Talk:Intelligent design

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: NPOV: Pseudoscience NPOV: Undue weight NPOV: Making necessary assumptions NPOV: Giving "equal validity". 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). Some common points of argument are addressed at Wikipedia's Intelligent design FAQ. 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. Please peruse the 'Points that have already been discussed' section in the archives box directly below, to ensure that you are not rehashing old topics.

Archives

2002–2004 (2002-2003) (2003) (Jan-Sep 2004, 53kb) - Are oppositions/criticisms of ID relevant? (Aug-Oct 2004, 46kb) - Is ID theory falsifiable? (Sep-Nov 2004, 42kb) - Overwhelming majority: POV? What does "scientific" mean? (Nov-Dec 2004) (Dec 2004-early Jan 2005) 2005 (Jan-April 2005) (April-May 2005) (Early - Mid June 2005) - Structured debate; the Pryamid analogy; Article Splits) Archives 11, 12, 13 (Mid-August/Mid-Sept 2005) - ID as creationism; ID proponent's religious agenda; ID as scientific hypothesis (Mid-Sept/Early-Oct 2005) - Computer simulations & irreducible complexity, Criticisms of criticism, Footnote misnumbering, NPOV (Mid-Oct 2005) (Mid to late-Oct 2005) - Mainly involving users from uncommondescent.com and admins (Late Oct to early Nov 2005) (early to mid Nov 2005) (Mid Nov 2005) Tisthammer's and ant's objections (Nov 2005) Enormous bulk of text (30 Nov - 3 Dec 2005) various proposals, peer review (Early Dec 2005) - Mostly chatter concerning the current pool of editors (Mid Dec 2005) - Whether intelligent design is to be upper case or lower case (Late Dec 2005) Two major re-orgs and the Kitzmiller decision 2006 Marshills NPOV objections Reintroduction of Vast discussion Archives 27, 28, 29 July 2006 August 2006 DI warning, DI and leading proponents again 2007 First archive of 2007 January 22, 2007 Jan – early Feb 2007 Feb 9 - Mar 30, 2007 - April 19, 2007 Initial work towards a consensus lead in April 2007. April 19-April 26, 2007 April - early May 2007, including work on lead. May 2007 unproductive discussions Archive 41. Reference formatting and other minor issues. 24 May - 8 July 2007 7 July - 3 August 2007 2 August - 21 August 2007 21 August - 5 October 2007 5 -14 October 2007 October-November 2007 December 2007 2008 late Dec 2007 - mid Jan 2008 28 January - late Feb 2008 Points that have already been discussed The following ideas were discussed. Please read the archives before bringing up any of these points again: Is ID a theory? Fact and Theory Does ID really qualify as a Theory? Is ID/evolution falsifiable? Falsification Falsifiability ID is allegedly not empirically testable, falsifiable, etc. Is the article too littered with critique, as opposed to, for example, the evolution article? Criticism that the Intelligent design page does not give citations to support ID opponents' generalizations What ID's Opponents Say; is it really relevant? Bias? Various arguments to subvert criticism Critics claim ... Anti-ID bias Apparent partial violation NPOV policy Why are there criticizms Critics of ID vs. Proponents Isn't ID no more debatable than evolution? Argument Zone The debatability of ID and evolution Isn't ID actually creationism by definition, as it posits a creator? ID in relation to Bible-based creationism What makes ID different than creationism Moving ID out of the "creationism" catagory Shouldn't this page be merged with creationism? ID not Creationism? Are all ID proponents really theists? ID proponents who are not theists A possible atheist/agnostic intelligent design advocate? Are there any peer-reviewed papers about ID? Scientific peer review Peer-reviewed stuff of ID (netcody) Yqbd's peer-review arguments Is ID really not science? ...who include the overwhelming majority of the scientific community... Meaning of "scientific" Why sacrifice truth Rejection of ID by the scientific community section redundant Intelligent design is Theology, not Science Philosophy in the introduction Why ID is not a theory Bad philosophy of science (ID is allegedly not empirically testable, falsifiable etc.) The "fundamental assumption" of ID Peer-reviewed articles Figured out the problem Is ID really not internally consistent?; Distingushing Philosophical ID (TE) from the DI's Pseudo-Scientific ID The many names of ID? Removed section by User:Tznkai Pre- & post- Kitzmiller, proponents seek to redefine ID Defining ID Figured out the problem "Intelligent evolution" ID on the O'Reilly Factor Is the article too long? Article Size Notes The Article Is Too Long Does the article contain original research that inaccurately represents minority views? Inadequate representation of the minority View The "fundamental assumption" of ID Is the intelligent designer necessarily irreducibly complex? Is a designer needed for irreducibly complex objects? Irreducibly complex intelligent designer Settling Tisthammerw's points, one at a time The "fundamental assumption" of ID Irreducibly complex Irreducible complexity of elementary particles Repeated objections and ignoring of consensus Suggested compromise Resolution to Wade's & Ant's objections (hopefully) Discussion regarding the Introduction: Intro (Rare instance of unanimity) Introduction (Tony Sidaway suggests) Is this article is unlike others on Wikipedia? Why is Wiki Violating its own POV rule Call for new editors Archives 22, 23, 24 Is this article NPOV? NPOV Archive 25 Are terms such as 'scientific community' or 'neocreationist' vague concepts? Support among scientists "Neocreationist" social, not scientific, observation Archive 26 How should Darwin's impact be described? Pre-Darwinian Ripostes\ Peer Review and ID Peer review? Lack of peer review Peer Review: Reviewed Discovery Institute and leading ID proponents Are all leading ID proponents affiliated with Discovery Institute? Archive 32 /all_leading_proponents Why is intelligent design lower case, not upper case? Renaming Intelligent design as Intelligent Design Is the article trying to equate ID with Christian Creationism and the Discovery Institute too much? The article discusses the formulation disseminated by the Discovery Institute affiliates

Chance or Dance

I see a linkspam to Chance or Dance was appropriately deleted. I wonder if it may be appropriate to reinsert the book under further reading without the promotional hyperlinks? The book does seem to be about limited critical analysis of ID within a framework of God-belief.

Chance or Dance: An Evaluation of Design provides an overview of design and clarification of the controversial Intelligent Design (ID) movement, and ultimately concludes that there is no scientific proof behind Intelligent Design...
The authors discuss that the idea of design is far more expansive than the ID movement’s version of it...
The book concludes with an argument for the correlation of faith and sensory experience and with the suggestion that science has been successful at describing processes, but has failed at explaining origins.
Chance or Dance is ideal for students and general readers interested in understanding how modern science gives evidence for the creation of nature by the God of the Bible.

Is there a reason for not including it as a further reading book?--ZayZayEM (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Others may chime in, but I don't have a problem with including it in Further Reading, using the description "Criticiam of the Intelligent Design movement from a Christian perspective" or some similar wording. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

At first glance it would seem to add some balance. Too often people mistakenly think ID = religionists, evolution = atheists which is demomstrably false. I have Christian friends who have nothing but contempt for ID. Angry Christian (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Elusive definition of ID

I'm a little confused. Today I looked at the DI's web page and found this criticism of a Wired article:

"Leaving aside the ridiculously false assertion that ID proponents are trying to use scientific methodology to prove divine intervention....."

Does anyone find this contradictory, to both the article and previous utterances of the DI? --Trishm (talk) 11:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

There is some inconsistency in the statements of the DI. But this is for several reasons, not the least of which is that if they say they are trying to prove divine intervention, they will get burned in court. So they cannot say that at least all the time. They have to say it when they are talking to their base or trying to raise money, since that is the only way people will give them money. So you find all kinds of weird statements and hairsplitting from the DI about whether there are supernatural or numinous or immaterial or whatever effects visible in nature. They want to define things very carefully to pass legal muster but still enable them to raise money, have support from religious groups and make their basic claims. And I think they enjoy just issuing confusing statements, as most religious arguments are full of confusing statements of a similar nature.--Filll (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems fair enough, it's ridiculously false to assert that ID proponents are trying to use scientific methodology for anything – their case is built on misrepresentation and dubious philosophy. .. dave souza, talk 13:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Basically the "previous utterances of the DI" have repeatedly contradicted themselves, so that isn't too surprising. Basically the loophole that Scalia left in Edwards was for a scientific theory of divine intervention, and that is the loophole that ID was "cdesigned" to fill. On one hand, as a matter of dogma, they say that they cannot speculate on the nature of the cdesigner. On the other hand, they admit that they believe the cdesigner to be the Christian God.

The DI says that it is using science (although it isn't, it's a requirement of Edwards) to demonstrate (prove) the handiwork of the designer (divine intervention). So while Crowther can parse words, the only problems with that statement are (a) they aren't using the scientific method, they are merely pretending to, and (b) science cannot prove anything. But yes, in terms of common English, Crowther is contradicting the ID movement. Guettarda (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's also worth noting on one hand they claim ID is science and should be considered a challenge to evolution, on the other they admit they have no developed theory whatsoever and therefore ID cannot challenge anything. This is what makes the intelligent design creationism movement so much fun to watch. This is what makes the ID "lab" so funny. Without a testable theory what exactly are they testing in this super secret ID bunker? Angry Christian (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Glancing over the whole article, slight violation of Neutral Point of View rule could be recognized, I think. Article is concentrated on single-sided scientifical evaluation of the topic. Criticism on aggressive ID-ists claim to be a science - it is OK, ID is not a science. Denying of evolution and natural selection - agree, is pseudo-scientific. But does every not-science authomatically be a pseudo-science? Are Plato and Aristotle pseudo-scientists? Have they something, what could be used against natural selection directly? Vice versa, does naturalism contradict to dualism in general? OK, it is out of scientifical method, because it is out of the logic - it is about existence of the logic itself. The whole philosophy could be then stated as a non-science. Is it pseudo-science then? Or the logic itself - if it is accepted as objective property of the World - is it not a kind of "intellectual design"? Probably there is lack of some remark in introductionary part - the article is not about intelligence of the world in common sense - it is about certain aggressive movement The Intelligent Design? Or perhaps one should be more accurate with the identification of Intellectual Design concept as pseudo-scientific - not every recognition of intelligence in the World is pseudo-scientific and not every intellectual activity should be evaluated in scientific terms. When ID is simply expression of subjective worldview, not contradicting to the science and not claiming revise scientific methods - it is simply and neutrally not-science, nothing more. Could it be true? Of course it could - not all the Thruth in the World is covered by the science. Mingis. 09:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Modern-day non-science that purports to be science, and illegitimately lays claim to the trappings of science, is pseudoscience. This is implicit in the prefix "pseudo-" which means pretended. Pseudoscience is non-science pretending to be science. Mathematics, logic and legitimate philosophy generally do not pretend to be science. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was little bit confused at first glance because the article is not about an intellectual design of the World in common sense, but about certain movement having proper name Intelligent Design. May be is worth to add some paragraph to the very beginning, that not every attempt to look at the World as being initially intellectual (like dualistic philosophy does) should be necessary covered by the term Intelligent Design? Mingis. 11:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.219.59.93 (talk)

The phrase "intelligent design" has meant a number of things over the years, and still is a common phrase in engineerng for other things. This is noted in the text of the article. However, in the mid-80s, the intelligent design movement basically took the phrase "intelligent design" for their own, much as their antecedants had taken the phrase "creationism" for their own purposes, which are different than the original meaning of the word.--Filll (talk) 13:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The disambiguation page linked at the top of the article is really just concerned with ID as we know it – think there should be a link to Slartibartfast? . . dave souza, talk 13:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not reasonable to suggest a single position for ID. There are a range of views ranging from a simple belief in a "first cause" to the extreme of some anti-science creationists. Many aspects of ID are compatible with many aspects of evolution. Let's not try to polarize the issue: rather, lets include some common ground. This would be a better article for all. Rlsheehan (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

another solution would be for you to realize this article is about the flavor of intelligent design popularized by the Discovery Institute and their agents and sympathizers. It is not about first cause, it is not about Raelian intelligent design, and it's not about Mazda rotary motors. Angry Christian (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Vroom vroom! Intelligent Design on wheels! Baegis (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If we are limiting this article to discuss ID only as defined by the Discovery Institute, then this restriction must be stated. We should indicate that other published material on ID is not inculded. Rlsheehan (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will make this clarification. Rlsheehan (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

First you need to provide verification from reliable secondary sources that "other published material on ID" is notable, showing that you're not just producing your own original research. Please set out your proposals in a new section at the foot of this talk page. .. dave souza, talk 22:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It might be more appropriate to have a disambiguation notice at the top - phrases like "as defined by the Discovery Institute" does not really get the point across that there are unrelated concepts, and, with the quote in the first sentence, merely makes it look like quote attribution. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Intelligent design/FAQ

Could somebody please semi-protect this FAQ -- it has been receiving quite a lot of (mostly IP-based) vandalism lately. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI on David Snoke

User:Dwsnoke is making a number of dodgy, unsourced & blatantly WP:COI edits to his own article. Some attention might be warranted. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Schönborn

Quite some time ago, I translated this article for the German Wikipedia. Now, someone raised an objection concerning the description of Schönborn's position. He refers to [1], and similar statements can be found to two years earlier in [2]. Schönborn says there that he basically supports Intelligent Design being taught in US schools. To me, it seems to be a little bit like "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". While I don't think Schönborn changed his mind about theistic evolution (a divine plan exists within evolution, in contrast to someone designed life from outside), the mere fact that he holds this position makes it quite misleading to name him as an example of Theistic Evolution without relativizing it. BTW, what he says is very ambiguous. It is not clear whether he simply uses the word Intelligent Design instead of Theistic Evolution and advocates that to be taught, or whether he really means Intelligent Design as promoted by the Discovery Institute and as described here in this article. The statements can be read in both ways. --rtc (talk) 08:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Scientists who believe in Creation

Off-topic, as belief in God does not mean acceptance of ID. Copying contents to user's talk page.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think it is misleading to to equivocate the "scientific community" with NAS and a couple other narrow organizations. That is a fallacy. Less than 5% of US scientists are members of NAS, and these scientists *are* members of the scientific community. While only 7% of NAS believes in a personal God, 40% of all scientists (when you tally scientists who are not NAS members) do. This is a statistical fact back up by Gallup polls since the 1900's and a more recent poll in Nature. This article seems to imply that the overwhelming majority of scientists discount creationism (ID is related to creationism several times in this article). With 40-45% (depending on the poll) of all scientists believing in a personal God who answers prayer, the article, im my opinion, falsely equivocates the "scientific community" with NAS and two other organizations whom only represent a small fraction of the actual scientific community. I propose we make mention of the statistical fact that approx. 40% of scientists are creationists. While 93% of NAS members being agnostic could be labeled as "overwhelming majority", it misleads us to conclude that is a representative sample of the scientific community. Stating it is 'unequivocal' is certainly misleading. 40% of the scientific community is by no means 'unequivocal'. I propose we make the correction to improve the article. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.46.9.46 (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC) I propose that, unless you come up with a (top notch) source for the statement "40% of scientists are creationists", we don't change anything in the article. Any seconds on that one? Baegis (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC) Even if we do get a source for that, you (the anon) are still equivocating yourself. You're implying that because a scientist believes in a personal god, they can't believe that ID is pseudoscience. There's no such link there. It's quite possible for a scientist to believe the universe was set in motion 13.7 billion years ago by a god who watched and let evolution take its course, and is now around to answer prayers. Or maybe they believe that the god planned evolution. In either case, they wouldn't accept ID. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)\ The article makes the statement "unequivocal consensus" in the scientific community. I believe that to be misleading as it is using a source for "scientific community" that is not a true representative sample. The organizations you listed as proof for "unequivocal consensus" actually do not represent an accurate sampling of the scientific community. How, therefore, can you claim "unequivocal consensus?" What I am disputing is the claim "unequivocal". I fail to see how that is an accurate reflection of the "scientific community", and the article does not justify that term, unless I missed something? I believe we can improve the article by removing the term "unequivocal" and replacing it with majority. I agree with the phrase "majority consensus", I disagree with "unequivocal consensus". The burden of proof is on you because you are making the claim in the article and have not substantiated it. I believe the article can be improved on by making the change to "majority consensus"

Origins?

This was added between 16:16 and 16:18, 19 March 2008, by 69.114.60.153 (talk · contribs)

In the 5th century BCE, Anaxagoras, a Greek philosopher who fled from Clazomenae to Athens during the Persian War,< ref >Diogenes Laertius II.7< /ref > posited that Mind (nous) organized the world and set it into order.< ref >Diels-Krantz fragment 12 and 13< /re>

Seems possible, but sources need to be confirmed. .. dave souza, talk 17:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The sources need to be clarified, preferably with specificity and to a online source. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

As our description of the provenance of this concept becomes longer and more fleshed out, I wonder if at some point we should not spin off most of it to a subsiduary daughter article. For example, although William Paley is a notable figure for this sort of idea around 1800, I gather that he was not the only one of a fairly large crowd and this was fairly heavily discussed. We could also include the Victorian Era discussion of the idea which happened long before Darwin's publication of Origin of the Species. There were some supporters, but many others who dismissed the idea on theological and scientific grounds, long before Darwin. I think it would make for very interesting reading and we could leave a short summary here.--Filll (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that the ancient history of the argument would be better handled in Teleological argument (which already has an extensive History section) than in a separate article, with just a brief summary & see-also here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Ideally any names we not here should be ones picked out by ID proponents or experts on ID as antecedents, such as Paley, and not just any authors of what we think are similar ideas. . . dave souza, talk 21:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

New ID website & book

My GoogleNews feeds often pick up articles from the Disco Boys' Whine and Cheese blog. A recent post turned up news of a new CSC website: 'Explaining the Science of Intelligent Design'. This in turn had info on an upcoming new book Intelligent Design 101: Leading Experts Explain the Key Issues. Amazon provides the following information:

• Editor: H. Wayne House. Contributors: Michael Behe, Eddie Colanter, Logan Gage, Phillip Johnson, Casey Luskin, J. P. Moreland, Jay Richards
• "H. Wayne House (Th.D., Concordia Seminary, St. Louis; J.D., Regent University School of Law) is Distinguished Professor of Biblical Studies and Apologetics, Fatih Seminary in Tacoma, Washington, and Professor of Law, Trinity Law School in Santa Ana, California. He is author or editor of more than twenty books, including The Christian and American Law and Israel: The Land and the People. ... Eddie Colanter is director of bioethics and culture at the Newport Institute for Ethics, Law, and Public Policy." (Luskin & Gage should be familiar to you all)
• "Intelligent Design 101 brings together leading scholars and researchers from the fields of science and intelligent design studies, such as Michael Behe and Phillip Johnson. Their detailed and insightful essays form an introduction to intelligent design, from the basics of the theory, to its history and growing place in science and education."

It was meant to have been published almost a month ago (by Kregel Publications, who I've never heard of), but is still only available for pre-order.

I'm still struggling to work out how this might fit into a coherent PR strategy on the part of the DI. "Throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" still seems to be the best explanation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Talk:Intelligent design movement

At Talk:Intelligent design movement#RfC Legal arms there is a WP:RFC on whether the statements made in Intelligent design movement#Legal arms are adequately supported by the references for that section. A wider range of views would be welcome. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Critical review of ID is welcome

I heartily recommend the PDF to which I added a link. There an objective person (means: does not agree with ID) reviews Niall Shanks's book which tries to critique the Intelligent Design theory. It would be too hard to rewrite the whole ID article in Wikipedia and it would lead to no progress in understanding this debate, but I recommend that those who wish to be objective about this case will read and assess the claims made by Del Ratzsch. I think ID deserves fair review, it is still a theory in development and needs to answer some tough questions. But sadly this heavily anti-ID biased Wikipedia article does no good for public debate, because the truth in Wikipedia is decided through a majority vote. 86.50.9.167 (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

A "theory" in development? You mean a hypothesis, don't you? -- Alexf⁴² 19:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Does it even qualify as a hypothesis? I thought a hypothesis was an educated guess based on observation and data. They haven't collected any, they just stare at things and say "that looks complicated, I'll bet it was designed".24.196.95.139 (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Association of Christian Schools International et al. v. Roman Stearns et al.

Page 35, last paragraph of the partial summary judgement award [etc] might be useful here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

TalkOrigins Archive as WP:RS

Not an issue and not a problem for this article, per RSN. Baegis (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A user is edit-warring on Darwin's Black Box on the basis of the hoary old claim that 'TalkOrigins Archive is usenet and thus an unreliable source'. He's taken it to the RS noticeboard (at WP:RS/N# TalkOrigins Archive) so people may wish to weigh in there, in case an uninformed judgement gains momentum. HrafnTalkStalk 12:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC) If its a "hoary claim", link the original discussion, please, it would be enormously helpful. And I think there are enough editors at RS/N who are actually informed about policy. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Someone may eventually link the discussion, which might take a few hours or days to find. Of course, you do realize that this is such a common website that this discussion had to have been had previously, right?--Filll (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC) I realise that it must have taken place about the FAQ. And I realise that its different when those disagreeing are creationists and sensible editors (see, I'm not convinced that being a creationist gives one a sufficient ability to judge the reliability of sources) and that it might have taken place before BLP was introduced. All these make sense to you? --Relata refero (disp.) 12:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC) It does not matter who is a creationist and who is not. It is a reliable source, and it has been discussed before. You might have to wait for a while until someone spends the hours and hours required to dig up evidence for you however. On the BLP issue, we would have to remove a huge number of sources, including almost everything ever published by the Discovery Institute, or The Penetecostal Church, or Answers in Genesis, or William Dembski or Scientology, if every slightly negative statement about a person in a source was viewed as a violation of WP:BLP.--Filll (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC) I just read the review. I see no BLP problems.--Filll (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC) "Every slightly negative statement about a person in a source" does not equate to "contentious material, especially contentious negative material, from self-published or unreliable sources." Please don't overstate it. The latter is, indeed, in BLP, and non-negotiable. About the review, the particular statement skates close enough to a judgment of Behe the man for it to be problematic. That, however, is a question that can be sorted out in discussion on that talkpage. BLP, however, always applies. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC) I ask again, please give me a specific quote from the Robinson review that you believe violates WP:BLP. No more dancing around the issue. Let's see it.--Filll (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC) I'm not dancing, and I dont usually respond to statements framed like that. Try again. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Well I apologize if I have offended any of your sensibilities. If you believe I have violated WP:CIVIL, or WP:NPA or WP:AGF, please feel free to file charges against me at any of the appropriate venues. I invite you to do so. In fact, I am asking you to do so. Please bring charges of abusive editing against me. And since you are unable or unwilling to substantiate any of your claims about WP:BLP at this point, I cannot really respond. I would ask you to bring any serious BLP complaints to the BLP noticeboard.--Filll (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Over-react much? Also, please don't post the same content to more than one article talkpage. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC) You do realize that because of this snide, sarcastic personal attack upon me, and under our new current politically correct WP:AGF rules, you can be administratively sanctioned. Please try not to step out of bounds again. Thank you for trying to maintain a WP:CIVIL atmosphere here, which of course is more important than anything else including content.--Filll (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Hang on, was that irony? Or sarcasm? Or snideness? I'm sorry, I don't pick up on those very well unless its funny. So I'll assume you're serious. Actually, this is the perfect demonstration of why civility rules should be strictly enforced in contentious areas. Not only did you immediately revert without an attempt at discussion a well-intentioned edit by an editor who, although he has not edited in this area before, knows the subject reasonably well and follows WP policy carefully, but the subsequent behaviour and incivility almost succeeded in sending said editor away. If this happens to me, with a reasonable edit history and an easily-accessible history of action against fringe theories, it does not take a leap of imagination to picture what would happen to most editors. Indeed, it is frequently the case that a uncivil atmosphere inhibits editing, and thus reduces the usefulness of content. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC) I am afraid I do not understand. Please provide a diff.-Filll (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC) A diff of what? --Relata refero (disp.) 18:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Relata, you're making a series of vague accusations about people's behaviour, action which in itself is rather uncivil and which is not the purpose of this talk page. If you want to argue about people's actions, you appear to be well aware of the appropriate procedures. Remember to provide diffs to back up any points you make. So, enough of these off-topic discussions. The heads-up has been given about discussions about sources in another venue, I don't think we need to go into more detail here. ... dave souza, talk 20:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Actually, I made a general statement about the importance of civility in response to a very specific statement by Filll. I particularly don't want to get into disagreements of that sort on this or any page. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC) To get back on topic: The Talk.Origins Archive is not a mere collection of Usenet posts, like Google Groups or Gmane. It's an edited publication, some of whose articles also have been published on Usenet. Moreover, its articles extensively cite their own sources and are written by competent people in the field. --FOo (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Yup, some of it unquestionably so. Do we know which parts? Who are the editors? Which ones cite their own sources? Which ones are written by competent people in their field? Please do add to this at RS/N, since this isn't the best location for this discussion. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Argument from ethics?

Apparently, there has been an argument for ID along the lines that evolutionism attributes no moral value to events, and so any moral code would necessarily imply an intelligent creator. This argument seems to be advanced in the movie Expelled: no Intelligence Allowed which is to be released on April 18 2008. Perhaps it has been advanced before. -Pgan002 (talk) 11:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sure similar arguments have been advanced by creationists before. However, we will not know for sure about the film until more people have seen it and analyzed it and we have more reviews. I will also point out that the existence of a moral code and a conscience and ethics etc all are taken as evidence of evolution operating. So it is sort of a nonsense argument and typical of many of their other arguments.--Filll (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a garbled argument. That "evolutionism attributes no moral value to events" (even if that phrase had any meaning) in no way implies that "any moral code would necessarily imply an intelligent creator". Assuming that by "evolutionism" you/they mean science's methodological naturalism (or even atheists' philosophical naturalism), the argument implies an is/ought conflation. Science deals with what does happen, it offers no judgement on what should happen. The latter question is dealt with, on a daily basis and often without any invocation of any creator, by the field of Moral Philosophy. Then again, given the 'quality' of production we've heard of to date from Expelled, it wouldn't surprise me if they made just such a half-baked argument. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting dentistry attributes no moral value to events either. Angry Christian (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably I did not phrase it in the most compelling way. Of course it is invalid, but still is an argument. It is not meant to show that ID is science but that ID must be the correct explanation of how the world came to be. So it is different than dentistry. If it is used by proponents, I think it is worth mentioning in the article. Unfortunately the film is unlikely to state it rhetorically, just hint at the rhetorical argument. I saw it in this blog, comment #953. But we obviously have to wait to use the movie as a source. I just thought other editors may have seen it in other sources. -Pgan002 (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We really need a reliable secondary source discussing this point to include it in the article, not sure if any of the reviews have touched on the point – seem to remember Dawkins' review mentioning the conflation of is / ought, so that's probably quite a good source. Out of interest, the point's recently been discussed with the King of Ireland. .. dave souza, talk 10:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, here we are.

The alleged association between Darwinism and Nazism is harped on for what seems like hours, and it is quite simply an outrage. We are supposed to believe that Hitler was influenced by Darwin.... natural selection is a good object lesson in how NOT to organize a society. As I have often said before, as a scientist I am a passionate Darwinian. But as a citizen and a human being, I want to construct a society which is about as un-Darwinian as we can make it. I approve of looking after the poor (very un-Darwinian). I approve of universal medical care (very un-Darwinian). It is one of the classic philosophical fallacies to derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. Stein (or whoever wrote his script for him) is implying that Hitler committed that fallacy with respect to Darwinism.... Anyone who thinks that has any bearing whatsoever on the truth or falsity of Darwin's theory of evolution is either an unreasoning fool or a cynical manipulator of unreasoning fools. I will not speculate as to which category includes Ben Stein and Mark Mathis.[3]

Perhaps rather specific as a review of the film, surely the point's been make elsewhere? .. dave souza, talk 10:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Darwin's Black Box

The article sidebox said Darwin's Black Box introduced the concept of irreducible complexity - this is not strictly true, as Behe published a couple things before it. "popularised" or "introduced the concept to the public" or something along those lines is more accurate. I've gone with "popularised", which is accurate, but I suppose that the slight paranoia that seeps in when dealing with inveterate quote-miners and spinners (such as the higher-ups in the ID movement) might cause one to dislike that word, so tweak at will. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. In June 1993 Behe first presented his ideas about "irreducible complexity" at the Pajaro Dunes meeting, and with the Timeline of intelligent design#Pandas revised, DI meets ID, Behe's irreducibly complexity argument was published in all but name. While much of the idea may hark back to Thaxton's 1988 conference "Sources of Information Content in DNA," the actual IC argument seems to date to the 1993 meeting. .. dave souza, talk 17:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience? NPOV problems!

Already addressed in the FAQ.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article, along with the one on evolution, has some serious NPOV problems. Macroevolution is presented as inescapable fact, while intelligent design is presented as a lunatic crackpot idea, no more viable than cold fusion, despite the fact that the preponderance of scientific evidence clearly favors ID.````Lordofthemarsh— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordofthemarsh (talk • contribs) 16:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC) See the box headed Please read before starting at the top of this talk page. .. dave souza, talk 16:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Barbara Forrest

Previously described as "an expert" without any details of what she's an expert in - I've removed the phrase in case it came across as endorsing her comments. If anyone knows her profession and/or experience, do please add it in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.92.241 (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted - she's a professor of history of science, and has written extensively on the ID movement, and she gave extensive expert testimony in the Kitzmiller trial (over objections from the defendants to her being called) Raul654 (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"Discovery Institute" & the "God of Christianity"

There are problems with the lead section of this article:

• The lead has a limiting POV, that portrays proponents of Intelligent Design as engaging in - what amounts to - a deceptive shell game: "It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer as a method to avoid scrutiny from the courts."

• There is the inaccurate generalization that the primary proponent of "Intelligent Design" is the "Discovery Institute"

• There is the inaccurate claim that the promoting of the "God of Christianity" is what "Intelligent Design" is really about.

• I know of a number of individuals who have never even heard of the Discovery Institute and who do not limit their understanding of the Creative Powers of Consciousness (Intelligent Design) to the popular superstitions of a "God of Christianity".

• Helena Blavatsky, writing in her book The Secret Doctrine published in 1888, was the first person to use the phrase "intelligent design" to convey her understanding of evolution. In the Theosophical Society she used the phrase to convey the idea that the evolution of the species was guided by an underlying purposeful intelligence in nature. This intelligence is different from the "God" of theistic religions. Arion 3x3 (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted your edits. All of this has been discussed ad-nausuem. That article was correct as it was. Peruse the talk page archives here to see responses to your above points. Raul654 (talk) 05:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read through the archives and have not found responses to the issues I have raised. Therefore, please justify your revert of my edits. Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

To browse the archives, there is an archive box towards the top of the page. For example, the issue of whether all leading proponents of Intelligent design are associated with the Discovery Institute is discussed in /Archive29, /Archive32, as well has here. All except the last issues you have brought up have been specifically addressed at various places in these archives. For the last point, perhaps the article can mention Blavatsky in the Origin section, suitably referenced. However, I don't see how Blavatsky has anything to do with the removal of large amounts of well-sourced information from the lead. silly rabbit (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You've made a lot of allegations but provided not one source to back them up. Please read WP:RS and WP:V and come back when you have not only proper sources, but proper sources that trump Federal Court rulings, the National Academies of Science, etc. Until then, I have to ask you to stop deleting content from the article. FeloniousMonk (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Unattributed "critics"

Statements attributed to "critics" without any specific attribution that would allow verification:

• Intelligent design#Intelligent designer:
  • "Some critics have said that 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 intelligent design parodies such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster "theory"."
  • "Critics have asserted that intelligent design proponents cannot legitimately 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."
• Intelligent design#Intelligence as an observable quality: "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."

Beyond the purely WP:V issue, I think from a style viewpoint we should avoid overuse of "critics", particularly when baldly stated without giving any indication of the identity or expertise of the critics -- both from a readability and a credibility viewpoint. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)