Talk:Intelligent design/Coolasclyde objections

Long post II

Let's try this again please.

Okay, I have gone through the entire text of the article to "specifically" point out the persuasive and biased text. I have taken much time to do this for the administrators sake. I ask that the administrators please give me the same courtesy and respect by looking at my requests with a very objective and open mind as I know they will. Thank you! All my comments have been added within the text for easy viewing and are added just below the text in question.

Discovery Institute

Intelligent design (ID) is the concept 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."[1] Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[2] say 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.[3]

There is no way you can account for all the leading proponents, nor can you distinguish between who all the leading proponent are and who is not. Connecting ID with the Discovery Institute an attempt to discredit ID. This has nothing to do with the definition of ID. Also, the Discovery Institute and its faculty are not the only ones who support ID. This text should be under the subheading “Criticisms of Intelligent Design Theory”Coolasclyde 22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

yes, we can and have. Please see All ID proponents from the Discover Institute above. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you haven't. It is impossible to account for all the leading proponents unless you can read minds. There is no way. You have a list of known proponents. That is all, nothing more. Coolasclyde 23:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

By any meaningful defintion of the term 'leading proponent' indeed we have. Many times. Name one leading proponent who isn't affiliated with the Discovery Institute. One previous discussion was here Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive29#Are_all_leading_ID_proponents_affiliated_with_Discovery_Institute.3F

The burden of proof is not on my shoulders; it is on yours. You have said "all" leading proponents are affiliated with DI, not me. One does not have to write books or speak in a well publicized debate to be a leading proponent. Thanks! Coolasclyde 23:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You're the one making the claim here. Name one. FeloniousMonk 23:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I will name one not associated with DI but who is a proponent of ID. We can do this over and over again if you wish. Here is person #1: Charles Colson. All I have to do is find one correct? It doesn't matter who it is or what their background is, as long as they are a proponent of ID and not affiliated with DI. Be honest now, please, and concede when one has been pointed out to you. Thank you sir! Coolasclyde 00:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Has Colson written many prominent intellgent design books? No. Is Colson quoted often by the press on significant ID matters? No. Is Colson called as an expert witness in ID litigation? No. Do observers of ID list him as a leader of the movement? No. Those they do list are Behe, Dembski, Johnson, Meyer, Wells, Pearcey, and maybe Berlinski. All are staff or fellows of the DI. Colson is not a 'leading proponent' by any stretch of either term. Nevertheless, as with most things ID, there is a DI connection; CCS fellow, Nancy Pearcey is the former executive editor of Breakpoint, a conservative talk radio show hosted by Colson, with whom Pearcey writes a regular column.[1] He does have a nice pic at Charles Colson, though. FeloniousMonk 00:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL indeed sir. I have found one on my first attempt. In addition to this, it appears that you and your co-conspirators have changed Charles Colson's entry on Wikipedia to negate this point and remove the "intelligent design" link and paragraph that displays him as a proponent of ID. You are a poor excuse for a administrator. This site is a sham and only a means to promote your viewpoint. Shame on you sir! I will report this removal. This is no coincidence at all. Again, I say shame on you sir! See the old link I am referring to: [2] Coolasclyde 00:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you post a diff, please? Thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

What is a diff? Acknowledge the removal of the paragraph on Charles Colson's page that descibes him as a proponent of ID please sir. Coolasclyde 00:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's the diff he meant: [3] It looks like WAS deleted mention of Colson being chairman of the Wilberforce Forum. This is funny because Colson being chairman of the Wilberforce Forum means he's then affiliated with the Discovery Institute too, as the Wilberforce Forum article states "It is now closely allied with the Discovery Institute, center of the intelligent design movement, the two sharing a number of fellows and advisors." Coolasclyde has painted himself into a corner on this one. You sure you want that content restored Coolasclyde? Jeez. FeloniousMonk 00:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you are getting desperate here I am afraid. You have admitted to removing the previous entry and now it has mysteriously been replaced. Yet you do not warn WAS nor do you take any administrative action towards him. However, you now concede that Colson is associated with DI. Wow, could you incriminate yourself any more blatantly? Unfortunately you are mistaken again, in that Charles Colson is not listed on DI's website as a fellow. Thank you! Coolasclyde 01:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Coolasclyde, I didn't believe it at first either, but indeed, ever single ID researcher, and more importantly all those researchers who write books or otherwise publish material in ID literature, are connected to the DI somehow. Although I am curious, why does this represent criticism of ID? JPotter 01:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid you are incorrect. Review the Dissent From Darwin list. Indeed, not every single scientist that finds substance with the theory of ID is associated with DI. Thank you! Coolasclyde 01:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

By no definition of 'leading proponent' would the signers of the Dissent From Darwin list qualify as "leading proponents." We've already provided you with the criteria used to define the term 'leading proponent': Having written prominent intellgent design books, or quoted often by the press on significant ID matters, called as an expert witness in ID litigation, or notable observers of ID listing an individual as a leader of the movement. This was previously discussed and settled a long time ago. Read the archives. Please stop wasting your time and our with nonsense objections. FeloniousMonk 03:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, I have read the archives, please review my suggestions. Colson is not on the list. Thank you! Coolasclyde 03:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

So if you have read the archive can you please explain why a) the relevant discussions in the archive don't matter b) How Colson is a "leading proponent" (other than that he is arguably a "leader" and a "proponent" c) why the claim shouldn't be there given that it is sourced d) deal with the fact that in any event, Colson is affiliated with the DI? JoshuaZ 03:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, I refer you to the term ignoratio elenchi. Thank you! Coolasclyde 04:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if there's any "ignorance of the issue" here, it wouldn't be on Joshua's head. He's one of our better contributors. You've been unresponsive to requests to discuss this whole matter in any meaningful way. I'm going to have to ask you to either answer relevant questions meaningfully or drop your objection. FeloniousMonk 04:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

To paraphrase Princess Bride, that fancy latin term you use- I do not think it means what you think it means. Maybe you could be more explicit about what the gap in logic is? JoshuaZ 04:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

To define: "a fallacy in logic of supposing a point proved or disproved by an argument proving or disproving something not at issue" Websters Dictionary. Thank you! Coolasclyde 04:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Majority of the scientific community

An overwhelming majority[4] of the scientific community views intelligent design as pseudoscience[5][6] or junk science.[7]

This is a biased statement that cannot be substantiated. How can one use say overwhelming majority unless one has defined scientific community, versed everyone in the scientific community on ID by an expert of ID theory, and asked them for their viewpoint? This has not been done. How can this be an unbiased and neutral point of view when ID is described as pseudoscience or junk science? This text should be under the subheading “Criticisms of Intelligent Design Theory”Coolasclyde 22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Try reading the archives[4]design/Archive26 KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have read the archives, again, there is no way one use say overwhelming majority unless one has defined scientific community, versed everyone in the scientific community on ID by an expert of ID theory, and asked them for their viewpoint? This has not been done. Coolasclyde 23:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

he scientific community both implicitly and explicitly endorse evolution over ID. We use the definition from DI because they are the leading ID promoters. If you have a better definition of ID, let's hear it. I've been searching for one for quite some time now. JPotter 23:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid you are wrong. Look up the Dissent From Darwin List on the Discovery Institutes website. Thanks! Coolasclyde 23:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The Dissent From Darwin List is not new evidence and is already covered in the article. The number of signees to the Dissent From Darwin List is vanishingly small compared to those who have endorsed condemnations of ID, see article's footnote. Also, please read the archives, starting with Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive27#Support_among_scientists FeloniousMonk 23:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid your rationale is incorrect again. The Dissent From Darwin list is of actual people not from a handful of a board of committee members representing members of a society or organization like that of those whom you speak of and cite above. Again, I have read the archives and re-reading them is not grounds for dismissing my suggestions without consideration. This game of referring people to the archives is frightening. It provides an escape goat to thwart attempts of needed revisions when the grounds for such revisions are clearly essential. I am beginning to lose my respect for this administration and website. I graciously ask you to seriously consider the suggestions made herein. Thank you sir! Coolasclyde 00:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You're frightened of reading archives? KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

What? And relying upon the six hundred or so signees of a partisan think tank's manifesto is a better rationale? The DI's managed to drum up 600 signees (many of whom are not biologists). Big deal. The 70,000 Australian scientists and educators signed a petition against intelligent design in school science classes: [5] Every single significant scientific professional organization, over 65, have issued policy statements declaiming ID. The National Academy of Science has come down hard against it. The Dover trial ruling specifically stated "To the contrary, evolution is the dominant scientific theory of origin accepted by the majority of scientists." [6] That the majority of the scientific community rejects ID as legitimate science is so well established as to be in the realm of fact - a given. Please don't continue to waste your time and ours with that objection. FeloniousMonk 00:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have read the archive. Thank you. New argument for not acknoledging my suggestions please. Coolasclyde 01:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Its perfectly legitimate to say that the overwhelming majority of scientsts, because that is accurate. The ID movement recongizes this, they constantly blame "mainstream" science for not letting their frige view into peer reviewed journals. Consider this, 600 or so signees signed the petition. Now, how many of them are trained in the life or earth sciences? Vs. the 500,000 or so practiicing life and earth scientists, in the US alone. Again, this isn't assailing ID on its merits, it's just stating fact. JPotter 01:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but your are incorrect again. Provide all the name of those 500,000 scientists please. You cannot thank you! Coolasclyde 01:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14% 5 However, the American public thinks very differently. I assume there are more life and earth scientists in the US today than there were in 1987. So one can reasonably say there are about 500,000 life and earth scientists, in the US; vs. the number of signees to the aforementioned petition. Again, these aren't ludicrous claims, they are well sourced and verifiable. Plus ID researchers readily they admit they are a minority. Still waiting for that definition of ID by the way. JPotter 03:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, I refer you to the Dissent From Darwin list that is tangible not estimated. I am not sure what you are waiting for. Thank you! Coolasclyde 03:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

So a tiny list of a few hundred scientists, many of whom have nothing to do with biology, who signed a statement that doesn't even mention ID, somehow compares to the vast majority of biolgists and other scientists represented by the myriad of scientific associations which have condemned ID and/or endorsed evolution? JoshuaZ 03:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, this is clearly trolling. Game over. FeloniousMonk 03:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No,sir. It is not. I am just persistent with my desire to accurately describe what is truth and point out error. I have not been rude at all. I have asked please and said thank you. I am afraid you do not wish to do your job and acutally review all of my suggestions. Thank you! Please review my suggestions. Coolasclyde 03:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

NAS

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[8]

The above text should be under the subheading “Criticisms of Intelligent Design Theory”Coolasclyde 22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Why? KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Because it is a statement of criticism. Coolasclyde 00:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

As explained to you previously, doing so would violate several policies and guidelines, not least of which is WP:NPOV. NPOV: Pseudoscience tells us "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." NPOV: Giving "equal validity" says "Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory..." Other guidelines which support the majority viewpoint in the intro is Wikipedia:Criticism#Criticism_in_a_.22Criticism.22_section says: "Criticism sections should not violate Article structures which can imply a view. These sections must not be created to marginalize criticism or critics of the article's topic or imply that this criticism is not true while the more positive claims in the rest of the article are. Reasons to create a separate "Criticism" section include using a source which only criticizes the topic or only describes criticisms of it. Also, not having the time or knowledge to integrate criticism into the other sections of the article might be a reason to create a separate "Criticism" section. In that case, however, the separate "Criticism" section might be only a temporary solution until someone integrates the criticism." Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structures_which_can_imply_a_view says: "Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact - the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate. Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should attempt to write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other." As I've said before, you need to become far more familiar with Wikipedia and it's policies, guidelines and conventions before criticizing long-standing article content and structure. FeloniousMonk 23:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, I think you are missing the point here sir. That is, that to categorize ID as pseudoscience is to persuade the reader towards a particular line of thinking that discredits ID itself. This is in violation of NPOV. Thank you sir! Coolasclyde 00:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, someone is indeed missing the point. FeloniousMonk 00:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

If it puports to be science, and it isn't, then it is pseudoscience. That's not POV, that's accuracy. If it is a member of the family Anatidae, its a duck, and it isn't POV to say so. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, I think you are missing the point here. That is, that to categorize ID as pseudoscience is to persuade the reader towards a particular line of thinking that discredits ID itself. This is in violation of NPOV. Thank you! Coolasclyde 01:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, no:

• NPOV: Pseudoscience: "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly."
• NPOV: Giving "equal validity": "Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory..."

WP:NPOV says just the opposite of what you claim. You simply either do not understand the policy or are ignoring it. FeloniousMonk 03:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point here. That is, that to categorize ID as pseudoscience is to persuade the reader towards a particular line of thinking that discredits ID itself. This is in violation of NPOV. Thank you! Coolasclyde 03:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Under that logic can we never classify something with a category that might to some people have negative connotations? Please read WP:V and WP:NPOV again. JoshuaZ 04:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Not true, this is suppose to be an objective depiction of ID. Not a high school english literature persuasive paper assignment. Thank you! Coolasclyde 04:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Dover

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach that intelligent design is an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.[9]

The above text should be under the subheading “Criticisms of Intelligent Design Theory”Coolasclyde 22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Why? KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, this suggestion violates NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Giving "equal validity", Wikipedia:Criticism#Criticism_in_a_.22Criticism.22_section, Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structures_which_can_imply_a_view and several other policies and guidelines. FeloniousMonk 23:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, if you cannot see how this text is persuasive then you should consult a high school english literature teacher. This is clearly, in violation of NPOV. Thank you sir! Coolasclyde 00:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

If you cannot understand NPOV then you should re-read the policy. Thank you sir! KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No, if he cannot understand NPOV then he has no business here. FeloniousMonk 00:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have re-read the NPOV. Please acknowledge the suggestions. Thank you! I am awaiting your CV. Coolasclyde 01:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

We've reviewed your suggestions and they have been rejected. Now move along and find a more productive way to contribute to the project. FeloniousMonk 03:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You have not reviewed them all. That is obvious because they have not been commented on. Please review them all. Thank you! Coolasclyde 04:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

ID vs evo

Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to natural explanations for evolution. This stands in opposition to conventional biological science, which relies on experimentation to explain the natural world through observed physical processes such as mutation and natural selection.

The above text is an attempt to persuade the reader and discredit ID. There is no reason why ID cannot be tested under the same scientific method that evolutionary theory uses to credit its theoretical construct. This text should be under the subheading "Criticisms of Intelligent Design Theory"Coolasclyde 22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No reason except that it is unfalsifiable, which makes it not testable. You are clearly not a scientist. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow! I didn't know that the rules allow the administrators to insult the users. Are you a scientist? Surely you must be to have made that assumption and claim. Is it a necessity to be a scientist in order to add to this discussion? If so, then you must be a scientist. Could you provide me with your CV please? I would like to see your publications and credentials. Thank you sir! I am awaiting your CV to be posted. Coolasclyde 00:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would stop calling me sir. I did not insult you. And you are now trolling. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I am still awaiting your CV mister scientist. Thank you! Coolasclyde 01:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You're objection is factually incorrect. The Dover ruling specifically stated that ID relies upon a supernatural explanation: [7][8][9] "We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community." FeloniousMonk 23:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, are you aware, or more importantly, has the reader been made aware that the definition of science caters toward a "naturalistic" interpretation? This supercedes any discussion of Kitzmiller vs. Dover. Please acknowledge the revisions and make the appropriate changes. Thank you sir! Coolasclyde 00:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

As opposed to supernatural, as in Gods and Demons and Aliens from another dimension? Superman and Wonder Woman and all that? Ghosts and Tarot cards? KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I am afraid that is your interpretation KC. Thank you! Coolasclyde 01:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No, that was a question, hence the question mark. Please answer. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

One I happen to agree with as well. FeloniousMonk 01:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

What part of "Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It ... does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory..." or "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." is unclear to you? Those are parts of Wikipedia's cornerstone policy, WP:NPOV, which is "absolute and non-negotiable." Learn it, love it. If that's something that doesn't work for you, you my find the pro-ID wiki researchintelligentdesign.org more to your liking. FeloniousMonk 00:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not a minority view. Please read the archives FM. Thank you! Coolasclyde 01:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Now I know you're trolling us. Please find a more productive way to contribute to the project. FeloniousMonk 03:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No, sir. I am not a troll nor am I trolling. I have not been rude at all and I have always said thank you and please. I just wish for you to review all of my suggestions please like you should. Thank you! Coolasclyde 04:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The use of "sir" "please" and "thank you" does not make one intrinsically polite. However, it is nice to see that you've stopped with the conspiracy allegations. This is a good thing. JoshuaZ 04:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Really, please indicate words you would use to display politeness on such a medium. By the way, it is not an allegation. Thank you! Coolasclyde 04:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Words are not the sole indicator of attitude. If you have ever seen the British parliment you would easily understand this. An MP can say something like "I am curious, did the right honorable gentleman who constructed this excellent proposal consider that it has flaws that would be seen by most school children?" The phrasing is polite but the content is not. And accusing people of conspiracy is never civil no matter the words used to do so. JoshuaZ 04:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have seen parliment discussions. Again, I refer you to the term ignoratio elenchi. Thank you! Coolasclyde 04:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Origins of the concept

For millennia, philosophers have argued that the complexity of nature indicates the existence of a purposeful natural or supernatural designer/creator. The first recorded arguments for a natural designer come from Greek philosophy. The philosophical concept of the Logos, an inherent ordering in the universe, is typically credited to Heraclitus in the 5th century BC, and is briefly explained in his extant fragments.[12] In the 4th century BC, Plato posited a natural "demiurge" of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the creator of the cosmos in his work Timaeus. Aristotle also developed the idea of a natural creator of the cosmos, often referred to as the "Prime Mover", in his work Metaphysics. In his de Natura Deorum, or "On the Nature of the Gods" (45 BC), Cicero stated that "the divine power is to be found in a principle of reason which pervades the whole of nature".[13] The use of this line of reasoning as applied to a supernatural designer has come to be known as the teleological argument for the existence of God. The most notable forms of this argument were expressed in the 13th century by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae,[14] design being the fifth of Aquinas' five proofs for God's existence, and by William Paley in his book Natural Theology (1802),[15] where he uses the watchmaker analogy, which is still used in intelligent design arguments. In the early 19th century such arguments led to the development of what was called Natural theology, the study of biology as a search to understand the "mind of God". This movement fueled the passion for collecting fossils and other biological specimens that ultimately led to Darwin's theory of the origin of species. Similar reasoning postulating a divine designer is embraced today by many believers in theistic evolution, who consider modern science and the theory of evolution to be fully compatible with the concept of a supernatural designer. Intelligent design in the late 20th century can be seen as a modern reframing of natural theology seeking to change the basis of science and undermine evolution theory.

This persuasive and biased text above should be under the subheading “Criticisms of Intelligent Design Theory”Coolasclyde 22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain what is biased about this text? JoshuaZ 04:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Movement

The intelligent design movement arose out of an organized neocreationist campaign directed by the Discovery Institute to promote a religious agenda[37] calling for broad social, academic and political changes employing intelligent design arguments in the public sphere, primarily in the United States.

The statement above is persuasive and at best, hearsay evidence. It is unfair to lump the entire movement into one organization to promote a religious agenda. This text should be under the subheading “Criticisms of Intelligent Design Theory”Coolasclyde 22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Leaders of the movement say intelligent design exposes the limitations of scientific orthodoxy and of the secular philosophy of Naturalism. Intelligent design proponents allege that science shouldn't be limited to naturalism, and shouldn't demand the adoption of a naturalistic philosophy that dismisses any explanation that contains a supernatural cause out of hand. The overall goal of the movement is to "defeat [the] materialist world view" represented by the theory of evolution in favor of "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".[38]

The text above is very subjective. Who are the leaders of the movement? Again you can’t say that the entire movement is characterized by the Discovery Institute and you can’t say objectively that the overall goal of the movement is to “defeat….” because that is just from one organization or person’s quote. This text should be under the subheading “Criticisms of Intelligent Design Theory”Coolasclyde 22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No it shouldn't, please reread the relevant policies about article organization. Also, please note that it is all sourced, and to be blunt, your claim that the DI is not a very useful indicator of what ID is about is laughable. They created ID, they were talking about ID before almost everyone. Dembski, Behe, all of them are DI affiliates. The DI or its affiliates have been involved in Ohio, Dover, Kansas, every single location where this has come up. JoshuaZ 04:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes it should. Actually, Thaxton started ID and Johnson quickly followed up on it. However, it was before DI was founded. Thank you! Coolasclyde 04:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

As the article says. Note that Thaxton is mentioned, and the part about the DI is the present tense. JoshuaZ 04:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Good for you but there is nothing useful added here in what you said. Are you familiar with the term ignoratio elenchi? Look it up and get back to me. Thank you! Coolasclyde 04:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I don't see how it applies here. You claimed that ID was a term used early on by Thaxton. This is true, and it is mentioned. No claim is made anywhere in the article that the DI came up with the term themselves, so what is your complaint? Are you saying that since they didn't invent the term we can't get any information about how it is used from them? JoshuaZ 04:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No. I was just saying that it wasn't developed by DI. Coolasclyde 04:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Phillip E. Johnson, considered the father of the intelligent design movement, stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast creationism as a scientific concept.[39][40] All leading intelligent design proponents are fellows or staff of the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture.[41] Nearly all intelligent design concepts and the associated movement are the products of the Discovery Institute which guides the movement and follows its wedge strategy while conducting its adjunct Teach the Controversy campaign.

Even if he did say this, Phillip Johnson is one person and he is a member of only one organization. This does not accurately depict the theory of ID. This just describes the Discovery Institute’s platform for ID. This text should be under the subheading “Criticisms of Intelligent Design Theory”Coolasclyde 22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Leading intelligent design proponents have made conflicting statements regarding intelligent design. In statements directed at the general public they state that intelligent design is not religious, while they state that intelligent design has its foundation in the Bible[40] when addressing conservative Christian supporters. Recognizing the need for support, the institute affirms their Christian, evangelistic orientation: "Alongside a focus on the influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. Well will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidences that support the faith, as well as "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture."[42]

“Leading intelligent design proponents” should replaced with the names of these people. Again, this is very persuasive and biased text. This text should be under the subheading “Criticisms of Intelligent Design Theory”Coolasclyde 22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Barbara Forrest, an expert who has written extensively on the movement, describes this as being due to the Discovery Institute obfuscating its agenda as a matter of policy. She has written that the movement's "activities betray an aggressive, systematic agenda for promoting not only intelligent design creationism, but the religious world-view that undergirds it."[43]

The text above is biased and persuasive and should be under the subheading “Criticisms of Intelligent Design Theory”Coolasclyde 22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

Religion and leading proponents

This entire subcategory is biased and persuasive should be deleted from the article or should be under the subheading “Criticisms of Intelligent Design Theory”Coolasclyde 22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent design's arguments are carefully formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid positing the identity of the designer. Phillip E. Johnson has stated that cultivating ambiguity by employing secular language in arguments which are carefully crafted to avoid overtones of theistic creationism is a necessary first step for ultimately reintroducing the Christian concept of God as the designer. Johnson emphasizes "the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion" and that "after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact ... only then can 'biblical issues' be discussed."[44] Johnson explicitly calls for intelligent design proponents to obfuscate their religious motivations so as to avoid having intelligent design identified "as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message."[45] Most of the principal intelligent design advocates, including Michael Behe, William Dembski, and Stephen C. Meyer, are Christians who have stated that in their view the designer of life is God. The vast majority of leading intelligent design proponents are evangelical Protestants. Jonathan Wells, another principal advocate, is a member of the Unification Church, headed by Reverend Sun-Myung Moon.

The conflicting claims made by leading intelligent design advocates as to whether or not intelligent design is rooted in religious conviction are the result of their strategy. For example, William Dembski in his book The Design Inference[46] lists a god or an "alien life force" as two possible options for the identity of the designer. However, in his book Intelligent Design: the Bridge Between Science and Theology Dembski states that "Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners don't have a clue about him. The pragmatics of a scientific theory can, to be sure, be pursued without recourse to Christ. But the conceptual soundness of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ."[47] Dembski also stated "ID is part of God's general revelation..." "Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology (materialism), which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ."[48]

Two leading intelligent design proponents, Phillip Johnson and William Dembski, cite the Bible's Book of John as the foundation of intelligent design.[49][40] Barbara Forrest contends that such statements reveal that leading proponents see intelligent design as essentially religious in nature, as opposed to a scientific concept that has implications with which their personal religious beliefs happen to coincide.[50] [edit]

Controversy A key strategy of the intelligent design movement is in convincing the general public that there is a debate among scientists about whether life evolved, seeking to convince the public, politicians, and cultural leaders that schools should "teach the controversy."[51] However, there is no such debate within the scientific community; the scientific consensus is that life evolved.[52][53][54] How is there a concensus in the scientific community that life evolved? Have you not seen the hundreds of university scientists that have signed the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list? This text should be deleted. Coolasclyde 22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC) Intelligent design is widely viewed as a stalking horse for its proponents' campaign against what they claim is the materialist foundation of science, which they argue leaves no room for the possibility of God.[55][56]

The above text is biased and persuasive and should be deleted from the article or should be under the subheading “Criticisms of Intelligent Design Theory”Coolasclyde 22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The intelligent design controversy centers on three issues: 1. Whether Intelligent design can be defined as science 2. Whether the evidence supports such theories 3. Whether the teaching of such theories is appropriate and legal in public education

The text above is hearsay. How can this be allowed? This text is biased and persuasive should be deleted from the article or should be under the subheading “Criticisms of Intelligent Design Theory”Coolasclyde 22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Natural science uses the scientific method to create a posteriori knowledge based on observation alone (sometimes called empirical science). Intelligent design proponents seek to change this definition[57] by eliminating "methodological naturalism" from science[58] and replacing it with what the leader of the intelligent design movement, Phillip E. Johnson, calls "theistic realism",[59] and what critics call "methodological supernaturalism," which means belief in a transcendent, non-natural dimension of reality inhabited by a transcendent, non-natural deity. Intelligent design proponents argue that naturalistic explanations fail to explain certain phenomena, and that supernatural explanations provide a very simple and intuitive[60] explanation for the origins of life and the universe. Proponents say that evidence exists in the forms of irreducible complexity and specified complexity that cannot be explained by natural processes. Supporters also hold that religious neutrality requires the teaching of both evolution and intelligent design in schools, saying that teaching only evolution unfairly discriminates against those holding creationist beliefs. Teaching both, intelligent design supporters argue, allows for the possibility of religious belief, without causing the state to actually promote such beliefs. Many intelligent design followers believe that "Scientism" is itself a religion that promotes secularism and materialism in an attempt to erase theism from public life, and view their work in the promotion of intelligent design as a way to return religion to a central role in education and other public spheres. Some allege that this larger debate is often the subtext for arguments made over intelligent design, though others note that intelligent design serves as an effective proxy for the religious beliefs of prominent intelligent design proponents in their efforts to advance their religious point of view within society.[61][62][63]

According to critics, intelligent design has not presented a credible scientific case, and is an attempt to teach religion in public schools, which the United States Constitution forbids under the Establishment Clause. They allege that intelligent design has substituted public support for scientific research.[64] Furthermore, if one were to take the proponents of "equal time for all theories" at their word, there would be no logical limit to the number of potential "theories" to be taught in the public school system, including admittedly silly ones like the Flying Spaghetti Monster "theory" (a deliberate parody of intelligent design). There are innumerable mutually-incompatible supernatural explanations for complexity, and intelligent design does not provide a mechanism for discriminating among them. Furthermore, intelligent design is neither observable nor repeatable, which critics argue violates the scientific requirement of falsifiability. Indeed, intelligent design proponent Michael Behe concedes "You can't prove intelligent design by experiment."[65]

The text above is biased and persuasive should be deleted from the article or should be under the subheading “Criticisms of Intelligent Design Theory”Coolasclyde 22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Though evolution theory does not seek to explain abiogenesis, the generation of life from nonliving matter,

Wrong. Yes, it does. Evolutionary theory is taught in our schools and universities to account exactly for the beginning of life itself. This text is biased and persuasive should be deleted. Coolasclyde 22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

intelligent design proponents cannot infer that an intelligent designer is behind the part of the process that is not understood scientifically, since they have not shown that anything supernatural has occurred. The inference that an intelligent designer (a god or an alien life force)[46] created life on Earth has been compared to the a priori claim that aliens helped the ancient Egyptians build the pyramids.[66][67] In both cases, the effect of this outside intelligence is not repeatable, observable, or falsifiable, and also violates the principle of parsimony. From a strictly empirical standpoint, one may list what is known about Egyptian construction techniques, but must admit ignorance about exactly how the Egyptians built the pyramids. The criticism of intelligent design has not been limited to scientific community; some religious individuals and groups have objected to intelligent design as well, often on theological or moral grounds.[68] Many religious people do not condone the teaching of what is considered unscientific or questionable material, and support theistic evolution which does not conflict with scientific theories.

“Many religious people”? Like who? How can this statement be made with no citations? Why is religion even tied in with ID? This is appropriately biased and persuasive and should be deleted from the article or should be under the subheading “Criticisms of Intelligent Design Theory”Coolasclyde 22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

An example is Cardinal Schönborn who sees "purpose and design in the natural world" yet has "no difficulty... with the theory of evolution [within] the borders of scientific theory." This is irrelevant. Coolasclyde 22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC) [edit]

Defining intelligent design as science The scientific method refers to a body of techniques for the investigation of phenomena and the acquisition of new knowledge of the natural world, without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural, an approach sometimes called methodological naturalism. Intelligent design proponents claim that this can be equated to materialist metaphysical naturalism and have often said that their own position is not only scientific, but that it is even more scientific than evolution, and want a redefinition of science as a revived natural theology or natural philosophy to allow "non-naturalistic theories such as intelligent design".[69] This presents a demarcation problem, which in the philosophy of science is about how and where to draw the lines around science. For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:

This is because the definition of scientific omits inclusion of ID. Again this is persuasive and nonobjective. Coolasclyde 22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Consistent (internally and externally) • Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor) • Useful (describes, explains and predicts observable phenomena) • Empirically testable & falsifiable (see Falsifiability) • Based upon multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments • Correctable & dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered) • Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more) • Provisional or tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer criteria that are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a couple or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word. Typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency,[70] violates the principle of parsimony,[71] is not falsifiable,[72] is not empirically testable,[73] and is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive.[74]

In light of its apparent failure to adhere to scientific standards, in September 2005 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."[75] And in October 2005 a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and called on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory."[76]

The above text is biased and persuasive and should be deleted from the article or should be under the subheading “Criticisms of Intelligent Design Theory”. It should also be thoroughly explained to the reader that the definition of “scientific” is narrow and only supportive of a naturalistic interpretation via Darwian evolutionary theory. This text is biased and persuasive should be deleted from the article or should be under the subheading “Criticisms of Intelligent Design Theory”Coolasclyde 22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC) Intelligent design critics also say that the intelligent design doctrine does not meet the criteria for scientific evidence used by most courts, the Daubert Standard. The Daubert Standard governs which evidence can be considered scientific in United States federal courts and most state courts. The four Daubert criteria are:

Please remove “doctrine”. Again, this is persuasive text. Coolasclyde 22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• The theoretical underpinnings of the methods must yield testable predictions by means of which the theory could be falsified. • The methods should preferably be published in a peer-reviewed journal. • There should be a known rate of error that can be used in evaluating the results. • The methods should be generally accepted within the relevant scientific community. In deciding Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District on December 20, 2005, Judge John E. Jones III agreed with the prosecution, ruling that "we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

It should be pointed out to the reader that the definition of science is constrained by its naturalistic criteria. This text is biased and persuasive should be deleted from the article or should be under the subheading “Criticisms of Intelligent Design Theory”Coolasclyde 22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

Peer review

This entire subcategory of text is biased and persuasive should be deleted from the article or should be under the subheading “Criticisms of Intelligent Design Theory”Coolasclyde 22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The failure to follow the procedures of scientific discourse, and the failure to submit work to the scientific community which withstands scrutiny, have weighed against intelligent design being considered valid science.[77] To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.[77]

Intelligent design, by appealing to a supernatural agent, directly conflicts with the principles of science, which limit its inquiries to empirical, observable and ultimately testable data, and which require explanations to be based upon empirical evidence. Dembski, Behe and other intelligent design proponents claim bias by the scientific community is to blame for the failure of their research to be published. Intelligent design proponents believe that the merit of their writings is rejected for not conforming to purely naturalistic non-supernatural mechanisms rather than on grounds of their research not being up to "journal standards". This claim is described as a conspiracy theory by some scientists.[78] The issue that the supernatural explanations do not conform to the scientific method became a sticking point for intelligent design proponents in the 1990's, and is addressed in the wedge strategy as an aspect of science that must be challenged before intelligent design could be accepted by the broader scientific community.

The debate over whether intelligent design produces new research, as any scientific field must, and has legitimately attempted to publish this research, is extremely heated. Both critics and advocates point to numerous examples to make their case. For instance, the Templeton Foundation, a former funder of the Discovery Institute and a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that they asked intelligent design proponents to submit proposals for actual research, but none were ever submitted. Charles L. Harper Jr., foundation vice president, said that "From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review."[79] At the Kitzmiller trial the judge found that intelligent design features no scientific research or testing.

The only article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that made a case for intelligent design was quickly withdrawn by the publisher for having circumvented the journal's peer-review standards. Written by the Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture Director Stephen C. Meyer, it appeared in the peer-reviewed journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington in August 2004. The article was literature review, which means that it did not present any new research, but rather culled quotes and claims from other papers to argue that the Cambrian explosion could not have happened by natural processes. The choice of venue for this article was also considered problematic, because it was so outside the normal subject matter. (see Sternberg peer review controversy)

In the Kitzmiller trial, intelligent design proponents referenced just one paper, on simulation modeling of evolution by Behe and Snoke, that mentioned neither irreducible complexity nor intelligent design and that Behe admitted did not rule out known evolutionary mechanisms. Dembski has written that "Perhaps the best reason [to be skeptical of his ideas] is that intelligent design has yet to establish itself as a thriving scientific research program."[80]

Is evolutionary theory a “thriving scientific research program”? Absolutely not. Contrary to this belief thriving research programs that are well funded through NIH, AHA, and other organizations don’t base their research on evolutionary theory. No one would be able to get funded because evolution is a theory. Any research grant based on evolutionary theory wouldn’t be even considered because evolutionary theory cannot be proven as a fact. This text is biased and persuasive should be deleted from the article or should be under the subheading “Criticisms of Intelligent Design Theory”Coolasclyde 22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

In a 2001 interview Dembski said that he stopped submitting to peer-reviewed journals because of their slow time-to-print and that he makes more money from publishing books.[81]

In sworn testimony at the Kitzmiller trial Behe stated that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred."[82] Further, as summarized by the judge, Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting his claims of intelligent design or irreducible complexity. Despite this, the Discovery Institute continues to claim that a number of intelligent design articles have been published in peer reviewed journals,[83] including in their list the two articles mentioned above. Critics, largely members of the scientific community, reject this claim, pointing out that no established scientific journal has yet published an intelligent design article. Instead, intelligent design proponents have set up their own journals with "peer review" which lack impartiality and rigor,[84] consisting entirely of intelligent design supporters.[85] [edit]

“intelligent design proponents have set up their own journals with "peer review" which lack impartiality and rigor,[84] consisting entirely of intelligent design supporters.[85] “ This is hearsay, nothing more. How can you substantiate claims of a lack of impartiality and rigor? This text is biased and persuasive should be deleted from the article or should be under the subheading “Criticisms of Intelligent Design Theory”Coolasclyde 22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Intelligence as an observable quality The phrase intelligent design makes use of an assumption of the quality of an observable intelligence, a concept that has no scientific consensus definition.

There is no citation for the above text. How can such a claim be made? This text is biased and persuasive should be deleted from the article or should be under the subheading “Criticisms of Intelligent Design Theory”Coolasclyde 22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

William Dembski, for example, has written that "Intelligence leaves behind a characteristic signature." The characteristics of intelligence are assumed by intelligent design proponents to be observable without specifying what the criteria for the measurement of intelligence should be. Dembski, instead, asserts that "in special sciences ranging from forensics to archaeology to SETI (the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence), appeal to a designing intelligence is indispensable."[86] How this appeal is made and what this implies as to the definition of intelligence are topics left largely unaddressed. Seth Shostak, a researcher with the SETI Institute, disputes Dembski's comparison of SETI and intelligent design, saying that intelligent design advocates base their inference of design on complexity — the argument being that some biological systems are too complex to have been made by natural processes — while SETI researchers are looking primarily for artificiality.[87]

Critics say that the design detection methods proposed by intelligent design proponents are radically different from conventional design detection, undermining the key elements that make it possible as legitimate science. Intelligent design proponents, they say, are proposing both searching for a designer without knowing anything about that designer's abilities, parameters, or intentions (which scientists do know when searching for the results of human intelligence), as well as denying the very distinction between natural/artificial design that allows scientists to compare complex designed artifacts against the background of the sorts of complexity found in nature. As a means of criticism, certain skeptics have pointed to a challenge of intelligent design derived from the study of artificial intelligence. The criticism is a counter to intelligent design claims about what makes a design intelligent, specifically that "no preprogrammed device can be truly intelligent, that intelligence is irreducible to natural processes."[88] This claim is similar in type to an assumption of Cartesian dualism that posits a strict separation between "mind" and the material universe. However, in studies of artificial intelligence, while there is an implicit assumption that supposed "intelligence" or creativity of a computer program is determined by the capabilities given to it by the computer programmer, artificial intelligence need not be bound to an inflexible system of rules. Rather, if a computer program can access randomness as a function, this effectively allows for a flexible, creative, and adaptive intelligence. Evolutionary algorithms, a subfield of machine learning (itself a subfield of artificial intelligence), have been used to mathematically demonstrate that randomness and selection can be used to "evolve" complex, highly adapted structures that are not explicitly designed by a programmer. Evolutionary algorithms use the Darwinian metaphor of random mutation, selection and the survival of the fittest to solve diverse mathematical and scientific problems that are usually not solvable using conventional methods. Furthermore, forays into such areas as quantum computing seem to indicate that real probabilistic functions may be available in the future. Intelligence derived from randomness is essentially indistinguishable from the "innate" intelligence associated with biological organisms, and poses a challenge to the intelligent design conception that intelligence itself necessarily requires a designer. Cognitive science continues to investigate the nature of intelligence to that end, but the intelligent design community for the most part seems to be content to rely on the assumption that intelligence is readily apparent as a fundamental and basic property of complex systems. [edit]

Arguments from ignorance

This entire subcategory of text is biased and persuasive should be deleted from the article or should be under the subheading “Criticisms of Intelligent Design Theory”Coolasclyde 22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Eugenie Scott, along with Glenn Branch and other critics, has argued that many points raised by intelligent design proponents are arguments from ignorance.[89] In the argument from ignorance, a lack of evidence for one view is erroneously argued to constitute proof of the correctness of another view. Scott and Branch say that intelligent design is an argument from ignorance because it relies upon a lack of knowledge for its conclusion: lacking a natural explanation for certain specific aspects of evolution, we assume intelligent cause. They contend most scientists would reply that the unexplained is not unexplainable, and that "we don't know yet" is a more appropriate response than invoking a cause outside of science.[89] Particularly, Michael Behe's demands for ever more detailed explanations of the historical evolution of molecular systems seem to assume a dichotomy where either evolution or design is the proper explanation, and any perceived failure of evolution becomes a victory for design. In scientific terms, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" for naturalistic explanations of observed traits of living organisms. Scott and Branch also contend that the supposedly novel contributions proposed by intelligent design proponents have not served as the basis for any productive scientific research. Intelligent design has also been characterized as a "God of the gaps" argument, which has the following form: • There is a gap in scientific knowledge. • The gap is filled with acts of God (or Intelligent designer) and therefore proves the existence of God (or Intelligent designer). A God-of-the-Gaps argument is the theological version of an argument from ignorance. The key feature of this type of argument is that it merely answers outstanding questions with explanations (often supernatural) that are unverifiable and ultimately themselves subject to unanswerable questions. [edit]

Improbable versus impossible events In "Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences", John Allen Paulos states that the apparent improbability of a given scenario cannot necessarily be taken as an indication that this scenario is therefore more unlikely than any other potential one: "Rarity by itself shouldn't necessarily be evidence of anything. When one is dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 600 billion. Still, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude that he must not have been [randomly] dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable."

This argument can be seen as a rebuttal to advocates of intelligent design who claim that only a sentient creator could have arranged the universe in such a way as to be conducive to life (see for example specified complexity arguments or fine-tuning arguments). In this context, the probability of life "evolving" rather than having been "created" may appear unlikely at first sight, but the evidence that this is the case could be argued to be so widespread, deep, and heavily scrutinized that it would be illogical to conclude that any other (and arguably less scientifically compelling) hypothesis should take its place as the primary theory.

Thanks you to those that actually read my concerns.

Please read the archives

Coolascyde, before we devote time to addressing any of your objections, most of your objections appear to have already been discussed previously and unless you introduce new evidence are unlikely to be considered much result in change, so please read the Archives and remove any objections above of yours that do not bring new evidence. FeloniousMonk 23:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have read the archives. Asking me to read the archives is not grounds for dismissing my suggestions. Please address the points sir. Thank you!

Coolasclyde 23:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Every point so far has been covered, exhaustively, in the archives. We're not here to do nothing but reanswer objections to suit your personal demands. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You haven't answereed anything thus far sir. You have only referred me to the archived of which I have read and re-read. This is an interesting ploy I believe to prevent any actual revisions. Thank you for your time and help sir. Please acknowledge my suggestions. Coolasclyde 00:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a matter of opinion - your's. If you continue to raise frivolous or specious objections, policy and guideline provides for them to be dismissed. We've bent over backwards to accomodate you here so far, but so far you've only come up with vague objections over specific passages that do not violate policy. There's a point when raising flawed objections, no matter how well intentioned, becomes disruptive. And when it does, the project provides for ways of minimizing that disruption. FeloniousMonk 01:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It appears that it is all a matter of opinion, just not anyone's but yours. I see WAS was not punished for removal of the Colson ID link where it describes him as a proponent. Are you conspiring to prevent revisions of this article? I will submit my evidence for such acts to the appropriate personel. Thank you. Coolasclyde 01:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

persuasive

Isn't being persuasive a good thing???? WAS 4.250 00:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. (The Princess Bride (film) quote) KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No, not if you are to state only the facts as encyclopedias are created to do. Otherwise, you might as well be reading a romance novel to find truth. Coolasclyde 00:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Being persuasive is not a legitimate criticism of article content. Either come up with legitimate criticisms or find another way to contribute to the project. FeloniousMonk 01:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Persuasiveness confers subjectiveness and is an attempt to convince the reader towards a particular line of thinking and bend the truth. Thank you! Coolasclyde 01:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Logic and evidence can be very persuasive. Subjectiveness and bending the truth are not neccessary componets of persuasiveness. None-the-less it is now clear that when you said "persuasive" , you meant "subjective and bending the truth". WAS 4.250 03:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No sir. You are mistaken. I said it is "an attempt..." Please do not misinterpret my words or assume anything beyond the actual text. Please don't try to remove or hide intelligent design links from Charles Colson's page. It is obvious you are not objective and do not care about truth. Shame on you sir. 04:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You need to stop lecturing people. Now. WAS is with in his rights and abilities to delete the content if he feels doing so is justified. That is the nature of a wiki. You'd better get used to it. FeloniousMonk 04:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Does that mean I can just delete everything to in order to make my point and remove unwanted text because I feel like it? If that is what someone can do here, what is the point? There is no defender of truth. This is just a platform for people and not a legitimate attempt to display information with an objective viewpoint. There can be no evidence that leads us to the truth here; for it is removed when it does not agree with one's personal worldview. Coolasclyde 04:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:POINT. Also, please see WP:V. Wikipedia cares about verifiability, not truth. JoshuaZ 04:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow! No one cares about truth here? So what do you do; follow the lies where ever they lie? I prefer truth. What is more important verifying something false or finding the actual truth? I hope you understand why verifiability is inferior. Thank you! Coolasclyde 04:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It depends for what purposes. People don't often agree on what is "truth" but they are much more able to agree on what is verifiable. I assure you, if I thought this article should be about truth, it would be very different. In any event, WP:V is a fundamental wikipedia policy, so whether you like it or not, you can't ignore it while you are here. JoshuaZ 04:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a sad truth that is verifiable. Thank you! Coolasclyde 04:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Closing discussion

It's become clear to a number of the credible, long-term contributors here that Coolasclyde has shown himself on this page to be utterly impervious to evidence or reason, dismissive of policy and bent only on lessening critical viewpoints of ID or removing them altogether. Either he's being wilfully tendentious or we're being trolled. Either way, it's clear these discussions are bound to be fruitless so there's little point in continuing with them. Comments? FeloniousMonk 03:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Please review my suggestions, that is all I wish. Thank you! Coolasclyde 04:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

We have reviewed them. Multiple times. None of them are particularly new. And FYI, for at least two of your suggestions, when I first came to this page, I had similar notions, so I have some idea where you are coming from. The fact is, however, that this article has been discussed and rehashed tens of times now, and none of your suggestions are substantially new. JoshuaZ 04:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Joshua is right, we've gone over nearly half of them already today and not one has stood up to evidence or policy. And your willingness to dismiss both and continue to hammer away indicates that your interest is tendentious, wholly partisan. Not to mention your accusations accross the project that editors here are conducting a conspiracy... I see little point in continuing, but we'll see what others have to say. FeloniousMonk 04:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to try to smear me. I only ask that you objective review the claims that much of the article and the indicated text is written with a clearly subjective viewpoint. Thank you! Coolasclyde 04:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right, there's no need to smear you. My opinion is that you do not understand the topic and our policies, and how the former relates to, and is shaped by the latter. Until you do you are wasting your time and ours. You've been contributing less than 24 hours to Wikipedia and have already disrupted one of what many believe is its better articles. So please find a better way to get started at the project and learn our policies and guidelines. Once you've been here a few months then take a consider bring objections here. FeloniousMonk 04:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, obviously there is not desire to accurately provide an objective description of ID here. I have been told that verifiability supercedes truth and objectivity in this arena. This is not worthy of academic pursuits. Thanks for reviewing all my suggestions thoroughly and commenting on them as you almost did. Coolasclyde 04:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)