Talk:Intelligent design: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:56, 5 April 2007

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 Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 2, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
January 21, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
October 16, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
January 9, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
February 23, 2007	Featured article candidate	Promoted
Current status: Featured article

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Creationism FA‑class Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please read before starting

First of all, welcome to Wikipedia's Intelligent Design article. This article represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic.

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

A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents ID in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of ID is too extensive or violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are:

The contributors to the article continually strive to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the Content forking guidelines.

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

Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.

Notes to editors:

This article uses scientific terminology, and as such, the use of the word 'theory' to refer to anything outside of a recognised scientific theory is ambiguous. Please use words such as 'concept', 'notion', 'idea', 'assertion'; see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Theory.
Although at times heated, the debates contained here are meant to improve the Intelligent Design article. Reasoned, civil discourse is the best means to make an opinion heard. Rude behavior not only distracts from the subject(s) at hand, but tends to make people deride or ignore what was said.
Please use edit summaries.

After reading the Dover ruling . . .

. . . it seems even stranger that this article starts off as it does. The point of the ruling was to determine the religious content of ID, so of course there's going to be a great deal of emphasis given to whether or not it's an argument for the existence of the Christian God. That doesn't mean, however, that the defining and unique element of ID is how it's a teleological argument.

Starting off the article in this manner would be like starting of the Ralph Nader article with "Ralph Nader is a Maronite Christian who is an American attorney and political activist." Yes, it's true, it's sourced, it's probably even important, but it's not the best way to introduce the subject to an uninformed browser. It's simply not the most important and unique thing to know about him, and the religious nature of ID is not the most important and unique thing about ID. Thoughts? --Kgroover 15:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The religious nature of ID is its raison d'etre. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nescio. To state that ID is anything but a religious description of an essential scientific fact is misleading. Reading the Wedge Document, it is clear that the whole reason for ID is to formulate a scientific sounding "theory" to get it into the mainstream scientific teaching process. I think it is POV to describe ID as anything but what it is--an argument for an existence of a supernatural being. Orangemarlin 16:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nescio and Orangemarlin. ID's existence, its nature, and its purpose are defined by the Wedge document and the DI. The Dover ruling is merely confirmation of that. SheffieldSteel 17:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that it's not a teleological argument. I'm saying that's not the most interesting and notable thing about ID, and in the end the lead would be better structured with that moved farther down. WP:Lead:Writing about Concepts states that notable criticisms should be at the end of the lead, not the beginning. --Kgroover 17:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design is a design argument. It's also a tool to bypass Edwards (and McLean), hence its promotion as a scientific "theory". Both of these points are covered. The most notable things about intelligent design is that it's a design argument. What characteristic of ID do you see as being more notable? Guettarda 18:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What makes anyone believe the opening sentence is criticism? ID is a telelogical argument couched (masked?) in "neutral" language to (as has been mentioned 1000 times) make it worthy of inclusion in public science class. Some people here seem to think framing ID for what it is, a religious notion, is somehow being critical. That is not being critical, peeps. That's being factual, with an unending source of reliable and verifiable sources. Mr Christopher 18:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just read it again, there is not a single thing in the first paragraph that is critical. Mr Christopher 18:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the problem is that it is an opinion that is stated without attributing it to someone, so it is representing a particular viewpoint as "the truth" which can only be done, according to WP:NPOV, when it is uncontested fact. since it is clearly not uncontested, we must do what WP:NPOV clearly specifies: we convert this opinion to a fact by attributing it. r b-j 04:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The long-time editors are in agreement. The newer editors gave valued criticisms, but there is not a consensus to shift the lead to read differently. So why are we discussing this further? Orangemarlin 18:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there has never been consensus for that opening sentence. to repeatedly assert as much is not unimpeachable. the fact that you do not allow toning down the initial sentence which is an opinion (that is widely held) to something akin to the definition or opening sentence from all of the other references is evidence of bias. that you just insist upon uniquely (among encyclopedias) defining ID to be equivalent to the teleological argument is hardly reasonable nor dispassionate. it is insisting that your specific and focussed POV be the Wikipedia POV. r b-j 04:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the first sentence is in violation of NPOV policy by stating the majority opinion as fact. The majority in this talk favor change (I count 14 for, 10 against, 6 willing to adjust). So that puts it at 20 - 10 for compromising on the lead. There are three things that can be done to fix the sentence. You can remove the declaration of fact, expand the statement, or attribute the statement. Morphh ^(talk) 18:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So many things to say. First, I don't think it's violating NPOV. You are, but I'm not. Majority does not rule, but consensus does. 14 to 10 is not a consensus. The lead tells the reader what ID is. Not sure how that's wrong. Orangemarlin 20:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does it violate NPOV to call ID a teleological argument? How does it violate NPOV to start with the best characterisation of what ID is? Guettarda 18:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not state that it is a teleological argument in the first sentence. It states that it is an argument for the existence of God. Teleological argument defines "God or creator", which would be fine. The statement of if ID defines God is disputed. Therefore, you can not state it as a fact of what ID is. I have no problem with characterizing it in the lead - just do so in a way that doesn't violate the policy. Morphh ^(talk) 19:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who determines what the 'best characterisation' is? What is POV and not? 68.109.232.53 19:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that we are in agreement that ID is an argument for the existence of an intelligent designer. It would be perverse to argue otherwise.

The only question that remains, then, is who or what that designer might be. Some here say God, and some maintain that theoretically it might be aliens etc. From this point, doesn't WP:UNDUE tell us how best to proceed ? SheffieldSteel 21:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE is good; so is WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves. The intro paragraph (from WP:NPOV#The neutral point of view) deals with this situation very well, especially the last two sentences:

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions."

I wasn't a part of the prior consensus, but from some descriptions it almost seems to have been a decision that the court opinion was indeed the correct one, and that readers should just be told that instead of being left to form their own opinions. Surely there must be some way to modify the current lead to give the court opinion its due weight as the majority and unbiased opinion, while still letting the reader form his or her own opinion. -- Cat Whisperer 23:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is a teleological argument religious by its definition?

The defining part of ID is that is an argument, what kind of argument is it... it's a teleological one. I agree that using "teleological" in the lead is a bad idea, and simplifying it as "an argument for the existence of God" is a pretty good summary. Calling it a teleological argument is not calling it religious. In fact DI is trying its darndest (at least superficially) to create a non-religious teleological argument.--ZayZayEM 02:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about "God" is inherently religious. What about "an argument for the existence of God or a creator", as Morphh has suggested? -- Cat Whisperer 02:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is to say, an argument for the existence of a "creator" as an added alternative to the word "God"? Given the wide disparity of viewpoints about what's meant by "God", I fail to see the point of such an addition. ... Kenosis 03:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, Creator could cover a broad definition, where God (with a capital G) specifies a personal monotheistic god. Morphh ^(talk) 12:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to what? a committee of gods? ... Kenosis 01:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cat are you suggesting you can't argue for the existence of God outside of religion?--ZayZayEM 05:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term "God" has a fairly specific religious connotation (especially when it has a proper noun capitalization). Islam, Hindu, Rasta, etc. all have different primary names for the creator. The term "God" is strongly (although of course not exclusively) associated with the Judeo-Christian God, whereas ID doesn't require the Judeo-Christian God, merely an intelligent creator of some sort. I would be more in favor of "an intelligent being" or something of that sort, that doesn't imply anything supernatural. --Kgroover 12:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the modern interfaith discussion, Allah, Brahman, and Jah are all translated into English as "God". Same entity. ... Kenosis 02:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kgroover expressed it very well. The term "God" has a strong religious connotation. -- Cat Whisperer 16:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed it does have a strong religious connotation, doesn't it? So it appears we've come somewhat full circle back to the earlier comments about ID advocates trying to pull a fast one, so to speak (which is more or less what most of the reliable sources say about ID). In light of the numerous verified, reliable sources used in writing this article, the current expression of WP:NPOV (arrived at by consensus in extremely lengthy discussions to the tune of nearly 4mB of talk) might be said to be actually rather sober and restrained in its presentation of this controversial topic . . . that would be in addition to being quite thorough in its summaries of the teleological concepts put forward by the principle proponents of the approach. ... Kenosis 02:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have the most credible, neutral of sources, the court ruling from the Dover trial, itself the only notable and neutral analysis of ID to date, determining as a matter of law that ID is an argument for God, and which is obvious to any reasonable, knowledgable observer: "For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child." ... "This compelling evidence strongly supports Plaintiffs’ assertion that ID is creationism re-labeled. Importantly, the objective observer, whether adult or child, would conclude from the fact that Pandas posits a master intellect that the intelligent designer is God. Further evidence in support of the conclusion that a reasonable observer, adult or child, who is "aware of the history and context of the community and forum" is presumed to know that ID is a form of creationism concerns the fact that ID uses the same, or exceedingly similar arguments as were posited in support of creationism." [1]

Since we a significant, neutral source, the definition is well supported and stays. FeloniousMonk 18:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FM, in fairness shouldn't we cite that leading ID proponent Phillip Johnson – "intelligent design, which really means the reality of God", "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions", "we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology", "We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator." Did someone mention that the term "God" has a strong religious connotation? ..... dave souza, talk 19:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FM, NPOV does not mean take a neutral source and state it as fact. NPOV states just the opposite. I don't argue that this is a neutral and significant source and it should certainly be included and attributed. It is, however, a disputed opinion and should not be stated as a factual conclusion before you even define what ID is. Morphh ^(talk) 22:07, 01 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And to whom do we attribute this dispute? ..... dave souza, talk 22:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't attribute the dispute - you attribute the statement to make it a fact. NPOV states "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves. ... Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone." Morphh ^(talk) 23:22, 01 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have statements from every notable ID proponent saying to their constituents that the designer is God (I can post them here if needed) and we have every significant scientific professional organization saying that it is not science but religion and we have a federal court performing an in-depth and neutral analysis of ID concluding that it is obviously an argument for God. Considering that we have credible and significant sources from all sides of the debate admitting that ID is an argument for God, omitting such a central point from the intro would serve to only further the well documented PR campaign of ID proponents to portray ID as something else, thereby violating NPOV. I mean really, this very point has already been addressed and explained ad nauseum in the archives. Unless you have some new evidence for us to consider, it's time for us to move along to another topic, because these ceaseless and baseless objections are simply fruitless and preventing discussion on other issues. FeloniousMonk 02:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What proponents conclude the designer to be is not the point. What the court concludes the designer to be is not the point. ID itself does not make a conclusion on who the designer is (I can post statements here if needed). Yes - you have a neutral conclusion from a court opinion that it is an argument for God. However, policy states that you can not assert this as fact as it is disputed by proponents that ID specifies the designer as God. It is also improper to start the first sentence with a conclusion and not the definition. The archives show me the same POV pushing we're seeing here until someone gets banned or gives up. If the issue is not addressed, I will escalate it to the next level, so you can give up on just moving to another topic. I have no problem taking this to Mediation, RFC, or Arbitration. Morphh ^(talk) 2:42, 02 April 2007 (UTC)

Now I know you're simply willfully ignoring evidence and policy. What all parties say is paramount: all relevant and notable views on the topic is very much the point when it comes to Wikipedia articles. Sounds like you need to read WP:NPOV again. And read the Dover trial ruling again while your at it: that ID itself does not make a conclusion on who the designer is was found by the judge to be a rhetoric device used by ID proponents in order to further their aims, meaning ID being mute on the identity and nature of the designer is a particular point of view, and a highly partisan disengenous one at that; something that the intro of this article needs to be careful repeating as fact either through statement or omission. FeloniousMonk 02:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was saying that the conclusion of proponents or opponents is not the point as such points are disputed. The policy in regard to disputed points was the point. Of course these views are relevant and to be included. You make the point for me - you state the other opinion here. I never stated it was correct and believe it to be disingenuous myself. You can be careful repeating it - but that doesn't allow you to repeat the other side as fact. Reword it in a careful way that does not state one side as fact over the other. Address the majority opinion by attributing the source to make the statement a fact. Morphh ^(talk) 3:17, 02 April 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> Hi Morphh, could you please attribute the source making the assertion that it is not a fact that ID is an argument for the existence of God, so that we have a suitable citation for the counter-argument you wish to see presented? Thanks, .. dave souza, talk 03:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two sources: New York Times secondary source - about President Bush's remarks supporting intelligent design: "Intelligent design does not identify the designer, but critics say the theory is a thinly disguised argument for God and the divine creation of the universe." Here is a primary source from the Discovery Institute. It states: Does intelligent design postulate a “supernatural creator?” Overview: No. The ACLU, and many of its expert witnesses, have alleged that teaching the scientific theory of intelligent design (ID) is unconstitutional in all circumstances because it posits a “supernatural creator.” Yet actual statements from intelligent design theorists have made it clear that the scientific theory of intelligent design does not address metaphysical and religious questions such as the nature or identity of the designer. Morphh ^(talk) 3:49, 02 April 2007 (UTC)

"Address the majority opinion by attributing the source to make the statement a fact."? That ID is a restatement of the teleological argument is a fact: We have sources from all 3 relevant parties, ID proponents, the scientific community, and the federal courts, all saying just that. FeloniousMonk 03:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that it wasn't a teleological argument. I said the statement that "ID is an argument for the existence of God" is disputed and therefore can not be stated as factual on Wikipedia without attributing it. Morphh ^(talk) 3:51, 02 April 2007 (UTC)

So, combining these statements, we have ID proponents contending that "the designer" is not identified by ID and this makes their argument scientific, but that they believe "the designer" to be God. ... dave souza, talk 04:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well.. I'm not sure what if anything makes their argument scientific. ID is the theory (or whatever you want to call it) that argues an intelligent designer. The proponents (being Christian people) believe that designer to be God, although it is not stated in ID itself - it is their belief. Morphh ^(talk) 4:14, 02 April 2007 (UTC)

Design argument??

Would use of "Intelligent design is a design argument..." be an acceptable compromise?--ZayZayEM 05:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

first we should point out that design argument redirects to teleological argument. how does that remedy the main NPOV dispute?

NPOV dispute does not seem to be about use of teleological argument. It appears to me to be about use of "God" in the lead sentance. And whether or not being an argument from design is intelligent design's defining factor --ZayZayEM 01:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it is not, by its core definition, synonymous with the teleological argument. it becomes a teleological arguement after analysis of it. at least so in the opinions of many well qualified people (and also in my opinion). but that is not the core definition and never has been (except here at Wikipedia). why must Wikipedia insert this conclusion regarding ID into its lead definition? why can't it pull back a little from that and simply state the core definition - what the term was coined as - like the other references that are known to be reputable:

American Heritage Dictionary:"the assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes."

Encyclopeida Britannica: "Argument intended to demonstrate that living organisms were created in more or less their present forms by an "intelligent designer"."

Columbia University Encyclopedia:"Intelligent design, theory that some complex biological structures and other aspects of nature show evidence of having been designed by an intelligence."

why must Wikipedia put the conclusion that ID is a teleological argument right into the lead sentence? no one else does. what makes Wikipedia so much more authorative that WP alone can equate ID to TA where no one else does? just let the facts speak for themselves as WP:NPOV requires. there is plenty of room, even in the lead paragraph, to point out this connection (and attribute it) without forcing down the reader's throat in the initial defining sentence. r b-j 05:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute REDIRECT on that page, not this one. This page is for discussion about improvements to this article. It is great when improvements to one article result in the improvement of others.--ZayZayEM 01:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no, the issue is here. the redirect of design argument to teleological argument is a different issue that you seem to be trying to distract the present issue here with...

Go to the bookstore, open Dembski's Uncommon Dissent, and look at the "Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data". What's the topic of the books? "Intelligent design (teleology). Is Dembski's publisher part of the conspiracy against ID too? Oh horror of horrors. Guettarda 02:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you guys continue to sidestep the issue (is it because you don't want to deal with the real issue that i plainly put here several times?) which is what the WP:NPOV policy requires. that is:

assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute."

in case you haven't noticed, there is at least a serious dispute regarding the equivalence of definition of ID and the teleological argument. no other reference makes that explicit equivalence in definition. only Wikipedia. it is not an undisputed fact that they are equivalent. i put forward a couple of different NPOV definitions from other sources and multiple times it has been unjustifiably dismissed as DI propaganda. it is not. in the dictionary definition and the lead definitions in reputable encyclopedias, there is no mention of the teleological argument or of God or the existance of God. none at all.

the other NPOV policy you ignore, that i have repeatedly pointed to is:

Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone.

you insist on stating the widely held opinion, and as the definition no less, that ID is equivalent to the argument for the existance of God as unqualified fact, indeed as definition, when you could be converting that opinion to fact by attributing it and when there is no source of a definition of ID that so equates it to the argument for the existance of God. yes, a federal court and lots of other well qualified persons have rendered that opinion and that fact (that they say so, or have ruled so) must go into the article and even in the lead paragraph (and "my" version did do that, i didn't push it out) but it's not the definition of ID. i didn't just make it up, i copied that definition from reputable source that is not the DI. ID is not, by definition, synonymous with the teleological argument (but i think that any reasonable person can look at it and conclude that there is not much left in it to believe if the so-called "intelligent designer" is not God. but that is not the definition. the definition is along the lines of: "the assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes." that is not DI propaganda, but the dictionary. and you have no widespread and reputable reference that defines ID as the argument for the existance of God.r b-j 08:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. Those that keep opposing change need to put forth some compromising language. I'm tried of giving examples and getting nowhere. Even those that seem neutral in the debate have proposed compromising language and get nothing. It is clearly a violation of policy as it is now and needs to be corrected. Morphh ^(talk) 12:35, 01 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree. The article should show a neutral tone in the first sentence or paragraph. Them each side can have their say in subsequent paragraphs. 69.211.150.60 14:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so you are saying it should be left the way it is then? Great. Guettarda 14:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ZayZayEM, and other commentators: Experience has taught that if it isn't one particular bit of minutia that incites rage among critics of this article, it's quickly replaced by another bone of contention. And if it isn't some bit of minutia, it's about the article generally ("I don't feel I like the article's tone"; "It's not NPOV"; "Who the hell is Wikipedia not to follow the Encyclopedia Britannica's approach" "It's not 'fair and balanced'", etc. etc.) In order to determine why the current form of article is a perfectly reasonable expression of WP:NPOV by WP:Consensus on a controversial topic, one would perhaps look more closely at the history of the discussion, among the lengthiest on the entire wiki, much of which is catalogued by subtopic of discussion. Attempting to enact a "compromise" of language which is already beset with numerous intensively discussed compromises and solutions to the issues involved in a complex, controversial topic such as ID would not be appropriate at this stage of the article's history. Between 2003 and early 2006, the facts and reliable sources regarding this topic were very much in flux as new information emerged about this topic, especially in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial (December, 2005) and in the published material issued in its wake (most of which was issued by the Spring of 2006) . Since then, although there has been a smattering of newer published reliable sources. the basic information available about the topic has not significantly changed in approximately the past year. More recently this WP article was thoroughly peer reviewed by the broader WP community, modified in accordance with that feedback and criticism, and granted "Featured Article" rating. In light of this, seeking a new "compromise" of the language in the article in response to the current complaints at this stage would neither be in the letter nor the spirit of NPOV, particularly WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, and would be diluting the utility and informativeness of the article only to be replaced by another set of tendentious arguments about something else that doesn't sit right with current critics of this WP article. It would seem that it's in the nature (or is it "supernature") of writing an objective and informative article about a topic that is inherently deceptive by design.

In short, the currently proposed changes would only diminish the informativeness of the article, and reduce, not enhance, its expression of the NPOV about intelligent design. ... Kenosis 14:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No way do you get off by claiming past consensus and cyclical disputes about this or that. You don't get to claim that at some point in the past, these issues were finalized and therefore don't have to be addressed. I don't care who you had reviewing - at this point in time and looking at the sentence, it is in violation of NPOV. You keep side stepping the issue. Can you prove that ID is an argument for the existence of God (and God alone) as an undisputed fact?! The answer is No, because it is disputed and the opinion of the majority and in this case the court. Don't side step it - address it! Morphh ^(talk) 17:38, 01 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we do. It's called consensus. The only time long term contributors here have to readdress an issue previously settled is when new evidence is introduced, otherwise, WP:RTFA. And constantly re-raising objections while ignoring evidence and consensus is called disruption, something a good number of individuals have been keel hauled and banned/blocked for by both arbitration and the community, so let's not misrepresent the state of debate here and continue disrupting the project with yet another bite at the same apple; there is a limit to the community's patience. FeloniousMonk 18:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the consensus page - "Once established, consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for the community to change its mind. A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision about an article, but when the article gains wider attention, members of the larger community of interest may then disagree, thus changing the consensus. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision." From the NPOV dispute - "The vast majority of neutrality disputes are due to a simple confusion: one party believes "X" to be a fact, and — this party is mistaken (see second example below) — that if a claim is factual, it is therefore neutral. The other party either denies that "X" is a fact, or that everyone would agree that it is a fact. In such a dispute, the first party needs to re-read the Neutral Point of View policy. Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact is neutral. Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties." Your point about consensus and reading the archive are irrelevant and an attempt to distract from the issue. It appears that the sentence has been a problem since its introduction by Kenosis on January 19, 2007. I don't see consensus, just POV pushing from the same group. You have twice as many editors stating that this sentence is a problem. If anything, there is consensus of a POV violation and to change it. It is a clear violation of the NPOV policy and requires addressing. Even if (big if) it were determined to not be in violation, it is still a problem for neutrality policy and should be changed per the guidelines since there is such dispute over the wording. Morphh ^(talk) 20:25, 01 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we have literally dozens of sources from the ID proponents themselves, the scientific community, and a federal court all saying that ID is an argument for God.

Per WP:NPOV the article should not present the rhetoric of the carefully crafted PR campaign of ID proponents as fact, which is what your objections and proposed omission calls for. FeloniousMonk 03:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also from WP:NPOV dispute: "There are many ways that an article can fail to adhere to the NPOV policy. Some examples are: The article can simply be biased, expressing viewpoints as facts." The writeup goes on to describe other ways to violate NPOV that require a subjective evaluation. However, this first manner of NPOV violation is a matter of straight-forward, objective evaluation, and by this unambiguous criterion, the present lead sentence clearly violates NPOV in just this manner. -- Cat Whisperer 03:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically how does the article's intro violate NPOV policy? FeloniousMonk 03:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article's lead sentence asserts, as a matter of fact, that the identity of intelligent designer is God, whereas this point is disputed according to both primary [2] and secondary [3] sources. The WP:NPOV policy requires that we "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves. By 'fact' we mean 'a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute.'" -- Cat Whisperer 03:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest "ID is a postulate stating that the universe was created by an intelligent designer. Many see this as an argument for the existence of a god." Both these statements are verifiable and can be sourced. I'm not sure about the word "postulate", and "a god" could just be "God", but would something along those lines be acceptable? --h2g2bob 14:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is, unfortunately, something of a "red herring". The very point of ID is to attempt to sidestep the US Supreme Court's decision in Edwards v. Aguilard by recasting creationism as a brand of science so that creationism might be taught in biology classes as an alternative to evolution. The scientific community has said "no way" and so has the federal court in Kitzmiller v. Dover, which characterized ID as "essentially religious in nature". Due to the inherently controversial nature of this topic which is beset by advocacy of an agenda of this kind, there is no language the article could possibly use that would forseeably satisfy everyone's preferences and cause the arguments on this page to come to a conclusion. None of the recently proposed alternatives appear to improve the explanation provided by the WP article, and most of the recent proposals actually would diminish the extent of informativeness of the article. ... Kenosis 15:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but your POV should not be the one that dictates the structure of the article. There should be a consensus. 209.101.205.82 17:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support Kenosis' position here, and I can think of at least eight other credible, long term contributors to this article who do as well, so it's time to move along to another topic. FeloniousMonk 18:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with FM. The only POV is anonymous user's POV along with a few others. This discussion has been done many times over, and new editors show up every few days to make the same old points. This article is NPOV. The rest is just causing problems. Let's can this discussion and move on. Orangemarlin 18:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ID as presented by its proponents argues that the appearance of complexity provides "scientific evidence" for the existence of God. The present wording summarises it clearly and concisely. .. dave souza, talk 19:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we have to change it to an undisputed statement of fact, how about this? "Intelligent Design is an argument put forward by the Discovery Institute stating that the complexity observed in the natural universe is better explained by the existence of an intelligent designer than by current mainstream scientific theories." SheffieldSteel 22:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This works for me. Morphh ^(talk) 23:23, 01 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is fundamentally less informative and accurate and more ambiguous than the current phrasing. Leaving out the conclusion of the only notable and neutral official analysis of what ID is simply will not pass muster against NPOV. FeloniousMonk 01:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then state the conclusion of the only notable and neutral official analysis of what ID is as such, and not as a fact. The WP:NPOV policy writeup shows exactly how such a sentence should be worded. -- Cat Whisperer 03:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Felonious. This is a clumsy way of wording what it essentially says now. It puts an incorrect focus on the idea coming from the Institute (which was formed afterwards, to support the idea). It also reduces ID to merely an "argument", this vague when it has been identified as specifically a design argument.--ZayZayEM 03:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is better. At least it is not biased. And I read above where one editor was uncomfortable with new editors showing up. I thought wiki wanted new editors. The old guard wants to be protected from new ideas and the changes in the world view. The world changes daily and new scientific discoveries are happening daily. I think wiki should welcome new thought. 68.109.234.155 23:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I contend, so do many others, that no change is required. I appreciate your efforts SheffieldSteel, but they aren't necessary. The article should stand as written. As for new editors, all are welcome. But they should first understand the wealth of conversation that had preceded the state of the current article. A consensus was formed long ago. To revisit the same consensus time after time is not productive. Orangemarlin 00:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Orangemarlin is correct about both the article content, its level of support, and the state of the debate. FeloniousMonk 01:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I contend, so do many others (a majority by count), that a change is required. I appreciate your efforts SheffieldSteel, but they are absolutely necessary. The article must change to conform with Wikipedia policy (particularly as an FA). The wealth of conversation starts only a couple of months ago on this point and the consensus is the same group pushing the current lead. In addition, consensus policy states that "consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for the community to change its mind. A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision about an article, but when the article gains wider attention, members of the larger community of interest may then disagree, thus changing the consensus. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision." So this shouldn't even be used as an argument. Morphh ^(talk) 2:17, 02 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but reading the page it's clear that most credible, long term contributors here agree that your objections are baseless, failing to take into account the full spectrum and significance of evidence, and do not align well with policy. FeloniousMonk 02:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've been discussing the issue for almost two weeks and I haven't seen you turn one person around on the issue. It doesn't matter what the "full spectrum" is - that doesn't allow you to state an opinion as fact. Morphh ^(talk) 3:00, 02 April 2007 (UTC)

FM doesn't have to turn anyone around. The status quo stands unless there is a compelling argument to the contrary. On the facts, your points, though well discussed, have not made any headway with most of us. On the law (or let's call it rules of Wikipedia), you cannot change unless there is consensus. There isn't one, because what is verifiable is already in the lead. Orangemarlin 03:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

multiple compelling arguments to the contrary of lead sentence have been made and have not been refuted. it is only because you want your own personal POV equating ID to the teleological arguement reflected in the article that you resist so much a simple moderation that makes the article less POV and more accurate. ID is not,.in its definition, identical to the teleological arguement. it is a belief or assertion (that's what the dictionary says) that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes (again, what the dictionary says). it can be attributed to the dictionary if you want. but no one else (that is no other widespread reference) other than you self-appointed keepers (or usurpers) of this WP article define ID to be exactly the same as the teleological article those words are not ostensibly synonymous with the teleological argument because it says nothing about God. let the facts speak for themselves and there is plenty of space to say what the article already says about what people opine about the true agenda of ID. r b-j 06:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What dictionary, and what source is your dictionary using? The LoC calls it teleology, Demsbksi calls it teleology, every authoritative source calls it teleology. The article reports on the facts of the matter - the opinion of pro-ID, neutral and anti-ID sources have just a tad more weight than "the opinion of Rbj". We don't write articles based on opinions which stand in opposition to all major sources, no matter how authoritative you believe your opinion to be. Sorry. Guettarda 06:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i said clearly where i got and and provided links to check. multiple times. same for the other encyclopedia entries that have a far less POV lead that makes WP look, in comparison, like it has an axe to grind with ID. also, i am not appealing to my own authority, but to other referenced, wide-spread, and reputable authority. so, once again, stop misrepresenting my position as you do repeatedly. it's ironic that lying about someone else's position gets no sanction here, but pointing out the lie gets one blocked. the hypocrisy is thick enough to cut with a knife. r b-j 01:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Its teleology, according to every authority. Defining something as it is defined by authorities is not OR. I am failing to see how your persistance that you have not been convinced, in spite of the Library of Congress, court rulings, Dembski, etc - why don't you go try to get the Flat Earth editors to convince you that the earth is not flat? They'll point to authorities and you can argue that they haven't "turned around" one person - I don't mean to be rude, but that's what you're doing here - ID is teleology, and you seem to want to argue that it isn't. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. I won't waste any more time on this spurious argument. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Nobody has (until you) argued that the initial sentence of the article is OR. It is sourced, is it not? The argument is that it is POV, a totally different proposition. I'm not going to state my opinion on this argument. I will point out, however, that no person has actually put forth an argument that it is NPOV, unless the fact that the article is sourced by the U.S. Government should be regarded as one. In that case, it falls flat. The U.S. government, last I checked, can put no claim to not being biased. (It still believes that the war in Iraq was a good idea. [I'm pretty sure many other nations disagree.])

I would really like to see the argument that states that the opening sentence is NPOV. The argument exists that it is POV: that it states as a definitive conclusion what is cited in another source, thus taking the POV of that source, no matter how neutral it claims to be.

(Please note that I have not made a single personal attack in this post. Please be kind and do not make one at me either.)

--trlkly14:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Who said that "the article is sourced by the U.S. Government"? The definition is sourced from a considered and detailed examination of the evidence by a neutral judge, who reached a conclusion which did not conform to the hopes openly expressed by ID advocates that he would be corrupt enough to tailor his decision to the demands of the US Government under a president who IDers still claim as being among their leading supporters. The fact that the ID proponents try to deny this independent definition of ID says much about their casuistry, but this legal assessment provides a significant definition which should be shown from the outset. And, by the way, KC is not arguing that the intro is OR – read her words carefully .. dave souza, talk 15:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I refer you to the wiki article on the source: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Judge Brown is a federal court judge, and therefore his decision speaks for the judicial branch of the U.S. Government. If he did not, there would be no legal reason why Inteligent Design couldn't be taught as science (at least, until another legal precedent was set).

Also, Brown is a human being, and like all of us, he is inevitably a product of his environment, and is inevitably biased by that environment. Therefore, he is not truly neutral. And since he expressed an opinion, he inherently has a POV.

The problem with rbj's argument is that no other article begins with a contextual citation. However, that doesn't make the definition NPOV. As for your argument, if I understand it correctly, it does seem to have merit. However, why aren't the other (so-called) neutral sources he proposes to use as defintions usable? Might their age factor in?

Finally, I'm sorry if I misread DC's intentions concerning "OR." I don't believe I did. Since she isn't going to come back, perhaps someone else could explain what she meant. I'm sure if I misread it, others might, too, so such an explanation would be to the benefit of everybody. And if she does come back, all the better.

Oh, and by the way, what's wrong with casuistry? The world isn't black-and-white.

--Trlkly 04:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Judge Brown?? Judge Jones is indeed a federal court judge, and my understanding is that the judicial branch has a clearly distinct role from the executive branch, which is what people usually mean when they say "the U.S. Government". The legal reason why Intelligent Design couldn't be taught as science was already set by the legal precedents of the Endorsement test and Lemon v. Kurtzman: what Jones did was to carefully and impartially examine ID and find that it infringed these tests. As requested, he set out his judgement as to what ID is, and whether it is science. A good read.

WP:NPOV is multicoloured, not black-and-white or grey. ID produces ingenious theological or philosophical arguments putting their POV to justify their claim that it's science, which from the outset of the article have to be set in the context of how mainstream science and the law define ID. Both POVs have to be shown in a proportionate way.

KC (not DC) stated that point about NPOV when she wrote "Its teleology, according to every authority. Defining something as it is defined by authorities is not OR". You wrote "Nobody has (until you) argued that the initial sentence of the article is OR." Spot the missing "not", and it's probably a good idea to read WP:NOR carefully. That's me done, back to the foot of the talk page now. .. dave souza, talk 10:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A More Clear Picture

Intelligent design as have come to know it is not close to much of what this article remarks about it. I desire to present a more concise view. There are three views regarding the origin of the natural Universe: 1. Creationism, 2. Intelligent Design, and 3. Blind Watchmaker arguments. Creationism arises from Christian fundamentalist who take the literal understanding of the Bible as the origin of the universe and have little interest in scientific discovery. Intelligent Design originated from William Paley making an analogy of God who designed the universe as a watchmaker. The Blind Watchmaker includes soup kitchen theories, evolution, big bang theory among others and originated when David Hume refuted William Paley's watcher maker analogy.

The underlying event that both the Blind Watchmaker and Intelligent Design employ follows:

"One is strolling along somewhere in the universe when they happen upon a complex object. Curious, a scientific discovery is launched to investigate the order behind this complex object. Once the discovery is complete an ascertation is made regarding the complex objects origin."

The science used to study the order behind the complex object is consistent for both the Blind Watchmaker and Intelligent Design. However, when the ascertation is made regarding origin the two diverge. Intelligent design proponents remark that God is the origin of all things natural and is willing to review new discovery in the context of God's creation. However, the Blind Watchmaker proponents relegate origin to another discovery that is not yet known.

Other problems arise in fundamental science as proponents of the two arguments are often unable to agree on the basic nature of the universe. The most controversial premises stem from at least two concepts:

1. Randomness. Blind Watchmakers, Evolutionists, rely on unbounded random natural selection and unbounded random events or otherwise known as true randomness as an underpinning to their theories. Meanwhile, Intelligent Design proponents view randomness as not a natural phenomenon but instead a convention that is used to explain that which appears to be random but is not. Instead of being random the universe is perfectly ordered according to Intelligence Design proponents.

2. Scientific principles and axioms are consistent, durable, and uniform throughout the universe. Intelligent Design proponents hold this to be true. However, Blind Watchmaker proponents contend that certain processes no longer exist or have ceased to operate. This is the case with evolutionary processes which acted on a protoplasmal globule billions of years ago beginning the evolutionary chain of events for biological life. However, these evolutionary processes for some unknown reason have not acted upon any other protoplasmal globule since that time. Thus, under this view scientific principles and axioms are not durable since only a single evolutionary thread is currently known to be running.

The honest problem is not whether Intelligent Design is a science as the science should be consistent. Instead, the root problem is the issue of origin. By objectively structuring the concept of Intelligent Design the more controversial elements can be isolated and dealt with in a more effective manner than the current obfuscation. (MrMiami 00:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

"[R]ely on unbounded random natural selection" - mmm, no. Natural selection is highly non-random.
"Scientific principles and axioms are consistent, durable, and uniform throughout the universe. Intelligent Design proponents hold this to be true. However, Blind Watchmaker proponents contend that certain processes no longer exist or have ceased to operate" - I think you have this the wrong way round. Guettarda 02:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution remarks that random chance events spark life into existence and mutate DNA.

Clarify. The way I see it if evolutionary processes are consistent and durable then every protoplasmal globule since the first one would have evolutionary processes acting on it. Hence, there would be multiple evolutionary thread lines and no need for a fossil record. In short, neanderthal, cromagnon, and homo sapiens would co-exist as these evolutionary processes would be at different stages. But that is not the case. I know of no Intelligent Design arguments that do not embrace ordinary science when relating to the behavior of the natural universe.(MrMiami 02:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It is not the case because the way you see it is incorrect. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

remarks of this nature with no supporting strength are purely emotional and do not belong in this discussion. (MrMiami 02:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

KS is right - you appear to misunderstand both evolution and intelligent design. Guettarda 02:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you need to clarify your position and not simply point to an ethereal misunderstanding. BTW you are conversing with an individual who has an extensive background in aerospace engineering, physics, and mathematics.(MrMiami 02:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

With your background, I would heartily recommend "The Demon-Haunted World" by Carl Sagan as a rewarding and informative read. Although it does not cover creationism per se it contains invaluable expositions of the principles and methods of scientific, rational thinking, which cast this debate in a very definite and clear light. SheffieldSteel 02:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am familiar with Carl Sagan's work. Sagan's work has been greatly reduced in importance over the years as he has been proven to be many things other than a scientist. He was good story teller for one. He formed SETI that is far from being a scientific research organization. He also rushed to the media with his political position on nuclear warfare masked as science research. There was no such research and those claims he made are laughed at today. Above all he was an atheist thus his worldview and subsequent science were relegated to this notion of origin. Please focus on the topic at hand. Let us discuss ID. (MrMiami 03:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'm sorry if you perceived my comment to be emotional, though I'm afraid I don't see the emotion in it. If you do not understand aspects of evolution, I would be happy to explain them to you on our talk pages, since article talk pages are not the proper place for this sort of this discussion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see your comment to be that emotional but Carl Sagan was not the thinker the media spun him to be. (MrMiami 16:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Richard Dawkins popularized the term "Blind Watchmaker" recently in his book of that name. The emergence of this book begins to clearly demarcate that Evolution and other Blind Watchmaker Theories are truly atheistic in nature. What we really have is two arguments about origin in which one comes down to God and the other one comes down to atheistic beliefs of a God that is a NULL. The science should be consistent and apart from the two arguments. (MrMiami 03:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

This position is OR and POV.--ZayZayEM 03:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I am attempting to establish the correct position the ID and Blind Watchmaker arguments in relation to science. This places the two arguments on the same plane establishing a NPOV for the science that both use. I have established that Blind watchmaker arguments relegate origin to another discovery and nothing more. This is the position of those who are Atheistic such as Carl Sagan who promoted Blind watchmaker theories. The science of the two should be equal and the ascertation on origin is a POV for both arguments. (MrMiami 03:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Science would be better described as agnostic rather than atheistic. Atheists assert that there is no god. Science states there is no evidence for God, and that natural processes can be used to explain the universe. In particular, evolution certainly does not imply that God does not exist: it says nothing about the origin of the universe, the formation of Earth, or the origin of life, for example (explanations for which fall in other areas of science). — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree science does not remark on God. Science deals expressly with complexity and order. Origin is philosophy and cosmology. (MrMiami 03:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Restoring my deleted comment: Are trying to make a specific point about the article's content? Because if not, this is not the place to discuss ID's relative merits vs mainstream science.

Also, MrMiami, do not delete the comments of others, [4] please read our policy, WP:TALK#Others.27_comments. FeloniousMonk 03:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I regret your comment was deleted. I was unaware of that. As I recall it contributed nothing to the discussion. In the future please ensure positive contributions. :-) (MrMiami 03:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Nice to know your background. I have a PhD in biology, while Knowledge Seeker is an MD. All of that is irrelevant, of course - no one gets deference on the basis of credentials.

Natural selection isn't random...it's the opposite of random.
"[I]f evolutionary processes are consistent and durable then every protoplasmal globule since the first one would have evolutionary processes acting on it" - No, not really - evolution depends on such things as heritable variation, differential survival and competition.
"Hence, there would be multiple evolutionary thread lines and no need for a fossil record." - I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Of course, the fossil record is only one of many independent lines of evidence supporting evolution.
"In short, neanderthal, cromagnon, and homo sapiens would co-exist as these evolutionary processes would be at different stages." Again, I don't know what you mean...Cro-Magnons were Homo sapiens, and they did coexist with Neanderthals.
"I know of no Intelligent Design arguments that do not embrace ordinary science when relating to the behavior of the natural universe." In that case, you don't understand evolutionary theory.

By the way, you are Raspor, right? Guettarda 03:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are making my point about agreeing on the science. I posted my background because the conversation was tending to become dumbed down. I am glad you possess these esteemed distinctions. Perhaps we will observe your scholastic reasoning abilities when you provide supporting strength to your itemized ethereal list of rebuttals and projections. Raspor?

3. I realize that there was overlap on the genre of evolutionary mankind. The point is that if there were order and a consistent process it would be reproducible and observable at all levels of maturity - today.(MrMiami 16:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

My objective in this talk session is to establish a far more objective view of Intelligent Design as I found the Article is heavily to the bias and unclear. In order to establish Intelligent Design and its opposing views in a more objective light the arguments must be properly constructed.

1. The science of both arguments should be the same. Science is based on complexity and order only. Science does not include cosmology, theology, or philosophical worldviews. Scientific notions such as randomness and irreducible complexity could be discussed in a more clear light.

2. The three principle arguments regarding origin are: Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Blind Watchmaker. Intelligent Design is the intermediate between creationism and the Blind watchmaker.

3. On issues of origin, Intelligent Design relegates ultimate origin to God and Blind Watchmaker arguments relegates ultimate origin to nothing. Both are willing to review scientific discovery in light of their cosmological beliefs.

4. Both Intelligent Design and Blind Watchmaker arguments are not science but use science to justify their cosmological beliefs.

If we can establish a more objective and clearer delineation between the two principle arguments then grander understanding can be achieved. Wikipedia should consider the proposed approach in order to establish a more NPOV. (MrMiami 17:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

D'you have any suggestions for improving the article? SheffieldSteel 17:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes establish a framework that is a more NPOV. Perhaps closer to the framework I discussed centering on Complexity, Order, and Origin. (MrMiami 23:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Change wikilink?

{{editprotected}} Can the link to Summa Theologiae be updated to Summa Theologica? We've had a change of article name. Thanks ... David aukerman ^talk 02:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the link destination, although the link text remains the same. CMummert · talk 02:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} Can a {{POV-assertion}} tag be placed after the first comma in the first sentence, since this is the main dispute and why the article is protected. Morphh ^(talk) 2:46, 02 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no dispute. Two editors, yourself included, have argued without convincing anyone. There is no POV in the lead. Orangemarlin 03:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny - I count 15 editors (a majority) that dispute it and you haven't convinced any one of them. Nice how you minimize the issue to push your POV. Morphh ^(talk) 3:22, 02 April 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I've been saying the same thing about your objections. FeloniousMonk 03:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been convinced from my initial query into the articles clarity. The current lead is appears to the best in terms of being conscise, NPOV and clear when compared to any of the alternatives being proposed by the people disputing it. This doesn't mean its perfect. All articles are open to improvement.--ZayZayEM 03:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you find that "ID is an argument for the existence of God" (and only God) as fact without dispute? This is what NPOV requires, otherwise, this majority opinion must be attributed. Morphh ^(talk) 3:36, 02 April 2007 (UTC)

We have notable neutral sources that say it is, that is all that is required for it to remain. FeloniousMonk 03:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have notable sources that say it is disputed. That is all that is required for it to change. Morphh ^(talk) 3:58, 02 April 2007 (UTC)

What sources? Didn't we settle this issue a week ago? Are you back to claiming that intelligent design isn't teleological? Guettarda 04:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching most of this discussion (not had much time to edit) but I don't recall seeing the presentation of any neutral sources that disputed this claim in any way shape or form. If you had them then there might be an issue, but as it currently stands this meets NPOV. JoshuaZ 04:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not neutral sources, only partisan. That's where you run afoul of NPOV, relying on partisan sources over neutral. FeloniousMonk 04:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is the NYT not neutral? Anyway - They don't have to be neutral. In fact, it states that "all sources have biases". It is only required that they have been published by reliable sources. While neutral sources are strongly encouraged, bias sources are needed to address both POV in many cases. It is the article that must be NPOV, not the source. Also, a neutral source does not negate other sources, as your trying to do here by stating this source as fact. Morphh ^(talk) 4:59, 02 April 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest adding at least this reference to the end of the first phrase (not sentence) in the current article ^[1]

If it isn't enough that the DI themselves say it's an argument for God, I suppose we can get other sources of info direct from the horse's mouth. A great second sentence idea would be to document the apparent disagreement between public and private DI communications. SheffieldSteel 04:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems reasonable. JoshuaZ 04:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The additional cite is good and necessary and should be added, but I'm not convinced about the additional sentence. It may be a bit much for the intro, which should be concise, and the point is already brought upon and dealt with further down in the article. FeloniousMonk 04:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two sources: New York Times secondary source - about President Bush's remarks supporting intelligent design: "Intelligent design does not identify the designer, but critics say the theory is a thinly disguised argument for God and the divine creation of the universe." Here is a primary source from the Discovery Institute. It states: "Does intelligent design postulate a “supernatural creator?” Overview: No. The ACLU, and many of its expert witnesses, have alleged that teaching the scientific theory of intelligent design (ID) is unconstitutional in all circumstances because it posits a “supernatural creator.” Yet actual statements from intelligent design theorists have made it clear that the scientific theory of intelligent design does not address metaphysical and religious questions such as the nature or identity of the designer." The article's lead sentence asserts, as a matter of fact, that the identity of intelligent designer is God, whereas this point is clearly disputed. Morphh ^(talk) 4:35, 02 April 2007 (UTC)

None of these say that ID isn't teleological. It's there in the name - intelligent design. The DI makes the point that, since ID is scientific, it cannot answer questions about the nature or identity of the "designer". It's an argument for the existence of God, but it does not address the nature of God...intentionally because (a) it can't dodge Edwards if it addresses the nature of God, and (b) because ID was crafted to provide a big tent for creationists (according to Johnson). Of course, it's an assertion that almost collapses under its own weight, but that's beside the point...even though ID (supposedly) doesn't address the nature of God (although the major proponents all say that it's the Christian God), it's still an argument for the existence of God. Guettarda 04:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a selective use of sources. The NYT article already cited in the article, Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive, is a more complete analysis of ID, whereas the one you insist on citing here is cursory at best. FeloniousMonk 05:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we use a source that does not make the point that we're debating? You seem to be under the illusion that if you provide a "better" source, a neutral source, a more complete source, it somehow dismisses any other source that shows an alternate viewpoint. Morphh ^(talk) 5:20, 02 April 2007 (UTC)

I never said it wasn't a teleological argument, as this argument does not require God as fact. Of course proponents say it's their "God" - they're not going to conclude it's someone elses God or other form of intelligence. This is a conclusion based on ID itself, not a definition of ID. Personally, I think it is an argument for God as well - but my opinion does not matter and if it did, I would have to attribute it as ID itself does not define God by your own definition. Morphh ^(talk) 4:41, 02 April 2007 (UTC)

So you find that "ID is an argument for the existence of God" (and only God) as fact without dispute? This is what NPOV requires, otherwise, this majority opinion must be attributed. Morphh ^(talk) 3:36, 02 April 2007 (UTC)

(sorry I had to copy it) No Morph. I find it undisputed that ID is a teleological argument. This jargonistic term needs to be simplified. As ID and English Wikipedia both exist in the anglosphere - I find "arguemnt for the existence of God" an acceptable compromise given that 1)Ywh/God is who DI readily associate ID with, 2)Ywh/God is who ID opponents readily associate DI with, 3)Ywh/God is who neutral parties readily associate ID with 4)Those points aside "God" in English readily means various parties beyond Ywh/God

I have repeatedly suggested, and agreed with comments that point out perhaps "God" should be changed to something else (namely design argument) - but it really does seem that the dispute is over the wording here (i.e. don't use "God" as an encompassing term) not that ID's definition is a Teleological argument--ZayZayEM 05:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not disputed nor would I object to the definition of a teleological argument. We agree here and on the point that "God" should be changed to something else. I'd also be fine if they used God but attributed the opinion to make it factual or just state that "it has been found to be" instead of "is". I have to disagree that using "God" is an acceptable compromise in the current form. They are clearly stating, as a matter of fact, that it is God. I don't see how this is acceptable for policy to state this as fact, when the other side states that it does not define God. I understand that it has been found to be a deception campaign, but this in itself is an opinion. Wikipedia should not dismiss one side in favor of the other - this is the point of the NPOV policy. I don't see what the big deal is with adjusting the sentence to encompass these points. I'm not trying to remove the statement or decrease its authority. Morphh ^(talk) 13:44, 02 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been disputed from many different angles, none of which have offered a resolution to the various issues presented in a way that has been able to be consensused to be an improvement to the current form of the article. Moreover, the change currently advocated by Morphh and two or three other WP users rests on the notion that ID is not necessarily an argument for the existence of God, when in fact it is, on the evidence available in the verified reliable sources, an argument for the existence of God that pretends or at least attempts to be something else in order to attempt to achieve its principal advocate's objectives. Because of this inherent component of ID which acts as a strategy to wedge creationism and theism into science and science education (not to even mention here the various socio-political agendas that may also be involved), I would not expect the vociferous objections to cease soon, if ever. This element of deception and controversy that is inherent in "intelligent design", however, does not mean anything in the WP article, including the current first sentence, is a "violation" of WP:NPOV, as Morphh repeatedly has alleged, nor does it mean it's a violation of any WP policy. ... ... Kenosis 07:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion

So, we agree that ID is the teleological argument, and we have ID proponents contending that "the designer" is not identified by ID and this makes their argument scientific, but that they believe "the designer" to be God. Here's my suggestion:

Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of a "desgner",...Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, say that they believe the designer to be God, but assert that intelligent design does not identify the designer, and is a scientific theory...

... dave souza, talk 04:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. Morphh ^(talk) 4:23, 02 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that what "Intelligent design is a design argument..." says. I'm beginning to udnerstand certain editors issues with circular debates.--ZayZayEM 05:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problems, as have been well set out above, are that both Teleological argument and design argument (which redirects to the same page) don't mean much to the uninitiated reader, and the ID proponents use denial that it addresses the issue to present it as an argument for God which isn't [necessarily] an argument for God (depending a bit on who they're speaking to). The Wikipedia page defines it as "an argument for the existence of God or a creator", which can accommodate the non-God creator sometimes postulated by ID proponents (without any conviction). It also links its definition to Existence of God which includes design as one of several arguments.

In the CSC-Top Questions article including the definition of ID as cited in our article, "3. Is intelligent design based on the Bible?" says no, then refers as "early versions of design theory" to the usual proponents of the teleological argument. (4. denies it's creationism, but doesn't deny that it's an argument for the existence of God)To get an idea of the normal definition, some googling brought up numerous versions of the "God definition", as at philosophyofreligion.info, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and A Dictionary of Philosophical Terms and Names at foldoc. A number of options including the "designer" version are given at Apollos. Interestingly, the Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Studies of Selected Pivotal Ideas, published in 1973-74, starts "The design argument in theology is often immediately identified with the “argument from design,” i.e., the argument that from evidences of intelligent planning found in the world one may reasonably infer the existence of a purposeful Intelligence responsible for the world." and goes on to discuss at length "a deity as cosmic Designer".

Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of a "designer" has the problem which, as I recall, Candy was concerned about of relying on the reader relating this to a second sentence some way further on to appreciate that the ID presenters are clear that it's really God with the caveat that it theoretically might not be. Better options might include "an argument for the existence of a "designer" (usually God or a creator)..." or "an argument for the existence of God or a creator...". ..... dave souza, talk 10:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I would be fine with any of these. Morphh ^(talk) 13:19, 02 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. Until I read a positive comment about these changes from the long-time editors, I won't even consider the compromise. Short of their buy-in, I still think it's POV and does not use verifiable information. There is no need for a compromise Dave Souza. This is a couple of editors railing on some mysterious issue that ID only secretly depends on a god of some sort. That's disingenuous of them, and it is highly POV.Orangemarlin 13:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tired of this couple of editors junk. Morphh ^(talk) 14:16, 02 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell... These editors have objected to the statement in the first sentence:

Morphh
Cat Whisperer
Erkin2008
r b-j
71.57.90.96
Tomandlu
216.52.235.101
Wyatt
Intelligent Desinger
CSTAR
AmiDaniel
James;Lagbria e adio
68.109.232.53
Mdsats
Kgroover
Everwill

From what I can tell... These editors have suggested changes for compromise or appear to be neutral:

SheffieldSteel
dave souza
Adam Cuerden
JoshuaZ
Wikipediatoperfection
Philip J. Rayment
ZayZayEM
Petesmiles

From what I can tell... These editors are opposed to a change in the first sentence:

Kenosis
Orangemarlin
151.151.73.167
Ronabop
FeloniousMonk
Jim62sch
35.9.6.175
Mr. Christopher
Nomen Nescio
Guettarda.

Confusion - the above list is, I think from User:Morphh. What follows is from User:Tomandlu. Clear now? Tomandlu 22:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't one possible solution be to change the opening sentence to read "Intelligent design is a teleological argument (i.e. an argument for the existence of a creator) , based on the premise that...".

It seems to me that, whilst it might not be a common term, teleological is a more accurate description than God. The short "i.e." would clarify the matter for anyone unfamiliar with the term who didn't want to read the linked article at that point. Tomandlu 14:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. Morphh ^(talk) 14:07, 02 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me too.--Kgroover 18:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"[T]eleological is a more accurate description than God" - do you have a source for that? As the degree of support - don't put words in people's mouths. If you want to know what people think, ask them, don't guess at their opinions. I have no opposition to change if it improves the quality of the article. As for the people proposing change...change to what? Rbj denies that ID is a design argument, while who knows what Raspor/Everwill and his socks are arguing for, while I rather doubt that CSTAR is ready to go for the DI party line. If you want to figure out what people think, ask them. In addition, why are you leaving out the people who argued for the change to "argument for the existence of God" in the first place? Guettarda 16:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source? The source is that it's the minimal, basic tenet of ID that everyone can agree on - ID and 'darwinist' alike, and has the added advantage of being pretty accurate. I have no problem with the article being slanted against ID - ID is a load of creationist bull and its proponents are a bunch of lieing deceitful scumbags who've hung themselves - how could the article not be slanted against them? But to start from that reasonable conclusion just seems a bit the wrong way round. IMHO. Tomandlu 22:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Rbj denies that ID is a design argument,..." only as definition. this is an example of where you misrepresent and/or misunderstand a position that is not identical to your POV.

"...while who knows what Raspor/Everwill and his socks are arguing for..." i hope you are not counting me among such. that would be even more evidence of misrepresenting and/or misunderstanding a position that is not identical to your POV. r b-j 22:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the teleological argument page states that it "is an argument for the existence of God or a creator", why does this page leave out the "or a creator" part if the two arguments are essentially one and the same?--Kgroover 00:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

because wikipedia can't be used as a source.--BMF81 09:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - there should have been an "IMHO" in my comment somewhere. Look, I don't have much of a problem with the current version - mainly because I believe it to be fundamentally (sic) true, but also because this is wikipedia, so to arrive at anything even vaguely authoritative and NPOV on a controversial subject is probably the best anyone can hope for.

That aside, the problem with the current version, as others have stated, is that it treats an eminently reasonable conclusion (creator = god) as a starting point. Consequently, and this makes no difference to "darwinists" such as myself, the ID loons can justifiably view it as slanted. In the end, big deal. And please assume good faith - especially when there's no reason to assume otherwise. Tomandlu 22:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"...the ID loons can justifiably view it as slanted. In the end, big deal." they've already (unjustifiably) rejected that point. it was made clear to them several times. r b-j 22:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I note that I am not mentioned, although I am an active editor, with 91 edits to this article over the course of about 3 years. The list ~~Tomandlu~~ Morphh has compiled seems unbalanced to me, in the sense of "picking and choosing who to include" in addition to the above mentioned concern of one editor stating what another thinks.
I fail to see the reasoning for calling concerns raised by experienced editors who have been researching this topic for years "junk" - perhaps you'd care to rephrase, Morphh? KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not my list, btw - although it's worth noting that the list was compiled in order to refute the suggestion that only 1 or 2 editors had qualms about the current lead.Tomandlu 22:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, it appeared that you had added it. If I understand correctly, Morphh added it? However, my objections still stand. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did just a quick glance at points made by editors to create a list of what I thought were the positions to refute the point that one or two editors have an issue with the lead. I didn't call the concerns junk - I said that it was junk that it was being stated that only two editors objected. I prefaced the list with "From what I can tell...", which means that it is my perception. In addition, it is a wiki... add yourself to the list or change your position if you feel that I misread your statement. It only says that these editors have raised objections to the intro being debated. It is not a comprehensive list on all the archives and this and that position. Again, it was to only point out the editors that seemed to be involved in the discussion as I was tired of this being singled out as only one of two editors with an issue and everyone else was fine with the current lead. I didn't see your comments on this particular issue so I did not list you - sorry. Morphh ^(talk) 14:26, 03 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Source? The source is that [teleological is a more accurate description than God] is the minimal, basic tenet of ID that everyone can agree on". To begin with, we don't have the option of picking things that we can agree on - we have to go with what's accurate. So, do you have an assertion that "teleological" is more accurate than God? As far as I can tell they are the same. You are saying they aren't the same - do you have a source to support that assertion? Guettarda 01:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since 'creator' is a less restrictive term than 'God', but also includes 'God', why do we need a source? If 'creator' is wrong, then so is 'God'. It's as though the current lead for Water said "Water is wet and cold", but you asked for a source before changing it to "Water is wet". But for what it's worth: [5].

It's also worth adding that this isn't really a debate about accuracy - both 'creator' and 'God' would be accurate (since the DI is apparently - who'd have thought it? - a very stupid organisation, and is quite happy to admit that creator=christian god). It's a debate about whether the lead should be making that point. ID as generally expressed does not include the word 'God' - it talks about an undefined creator. 'God' is not a requirement of ID, it is a requirement of christians. C'mon guys, one of the things wrong with ID is that it creates unneccesary entities - which is what we're doing in the current lead... Tomandlu 10:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are we still discussing this nonsense? I doubt we'll ever get consensus on a change, so in law, the status quo usually stands. Orangemarlin 05:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list appears to be an exercise in frustration at the accusation that "This is a couple of editors railing on some mysterious issue", and while it's fair to say the accusation is "junk", I'm sure Morphh is well aware that Wikipedia is not a democracy and polls are evil. dave souza, talk 08:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I only meant that the accusation that only two editors had an issue with the lead was nonsense or "junk". It was repleadly pointed out that many editors had issue with it but the claim of only two editors kept being repeated, so I created a quick list to make the point. Morphh ^(talk) 14:31, 03 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Since 'creator' is a less restrictive term than 'God'" - huh? Are you replying to my comment? I don't see how this fits. As for your reference - I find anything there that addresses the difference between a teleological argument and an argument for the existence of God. Guettarda 11:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood. My problem is that "God" implies the christian god - I'd be happier, for example, if the article said "existence of a god" (small 'g' and an 'a'). Creationist nutjobs notwithstanding, the ID supporters at least understand that ID does not support the existence of a particular god - and we shouldn't be claiming otherwise. The fact that they have faith in a christian god's existence is not part of any formal definition of ID. Tomandlu 15:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." – the Wedge Document. Our source for the explicit definition of what theologians call the teleological argument is Kitzmiller, which explicitly and repeatedly calls it an old religious "argument for the existence of God", and it must be confessed that choosing other definitions not directly related to examination of ID could be classed as Original research. .... dave souza, talk 15:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors here have referred to creationists as 'nut jobs' and 'loons'. Are they really unbiased enough to edit this article with those negative attitudes? And they quote the wedge document and other documents from the DI when it can be interpreted negatively but refuse to consider the DI a reliable source when the text can be interpreted positively. I really think they should start using the term 'bible literalists' instead of creationists. There is a big difference. Those opposed to ID trying to paint all IDers as Bible literalist evangelical Christians which simply is not the case and is POV. 68.109.234.155 15:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately your mischaracterisation of the above editor is wildly inaccurate – please read WP:NPA and WP:NPOV. ... dave souza, talk 16:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Martin Luther King was a bible literalist. To categorize all persons who believe in the literacy of the bible as 'nutjobs' and 'loons' to me is unkind. African-Americans are very represented in the bible literalist population. I do not think anyone here would be able to refer to atheists as 'loons' etc. You honestly cannot see the bias? 68.109.234.155 16:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My contempt for biblical literalists/creationists/whatever notwithstanding, I'm somewhat amused that my attempt to support greater balance in the opening lead incurs criticism from that group... actually, not that surprising. I'm sure that the current opening lead is a nice strawman for IDers... Tomandlu 16:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) 68.109.234.155, either post a link to a dif where someone called creationists "loons" and/or "nutjobs" or drop the subject. Everyone else: until s/he does, consider this trolling and ignore it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah found "nutjob" - Tomandlu please be more civil. Address the content not the contributor, thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't - if an editor on this page advocates softening the article's criticism of ID, then they are assumed to be an ID supporter. So, I try to make my position and opinion of ID clear. However, I will try and find a more polite form of contempt in future... apols to any offended parties, but surely the eternity I will spend in hell offers some comfort? Tomandlu 16:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they are assumed to be a supporter or an advocate or whatever, whoever is doing the assuming is very probably wasting everyone's time: the injunction applies in reverse as well. It doesn't matter to me, and certainly shouldn't matter to anyone else, whether you are a loon, a nutjob, a creationist, an atheist or a follower of the Invisible pink unicorn - it is simply irrelevant unless there is a COI involved. One puppy's opinion (which coincidentally is resoundingly backed up by policy.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume he/she means me - I have referred to creationists as both loons and nutjobs on this page, but never in the article itself. Tomandlu 16:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same applies - please focus on the content and avoid using pejorative terms for contributors, thanks much. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The puppy is absolutely right, but can I just say that I find nothing pejorative in the terms "loons" an "quines". Furraboots ye fae? .. :) ... dave souza, talk 16:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah dinnae ken ocht aboot the Scots, lad, ye'll have ta taak Inglis - and if you correct my Scots I'll be much obliged. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Scots is admirably correct, and were you in Aberdeen you could substitute loon for boy with no offence being taken. To be absolutely clear I was just wondering where our anon friend was from..... dave souza, talk 17:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just about use of "God"?

Is the current dispute about the lead only that it uses the word "God"? Please try and keep your answer to simple 'Yes' or 'No' about your personal dispute, and if you aren't disputing the lead's current wording maybe put something like 'Undisputing'. I think a lot of editors are confused about what the current editors disputes are, and (maybe with good reason) are failing to assume good faith.--ZayZayEM 01:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes--ZayZayEM 01:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about what you are asking here. Guettarda 02:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are disputing the current lead, are you only disputing the use of "God" (capitalised)?--ZayZayEM 11:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. i cannot just yes/no this without being clear: the teleological argument or design argument is "an argument for the existence of God". ID is "the assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes." (and that is the American Heritage Dictionary definition, not the DI propaganda. but since someone likely with DI relatively recently coined the term "Intelligent Design", it's unlikely that the dictionary definition will be incongruent, to a large extent, to the originally minted definition.) these are not semantically identical and, as required by WP:NPOV we should leave it to the reader to let the facts speak for themselves. so Yes, i dispute that ID is defined to be "an argument for the existence of God," nor is it defined to be the Teleological argument. the definition doesn't say either. but it's very reasonable to come to that conclusion, but conclusion are where one ends up, not where one starts. by starting the Wikipedia reader with that conclusion, especially as definition moreover one that is unascribed in the definition, is a clear and naked injection of POV and a violation of WP:NPOV. no one has refuted that. r b-j 02:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes/No would be a no. You are not only disputing the usage of "God" (I changed your first word. I would appreciate you deleting the rest of your commentary).--ZayZayEM 11:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for me at least. Capital G "God" is too Judeo-Christian, whereas ID doesn't inherently require the Judeo-Christian God, even if that's one of the common beliefs of many of it's proponents (though not all -- I'm thinking of Antony Flew).--Kgroover 02:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Tomandlu 08:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - Though I agree with RBJ's point, however, I'm not sure I would call it POV and would not make a big dispute of it - just that I think it would be written better if the definition came before the conclusion. Morphh ^(talk) 14:40, 03 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using "God" (and other terms) is not being clear, it's actually misleading

The use of "God" with a capital G is misleading way of defining ID - it is term most identified with the Jude-Christian monotheistic god, Ywh. Whether or not individuals (even collectively) support the viewpoint that any "designer" is so obviously Ywh in all his supreme great benelovence and infallibility - can be further explained later in the article. As ID proponents, even if possibly ina duplicitious manner, have conceded or put forth that ID doesn't necessarily mean Ywh was the designer, the initial defnition of ID should reflect this.

"Design argument" solves this problem of incorrectly identifying the designer and misleading the reader towards a POV, because, like ID it doesn't implicate any specific entity in the design process.

The use of the word "god" should be avoided as it specific refers to deities. "god" is preloaded word with a specific religious and spiritual meaning for a worshipped being of great power. "creator" should be avoided as it refers to a being of specific role: i.e. someone who creates, a cosmic engineer, the entity in question may actually play extra roles beyond creation; and additionally through virtue of being a "designer" may not actually be involved in the engineering or manufacturing process and therefore the term "creator" would still be much a misnomer.

ID is bunk pseudoscience that provides a thin veil for religious doctrine pushed forward by tiny minded people with even tinier attitudes - and this article accurately portrays this. As much as we find ID a stupid, nonsensical, petty, ridiculuous and/or dangerous idea, when writing a neutral encyclopedic article on the subject we still have to be serious about how we go about it.

This means that we can't let ID proponents define ID for us (especially when they aren't clear), but we also shouldn't define ID for them. We have to be a neutral source. ID has been neutrally identified as specifically a teleological argument, this is it's defining point. However leaping from there to being about "God" and other specifically identified beings is adding individual synthesis. Discover Institute fellows are the ones identifying the designer, why should we trust them on that one. ID opponents are identifying the designer, why should we be pushing an opposing peoples viewpoint as fact? What does our neutral source identify the designer as? (AFAIK it doesn't identify any - it does what we should do - it identifies what individuals identify the designer to be[6], which about 99/100 times is Ywh)

Neutral stance: totally an unambigiously avoid implicating any specific entity in creation. That's what ID does. "Intelligent design is a design argument..." </rant> Whew.--ZayZayEM 01:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well stated - If this change were made, it would satisfy my objection. Morphh ^(talk) 2:50, 04 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that design argument redirects to Teleological argument which opens by saying 'A teleological argument (or a design argument) is an argument for the existence of God or a creator based on perceived evidence of order,' - i favour the current wording because in my opinion it's a way of saying the same thing in clearer english - would you also drop your objections if we added 'or creator' after God to match the Teleological argument wording? - Petesmiles 04:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my paragraph why any descriptive noun describing the designer as God, a god, a deity, a creator, force, alien or "... or something" really produces uneeded ambigiouty about the subject. Issues with teh wording of teleological argument page are not relevant here. Wiki should not rely on wording of other pages to word pages (that's being self referential).--ZayZayEM 04:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion

In my opinion it's a fair point that the intro doesn't fully show that ID’s “official position” does not acknowledge that the designer is God, though its proponents believe the designer to be God and, in claiming that ID and science cannot address the nature or identity of the designer as that must be left to religion and philosophy, explicitly concede that the intelligent designer works outside the laws of nature and science.pages 24 - 26 It's a complex point to pack into the intro, and the present opening paragraph is accurate and concise though it begins with the ID movement's description of ID as a religious argument rather than their protestations that it isn't one. ... dave souza, talk 08:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and mine

just a few thoughts on the current discussion......

rbj objects because he argues that for us to define ID as an argument for the existence of God is moving too far into original research, and that we should start out with a sourced non-contraversial definition of ID, not what he feels is a derived conclusion.

My feeling is that others have been less consistent than rbj in their arguments (but that might just be me not getting it) - i'm afraid i feel that some here are rather annoyed by a good encyclopedia article on ID, they will just always feel that it's somehow not fair / shouldn't be allowed - it's hard to engage everyone usefully with this as a backdrop.

I think the article is good as it is, with few of the suggested alternatives offering much useful improvement. I wouldn't object to the 'argument for the existence of God' moving a little - and thought rbj's proposal was worth thinking about constructively - I also seem to remember Felonius way way back proposing an intro that was really 'just the facts' - p'raps someone cleverer with the archives than me could find it...?

anyways - everyone should have a nice evening. That's an order.

Petesmiles 08:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nutshell

I am opposed to any definition of ID that uncritically repeats or condones the public DI definition. SheffieldSteel 11:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The public definition is just as stupid as the 'private' one. Besides, the intro contains accurate and appropriate criticism of ID/DI in other paragraphs. Tomandlu 11:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because ID has been (publicly) defined in a duplitous way. It wouldn't be a big issue if everyone didn't realise (consciously or not) that the first sentence is the most important one in the article - and we wouldn't even be talking about the difference between public and private definitions if it weren't for the DI's decision to deliberately misrepresent ID to the public. Uncritically repeating untruths or partial truths, when we know what they are, feels wrong to me. Hence my position. SheffieldSteel 12:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being the sole source of ID and its movement, the Discovery Institute's definition, duplicitious as it is, is necessary per the part of WP:NPOV which says: "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." we can't violate the undue weight clause of NPOV and drop the most prominent ID view just because it is intended to mislead the public, using that reasoning, we wouldn't be able to cover the topic at all since it all flows from that one source. FeloniousMonk 05:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking up Petesmiles' suggestion of moving the God point back a bit and covering just the facts:

Intelligent design is the proposition 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 distinguished from earlier arguments for the existence of God by the assertion that it cannot address the nature or identity of the designer as that must be left to religion and philosophy, and is intended to provide “theistic and Christian science" redefined to include the supernatural. Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, say that they believe the designer to be God, but assert that intelligent design does not identify the designer and is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.

The term proposition is used at Kitzmiller, and the various points are summarised there with references to the original sources. ... dave souza, talk 12:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me Morphh ^(talk) 14:55, 03 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we start on something other than teleology? If the LoC calls ID teleology, if the second word of the name proclaims teleology, then isn't the fact that ID is teleological a fundamental feature, really the defining feature, of what ID is? "Allegedly scientifically verifiable teleology", or "An argument for God which claims to be scientifically testable". The whole "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" doesn't say how ID differs from other forms of creationism or pseudo-scepticism. ID exists to get around Edwards. The "scientifically testable" assertion is central to ID. The "certain features..." explanation makes neither of these issues clear. Guettarda 12:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for using "official" definitions uncritically - see Fox News Channel. It starts out with "The Fox News Channel (FNC) is a United States-based cable and satellite news channel. It is owned by the Fox Entertainment Group, and is a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation". It does not start out with "The Fox News Channel (FNC) is Fair and Balanced". We are here to write an encyclopaedia article, not to quote slogans. Guettarda 12:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guettarda's point here is good--ZayZayEM 14:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the analogy and I think it makes the opposite point to me. The FNC starts out with facts that defines what it is. "Fair and Balanced" is an opinion so it could not be stated as "FNC is ...", though it could be attributed to state "The slogan of FNC is F & B". Again, F & B is not a definition of what FNC is though. What is ID if you strip away the opinions? If I were to read it today without any opinion on God, Religion, past arguments, court trails, etc... what is it? Does it tell me that ID is an argument for the existence of God? No - this is a conclusion I would reach based on my beliefs. This group needs to think about how they are presenting the conclusion (asserting as fact an opinion on that conclusion) and then defining what ID is about. My main point is the assertion of fact but I think it would be better written if the conclusion was after the definition. It is a little off topic from the main dispute but I thought I would respond to the discussion. Morphh ^(talk) 14:55, 03 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - "fair and balanced" is a slogan, as is "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection". Guettarda 18:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you still fail to show the equivalence (here is another good example of serving dog poop to your guests and calling it "caviar"). and you're attempting to straw man by changing the language from the dictionary definition: "the assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes" to something else that might have come from DI and then labeling it "a slogan", still a point which is neither proven nor widely accepted. that ZayZayEM thinks it's a persuasive point i cannot account for (but i can guess that he/she likes it because it is congruent to his/her own POV), but it's a pathetically weak and unpersuasive argument and an incommensurate comparison or analogy.

nonetheless is "the assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes." the slogan of the American Heritage Dictionary? is "Argument intended to demonstrate that living organisms were created in more or less their present forms by an "intelligent designer"." the slogan of Encyclopeida Britannica? is "Intelligent design, theory that some complex biological structures and other aspects of nature show evidence of having been designed by an intelligence." the slogan of Columbia University Encyclopedia? you guys keep tossing up pathetically weak arguments justifying a clear violation of NPOV because ostensibly you want your bias and POV to be prominant in the article. so prominant that you insist on putting in for a definition of ID, a definition that no other widespread reference book makes (it has no semantic content in common with the other encyclopedias/dictionaries), that a well-research and common opinion is put in unattributed and stated as uncontested fact (when it is contested) and no less as the very definition. your bias is obvious. it's nakedly flapping around for everyone to see. when several alternatives have been floated that would disarm this whole thing, the only motivation for such obstinance is intellectual dishonesty. r b-j 19:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science."[7] The difficulty we have is that NPOV requires us from the outset to state the various views proportionately: the advocates of ID state that it is evidence for the existence of God which can be called scientific if it ostensibly does not define or identify the "designer", the view of the overwhelming majority of scientists and of a neutral judge asked to review the evidence for the definition of ID is that it is a version of the teleological argument for the existence of God. At present the intro provides both views from the outset, in my opinion we should find a way of clearly noting the ID claim that it doesn't identify the designer. ... dave souza, talk 15:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. And I think that, to write an NPOV article, we should start with what ID is. It's a design argument. That's really a function of its name. A design argument is a teleological argument. And, as far as I can tell, a teleological argument is an argument for the existence of one or more (g)God(s). If that's the case, then we should use more direct language and call it what it is. If "teleological argument" =/= "argument for the existence of God", would someone please provide a reference for this? If it isn't the same, then we have something to discuss (I'd say it's still accurate because that's the way the proponents of ID have characterised the designer...). So far, I don't think I have seen that distinction made by any reliable source.

The other stuff...about "certain aspects..." is a slogan, a catch-phrase worked out early on by several DI-ists. It's very incomplete - it leaves out the fundamental idea that ID is supposed to be empirically testable. And, of course, it glosses over the fact that ID is teleological. Guettarda 18:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO "God" means the christian god, so the essential problem is that the first sentence of this page is either very close to, or is, original research - it conflates the pure ID argument with the particular religion of the people promoting it.

The ID argument, whatever you think of its claims to any scientific standing, cannot logically claim to characterise the nature of the creator - anymore than Paley would have claimed that he could deduce the morals or the shoe-size of the watchmaker. I think it's perfectly reasonable that the article can imply or even state that the supporters of ID believe that the creator is God, but I just don't see how we can justify it in the lead. I understand the arguments, and, as I've said, they deserve a prominent place in the article (well, the DI wrote the wedge doc - they can't blame us), but God (capital G, singular) shouldn't be used to characterise the basic argument of ID.

IMHO "teleological argument" (with an "i.e.") or "a god" would be more appropriate. Or is "God" not considered to imply the christian god? Tomandlu 18:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"God" means the "Christian God"? Well, I'd say that's probably true for most of the ID proponents, your reading reflects your own cultural construct. "God" is the English word - capitalisation tends to mean "God(s) I believe in" while use of "god" tends to mean "God(s) I don't believe in". "God" means the same as "a God or Gods". "A God" is not the same as "God". Guettarda 19:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guettarda this is your opinion. I would suspect a large number of editors and readers get an Abrahamic god when they see the word "God". As I understood it was capitalized because it was a proper noun (i.e. a name). Deities who had actual namesget referred to with a lower case "god" term.--ZayZayEM 01:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopaedia for all, not the US or Western countries only. We can't say that "our" God gets a capital G, while their "God" gets a common g. Did you look at the Arya Samaj article, for example? Drawing a line between "the Abrahamic God" and everyone else's isn't ok. Guettarda 02:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"God" is Ywh's English name. Names get capitilsation. This isn't about superiority. Zeus is a "god". Allah is God. Using "God" with a capital G is a direct reference to monotheism (which is it's usage in Arya Samaj). ID proponents follow monotheism, but even they occasionally admit ID itself doesn't. Why should we support your opinion on capitalisation over my opinion on captilisation (which isn't based on superiority). --ZayZayEM 04:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

""God" is Ywh's English name" - No. The word has an ancient IE root. Given the dominance of Christianity in the West, the "true" God was distinguished from the pagan "god" or "gods". But that's archaic usage. According to the OED: " When the word is applied to heathen deities disparagingly, it is now written with a small initial; when the point of view of the worshipper is to any extent adopted, a capital may be used." We aren't writing an encylopaedia from a Christian POV, we aren't writing an encyclopaedia from a Western POV. The usage of "god" or "God" is only a function of one's own personal bias. We can either work from the perspective that we should treat all religion as "pagan", or we treat all from the perspective of worshippers of that deity. Guettarda 05:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, God states monotheism - with the article having systemic bias toward the Christian God as that is what the proponents believe and the court rulings address. However, such excludes polytheism, forms of nontheism, or non religious possibilities. Hinduism is the third largest religion in the world after Christianity and Islam, which would seem to be excluded by the definition. ID does not define such aspects itself, yet the article concludes it to be the definition of what ID is as a matter of fact. Morphh ^(talk) 19:15, 03 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some define Hinduism to be monotheistic, a view which I find somewhat suspect myself. Nevertheless, the internal documents of the DI, the public pronouncements of the DI fellows and supporters and advocates, and the court ruling all demonstrate that clearly ID is concerned with God. So why are we arguing?--Filll 20:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet they state that ID itself does not define God. I think we're getting confused on the beliefs and statements (the opinion) of these groups, and ID itself. They are treated as one in the same in the first sentence. However, the statement of ID as an argument for the existence of God (and God alone as the designer) is disputed. I don't think anyone disputes that DI thinks the creator is God. The lead should include the fact that ID does not define who such a designer is - and with doing that, you can't state that the designer is God as factual without attributing the opinion. Morphh ^(talk) 20:53, 03 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, at the minimum it references an Abrahamic G_d, that being Judeo-Christian-Muslim. Anyways, the argument continues, and we're still getting nowhere. The article should not be changed. Orangemarlin 20:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the entire purpose of ID is to forward creationism by not mentioning the J-C God in order to get around the establishment clause (as Guettarda suggests), how can it be defined as an explicit argument for the J-C God?--Kgroover 20:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not ignoring Hinduism (I grew up in a society that's 40% Indian and about 25% Hindu). In my experience, the word "God" can be used (in a generic sense) by Hindus, quite aside from the issue of whether there is only on God is Hinduism (see, for example Arya_Samaj#Doctrines). Guettarda 20:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said before, our most neutral and authoritative reference which directly relates to ID uses capitalisation to refer to this "argument for the existence of God"[8] so we'd need an equally good reference for alternative terminology. ID is explicitly presented as Christian and theistic by its proponents, though they also (at different times) present it as agnostic. .. dave souza, talk 21:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"explicitly" is, IMHO, exactly what it is not presented as, hence my problem. I really think that the majority of legitimate concerns could be dealt with by replacing "God" with something less restrictive. Tomandlu 22:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Phillip Johnson, a senior fellow at the Institute, stated last year on a Christian radio talk show that "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.""[9], "My colleagues and I speak of "theistic realism" -- or sometimes, "mere creation" --as the defining concept of our movement. This means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology."[10] and in Darwin on Trial has written that “theistic realism” or “mere creation” are defining concepts of the IDM. This means “that God is objectively real as Creator and recorded in the biological evidence" 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. Pretty sure there are many more examples available. ... dave souza, talk 22:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh. Among all the Philip Johnsons in the world, that would be the same Philip Johnson that is regarded as the "father of intelligent design", would it not? ... Kenosis 04:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there are many many examples of proponents stating Intelligent Design to be an argument for God. It is no doubt the purpose of ID to be an argument for the existence of God by its creators. However, the fact remains that ID does not define God and it is argued that it does not specify the designer. So anything that defines the creator of ID must be an opinion - a conclusion based on their belief. Morphh ^(talk) 0:43, 04 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we should repeat all partisan rhetorical devices used as thought-terminating clichés in their article's intros as if they were fact. I could also just as easily argue that ID not specifying the designer as God is also an opinion - a conclusion based on their belief that doing so furthers their goal. We need to be circumspect here about allowing the ID movement's rhetoric define the topic; doing so would not be an improvement to neutrality. FeloniousMonk 05:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A reply to this comment was made in the section below entitled Scientific version? --Sapphic 00:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. My objection is to using the word God in the first immediate sentance that originally defines ID in a neutral unpartisan manner. (Morph can agree or disagree with me on this). Both the viewpoint that ID proponents identify ID's designer as God and ID detractor's identify ID's designer as God should and is discussed further in the article (even in the lead paragraphs). However their partisan description should not be included the initial description of ID, as it is simply a design argument with no identified designer, despite any individual's specific beliefs.--ZayZayEM 05:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this is sorta encouraging. i am still at a loss to why an opening sentence that puts forth the initial definition of ID along the lines of the dictionary definition: "the assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes" continues to be rejected since it does not use the word "God" or "god" or "G-d" or "a god" (making this issue moot, at least until later in the article where such a word might come up) and this does not preclude identifying ID's designer as whoever by whatever proponents and detractors later in the article, even in the lead paragraphs. why does such a neutral and cited definition continue to be outright rejected? what is the justification for such? r b-j 19:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<arbitrarily reduced indent> rbj, not sure why you're encouraged, unless you're of the belief that we should keep the lead as is. FM is not indicating anything more than the move to change the lead is an attempt to be disingenuous. Dave Souza and Kenosis are being somewhat sarcastic (or maybe not) but it's clear that they don't think a change is necessary. So, I guess you're on board on not changing the lead. Good!!!! Orangemarlin 20:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why do you guys continue to misrepresent nearly everything i say? how does one continue assuming good faith (without lobotomizing one's self) when nearly every time one's position is restated by the other side they mispresent it? read what i said in response to whom i was responding to (not FM). i'm not repeating it. you guys do not act in good faith. assuming good faith is reasonable, continuing to believe it after it has repeatedly been violated is just stupid. r b-j 21:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does "God" (capitilised) mean Monotheism

From Wikipedia God

The name God refers to the deity held by monotheists to be the supreme reality. God is generally regarded as the sole creator of the universe.[1] As of 2007, a majority of human beings are classified as adherents of religions that worship a monotheistic God, usually the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

I've already detracted that other editors should refrain from using wikipedia article descriptiions (i.e. that teleological argument says it "is an argument for the existence of God or a creator..."). So I recognise my hypocrisy.

This quote however does show that confusion over usage of the term "God" (capitalised) will most certainly occur. It is term most easily associated with a deification of "the supreme reality".

This confusion is easily avoided by using the term design argument which means exactly the same, but does not provide this confusion. I am not arguing for a content change (I see no shift in meaning, do you?). I am arguing for a wording change that will improve the clarity of this article to readers.

ID proponents admit, that even despite their own personal beliefs, hopes and/or agendas, ID does not necessarily implicate their version of a supreme deity, or even a dupreme deity at all; even though this is (and has been) the most likely conclusion by any adherent, audience or critic. These facts should all be made clear in the article.--ZayZayEM 05:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have omitted the dablink:

KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing your POV ZZM. "Design argument" does not mean the same thing, it is a method to make ID seem to be a non-religious or possibly even scientific "theory" to describe how life evolved. It almost appears to be a legal argument to get around the falsifiability portion of Scientific method. What you and others are trying to do is remove the reference to G_d as method to walk through a loophole of science. That's POV plain and simple. Orangemarlin 20:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unintentional (?) Quote mining in lead

If you look at the context of the quote text used to source the lead here [11]

We initially note that John Haught, a theologian who testified as an expert witness for Plaintiffs and who has written extensively on the subject of evolution and religion, 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. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer. (Trial Tr. vol. 9, Haught Test., 7-8, Sept. 30, 2005). Dr. Haught testified that Aquinas was explicit that this intelligent designer “everyone understands to be God.” Id. The syllogism described by Dr. Haught is essentially the same argument for ID as presented by defense expert witnesses Professors Behe and Minnich who employ the phrase “purposeful arrangement of parts.”

The currently used quoted text is not the words of the judgement. It is the words of John Haught being quoted by the judgement. This is a form of quote mining.

Wouldn't it be better to use or add "The syllogism described by Dr. Haught is essentially the same argument for ID" This is a statement by the decisors agreeing with Dr Haught's assessment. Dr Haught's assessment should not be utilised as neutral, but the judgement's agreement can.--ZayZayEM 05:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quote mining? I doubt it very much. Here's the entire relevant quote from Kitzmiller v. Dover: Kenosis 09:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Page 24 of 139 ]The concept of intelligent design (hereinafter “ID”), in its current form, came into existence after the Edwards case was decided in 1987. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. We initially note that John Haught, a theologian who testified as an expert witness for Plaintiffs and who has written extensively on the subject of evolution and religion, 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. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer. (Trial Tr. vol. 9, Haught Test., 7-8, Sept. 30, 2005). Dr. Haught testified that Aquinas was explicit that this intelligent designer “everyone understands to be God.” Id. The syllogism described by Dr. Haught is essentially the same argument for ID as presented by defense expert witnesses Professors Behe and Minnich who employ the phrase “purposeful arrangement of parts.” Dr. Haught testified that this argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley and defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich admitted that their argument for ID based on the “purposeful [Page 25 of 139] arrangement of parts” is the same one that Paley made for design. (9:7-8 (Haught); Trial Tr. vol. 23, Behe Test., 55-57, Oct. 19, 2005; Trial Tr. vol. 38, Minnich Test., 44, Nov. 4, 2005). The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID’s “official position” does not acknowledge that the designer is God. However, as Dr. Haught testified, anyone familiar with Western religious thought would immediately make the association that the tactically unnamed designer is God, as the description of the designer in Of Pandas and People (hereinafter “Pandas”) is a “master intellect,” strongly suggesting a supernatural deity as opposed to any intelligent actor known to exist in the natural world. (P-11 at 85). Moreover, it is notable that both Professors Behe and Minnich admitted their personal view is that the designer is God and Professor Minnich testified that he understands many leading advocates of ID to believe the designer to be God. (21:90 (Behe); 38:36-38 (Minnich)). Although proponents of the IDM occasionally suggest that the designer could be a space alien or a time-traveling cell biologist, no serious alternative to God as the designer has been proposed by members of the IDM, including Defendants’ expert witnesses. (20:102-03 (Behe)). In fact, an explicit concession that the intelligent designer works outside the laws of nature and science and a [Page 26 of 139] direct reference to religion is Pandas’ rhetorical statement, “what kind of intelligent agent was it [the designer]” and answer: “On its own science cannot answer this question. It must leave it to religion and philosophy.” (P-11 at 7; 9:13-14 (Haught)). A significant aspect of the IDM is that despite Defendants’ protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. [End of the most relevant passage from the Kitzmiller decision] 09:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should let the article definition as it is, and expand the text of the first reference/note to include a summary of this discussion: (1) this is the most reliable and neutral source (2) the other less reliable sources are ... and argue that ... --BMF81 09:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion taking account of the above

Taking the points that the "design argument" needs to be mentioned at the outset and that Jones' judgement states "The only apparent difference... is that ID’s “official position” does not acknowledge that the designer is God" as well as "ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity", here's a suggested rephrasing:

Intelligent design is a development of the design argument, which is traditionally an argument for the existence of God, reframed with the assertion that it cannot address the nature or identity of the designer as that must be left to religion and philosophy. It is presented as the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, say that they believe the designer to be God and have described their aim as “theistic and Christian science" which includes the supernatural. They claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.

Citations for all the points are shown in earlier posts. .. dave souza, talk 10:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good shot, but it reads like a legal document. Personally, I think starting the article off with a reference to traditional teleological arguments is a bit pejorative -- like starting off the abiogenesis article with "Abiogenesis is a modern form of spontaneous generation." Yes, that is true, but you could argue that abiogenesis and intelligent design are both modern forms of old theories using modern information, and even though their roots might be in very old ideas, their modern forms are very dissimilar to those roots. --Kgroover 12:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would be like saying that abiogenesis is the generation of living matter from non-living matter (and hey, that's pretty much how that article starts out). A- = "without"; bio- = "life"; -genesis = "origin". Intelligent design is made up of two words - "intelligent" and "design" - as the name says, it's a design argument, which is a teleological argument, which is an argument for the existence of God. So both articles currently start out with a definition of the term which stems from the meaning of the word, rather than with a marketing slogan. Imagine that! Guettarda 15:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first step, intelligent design argument = teleological argument, uses the broad sense of teleological. The second step, teleological argument = argument for the existence of God, uses the narrow sense of teleological. So I don't think going all the way to claim intelligent design argument = argument for the existence of God really works. -- Cat Whisperer 15:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, not all teleological arguments are arguing for capital-G God.--Kgroover 17:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kgroover, please provide citations supporting your assertion that the modern form of ID is very dissimilar to its roots. Secondly, what part of "A significant aspect of the IDM is that despite Defendants’ protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity" don't you understand? ..... dave souza, talk 17:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is ID different? I'll use this article (which is linked to from the teleological page.) Aquinas believed there was a designer because:

1. Things are in motion, so they must have a non-moving counterpart to guide them.

2. Everything we know is caused by something else, so there must have been a thing to cause them.

Maybe if you're extremely cynical you can equate that with Behe et al's work, but from my standpoint they are fairly dissimilar. Second, simple logic tells you that if someone argues that the complexity and interdependence of nature is evidence of a creator they are not necessarily saying that Moses crossed the Red Sea, a serpent talked to Adam, the Earth was created in six literal days, or that Jesus rose from the dead after spending a lifetime of healing people and walking on water, regardless of what Barbara Forrest says. Again, I'll point to Antony Flew. --Kgroover 18:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<unindent> So. On the one hand, we have your original research giving your personal opinion that facts about Aquinas show ID is very different from its roots, and on the other we have a reference explicitly examining evidence provided by proponents and opponents of ID, noting that "expert witnesses Behe and Minnich admitted that their argument for ID... is the same one that Paley made for design", and concluding that "The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID... is that ID’s “official position” does not acknowledge that the designer is God." (see above for the full statement) As for Flew, from the linked sources in that article he now rather coyly and obscurely seems to believe in some form of God (note the capital), has been hailed in America and given an award by Johnson, and has assured us that he's "not 'one of them'." Certainly not a leading proponent of intelligent design, and it's hard to seem him as any more of a proponent of it than the Pope – an argument we've had already, thank you. You think my suggestion "reads like a legal document", which seems pretty appropriate for an argument developed by a retired lawyer and a bunch of theologians with some scientific or mathematical credentials. I'm content with it or with the present intro. .. dave souza, talk 19:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, you think Aquinas' version of the design argument is similar to ID? In what ways?--Kgroover 19:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, before you say "it doesn't matter what I think", I just want to comment that this whole circuitous route of discovering that a fairly liberal and un-fundamentalist teleological conjecture is actually a plot by American fundies to get kids to handle snakes (or something like that) seems to be a large stack of quotes taken slightly out of context, amplified in importance, given the status of fact, and arranged into a very complicated (maybe even irreducibly complex?) stack of cards. If I have time, I'll come back to this tonight to expand further.--Kgroover 19:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before you do, please read WP:A, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT carefully. .. dave souza, talk 20:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I was just accused of being in cahoots with fundies. That's a new one!!!!! Orangemarlin 20:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think I had one too many parenthetical clauses in there for my point to be clear. Don't worry, OM, you're not a fundie! :) --Kgroover 20:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best yet Dave. This is a great non-ambigious lead. Reading like a "legal document" should not really stop it going through (I don't agree with that assertion either). I think possibly the second and third sentance could be switch intermingled, in order to illustrate that the quoted presentation of ID is also coming from the Institute. But abopve that I'd really like to see this version inserted into the article so we can get rid of the narrow view of "argument for God" out of there.--ZayZayEM 01:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also find this version to better then the current and it resolves my issues. Morphh ^(talk) 1:57, 05 April 2007 (UTC)

Following the suggestion that we really need to work to improve the article instead of just criticizing it, I took Dave's version above, rearranged it a bit and reworded some things I thought were pejorative, and came up with this:

Intelligent design is the proposition that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. It is a modern form of the design argument (an argument for the existence of God), framed in such a way that it does not identify the nature or identity of the designer. Its primary proponents are part of the Discovery Institute, a think tank which promotes "theistic and Christian science". They believe the designer to be the God of Christianity, and claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.

Thoughts? --Kgroover 13:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great lead - I think this is probably the best one yet. Morphh ^(talk) 13:26, 05 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like Dave's better. It manages to incorporate mostly text from the current lead (already agreed on by consensus) and changes mostly only that which has come under dispute here. The phrasing of "certain features...best explained..." NEEDS to be in quotation marks. I also think "primary proponents are part of the DI" is less strong c.f. "Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute".--ZayZayEM 14:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took the quotations out because it had the ring of finger quotes, kind of a sarcastic rolling-eyes "this is what those guys say it is but they're liars" feel to it. Maybe it could be reworded but still say essentially the same thing if you're uncomfortable with quoting the DI. As for the alternative to "its leading proponents, all of whom etc." being less strong, yes it is, and that's why I changed that. The current wording makes it seem like there is no one in the world who is a proponent of ID besides members of the DI, which is untrue. There are politicians, community leaders, etc. who are proponents who are not part of the DI. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kgroover (talk • contribs) 14:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Scientific version?

I had always thought it odd that ID wasn't considered science, but after reading some of the statements cited in this article, I have a better understanding as to why. My question is this — is there a scientific counterpart to ID? I had previously considered ID to be scientific because I thought it included the claims of groups such as the Raëlian Church which, while religious in nature, are not based on the beliefs of any Abrahamic religion (and are actually quite naturalistic, if outlandish). Although in reviewing the articles on the beliefs of the Raëlian movement I think my assumptions there may be wrong as well, the point still remains that it's at least possible to construct a purely naturalistic theory in which humanity was designed by alien beings or some other non-deity. This also seems to be a perfectly testable hypothesis, since one could conceivably detect markers of some sort in our genetic code (or some other indicators) that demonstrated the influence of design. Mind you, I don't believe any such things, but I think such ideas would indeed be scientific. There's no reason to assume that the "designer" of ID needs to be the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God, or indeed any god at all.

Now, I understand (at least assuming the article is correct) that ID at least implicitly assumes that the designer is God (or a god) — but are there alternative formulations that don't make such assumptions? I'm asking both out of curiosity and because I think a lot of the energy that some ID defenders put into their work could be more productively focused (from a mainstream point of view, at least) on a more scientific variant. For example, I have on occasion defended ID in the past (in person, not here) on the grounds that it was scientific, albeit unlikely to be true. I think I misunderstood ID, but I do think it's important to recognize that scientific theories in opposition to evolution are indeed possible and important to consider (if only to help us determine more fruitful directions of research in strengthening our understanding of evolution).

--Sapphic 19:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. And I also have read that some are considering searching the DNA for some sort of signature in the way SETI searches outer space. For instance if we are able (and soon will be) to create new genetic structures we would want to put some sort of identifier in them to distinguish them from natural ones. Life looks designed and it is likely that if it is the designers put some kind of code to indicate that. Can we look for prime number sequences in the code? 68.109.234.155 19:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sapphic, you make some good points, but I think in the end what you state is outside of science. Throughout history, when people didn't understand something, they went to the supernatural, whether it was the Judeo-Christian-Muslim G_d, or the Nordic or Greco-Roman gods, or aliens from outer space. Science doesn't default to the supernatural when it can't find an "answer" to a hypothesis. Evolution, the start of life on Earth, etc. etc. all have solid scientific theories, generally called Evolution, that accounts for it all. Yes, there are questions or gaps here and there, but more or less, we know what has happened. And where we are stumped, such as the K-T extinction, we eventually figured it out. From a cosmological standpoint, the only thing that troubles me is the big bang, because what was there before it? That's another question for which we have not figured out the answer, but I assume some day we will. There are no scientific theories that would cover ID, because it is not a science. It defaults to some designer, which cannot be tested scientifically. People who believe in ID won't believe in falsfiability (that is that we can test the falseness of a scientific theory), because that would mean that a supreme supernatural being does not exist. It's hard for a religious person to accept that. Evolution does not presuppose the existence or non-existence of a supernatural being, so that should work for you. There might be a scientific theory that "opposes Evolution", but ID isn't going to one of them, because ID by its very nature is not science. As for the anonymous users comment about DNA from outer space--that is just as nonscientific. Orangemarlin 20:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it unscientific? We can search the DNA for signatures. Its a long shot, just like hoping we will get a signal back from outer space like SETI does. And how can one falisfy that life exists somewhere in space. I do not see how that can be falsified either. And I heard discussed here that falisifiablity it not necessarily needed for a theory to be scientific. Not everyone agrees with Popper. 68.109.234.155 20:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from a scientific point of view, the first question about "Life looks designed" is why? Is it a cultural or genetic tendency to see design in things, in the same way as we see faces in anything with two dots and a line :) ... Occam's razor cuts away the alien / supernatural explanation unless there's more convincing evidence....... dave souza, talk 20:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biological living entities are the only thing in nature that have very much in common with man-made machines. Thus the logical inference that they are designed. Occams razor does not apply in every case 68.109.234.155 22:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And second, please read Scientific method. I'm not sure who said anything about falsfiability not being a part of science, but in fact it is. As for any design, whether it is aliens or not, assumes something so complicated that it is not within the realm of science. I don't see design anywhere. If someone did design life, then I'd demand a refund. Why is that a delicious marbled steak eaten every day can lead to heart disease (OK, it can't by itself, but I'm trying to make a point here). You see, if someone was designing that beautiful steak, then they should have designed the coronary arteries to not clog up.Orangemarlin 20:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many philosophers of science do not feel that falsifiablity is necessary. The theory that there is life somewhere in the unviverse other than earth is not falsifible yet most would not say that the work SETI is doing is unscientific. Much of what we consider scientific is not falsifiable. 68.109.234.155 22:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just now realized that the topic I wanted to discuss (if there are scientific versions of ID) is being discussed in threads higher up (but under potentially misleading section titles) so I'll move my discussion up there. I do want to make a few points, though:

The theory (as I understand it) put forward by the user at IP 68.109.234.155 — that human beings are the product of deliberate genetic engineering that might bear a "signature" design pattern of some sort to indicate authorship, just as commercial genetic engineering performed by human scientists will quite likely use similar techniques... think how we currently tag certain parts of the genome with radioactive markers of various types — is perfectly scientific, and is indeed analogous to the situation with SETI.
I, personally, do not consider such a scenario very likely.
There are indeed theories in the philosophy of science that question the need for falsifiability (for instance by substituting things like having a self-correcting mechanism, to get the same effect) but I don't think that represents the mainstream view among philosophers, let alone scientists.
In any event, 68.109.234.155's theory is perfectly falsifiable by finding a natural history for the development of the human genome that doesn't include any unnatural "signature" element. We could approximate this by tracing back from humans to their closest more primitive ancestor, showing that the differences could have reasonably developed from some natural process (possibly by means of some computer simulation or other mathematical model) and thus that no unnatural element has been introduced. 68.109.234.155's theory is different from ID in that the signature pattern ("irreducible complexity" or whatever mark) isn't allowed to be in the laws of nature or design of the universe itself or whatnot – it has to be in our genome, and it has to be obvious (once you know the "language" of our genes).
Simply because something is a valid though as-yet-untestable scientific theory, that doesn't say anything one way or another about its truth or falsity. Science can take care of itself without us having to label theories as unscientific when they're really just wrong. Their wrongness doesn't tarnish the image of science.

--Sapphic 00:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. actually after reading over the comments more closely, I think I just read into 68.109.234.155's words what I was already thinking, since as written they say that all of life would bear the DNA "signature" and not just humans. I thought the Raëlian movement believed that humans bore some sort of mark in their genetic code as proof of our alien designers' handiwork, but I can't find anything about it now. Anyway, I ended up at this article because I thought such ideas might fall under the category of ID, but apparently not, or that kind of thing gets in the way of the feuding religious and anti-religious camps that seem to like to fight here. Anyway, now I'm wondering if such theories (however crazy they may be) actually belong at this article, and the religious stuff belongs at the Intelligent design movement article. At the very least, I think there needs to be an article describing theories that actually do fall into the category that the ID movement pretends to believe in for their own purposes. --Sapphic 01:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied from above)

Yes, we should repeat all partisan rhetorical devices used as thought-terminating clichés in their article's intros as if they were fact. I could also just as easily argue that ID not specifying the designer as God is also an opinion - a conclusion based on their belief that doing so furthers their goal. We need to be circumspect here about allowing the ID movement's rhetoric define the topic; doing so would not be an improvement to neutrality. FeloniousMonk 05:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we do need to let the ID movement's rhetoric define the topic of Intelligent design, barring other work in the field done by some different group. I think that's fine for neutrality, because everything we want to say about the ID movement can be said in the article on the Intelligent design movement which would necessarily be linked to (possibly as a disambiguation) right at the top of this article. --Sapphic 00:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can Intelligent Design be scientific? Only to the extent that it modifies and corrects its position in the light of empirical evidence and regardless of faith. Can it be religous? Certainly, provided that it maintains a constant position, based on faith, regardless of empirical evidence. Can it be both? Only if there is no conflict: only if the evidence, on careful and rational evaluation, does indeed point to an intelligent designer. And if that is indeed the case, the evidence can be as well evaluated by an atheist or agnostic as it can by a believer, provided they each approach the evidence with an open mind. The irony is that if there is an intelligent designer, faith is not a requirement to discover that; it becomes irrelevant to the truth of the matter. SheffieldSteel 01:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is some confusion here in what I'm saying. I'm not suggesting that the goals of the Intelligent design movement might be met through their support of a genuine scientific theory (though I like the rhetorical device you use there, it is very clever) but rather that there are theories put forth by groups that have nothing to do with Christianity, some religious and some not, that would fall under the category of Intelligent design theories, if it were to be taken seriously. Not all of those theories are unscientific (assuming some normal definition of "scientific", including Popper's).

The belief that our entire universe is actually a simulation in some cosmic computer (or the Matrix?) and that we could scientifically discover that fact could be considered a form of Intelligent design. I think most variants will be religious in nature, but since they're not limited to Christian fundamentalists, we shouldn't let that dominate the article just because of the movement that introduced the term.

--Sapphic 01:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Intelligent Design Movement of the Discovery Institute has repeatedly failed tests of its scientific integretity. As it stands presently it is run by a bunch of men intent of pushing forth their religious dogma as science while simultaneously attacking teh very fundamentals of natural inquiry responsible for science. The Discovery Institute has shown virtually zero interest in pursuing any possible avenues of science produced by the generic design argument, instead it has applied more resources towards religous sycophancy, advertising, distributing misinformation and fallacies throughout the world. If the Discovery Institute, or a splinter group of them, actually decided to get down do some science, present it honestly and cease attacking science as a bunch of bigots who hate God and therefore must be wrong, I'd really hope the scientific community would warm up to them and put them in the same boat of "misguided kooks, but hey at least they are trying and maybe possibly one day they might have some vindication" as Homeopathy, SETI, and Aquatic Ape theorists. --ZayZayEM 01:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about them, nor do I care about them. The closest thing to a religion that I have would be Buddhism, I suppose. I understand that they introduced the term and are using what appears to be a scientific theory as a means to push their own agenda — but I'm more interested in the theory, whether or not it accurately describes the beliefs of the movement. I was looking for information on other groups that have similar theories to the Christians, but perhaps more explicitly scientific. There are other groups that believe that humans were either engineered (Raëlian movement) or otherwise modified from a natural state (Scientology.. I think) and there are even non-religious ideas such as computer simulation or your standard brain-in-a-vat type stuff. These ideas should really get to fall into the category that the Intelligent design movement is using as a "cover story" or whatever, because it's a legitimate category of scientific theories that we're just letting them co-opt. --Sapphic 02:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design (disambiguation) should help you out to find this information. The term "intelligent design" has been decided by wikipedia consensus to deal with the Intelligent design movement of the Discovery Institute. Perhaps this should be reexamined?

[{Teleological argument]] covers the more generic claims of a design inherent in nature by various factions.--ZayZayEM 04:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment: lead

Taking this to the next level of dispute resolution. Submitted Request for comment on the current lead sentence. Morphh ^(talk) 1:15, 05 April 2007 (UTC)

Saw this at RfC page, but I'm an active editor of other articles related to Evolution, Creation-evolution controversy, etc. I don't think using "for the existence of God" at the very beginning is useful. It obviously disagrees with the POV of proponents of ID, and I think the ID=God/creationism issue would be better mentioned a little (but not much!) later, where it could be specifically attributed to the Supreme Court. Better, in my opinion, is to just start with

Intelligent design is the argument that "certain features...."

Gnixon 02:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new here so I don't know a lot of the background but one thing I immediately notice after reading over the other threads is that there are several different entities that are being confused for each other. As I see it, the term Intelligent design can refer to:

An arguably scientific hypothesis that claims that the universe, or perhaps just life or even just human life, is the product of an intelligent designer that might be aliens, time-traveling descendants of humanity (in some causal paradox no doubt) or any number of things other than the God of Abrahamic tradition.
A religious movement that admittedly uses the aforementioned arguably scientific hypothesis as a cover story for their own more overtly religious agenda.
A hypothetical theory that represents the actual ideas held by members of the movement.

As a non-Christian who is only somewhat interested in the second two items, but who finds the first notion utterly fascinating (if implausible), I'm bothered by the fact that all three of these things seem to be lumped together and that the ensuing confusion serves to provoke and prolong endless debate by groups that are just talking past each other, since they're referring to different facets of the composite entity rather than the individual entities by themselves. The end result is that nothing useful gets said about the first item, which is ironically the only one that both the religious and non-religious groups ought to be able to agree on (though each for their own reasons).

I think it would be useful to draw the distinction between these three things in the very beginning of the article, since Intelligent design is really acting as a name for the whole topic in the article title, not any of the particular entities. It's almost like a disambiguation or summary page, but since the movement is probably what everyone is looking for, it should be the body of the article. Earlier I'd thought it was a good idea to just move the current page to Intelligent design movement and replace Intelligent design with one describing all such theories, whether they're Christian-based or not. However, given the prominence of the name, the fact that this is a featured article at the current name, etc. I now think an early link to Intelligent design theories or something similar, which could serve to describe the ideas of the various non-Christian groups with similar ideas – as well as the aspects of the theory that the DI claims to be their true beliefs, irrespective of their actual belief (which is discussed in detail here in relation to the overall topic).

--Sapphic 02:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would be needed is a reliable source postulating that scientific hypothesis for a non-god "creator" of the universe or of life on earth. It's been a common theme in science fiction, and could be argued to be the Raelian approach, but as far as I know the term intelligent design is not used by them to describe the concept. It would then be appropriate to add a disambiguation to that concept, but this article is needed to explain the term intelligent design as co-opted by the DI. ... dave souza, talk 10:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually came to this article looking for whatever concept it is that includes the Raelian beliefs (or what I understood to be their beliefs), and barring some better term I still think they should be called "Intelligent design theories" or something similar. Just because the DI has co-opted that term and uses it to advance their own religious agenda, that doesn't mean that the concept referred to by the term isn't a valid one or isn't scientific. Like it or not, the DI has popularized the term "Intelligent design" to the point that it would be strange not to use it to describe these other non-Christian beliefs. I realize that this may have been part of their plan since it could undermine their opponents' position that ID == Creationism, but I don't think that allowing other non-Christian beliefs to be labeled under this category would mean that suddenly we have to teach Raelian creation stories or Scientology or whatnot in science class. --Sapphic 14:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that persons now associated with the Discovery Institute (DI) have coined the term Intelligent Design (ID), and that these persons have a clear religious agenda to somehow make God scientific, and that there have been some subterfuge committed by this organization to get legislatures and school boards to introduce ID alongside of Darwinian evolution in school biology or science classes, and that this belief has been (rightfully, in my opinion) labelled as a psuedoscience by nearly everyone in the bona fide science community, and that this effort to put ID into the public school science class has bee (rightfully, in my opinion) struck down by a federal court and identified by this court as another "old religious argument for the existance of God", there is no other widespread dictionary or encyclopediac reference that defines, as a start, ID as an "argument for the existance of God" or as the teleological argument (which is the argument for the existance of God because of observed order in the universe is best attributable to design by God).

Indeed, above I have cited three other widespread online references (encyclopediac and dictionary) that define ID as:

American Heritage Dictionary: "the assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes."

Encyclopeida Britannica: "Argument intended to demonstrate that living organisms were created in more or less their present forms by an "intelligent designer"."

Columbia University Encyclopedia:"Intelligent design, theory that some complex biological structures and other aspects of nature show evidence of having been designed by an intelligence."

whereas the present (and protected) Wikipedia version opens with:

Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God.

The linking of Teleological argument with the words "argument for the existence of God" is appropriate because that is what the teleological_argument is. It is an argument for the existance of God. But there is no defining reference that ID is either. None at all. The reference given for this definition is that of the court ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, which is fine for an attributed opinion for what ID means. Indeed, it is important to have such an important legal opinion referred to and referenced in the article (and even in the lead paragraph), but this is no evidence of the definition of ID. It is an opinion, an important opinion, but one that must be attributed as required by WP:NPOV guidelines that state:

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth..." (emphasis mine)

" assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." ... By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." There are bound to be borderline cases where we are not sure if we should take a particular dispute seriously; but there are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion... Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. ..."

This last example in the policy is easily analogized as: "So, rather than asserting, "Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God" we can say, "A federal judge, John E. Jones III, has declared in his decision that intelligent design 'is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God'," which is a fact verifiable by record. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second instance we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone.

So what we have here is an encyclopedia that purports to have neutrality in its POV paramount ("A few things are absolute and non-negotiable, though. NPOV for example." in statement by Jimbo Wales in November 2003 and, in this thread reconfirmed by Jimbo Wales in April 2006) and where "stealing is wrong" is an opinion (that few dispute) but "Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God" is portrayed as unattribued fact (when this opinion could easily be converted to fact, as the guideline requires, by attributing it to the federal judge who said it), even as definition (one that dozens of editors "seriously dispute") which has no cited defining reference that supports this as definition, and when multiple NPOV alternatives have been suggested.

This whole dispute could be disarmed if these obstinate and truly POV-pushing editors (who reasonably believe that ID as put forth by the DI is a load of crap, as I do, and reasonably believe that the DI and its allies have launched a dishonest campaign to get Creationism put back into the science class by renaming it "Intelligent Design" and changing the language) would stop playing power politics and simply allow a cited NPOV definition for the lead (i.e. "the assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes") and deconstruct the falsehoods of the ID proponents in the body of the article. Instead, this conclusion that one reasonably gets to by examining the facts around the ID issue is stated as uncontested fact and moreover as the very definition of ID when niether is the case. Pushing this POV, using their role as admins (there are at least two admins that are doing this, maybe more) to protect the article in the version they prefer, and repeatedly misrepresenting my position, even though I had been more than clear about it, is indicative of intellectual dishonesty. Indeed, they even had me blocked for pointing out such. The dishonesty is "okay", but pointing out such will get one blocked. r b-j 04:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

r b-j, please read WP:NPA. .. dave souza, talk 10:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To summarise the dispute: Intelligent design is a design argument, which is a teleological argument. ID is described as being teleological by just about everyone:

the Library of Congress
William Dembski, the person who has done most to shape ID
Robert Pennock, a major opponent

ID is clearly a teleological argument. Based on the fact that a teleological argument is an argument for the existence of God, the current language was adopted after discussion. The statement has been made that the teleological argument is not the same as an argument for the existence of God, but no references have been provided. The opening proposed by Rbj is a slogan agreed upon by ID proponents over a decade ago as part of their "big tent" strategy...it was meant to be as vague as possible, and does not accurately reflect what ID is. Guettarda 13:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References have been provided that ID does not define the designer, which is more direct then a source stating a teleological argument is not the same as an argument for the existence of God. I think Cat said it well above - "The first step, intelligent design argument = teleological argument, uses the broad sense of teleological. The second step, teleological argument = argument for the existence of God, uses the narrow sense of teleological. So I don't think going all the way to claim intelligent design argument = argument for the existence of God really works." But this section is not for us to redebate it.. it's for others to comment. Morphh ^(talk) 13:14, 05 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I think Morphh and Guettarda are talking past each other. "ID" in the sense of the body of beliefs actually held by the DI is both a teleological argument (in general) and a teleological argument for God. "ID" in the sense of just the more restrictive, arguably scientific theory that the DI claims to hold, is only teleological in the more general sense. They're two different things. I don't think Guettarda would argue that the second use has any reference to God, because the whole point of it is that it does not. I don't think Morphh would argue that the first use isn't exactly what Guettarda says it is – a teleological argument for God. But maybe I'm wrong.. I'd like to know what each side thinks of my attempt to describe their positions by distinguishing differences in reference. --Sapphic 14:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it makes most sense to let the first sentence be a definition of ID offered by its proponents, i.e., the Discovery Institute not objectionable, just saying what they say. A second sentence could describe it as a teleological point of view, probably defining the termnot objectionable, just using a word both sides can accept. A second paragraph in the intro could discuss the history in an NPOV way, only saying when it arose, who put it forth (without a lot about their motivations), and how much notability it has gained. A third paragraph could cover the controversy in an NPOV way, saying how mainstream science rejects it, how the courts called it creationism, and discussing the motivations of its proponents in an attributable way. I suggest the body of the article follow the same plan. Seems to me that anyone impartial wouldn't have a problem with any of that. Gnixon 13:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a big improvement. In general, I don't think the lead complies with WP:LEAD and FA criteria 2a. Morphh ^(talk) 13:43, 05 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that sounds reasonable, and isn't too different from what I'm suggesting. I just think that each of those things (the view claimed by the DI, the DI (or Christian ID movement) itself, and the view actually held by the ID including their possibly disingenuous use of the first view) is really a distinct entity that people refer to using the term "Intelligent design" and should thus be distinguished.

I don't believe that anyone here is saying that the first view (the view claimed by ID proponents, whether or not they sincerely believe it) is religious. It's explicitly non-religious in fact, because that suits the agenda of the DI better. What's being claimed (with cited references) is that the DI (or Christian ID proponents in general) actually believes something different than what they say they believe, and it is this "hidden" theory that's being called teleological and religious.

Basically I think the very discussion that's played out here on the talk page (that the ID movement admittedly uses an arguably scientific theory as a "cover story" to push their own agenda) should be explained in the article, and that different terms should be used for the various conflated entities.

--Sapphic 13:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, although I'd say it a bit differently. ID is an idea that we can introduce simply. Soon after that, we should give the response of science and the courts, and then the arguments that its proponents have religious motivations. The truth of those arguments will probably be patently obvious, but let's make sure they're attributed so Wikipedia isn't making them. Keep faith in the readers! (To address a specific proposal, I would not recommend treating "the view actually held by the ID" as another meaning of ID. Separate what IDers say (which is by definition ID) from their motivations and "true" beliefs, the latter only if attributable statements can be made.) Gnixon 14:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get this line of reasoning. The stance of the Discovery Institute is that it is a teleological argument, in fact, that it is a teleological argument for God. --ZayZayEM 14:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What, specifically, is "it" ? --Sapphic 14:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religion or science?

I noticed that Morphh raised this discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy. Since part of the argument is that ID proponents portray it as science rather than religion, I've added it to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology#Biology and related. ... dave souza, talk 10:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC) fixed erroneous attribution 10:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea to post it both places. Gnixon 13:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stay focused on the article

I'd encourage other editors to stay focused on the article. Commenting on the merits of ID or engaging those who do so only distracts us from writing a good article. It should be easy for everyone to agree that proponents of ID argue it is science, not creationism, but that mainstream science considers it pseudoscience and a federal court has called it "a mere re-labeling of creationism." There's no need to argue who's right, and it's damaging to Wikipedia to spend time, effort, space, and credibility doing so. I'm disappointed to see that this article shares many of the flaws of its talk page. Gnixon 03:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second the motion. r b-j 03:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These points are well covered in the existing lead and in the article. Feel free to propose improvements. ... dave souza, talk 10:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not what's missing so much as what's there and shouldn't be. Btw, everyone should feel free to make improvements! Gnixon 13:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^ One of the governing goals of the Intelligent Design movement is to "replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God" Wedge Strategy Discovery Institute, 1999.

[1] One of the governing goals of the Intelligent Design movement is to "replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God" Wedge Strategy Discovery Institute, 1999.

[1]

@@ Line 836: / Line 836: @@
 :Great lead - I think this is probably the best one yet.  [[User:Morphh|<span style="color:green">Morphh</span>]]  <sup>[[user talk:Morphh|<span style="color:chocolate">(talk)</span>]]</sup> <small><i>13:26, 05 April 2007 (UTC)</i></small>
 :I like Dave's better. It manages to incorporate mostly text from the current lead (already agreed on by consensus) and changes mostly only that which has come under dispute here. The phrasing of "certain features...best explained..." NEEDS to be in quotation marks. I also think "primary proponents are part of the DI" is less strong c.f. "Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute".--[[User:ZayZayEM|ZayZayEM]] 14:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
-::I took the quotations out because it had the ring of finger quotes, kind of a sarcastic rolling-eyes "this is what those guys say it is but they're liars" feel to it.  Maybe it could be reworded but still say essentially the same thing if you're uncomfortable with quoting the DI.  As for the alternative to "its leading proponents, all of whom etc." being less strong, yes it is, and that's why I changed that.  The current wording makes it seem like there is no one in the world who is a proponent of ID besides members of the DI, which is untrue.  There are politicians, community leaders, etc. who are proponents who are not part of the DI.
+::I took the quotations out because it had the ring of finger quotes, kind of a sarcastic rolling-eyes "this is what those guys say it is but they're liars" feel to it.  Maybe it could be reworded but still say essentially the same thing if you're uncomfortable with quoting the DI.  As for the alternative to "its leading proponents, all of whom etc." being less strong, yes it is, and that's why I changed that.  The current wording makes it seem like there is no one in the world who is a proponent of ID besides members of the DI, which is untrue.  There are politicians, community leaders, etc. who are proponents who are not part of the DI. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Kgroover|Kgroover]] ([[User talk:Kgroover|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Kgroover|contribs]]) 14:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
 == Scientific version? ==