" . dave souza, talk 22:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

So why do we accept a primary source from a lone U.S. court case (that the NCSE has stuck as a feather in its cap) against the views of Scott and Matzke, the U of CS, the Gallup poll, and everyone else who understands the difference? There's a range of opinions from good sources as to whether ID is creationism or a form of creationism or a horse of an entirely different color. That's not "demonstrating." Barbara Forrest wrote, As this paper demonstrates, the ID movement is the most recent version of American creationism. In promoting “intelligent design theory”—a term that is essentially code for the religious belief in a supernatural creator . . . Yet, "American creationism" is specifically biblical, while ID, at least as promoted in public, is specifically non-biblical. Forrest isn't demonstrating anything more than her opinion (and that of her think tank).

Well, that's how I came to make my suggestion, which I still stand by. I'll settle for "demonstrated" over "shown." :) Yopienso (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, your reasoning is appreciated and we can agree on "demonstrated" – I'll make that change in the above draft, anyone can revert it if they want to discuss it further.

On the question of creationism being specifically biblical, Scott and Matzke's peer reviewed paper notes that even in Morris's 1974 book biblical quotes were optional (two versions of the book), and the Louisiana bill deliberately left out explicit mention of the young earth and global flood. When that came to trial, "Kenyon's expert witness affidavit showed that creation science was scientific and nonreligious". Of course he later co-authored Pandas. . dave souza, talk 00:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest the word "put" or "proposed" be added after "arguments" at the beginning of the second paragraph. - Nick Thorne 23:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

How about changing "Arguments" to "Pseudoscientific theories"? Yopienso (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Since noticing that Kitzmiller has the more nuanced statement that "the argument for ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God" rather than "ID is... an old religious argument..." I've found that Scott and Matzke's paper clearly makes the point that both ID itself and specifically IC/SC present detailed arguments against evolution, together with a vague positive argument: "The ID movement's negative arguments against evolution are numerous, but its positive argument for design consists of variations on an analogy between biological systems and human artifacts." Will try to think of how best to include this point, preferably with a concise modification to the first paragraph. . dave souza, talk 00:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

"offered in support" might split that hair effectively, since that's the way they were presented - as things that were supposed to buttress ID (although Behe makes it clear in DBB that ID needs to put forward its own positive arguments within a decade or so if it wanted to be seen as credible, something that it failed to do). Guettarda (talk) 04:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Revised draft: negative and positive arguments

As above, the Scott & Matzke 2007 paper is a good source for showing that ID isn't just the design argument, it's largely a group of negative arguments against evolutionary explanations, together with a vague analogy from human artifacts. So, I've incorporated the previous tentative amendments into a revised draft, added "ID presents negative arguments against evolutionary explanations, and an analogy between natural systems and human artifacts. This positive analogy is a version of the theological argument from design..." "ID presents negative arguments against evolutionary explanations, and in positive support of ID an analogy between natural systems and human artifacts. This analogy is a version of the theological argument from design. ..." to the first paragraph, and changed the first sentence of the second paragraph to "Arguments proposed in support of ID include irreducible complexity and specified complexity, each of which presents detailed negative assertions that certain features (biological and informational, respectively) are too complex to be the result of natural processes. Proponents therefore conclude by analogy that these features are evidence of design." . . . dave souza, talk 07:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC) On second thought, tweaked wording, as below. . dave souza, talk 08:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific theory that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" that challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science, but educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses. ID presents negative arguments against evolutionary explanations, and in positive support of ID an analogy between natural systems and human artifacts. This analogy is a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God. The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States. Although this version of the argument purposely avoids assigning a personality to the designer, many of its proponents believe the designer to be the Christian deity.

Arguments proposed in support of ID include irreducible complexity and specified complexity, each of which presents detailed negative assertions that certain features (biological and informational, respectively) are too complex to be the result of natural processes. Proponents therefore conclude by analogy that these features are evidence of design. Detailed scientific examination has rebutted the claims that evolutionary explanations are inadequate, and this premise of intelligent design—that evidence against evolution constitutes evidence for design—has been criticized as a false dichotomy.

Though the phrase "intelligent design" had featured previously in theological discussions of the design argument, the first publication of the term intelligent design in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high school biology classes. The term was substituted into drafts of the book after the 1987 United States Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision, which barred the teaching of creation science in public schools on constitutional grounds. From the mid-1990s, the intelligent design movement (IDM), supported by the Discovery Institute, advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula, leading to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial in which U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Any suggestions for improvements to the wording? If commentators feel these changes are constructive, they can be incorporated into the proposed lead above or could be the subject of a new straw poll. . . dave souza, talk 07:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't like "pseudoscientific theory", and would prefer something plain like "claim". ID does not offer any account of, or explanation of, how things happen, or have any of the characteristics of a theory. "Pseudoscientific" - that is a contentious word, and perhaps does not mean the same thing in regard to phrenology, astrology, alchemy, ESP - let alone tell us something about ID other than that scientists don't like it. TomS TDotO (talk) 13:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi TomS TDotO, that's part of the #Proposed replacement for lead which you can !vote on at #Straw poll and comment on at #Discuss new proposed lead. This section is about the additional changes to cover the negative and positive arguments, it's worthwhile keeping discussions together until there's a change of topic or sections get too big,, . dave souza, talk 13:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

dave souza, I'm not all too enthused about the position at which you've placed this addition. It seems that, if IC and CSI are the negative arguments being discussed, this sentence ought to be moved down to the second paragraph. If you want to keep this sentence near the introduction of the teleological argument, I'd suggest moving that to the second paragraph as well. Other than that, I'm not too concerned about this particular edit. I don't think it's crucial information, but wouldn't stand in the way of its inclusion. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest moving it into main space. It's crowd-sourced, so we'll twiddle with it indefinitely; we'll never get it "perfect" here on talk. Happy that this is one of the most collegial and constructive discussions I've been involved in at any article. Yopienso (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Revised draft: negative and positive arguments Mk. 2

Thanks for these suggestions in the section above, I've tried moving the teleological arguments and negative arguments into the second paragraph and think it does actually work quite well. I've slightly modified the remaining wording of the first paragraph to include the point that ID is a religious argument, and that leading proponents state it is not creationism. See what you think, . dave souza, talk 17:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific theory that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" that challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science, but educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a religious argument, a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses. The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States. Although they state that ID is not creationism and purposely avoid assigning a personality to the designer, many of its proponents express belief that the designer is the Christian deity.

ID presents negative arguments against evolutionary explanations, and its positive argument is an analogy between natural systems and human artifacts, a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God. Both irreducible complexity and specified complexity present detailed negative assertions that certain features (biological and informational, respectively) are too complex to be the result of natural processes. Proponents then conclude by analogy that these features are evidence of design. Detailed scientific examination has rebutted the claims that evolutionary explanations are inadequate, and this premise of intelligent design—that evidence against evolution constitutes evidence for design—has been criticized as a false dichotomy.

Though the phrase "intelligent design" had featured previously in theological discussions of the design argument, the first publication of the term intelligent design in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high school biology classes. The term was substituted into drafts of the book after the 1987 United States Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision, which barred the teaching of creation science in public schools on constitutional grounds. From the mid-1990s, the intelligent design movement (IDM), supported by the Discovery Institute, advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula, leading to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial in which U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Thanks for moving this forward, do you think this is nearly ready to be put into mainspace for normal editing, after checking the citations? . .. dave souza, talk 17:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a faithful synopsis of the subject. Ckruschke (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Looks good, dave souza! I'd say it's an improvement over the last draft. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Works for me. - Nick Thorne 05:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, on that basis I've tried to sort out the references, and having done that have moved it into mainspace so that editors can see how the citations work. Normal editing can resolve any remaining problems, dave souza, talk 09:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It is looking good, I have enjoyed reading the new lead so far. Too me it feels better flowing then the old oneNathanWubs (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Copy edit on new lead

All, I think the new lead could use a copy edit, especially in the second paragraph. I was planning on being bold, but I'm not sure the edits I've made are that much better. Any suggestions? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

ID presents negative arguments against evolutionary explanations, including irreducible complexity and specified complexity, which assert that certain features (biological and informational, respectively) are too complex to be the result of natural processes. The positive argument ID offers is an analogy between natural systems and human artifacts, a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God, which proponents employ to conclude that these features are evidence of design. Detailed scientific examination has rebutted the claims that evolutionary explanations are inadequate, and this premise of intelligent design—that evidence against evolution constitutes evidence for design—has been criticized as a false dichotomy.

1. ^ "intelligent design". The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (First definition) (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. 2011. ISBN 978-0-547-04101-8. LCCN 2011004777. OCLC 701330646. Retrieved 2014-02-28. The belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result chiefly from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance and other undirected natural processes.
2. ^ "CSC - Top Questions: Questions About Intelligent Design: What is the theory of intelligent design?". Center for Science and Culture. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute. Retrieved 2012-06-16.". Cite error: The named reference "DI-topquestions" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
3. ^ Cite error: The named reference ForrestMay2007Paper was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. Cite error: The named reference PM 09 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. ^ Cite error: The named reference consensus was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
6. Cite error: The named reference harvard was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
7. "An intelligently designed response". Nature Methods (Editorial). 4 (12). London: Nature Publishing Group: 983. December 2007. doi:10.1038/nmeth1207-983. ISSN 1548-7091. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
8. Greener, Mark (December 2007). "Taking on creationism. Which arguments and evidence counter pseudoscience?". EMBO Reports. 8 (12). London: Nature Publishing Group: 1107–1109. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7401131. ISSN 1469-221X. PMC 2267227. PMID 18059309.
9. "Intelligent Design and Peer Review". Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2007. Archived from the original on 2007-11-18. Retrieved 2012-06-16.
10. ^ McDonald, John H. "A reducibly complex mousetrap". Retrieved 2014-02-28.
    • Ussery, David (December 1997). "A Biochemist's Response to 'The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution'" (Book review). Retrieved 2014-02-28. Originally published in Bios (July 1998) 70:40–45.
11. ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., Whether ID Is Science, p. 64.
12. Baldwin, Rich (July 14, 2005). "Information Theory and Creationism: William Dembski". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2012-06-16.
    • Rosenhouse, Jason (Fall 2001). "How Anti-Evolutionists Abuse Mathematics" (PDF). The Mathematical Intelligencer. 23 (4). Berlin; New York: Springer Science+Business Media: 3–8. OCLC 3526661. Retrieved 2012-06-16.
13. Perakh, Mark (March 18, 2005). "Dembski 'displaces Darwinism' mathematically – or does he?". Talk Reason. Retrieved 2012-06-16.
14. "Intelligent Design and Peer Review". Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2007. Archived from the original on 2007-11-18. Retrieved 2012-06-16.
15. ^ Cite error: The named reference SM 07 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
16. "Intelligent Design and Peer Review". Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2007. Archived from the original on 2007-11-18. Retrieved 2012-06-16.
17. ^ Cite error: The named reference Haught Witness Report was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
18. ^ Cite error: The named reference Matzke was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
19. "Intelligent Design and Peer Review". Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2007. Archived from the original on 2007-11-18. Retrieved 2012-06-16.

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

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class Alternative views articles
• High-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• FA-Class Christianity articles
• Mid-importance Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• FA-Class Conservatism articles
• Mid-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• FA-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• FA-Class Skepticism articles
• High-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• FA-Class Religion articles
• Top-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• Pseudoscience articles under contentious topics procedure