Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 58

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

→

falsifiability

1) am supporter of view ID = creationism stalking horse and is not science; 2) am practicing scientist who thinks philosophical concepts like "falsifiability" are far removed from the way actual scientists think and act. Rather then relying on such abstract concepts, I think it would be better to attack ID's claim to be science by giving, in detail, some of their arguments and showning how bad they are; it is the poor quality of their data and logic that makes ID, like the flat earth theory, something not worth wasting class time on. 3) I really appreciate the huge effort people have put into this. Cinnamon colbert (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"it is the poor quality of their data and logic that makes ID, like the flat earth theory, something not worth wasting class time on." Be careful with those words.... what if I said evolution was not worth wasting class time on... your blood would be boiling. COMDER (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a good point. I am just not sure whether it can be executed in the framework of Wikipedia. We have constraints here that don't exist where there is only a single author, or a more homogeneous set of authors. Hans Adler 15:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in this article as a discussion of falsifiability. Popper used the word, in large measure, in response to the heavy influence of the logical positivists within often bivalent, largely foundationalist thinking, and the tendency of many (even some scientists) to fall into the trap of confirmation bias. In his later years (through the 1990s), as statistical analysis evolved into the robust tool it ultimately became, and as scientists became more multivalent and probability-oriented in their approach, the preferred word became "testable" (and Popper's thought evolved too). Got a theory? Publish it with summary data and methodology, keeping all data in your archives so others in the scientific community can test it to their heart's content (assuming they can get funding of course)-- hence testability rather than falsifiability. And of course debates still remain about how far afield some theories can get, such as within theoretical physics, a whole discipline devoted to theory development of things that often are not yet testable but which depend on extrapolations from existing data. But this article is not the place to deal with all this, or with the contorted debate about "falsificationism" and the like. IMO, it was a good observation by Cinnamon colbert. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

The human eye has a blind zone in the center, spermatic cord is more like fish than humans, pencils and keyboards use causes human wrist's carpal syndrome, carry weights causes lumbar pain, the human back upright seems to be a big mistake, all this suggests that the design of the human body is not very smart. And, for example, the spermatic cord (a good design for fishes and batrachians) is not a good design for human body, and that is a indication of the fortuitous design of the world, not intelligent, but according to Evolution Theory. Coronellian (talk) 08:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This talk page is not the place for a general discussion on the subject of Intelligent Design, see WP:FORUM and WP:TALK. Do you have any specific edits to the article you would like to make? Gabbe (talk) 11:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

What's innacurate about the article?--Patton123 (talk) 12:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the hole in the human eye not only provides beauty, but it also makes it so that if dust (or contacts) land on the middle of your eye, no damage is caused. this allows people to go longer without blinking. But beyond that, you seem to miss the law of entropy. if tomorrow will be more chaotic, then yesterday was less chaotic. So thousands of years ago, when the universe was just born, it was perfect. much more complex than it is today, and much more specified. over time, entropy increased, and the universe gained all the problems we have today. (Genesis 3:1-24, Job 31:33, Isaiah 43:24-28 Romans 5:14) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.57.15 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

See Evolution of the eye and Entropy and life. Gabbe (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes please do visit those wikilinks. (Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone 4:2-33).--LexCorp (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Evangelical sources

This selected bibliography on evangelicals and evolution gives links to some articles which could form useful sources for the theological aspects of ID: for example, "One of the striking characteristics of the Biblical doctrine of creation is that God is described as the author of the whole created order without exception, both in its origins and in its on-going sustaining.... The Bible therefore has no concept of ‘nature’ for the simple reason that the term is redundant: instead it speaks of ‘creation’ to refer to the complete panoply of God’s activities that we as scientists struggle to describe so inadequately. The notion of ‘nature’ as a quasi-independent entity has often been implied by enlightenment thinking, but Biblical theology renders the concept redundant. It is the same Biblical theology which undermines the ID attempt to create a ‘split universe’ comprising one realm which science currently explains adequately, and which Dembski refers to as generated by ‘purely natural forces’, and a second realm which comprises those components which are ‘designed’." from Alexander, Denis, 2005. Is intelligent design biblical? Evangelicals Now,pdf Interesting thoughts. . . dave souza, talk 19:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Intelligent Design

Do ID and science have much in commom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.106.38 (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps reading the article again will answer your question? Gabbe (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Article very misleading POV?

This article is very misleading. The characterization of ID as creationism ignores the fact that all of the leaders mentioned in the article are evolutionists themselves.This article puts Behe,Dembski and other proponents of ID in the same group with Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis and other Young Earth Creationists. ID is, in fact, closer to theistic evolution than Young Earth Creationism. Both the tone of this article and lack of comprehensive treatment of the subject violate NPOV and smack of propaganda.It is apparent that the article was motivated by bias than a search for truth. Instead of a comprehensive view of Intelligent Design Movement which mentions differences as well as similarities with Creationism we got only cherry picked facts that were sanitized of any inconvenient truths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.251.102 (talk) 05:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This article follows what reliable sources write, and reliable sources classify ID as creationism. See WP:DUE, WP:GEVAL and [1]. Gabbe (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It is dubious whether all of the sources are reliable. Citing a district court judge as an authority on the definition of science might be citing a reliable witnesses if the article was about establishment clause jurisprudence. I say might because there is,as of yet, no Supreme Court precedent on ID. This judge, however, has no scientific credentials.

Having said that,the big problem is not that the sources are not reliable, but that the article reflects only a single point of view. There is a lot of information that the article omits. Nothing is said about the beliefs that ID shares in common with evolution. Nothing is said about the fact that proponents of ID and Creationism would strongly dispute many of the statements found in this article concerning what the Intelligent Design Movement represents. This article is supposedly about the ID movement, yet it relies primarily upon the POV of it's opponents in defining what it is. As it is currently written, it is NEITHER an encyclopedic article nor NPOV, but an anti-ID polemic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.251.102 (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Your fringe viewpoint is noted, but is inappropriate as the proposals you make do not meet WP:NPOV and WP:v policies. . . dave souza, talk 18:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Dave. My viewpoint is not a fringe viewpoint.Millions of people, including most intellectuals would concur with my interpretation of NPOV as applied to this article. NPOV, at least in the common sense meaning of it, requires that you give due weight to self-disclosure when writing or speaking about them rather than taking exclusively the POV of their opponents. Failure to do so is called libel. My dispute with POV here has nothing to do with the alleged scientific claims of ID but the fact that this article is skewed in it's presentation of ID.

NPOV requires "...requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly..." In this article NPOV requires that a comprehensive treatment of all significant viewpoints within the ID movement be presented. As for verifiability one simply goes to the authors of ID movement. Dr Stephen Meyer and Dr Michael Behe both defend evolution in their writing. Their dispute with evolution is not the processes of evolution but the insistence that these processes be random.Wikipedia rules about verifiability allow for "...Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves..." Your interpretation of NPOV and verifiability is simply wrong.

This article, as it stands, would not make it into any other encyclopedia. It continued presence here as it stands raises serious questions about the credibility of Wikipedia. Whether NPOV is taken seriously or not. Perhaps the loopholes in Wikipedia interpretation of NPOV are too big, resulting in some contributors committing POV under the guise of NPOV by marginalizing anyone who disagree with them. (i.e. declaring the views of millions 'fringe') —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.251.102 (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Also relevant here are WP:UNDUE and WP:PSCI. ID is a pseudoscientific hypothesis, and so to implicitly equate the supporting and opposing arguments would not be good for the article, or for people who read it trying to understand the status of it. Mkemper331 (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Although we can of course note the claims of ID proponents, these sources cannot be given much weight, since Wikipedia tries to present the mainstream view of a topic within the relevant field. The views of Behe et. al. have no authority at all in evolutionary biology, which is the purported field of ID. The article relies instead on independent secondary sources written by real experts in the field, which discuss and analyse the writings of ID proponents and put their ideas into context. This is similar to our article on the Myth of the Flat Earth, which also uses authoritative secondary sources to discuss and analyse a pseudoscientific idea. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this the future of Wikipedia?

"Group X believes Y. And they're wrong. And they're bad people. And now we'll explain what they really believe, even though they won't openly admit it."

Is that really how Wikipedia articles are supposed to read? Especially considering that there's a separate Intelligent Design Movement article with the extra-dishy dirt about how evil these people are?

If that's the new direction of Wikipedia, then the Christianity article will need a re-vamping. Currently that article merely describes the beliefs of actual Christians. How silly! It should be re-written to emphasize that the beliefs of Christianity are scientifically false, and that many Christian leaders are evil people.

But here's a crazy idea. Maybe this article could be re-written as "Group X believes Y. And now we will explain those beliefs in detail." Yeah, let's try it that way!

If an article is about a belief, then it should primarily describe the belief, as stated by the believers. If the believers do not agree with the article, then the article by definition does not describe their belief. The content of a belief is what the believers say they believe, not what their critics say.

This article isn't about the belief. It's about some of the believers, and the feelings of the people who hate them. Mostly it's about the hate. It's no mystery that Wikipedia is dying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.6.140.60 (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to congratulate the author of the above comment for his brilliantly written criticism of this article as it stands. I am a Christian, I support creationism, I oppose intelligent design because it claims to be something it is not (science), and I believe that this article is terribly written. SineBot is right: this article should be rewritten to describe the views of intelligent-design proponents.

Please see WP:UNDUE, WP:GEVAL, WP:PSCI, WP:FRINGE or the FAQ at the top of this page for explanations on why the article is written the way it is. Gabbe (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles reflect the majority view of experts in the field, see WP:NPOV. In articles on religious topics, we describe a topic giving most weight to the mainstream view amongst theologians. However, ID proponents insist that their ideas are scientific, so this article describes the reception and assessment of these "scientific" ideas among experts in the field of evolutionary biology. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

So the purpose of Wikipedia is to uphold the integrity of science, rather than inform its readers? Compare the ID article to the Astrology article, and see if you notice any differences in tone. The Astrology article informs. The ID article hates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.6.140.60 (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Your implication of mutual exclusivity is a false dichotomy. This article does both, uphold the integrity of science and inform its readers. If ID insists on presenting itself as science, any article on it should be written from a scientific standpoint, and that current standpoint is what the article currently presents. If you have a problem with that, you may find Conservapedia's article on Intelligent Design more to your liking. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

False dichotomy? No, more of a tradeoff. If Wikipedia's policy is, "We won't tell you about beliefs that aren't true," then I would love to see a public statement to that effect. I thought that Wikipedia was a bit more broad-minded than that.

Your accusation of political motive implies a lack of WP:GOODFAITH. It's a foregone conclusion that the article will viciously attack ID. My complaint is simply that the article is uninformative and inaccurate. It disserves the reader. It tells us that the people are bad, and that the beliefs are wrong, but it does a very poor job of explaining the ideas themselves.

My starting argument, which no one has yet disputed, is: If you're describing someone's belief, and the person you're talking about says, "No, that's not what I believe," then your description is ipso facto false. I don't see how citing a judge's attempts at mind-reading changes that basic fact.

Consider this fascinating sentence from p. 28 of the oft-cited ruling: "Moreover, in turning to Defendants’ lead expert, Professor Behe, his testimony at trial indicated that ID is only a scientific, as opposed to a religious, project for him; however, considerable evidence was introduced to refute this claim." Behe says, "I believe X." The judge says, "Oh no. You believe Y." That kind of conversation may be appropriate in a courtroom, but is it appropriate in Wikipedia? And is it appropriate to jump a step further and simply announce: "Behe believes Y," even if he continues to deny it?

So with the best of WP:GOODFAITH in my heart, I ask: Under what possible standard does a Wikipedia article claim that Behe believes X when he says that he believes Y? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.6.140.60 (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Creationists are notorious liars, for one thing. They were caught lying during the Dover trial. Or sometimes they weren't outright lying, but speaking falsehoods because they had never bothered to understand the issue they were talking about, although they claimed they had. In any case, what point or points do you have a problem with? Behe's motivations are demonstrably intertwined with his religious bias, they are not scientific.VatoFirme (talk) 07:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If the premise of the article is that creationists are notorious liars, then that's what the article should say. The current article carelessly mixes together different types of statements: 1) the scientific truth about ID, 2) what ID proponents say that they believe, and 3) what ID proponents actually believe. Read through the article and try to classify each phrase. For example, do ID proponents agree that ID is a modern form of the teleological argument, or is that what their critics believe? I don't know, and this article doesn't tell me.

Even if everything that you believe about ID and its proponents is true, this article is still a mess. It needs separate sections or at least clear identification for each type of statement: 1) Here's what they claim to believe. 2) Here's how we know that they're lying about what they claim to believe. 3) Here's what they really believe. 4) Here's what scientists believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.6.140.60 (talk) 10:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You're attempting to make an issue where this none. It goes without saying that ID is a teleological argument, as it fundamentally is an argument from design, which is what teleological means. This article is objective and reflects the near-unaninmous views of the scientific community. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

69.6.140.60, first, if you want to tell others how to do things on Wikipedia, you should follow the rules yourself. In every case you have posted here, you have not signed your post. All you have to do is put four tildes (~~~~) just like it tells you to at the top of the edit page. Sure, everyone forgets to sign their posts from time to time, but I see no attempt by you to do so at all - it just looks rude. Secondly, you are arguing against the consensus here. Maybe you should just drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

69.6.140.60 Your analogy that the article reads as "Group X believes Y. And they're wrong. And they're bad people. And now we'll explain what they really believe, even though they won't openly admit it." is not correct. The article reads more like "Y is Y by definition. Group X assert Y to be part of Z. Experts in the field of Z disagree with group X which consist mainly of non experts in the field of Z."--LexCorp (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have seen this argument on this talk page before, but I have a hard time imagining what this article would look like if suggestions were put in place. What is Intelligent Design? It not a cohesive, scientific theory. The most that can be said of it, without resorting to straw men, is the definition as put forth by the DI, which is the 1st sentence in the article. Beyond that, it's basically just a bunch of hand waving that says nature is so complex, it couldn't have possibly arisen through natural selection, so it must have been designed. Really, that's the whole theory. Behe is the most honest of the bunch, and his best arguments look at cellular structures that are so complex they couldn't have evolved, which have been debunked. So really there is no theory to explain. JPotter (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of Behe and honesty, thie same subject was raised recently in the blogosphere. . . dave souza, talk 10:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Jason, you say that the theory is all hand-waving, so there's no theory to explain. You could say the same about astrology or phrenology or phlogiston. Yet those Wikipedia articles are far better than this one, mostly because they're more readable. Those articles tell the reader what he actually wants to know, rather than skipping the explanation and jumping straight to the conclusion.

Imagine for a moment that you're talking to someone who doesn't know anything about ID. If you read them the first four paragraphs of this article, they won't know what you're talking about. The article doesn't make sense unless you already know the subject. I would start the article with something close to the third paragraph of the Overview section, less the last sentence. That gives the reader a frame of reference. Now he knows what you're talking about. Wait until the second paragraph to get your first punch in: ID is not science. The current second paragraph isn't too bad, although the second half of the first sentence really shouldn't be there. And the whole paragraph is too long. I would drop the long quote from the NAS. Save it for later.

Then in the third paragraph you get your second punch in: ID proponents are dishonest religious nutjobs with an evil plan to brainwash schoolchildren. But remember, this is just the summary. The current third and fourth paragraphs are trying to summarize in 219 words the entire 9900-word Intelligent Design Movement article, and it doesn't work. If you want to say that they're evil liars bent on brainwashing children, then just say that and drop a link to the full article.

I just looked at the phlogiston theory page, and the lead sentence is almost identical to the lead sentence for ID: both tell the reader that mainstream opnion is that the theory (ID or Phlogiston) is not accepted by the scientific community. However, the editors of ID surely have a harder time, since I doubt there are hundreds of people constantly trying to edit phlogiston, to insert the view that it is correct.

To the anonymous person here: as a scientist, i would like to know what data or experiment would disprove ID. It doesn't have to be something we can actually do , but it has to be scientific. 75.67.134.245 (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

cinnamon colbert

This really isn't complicated. There is a separate ID Movement article, yet the ID article has 219 words Movement words gumming up the introduction, and thousands more further down. On a quick count I'm coming up with about 4300 Movement words, with the whole article being about 11,000 words. If you cut out all the Movement stuff, then most of the rest of the article is actually pretty good. The Integral Concepts section is really the heart of the article, and it could maybe be a little longer. The Origins of the Concept section is pretty good. The sections on Defining Science through Arguments from Ignorance are all appropriate, though some are maybe a little longer than they need to be. And I would delete everything beyond the Arguments from Ignorance section, because that's all off point and covered elsewhere.

This article should focus on ID as an idea, and responses to it. Other articles are already making the case that ID proponents are evil lying unconstitutional religious fanatics who want to brainwash children. The current article is a mix of what it should be and the other article, and as a result it's very difficult to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.6.140.156 (talk) 11:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

What you suggest is to divide the article in multiple content forks so as to sanitise ID from its criticism. This is against WP:CFORK. As you said most of the subsections have already their own article page but still WP policy encourages us to present the subject as the article stands now. If we follow your suggestion to the extreme then the article will only read "ID is creationism in disguise" followed by the appropriate Wikilinks, mainly creationism. Wikipedia is not short in page real-state so there is not need to try to not reproduce material here and in their own articles when said material is of importance to this article.--LexCorp (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: After imagining I don't known anything about ID and after reading the first four paragraphs of this article I learned the following information:

1. Intelligent design is the assertion 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."
2. It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument.
3. The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science.
4. Advocates of intelligent design argue that it is a scientific theory
5. The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science.
6. The concept of intelligent design originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling involving separation of church and state.
7. Its first significant published use was in Of Pandas and People
8. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents"

Tell you what. I think now I have a pretty clear understanding of what is ID. Furthermore I think I am going to read the whole article.--LexCorp (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

An unbiased article from Britannica

Trolling. Collapsed under DNFT

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

"" argument intended to demonstrate that living organisms were created in more or less their present forms by an “intelligent designer.”

Intelligent design was formulated in the 1990s, primarily in the United States, as an explicit refutation of the theory of biological evolution advanced by Charles Darwin (1809–82). Building on a version of the argument from design for the existence of God advanced by the Anglican clergyman William Paley (1743–1805), supporters of intelligent design observed that the functional parts and systems of living organisms are “irreducibly complex,” in the sense that none of their component parts can be removed without causing the whole system to cease functioning. From this premise, they inferred that no such system could have come about through the gradual alteration of functioning precursor systems by means of random mutation and natural selection, as the standard evolutionary account maintains; instead, living organisms must have been created all at once by an intelligent designer. In Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (1996), the American molecular biologist Michael Behe, the leading scientific spokesperson for intelligent design, offered three major examples of irreducibly complex systems that allegedly cannot be explained by natural means: (1) the bacterial flagellum, used for locomotion, (2) the cascade of molecular reactions that occur in blood clotting, or coagulation, and (3) the immune system. ""

So what is wrong with this? Why is it so, so different from yours? Well because it is not POV.

Show me the POV in it. Do creationist run Britannica??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.150.99 (talk) 12:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It says the same thing this article does, that ID is a modern version of the teleological argument. The main difference seems to be, darn that's a short entry! also, we provide our sources. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I will add that the Wikipedia article does a much better job in explaining every part. For example "Intelligent design was formulated in the 1990s, primarily in the United States," in wikipedia expands to "The concept of intelligent design originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling involving separation of church and state.[4] Its first significant published use was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes.[21] Several additional books on the subject were published in the 1990s. By the mid-1990s, intelligent design proponents had begun clustering around the Discovery Institute and more publicly advocating the inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula.[22] With the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture serving a central role in planning and funding, the "intelligent design movement" grew increasingly visible in the late 1990s and early 2000s, culminating in the 2005 Dover trial which challenged the intended use of intelligent design in public school science classes.". Easy to see which one is more complete and that is just comparing our lead to the Britannica article. --LexCorp (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that Britannica does not make an explicit definition of ID, thus the reader is left with an ambiguous opinion as to what is ID. Wikipedia clearly defines ID in the first two sentences of the article. Again kudos for Wikipedia here.--LexCorp (talk) 13:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I could comment ad infinitum on how bad the Britannica article is. If we were to define ID as "argument intended to demonstrate that living organisms were created in more or less their present forms by an “intelligent designer." the roof will come down here in the talk page on POV grounds. What Britannica did there is say ID is an argument for creationism. Clean and simple.--LexCorp (talk) 13:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Also they do not mention that advocates of ID consider it to be a scientific theory and not just a negative argument on the theory of evolution!!! Gross violation of Wikipedia NPOV. I envy the Britannica editors for the freedom they have by not having to follow the WP:NPOV--LexCorp (talk) 13:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

OK Britannic is incompetent and you anonymous volunteers are the experts? Wiki is the only 'encyclopedia' that defines ID in such a biased manner. Are they all incompetent and controlled by creationists? Your conspiracy theory really does not hold water.

And Berlinski is not an ID proponent? And all the ID proponents belong to the DI and all are Christians? any sources on that??? Talk about POV!

Since no one made the assertions you are so outraged about, I'm going to assume you're a troll. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This Article is biased and an embarrassment to Wiki

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

All meaningful questions and criticism along these lines are still covered in Question 4 of the FAQ, and those seeking further enlightenment are directed toward this page. --TS 19:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It is so obvious that it is simply people who are actively opposed to an idea trying to discredit it.

Actually this article spurs people on to learn more about ID because and intelligent and curious person would wonder why the hatchet job persists. What are the opponents of ID trying to hide and why?

Since the internet is not controlled by POVS anyone can google and get the other side of the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.150.99 (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your constructive criticism!! Your concerns have been addresses before in this very talk page (read the two preceding sections[2][3]).--LexCorp (talk) 14:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This issue is handled in a fair amount of detail in Question 4 of the FAQ. --TS 14:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

My point is that if you are trying to present a POV to promote your worldview you should do that in a more clever manner. I think if you presented yourself at first as being unbiased and fairminded, THEN subtly adding the biased materially further down, the article would come off as less dishonest. But right now it is just so, so obvious that you are fudging the sources. I think if you really defined what the concept is in the first paragraph, THEN went through your tirade against it in the second, the article would be more believable. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Your failure to assume good faith and your personal attacks on the integrity of editors are noted – please remember that accusations of dishonesty are unacceptable. It appears that you are unhappy because "your worldview" is given due weight in accordance with policy. As for "really defined what the concept is in the first paragraph", the first sentence gives the definition presented by its proponents, followed by clarifications from reliable sources. If you have a reliable source presenting another definition, do please provide it here with links or book references so that we can discuss appropriate ways of incorporating it. . . dave souza, talk 21:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I never said the editors were dishonest. It is just that the article 'appears' dishonest. It really is impossible for me to know the intentions of the editors. You say you know my worldview? How could you? You said you KNOW it: what is it?

First of all your first two sources are bad. Or do you consider the Discovery Institute a reliable scientific source?

And if you do consider them reliable sources you are misquoting the definition. Read the definition carefully. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again for commenting on the article. First, editors here are not "trying to present a POV" so your suggestion that we do so in a more subtle way is irrelevant and against policy. Second, The Discovery Institute is a good reliable primary source about ID most of the time. It is true that from time to time they have been vague in their statements and somewhat dishonest when disclosing some of their activities and their motivations. But fear not as we have a very capable and active secondary and tertiary source base with plenty to say about the subject and a large body of dedicated editors who take the time to improve on the article.--LexCorp (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is a source I think would be better. See the sources you use are sources that use this source from Stephen Myers.

But the problem with your quote is that it is 'quote mined'. Taking something out of context: Just as creationists have many times misquoted Darwin. you have misquoted Stephens here. It is important to let the reader see the second very, very important sentence. Otherwise you are just quote mining.

And remember there is a difference between 'intelligent design' and the 'theory of ...' just as there is a difference between gravity and the theory of gravity. This comes across as deceptive when you do not make that clear.

'In contrast, the theory of intelligent design holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause. The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it does dispute Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Well the second sentence does not add to the definition. It is a clarification not necessary here because frankly the whole article already makes a lot of clarifications (mind you that when pressed for a more concrete definition some IDer invoke Special Creation which is very much at odd with evolution so even the veracity of that second sentence is in question). We do not use the word theory in the definition because most experts agree it is not a theory but nevertheless we do explain in the second paragraph that advocates of intelligent design argue that it is a scientific theory. All well within WP policies and NPOV. --LexCorp (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Well it really is not up to the quoter to determine what should be quoted. Other wise the evolution of the eye quote mines by creationists would be fair which they are not. Myers put the second sentence in because HE thought it was needed. And if it is not a theory do not quote someone who feels it is. That does not make sense. You say Myers is completely off base yet use him as a reliable source.

ID theory cannot be defined in one sentence any more that 'evolution' can. If I say evolution is 'change over time' and do not allow all the other elements that is vicious quote mining. Really try to be fair. That is all I ask. See this article comes across so, so deceptive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It is exactly up to the quoter to determine what should be quoted by simple definition and common sense. In this case we just quote the definition (The most clear and forthcoming to date from any IDer). We also provide the source and a link to it so that interested parties can read the context. I hardly think quote miners do that. Why shouldn't we quote one of the advocates of ID for his definition even when it is partially mistaken (as it is here when he think it is a theory, when experts say it is not)? The end result is still a correct and easy to understand definition in the article. ID and Evolution can and are defined by a couple of sentences each. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and thus considerable article space is used to discuss both subjects. To clarify, Myers is complete wrong when he states ID to be a theory (meaning scientific theory) thus we omit that from the definition. We do so with the backing of the majority of RS experts in the field of science. You may be under the impression that the article should define ID as the IDer want it to be defined (even when they are mistaken) and not as to what ID is in reality. Why should Wikipedia repeat the mistakes of the IDer and misinform our readers?--LexCorp (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Then dont quote Myers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

" ID and Evolution can and are defined by a couple of sentences each. "

Then why are you cutting Myers def down to one sentence? That is just vicious quote mining. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Who is this Stephen Myers? Please be specific about what part of the article you're commenting on. . . dave souza, talk 23:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

He clearly means Stephen C. Meyer. Me bad for no correcting him sooner. Addendum: as to why he thinks the DI misquoted him of even quote mined him is beyond my understanding. --LexCorp (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The two sentences that define ID are of course those in the article!!! Thus "Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer." Your position that we should use the rest that is not part of the definition or that we should use "theory" is not correct. I will try to explain with a very forced example. Say I was one of the originators of the ball. I define a ball to be a NASA space launch vehicle, a round object with various uses usually spherical but can be ovoid. NASA, the majority of the aeronautical engineers and quite a lot of people with some common sense clearly disagree with me as to a ball being a NASA space launch vehicle. Now I could be stating my definition as such because 1. I clearly do not understand what is a NASA space launch vehicle nor am I an expert in aeronautical matters. 2. I am mad or 3. I am being very dishonest and I am trying to pass my idea of a ball for a NASA space launch vehicle when I fully known it isn't. Either way Wikipedia will clearly define a ball as "A ball is a round object with various uses. It is usually spherical but can be ovoid" trying to quote me as one of the originators of the concept. It will also then explain that I believe a ball to also be a NASA space launch vehicle and the opinions of the overwhelming majority of experts that it is not. This is exactly what is been done in this article.--LexCorp (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Look if you are going to quote myer quote him accurately. and if you think he is full of it. DO NOT QUOTE HIM! And the smart ass comment about ' who is myers?' you knew exactly who i was referring to. just another deception. how obvious. jeez he is the one how was quoted in the article. really just more bull. heave it on! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion but in the end we are quoting the answer to the "What is the theory of intelligent design?" question in a FAQ of a well known page of the DI. No many people will think we are being deceptive in doing so.--LexCorp (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Then dont belly ache when creationists quote mine. Look, an intelligent person can see the deception in the article. And people can google and see a cool, even handed definition of ID etc. So you look like grifters. Actually your are the IDers best friend. Frankly I got interested in this by seeing this wacked out definitions. Sort of reminds me of when I met this really nice looking woman and asked my 'friend' for her number and he said ' oh, you dont want to go out with her'. Your article reminds me of the 'lend me your ears' soliloquy but in reverse. Really if you were smart would be a little more subtle in the tirade section. OK ' I come to bury Cesar not to praise him!' Or reminds me of 'Reefer Madness' Making the evils of pot so, so awful that it was unbelieveable and then discredited any message that would bring up the real health hazards. You honestly do not see this???????????? Jeez! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Intelligent design's leading proponents – all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank[7][8] – believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.[9][10]

... Berlinski believe in Jesus?? where do you get this stuff??? It's like saying all heroin addicts started by drinking milk. Really people! If you are going to lie, lie well! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Berlinski[4] is not a leading proponent of ID so he is clearly not included in the above statement.--LexCorp (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Intelligent design's leading proponents – all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute,..."David Berlinski is a senior fellow in the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture." From what list, with contents determined by who, are the "leading proponents" of ID defined? 96.252.13.17 (talk) 07:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You should review your Set Theory.--LexCorp (talk) 10:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Upon review of your contributions to this Talk page I find that you have accused the editors of this page of 1. trying to discredit ID. 2. trying to present a POV to promote our worldview. 3. quote mining. 4. misquoting. 5. being deceptive. 6. being IDers best friend (this one hurts me personally the most). 7. Lying. In light of these I urge you to read the following Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Etiquette.--LexCorp (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

So how is it that the contributors to the article, who have had their contributions withstand reversion, are not trying to discredit ID or not trying to present a POV congruent to their worldview, have not selected a version of "truth" while rejecting other version? I don't like ID as portrayed by the DI, I think and have always thought that the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision was the correct decision, but it has been clear for years that this article is written in a biased manner with a clear intention to discredit ID, first by declaring unilaterally that it is the DI who defines for everyone what ID is and then making clear what the real transgressions of the DI are (that are many and hard to defend). It's a strawman. And there have been repeated episodes where dissenters to this biased writing were literally done away with by the defenders of this biased writing. For an unbiased observer, this article is clearly biased and a shame. The continuing denials of bias by the biased do not suffice to change that fact. 96.252.13.17 (talk) 07:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, which is all you seem to be using this section for. Please comply with the talk page guideline and specifically note that "Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject." You seem to be proposing we present a new "truth" based on your say-so – that's original research which can't be included: verification from reliable sources is needed. You also don't seem to realise that this article has to give due weight to majority expert opinion in describing this pseudscientific subject. So, present specific proposals for improvements with sources, and comment on content, not on the contributors. . . dave souza, talk 09:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

NO soapbox! Just want honesty and accuracy in the article which seems to be a problem. SM was quote minded and Berlinski misrepresented. And as far as being ID's best friend. That is a FACT you just have to live with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.150.99 (talk) 11:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I just finished a thorough read of this article. This is truly one of the biggest embarrassments to the wiki I have ever seen. The sheer amount of bias is disgusting (and I realized that only after reading the lead). How much longer are you guys going to kid yourselves and PRETEND that this article is not biased against ID? It is articles like this that make me detest the wiki. 95% of Wikipedia's articles are unbiased and genuine, however, it is articles like this which constantly attempt to skew and distort things in order to present a particular POV. The notice at the top of the page reads: Important notice: Some common points of argument are addressed in the FAQ below, which represents the consensus of editors here. Please remember that this page is only for discussing Wikipedia's encyclopedia article about Intelligent Design. Please see the article-specific /editing notes. Consensus of editors here? What does that mean? Five editors who hate ID? Give me a break. That is absolutely ridiculous. Not only is the lead AND the entire article a pathetic falsification of ID, but EVEN THE FAQ is distorted and presents biased info! I would attempt to amend some of the biases in this article, but I know that as soon as I do I'll have some senior editor revert everything I do and show me some Wikipedia policies that cover-up his/her reversions. -- ΙΧΘΥΣ T C 01:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

See WP:WEIGHT, WP:PSCI and WP:TALK. You appear to be biased against the overwelming majority view, particularly in science, and would do best to make specific proposals backed by citing reliable sources. . . dave souza, talk 03:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

IX, the worst part of it that any kind of dissent is banned. Just to criticize this article results in blocking etc. There are many, many factual inaccuracies. But the owners of this article will not correct them. And this is not a push for ID. I just hate the truth being hidden. This is no different than the church censoring Galileo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.150.99 (talk) 12:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Who bans dissent? who was blocked for criticizing the article? The least you could do is remain objective and engage in trying to improve the article. For those new to wikipedia I suggest you read the following pages that explain how the process of article making and consensus building works. Wikipedia:Editing policy, Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Help:Edit summary, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Editors that only criticize an article bur fail to engage in productive consensus building by not reasoning their suggestion, not citing or sourcing them, and not making sure they are in line with Wikipedia policy are engaging in behaviour that is not productive. See Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. There is also a very large archive of this talk page where many subjects are already covered and a nice search function to research the archive in depth. Many of the topics raised here are already discussed in the archives and it is good to read then to familiarise yourself with all the points of views for a given suggestion, then if you feel you have something new to add to the arguments of any side you are welcome to again rise the issue here. It is also very counter-productive when trying to contribute to a article to start your engagement with the former editorial body by assuming bad faith from them, accusing them of POV pushing and making unsubstantiated grave accusations of BANNING and BLOCKING people because of a difference of opinion.--LexCorp (talk) 13:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

How about WP:COMMON, WP:IGNORE, WP:NPOV, and WP:BIAS. I think that we should use some common sense here and give some neutral perspective to this article. You claim that WP:WEIGHT supports that this article should be biased. But that completely goes against the nature of Wikipedia. WP:WEIGHT applies for very small minorities that do not have valid opinions, however, ID does not fall under that category. In fact, a large percentage of people believe that ID is an acceptable and valid theory. Simply thinking that ID should hold no weight merely because a majority of scientists have stated that they do not believe in the theory does NOT mean that we should have an article that completely negates and criticizes ID. No scientist in the world has been able to discredit or proove that ID is false. Also, you CANNOT compare ID to the old Flat Earth theory. They are complete opposites. Flat Earth theory has been pragmatically disproven by valid and credible sources everywhere - ID can't be disproven. WP:WEIGHT says that Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. ID is NOT a tiny minority by any means. There is a significant number of people that adhere to its claims. So instead of pretending that this article is "not unfairly biased against ID" (as the skewed FAQ section suggests), how about we start to amend these revolting biases? If nobody agrees that this article needs to be seriously rewritten and amended, then I propose a rename to Criticisms of Intelligent Design (because that is EXACTLY what this article is). -- ΙΧΘΥΣ T C 21:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is part of WP:NPOV. Implementing WP:WEIGHT makes the article more in line with WP:NPOV not more biased. Wikipedia is not a democracy, see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. It is irrelevant to this discussion the amount of popular support that ID may have. What is important is how much support the particular view has within the field of expertise of the subject. In light of the almost non-existent support that ID has in the scientific community we regard it as WP:Fringe. For my part I do not agree that the article needs a substantial rewrite nor do a support a rename to "Criticisms of Intelligent Design"--LexCorp (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

ΙΧΘΥΣ, you've already been referred to the relevant policies, and don't seem to realise the requirements of WP:NPOV. You quote "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space." but don't seem to have read the next sentences: "However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." Weight is not about "numbers of people", it's about published expert opinion in the relevant field. As ID is claimed to be science, it is assessed on that basis – it's not science, but a religious argument, and no scientist has been able to "proove that ID is false" as it's unfalsifiable, one reason that it isn't science. As theology it's not accepted by mainstream churches, and has had a mixed reception from other creationists, as the article shows. . . dave souza, talk 22:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that 18% of Americans think the Sun revolves around the Earth (source) does not make that a "significant minority viewpoint", as the Geocentric model has virtually no support among contemporary mainstream astronomers. Similarly, that many Americans believe in ID does not change the fact that a vast majority of biologists consider ID to be pseudoscience. Gabbe (talk) 06:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

A couple of years ago I got interested in Intelligent Design, primarily because this article was so obviously biased. Things have gotten better but this article is clearly written from a biased POV. The best example? When this article claims an "unequivocal consensus"---uh ... right---just like the unequivocal consensus regarding global warming. What I find humorous is seeing the same bag of wiki-losers grinding away their lives defending this tripe from an endless string of detractors. 70.183.0.51 (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to make the usual reply to this type of contribution. This is not a forum for passing comments about other editors. If despite this you have anything constructive to offer to the development of this article your contributions will be welcomed otherwise keep your irrelevant thoughts to yourself, please Tmol42 (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MoS

Am I interpreting Wikipedia:MOS#Religions.2C_deities.2C_philosophies.2C_doctrines.2C_and_their_adherents incorrectly, or should the first instance of "God" in the introduction be capitalised (as it is) and the second not capitalised? Cheers, Ben (talk) 12:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Had a look at the MOS, and it raised questions of grammar that I didn't have any opinion on. So, don't know in terms of the MOS, but both the cited sources use "God".[5][6] The first source is cited correctly from the official court document, so you'd think that they'd know. Am inclined to change it back to match the sources, any comment? . . dave souza, talk 14:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Although I don't think our style conventions should be adopted from whatever sources we happen to be using in a particular article (outside of the obvious, like direct quotes, it would make for a messy project), I'm not too worried about it. If there is a preference to just leave it capitalised then by all means revert away. Cheers, Ben (talk) 11:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, as the inline citation links down to a quotation using capitals for the word, have reverted to the capitalised version. I'm personally unsure about how the MoS is to be interpreted in this case, but that's a reflection on my knowledge of grammar rather than anything else. . . dave souza, talk 10:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Misquoting etc

Intelligent design's leading proponents – all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank[7][8] – believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.[9][10]

.... source # 9 goes nowhere #10 simply states that Dembski believes in God not everyone who is a 'leading' proponent.

All leading intelligent design proponents are fellows or staff of the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture.[119]

.... if you look at the source Berlinski is listed. Berlinski is a jewish atheist and secondly where is your source that says who the 'leading' proponents are? I think that is just POV.

.... circular logic: all lead proponents are from the DI. evidence: a list of DI members. you honestly do not see the circular logic there???

.... I could go through the article and find scores of misquotations, POVs in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.150.99 (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Source # 9 goes to "the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity". Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., Ruling p. 26 – try reading it.

"All leading intelligent design proponents are fellows or staff of the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture." should be read in conjunction with source # 7, so I've added an inline link to that. Berlinski does not openly avow intelligent design and describes his relationship with the idea as: "warm but distant. It's the same attitude that I display in public toward my ex-wives."[7] Presumably the expert sources for the statement were aware of that when discounting this irreligious character with "no particular agenda beyond skepticism" as a leader. Do please continue with detailed examination of the article. . . dave souza, talk 13:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and Dembski who is perhaps the most vocal leading ID proponentsist explicitly stated that "The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God". Who are you to disagree with him? . . dave souza, talk 13:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

'try reading' this http://home.kc.rr.com/bnpndxtr/download/HorsesMouth-BP007.pdf

you are cherry picking? how can we stop that??

"All leading intelligent design proponents are fellows or staff of the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture"

should be:

" All leading intelligent design proponents are fellows or staff of the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture except Berlinski"

you really cannot expect the reader to go thru the sources to find out that Berlinski is not a proponent of ID yet is on the DI staff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.150.99 (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Do please learn to sign your posts. The HorsesMouth page seemed supplementary to me, so I didn't check it. Presumably it was valid when cited, and an internet archive version can be found if need be.

You're the one arguing that Berlinski is listed as a fellow or staff of the DI / CSC, the source we have says that "the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity". All leading proponentsists are associated with the DI, their writings show the Designer is the God of Christianity. You're the one arguing that Berlinski is a leading proponentsist (unproven) and doesn't fit the second statement. Do please find a reliable third party source making that argument. . . dave souza, talk 14:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

My point is that you are saying that 'all the leading proponents are members of DI' and your logic is that anyone who is is a member of DI is a leading proponent. Where is your source for the list of 'leading proponents' and then comparing that list to the DI list? Why is Bush not a leading proponent? There are no European proponents? and your use of 'proponentsists' shows contempt and bias no more childish than a creationist using the word: 'evilutionist'. You have taken great deal of Behe's quotes out of context. And it should be pointed out that Berlinski is part of DI but not a christian. It really does not matter. The bias is so obvious in the article that it portrays militant atheists as deceptive and mean spirited. And really puts main line scientists in a bad light. It certainly has changed my perception of 'science' in the US. I guess that is good. The quotes here are as cherry picked as the data for global warming. An eye-opening view into modern day 'science'.

OK to improve the article the quotes should not be out of context and there should be equal weight to both sides of the issue. But still this is good that 'sciences' dirty laundry is aired here. Keeps people from accepting anything our present 'science' community says blindly. Keep up the good work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.135.184.178 (talk) 13:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

"My point is that you are saying that 'all the leading proponents are members of DI' and your logic is that anyone who is is a member of DI is a leading proponent." This is simply not the case; you're making a fallacious argument here. "All X are Y" does not imply "All Y are X." Saying that all leading proponents are fellows of DI does not imply that all fellows of DI are leading proponents. --BRPierce (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

... well of course it does not imply that "all Y are X". you missed the point. Here is my point: you need two separate lists and a source for each list. One list is the list of leading proponents. The next is a list of DI members. Then compare those two. Right now you illogically infer that all DI ID proponents are the leading proponents. OK is George Bush a leading proponent? He is very well know person whose opinion carries a lot of weight and he has stated that he IS a proponent.

How do you differentiate a leading proponent from a non-leading proponent. Seems like your criteria is association with DI. The logic is circular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.150.99 (talk) 12:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This would be better. Less parenthetical, less sneaky.

Intelligent design's leading proponents believe the designer to be the god of Christianity.[9][10] All the leading proponents are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank[7][8]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.232.53 (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

To those who feel this article is biased:

Archiving due to WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOTFORUM

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have seen countless editors commenting on how biased the article is. And making efforts to right that. And then see a cabal projecting the bias.

NOT TO WORRY!

Interestingly the bias is so obvious that the article is a caricature of militant atheists trying to pressure their viewpoint on others. It also shows that they were not even clever enough to camoflage their attempt.

Leave it as it it! It simply discredits itself as it is read and motivates the reader to search for the opposite side of the presentation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.135.184.178 (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Creation according to Genesis can't be wrong!

God created the world in 7 days, O ye sinners - and he spoke Hebrew, too, none of this Babylonian nonsense. Read all about it at Creation according to Genesis.PiCo (talk) 07:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't tell if this is a joke or not. If not, what're you suggesting to improve the article? Mkemper331 (talk) 14:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the writer's user page, I think it's a funny. TheresaWilson (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

6 days...surely? 213.31.180.126 (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Intelligent design and Christianity

Is the belief of Intelligent design exclusive to Christians? Why does this article state in the lead that ~~Intelligent design is the belief of the Christian God~~ the belief in Intelligent design is related to the belief in the Christian God? Imad marie (talk) 13:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

ID origin can be traced directly to a group of Christians. Read [[8]] and [[9]]. Nevertheless there are some subsections in the article that broadly talk about its relations to other faiths. Read [[10]], [[11]] and [[12]]. If you feel there is room for improvement or want to suggest any change fell free to do so.--LexCorp (talk) 14:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You must have read another lead. The one in this article says "It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer." Thus explicitly pointing out that ID avoids identifying any God.--LexCorp (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the last sentence of the first paragraph says: "Intelligent design's leading proponents – all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank – believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.". Which highlights the connection with the Christian God. Imad marie (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes this is correct. ID is part of a broader movement by some fundamental Christians that "seek to "defeat [the] materialist world view" represented by the theory of evolution in favor of "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"". After failing to reinstate creationism in the US public education system they slightly reformulated their creationism believes so that they resemble science by developing "Creation Science". This was also rejected so again they reformulated their believes into ID to avoid identifying the creator. Again this was unsuccessful as to their aims for the fact that all these is very well documented as seen in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. You may find of interest the following Intelligent design movement, Wedge strategy, Teach the Controversy and Critical Analysis of Evolution. In light of all these it is important for the article to point out that most of the proponents of ID are Christians belonging to this movement. This article is about ID in this context, for a more general approach you should really go to the creationism article and for a specific faith related approach you should see Islamic creationism.--LexCorp (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This is well sourced: "A significant aspect of the IDM is that despite Defendants’ protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity."[13] For the similar generic argument used for other deities or supernatural powers see teleological argument. Also note, while a couple of the lesser lights who have tagged along with ID are Jewish or Muslim, the leaders consistently espouse a particular form of literalist Christianity, even though they do have differences between themselves over the age of the Earth or the extent of evolutionary common descent. . . dave souza, talk 18:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

" In light of all these it is important for the article to point out that most of the proponents of ID are Christians belonging to this move... " But in the article it says 'ALL'. Most of us learned in fourth grade that way one states 'ALL' of anything, the fact is doubtful. It shows bias. This is obvious. Would love to see the source that says 'all ID proponents are Christian'. Please show it to me. Thanks.

And how can you have an 'argument for the existence of God' which does not specify 'God'?? I am sure if you asked ID proponents if the designer could have been a space alien they would all agree. And they are being forthright in saying that even though they have no scientific basis to believe it is God, their religious beliefs lead them to that conclusion. It would be like if I had evidence that my wife was killed by a man 6 foot tall and my neighbor is 6 foot tall and though I have no evidence other than that: I BELIEVE he did it. I do not see how this concept is conjured to be so hard to understand. It seems that this article is 'designed' to provoke argument. It is simply NOT even handed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.150.99 (talk) 12:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Please provide specific points of correction. Where, exactly, does the article say "ALL" as you claim. Also where does the article refer to ID as an argument for the existence of God? And yes, ID proponents would all agree that the designer could have been a space alien - in public. But as secret documents that they were too thick to destroy have revealed, they don't believe any such thing. I suggest you pay close attention to the article when you read through it again because I do believe that last part is explained.Farsight001 (talk) 12:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Its all in the first paragraph. Read the first paragraph. Again the point is the difference in BELIEVING something and saying there is evidence. ID states that there is evidence of a designer not God. I can say that the evidence points to a designer and BELIEVE that designer is God. I do not think this concept is so difficult. And you do not have to go to 'secret documents' (as your conspiracy theory indicates) many ID proponents OPENLY and in PUBLIC say they believe in God. Seems you are saying a person cannot believe in God and accept that evidence could point to an alien. This concept seems simple to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.150.99 (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Leading proponents is not the same as all proponents. So the article does not state that ALL ID proponents are associated with the Discovery Institute and believe the designer to be the God of Christianity. The article defines ID as a teleological argument, but one which avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer because the Reliable Sources tell us that is what ID is. I wish they would be more explicit and say ID is a propaganda tool to further the wedge strategy, but sadly no single reputable source states it in such a way.--LexCorp (talk) 15:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I read it. And I must say, I think you probably need to re-read it. It doesn't say all ID proponents. It says all LEADING proponents - and it is well sourced. As for my "conspiracy theory" - it is no such thing. The so mentioned documents are only called secret because they were originally intended to forever stay that way, but are now in the public eye. I do not refer to documents that I believe exist but do not have proof of. I refer to documents that are quite visible and readable and last I checked, mentioned in this very article. Yes someone could believe in God and believe the evidence points to an alien. But again - check out the rest of the article and those documents, particularly the Wedge document (If I linked it right) where they freely admit that they don't believe the evidence points to aliens, but rather to God. The concept seems simple to you. If I was working with the information that you seem to be working with, I might come to the same conclusion as you. Your information, and I mean no insult, is just incomplete here.Farsight001 (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

IF it is not purely Christian, then surely it should be easy enough to find a leading ID proponent who actively denies the Christian God...? 213.31.180.126 (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ben Stein? 71.254.6.202 (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Ben Stein was an idiot. It is very surprising to me that anyone will think him a leading proponent of ID.--LexCorp (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Collection of Evidence of Unintelligent Design?

The new article about Richard Dawkins' new book The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution links to this article in the context of unintelligent design. By this, the book refers to a number of examples in biology of things that no sane person could believe were the work of an intelligent designer, e.g. the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Is there a WP article that collates examples of this concept? I see Unintelligent design redirects to an article with a focus on a logical argument, however, I think Evidence of unintelligent design deserves to exist. Your opinions? Tayste (talk / contrib) 19:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've had a look and there are a few sources on the topic. However, this subject is closely-linked to ID, so I'd recommend stating off by adding a section on this idea to this article, and only splitting this off into a sub-article if the section becomes too long. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Unintelligent Design seems like it pretty well covers what you're envisioning. Further down the page, there's a good sized list of examples, but the logical argument is definitely necessary to connect these examples to disproving ID. Perhaps you're looking for something like Objections to evolution, which covers various attempts to disprove evolution, and always states why they are wrong. In particular, the Objections to plausibility section looks like it has some of the content you're looking for. This article's Integral concepts section also has some of this. This article should focus mainly on the history and claims of ID, and its acceptance in the academic community (as per WP:NPOV); we don't need an exhaustive list of counterexamples and/or thought experiments that disprove ID. Such a list would quickly grow out of hand, and probably result in an article not unlike Moon landing conspiracy theories. Mildly Mad^T_C 20:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right. The Argument from poor design article covers this all pretty thoroughly. Needs a lot more references though, so you'd be most welcome to expand this, Tayste. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Question

Resolved

Would anyone have objections to add this article to Category:Theology since this is based on theology rather then science or many be under --> Category:Religion and science not trying to offend anyone ..just think that it should be clear that its a religious back theory...Now if i am way off base here pls let me know!!!..Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding the most specific category possible is preferred, so the sub-category of theology Category:Arguments for the existence of God would be most appropriate and probably wouldn't be contentious. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

OK good choice ..i see you did it...Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Is ID a view, assertion, or something else?

Consensus already exists for question. Previous discussion at Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 53.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Yesterday, the lede was changed from "Intelligent design is the assertion that..." to "Intelligent design is the view that..." This opening phrase sets the tone of the rest of the article. Which word would best carry the proper connotations? A couple of thoughts and other possibilities:

"assertion" - the term that has been in the article for quite some time. Carries a bit of a stronger connotation, suggesting that ID is somewhat controversial and that advocates are persistent in their views.
"view" - the one used in the current version. I don't like this; it seems too WP:WEASELy for such a subject because it implies that ID is similar to a political view in that it cannot be wronged or disputed.
"belief" - a possibility if consensus is that "assertion" is too strong of a word.
"claim" - carries the connotation that ID is a WP:FRINGE view and is not factual. However, it's probably too non-WP:ASF for the lede, though.
"conclusion" or "hypothesis" - implies the "scientific" aspect of ID, but probably gives WP:Undue weight to its credibility.

I haven't read through all of the archives to search for any previous debate on this (I'm sure there was at some point), so if there was a previous consensus gained, someone should bring it up. Thoughts? Mildly Mad^T_C 19:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep. There was quite a lengthy debate and the consensus was to use "assertion".--LexCorp (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Archiving thread. Mildly Mad^T_C 19:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

History of Intelligent Design

It would seem that you are off by 77+ years in you description of the origins of Intelligent Design as illistrated in Michael A. Flannery's book "Alfred Russel Wallice's Theory of Intelligent Evolution" which can be found here:

http://www.amazon.com/Alfred-Russel-Wallaces-Intelligent-Evolution/dp/0981520413/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263845908&sr=8-6

the second part of this book is simply a reprint of Alfred Russel Wallice's original publication in 1910.

This is in reference to the following description in the Introduction:

"The concept of intelligent design originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling involving separation of church and state.[4]" NYC2LA (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so the creationists are now claiming Wallace! Next thing, IDiots proclaim a belief in natural selection and spiritualism! However, "intelligent design" as we know it began in 1987 as stated and properly sourced in the article. . . . dave souza, talk 22:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Handy link . . dave souza, talk 23:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... So much for the guidelines against personal attacks. Simply suggesting correction of the true history of ID. Source provided.NYC2LA (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Calling people 'IDiots' reveals the extreme bias of the owners of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't take it personally, sorry if you identify with these "design proponents". Unfortunately, that's not a reliable source for the True History of ID as such claims are rather commonplace. Wallace wasn't the only one invoking divine intervention in evolution at that time; Mivart, Owen and the Duke of Argyll had already been much more prominent proponents of such views. . . dave souza, talk 17:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is informative. . . dave souza, talk 17:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether I take it personally or not is irrelevant. I simply found it interesting that you would call someone an IDiot for simply pointing out a factual error - in good faith. I have not identified myself with these "design proponents" one way or the other. The entry in the article as quoted above is that "The concept ORIGINATED" after 1987 which is factually incorrect based on Wallice's writings as late as 1910. How is a reprint of a book originally published 100 years ago not a reliable source?NYC2LA (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's be clear, I have no opinion on you, and am sure that you presented this information in good faith. My personal view is that Michael A. Flannery is an ID proponent acting with the idiocy which seems common in ID authors, though doubtless he's highly intelligent. Wallace's book doesn't seem to contain the term "intelligent design", he could be described as a precursor, but then so could Plato and Paley, as we show in the article, so he clearly wasn't the first. If he originated ID, then it originated as a form of theistic evolution in which God is replaced by a spiritualist belief, and natural selection is strongly supported. Shows how much it changed when intelligent design was formed from the ashes of creation science in 1987. Of course that would be accepting Michael A. Flannery's interpretation of Wallace, which is hardly reliable. Your own interpretation of Wallace would be unusable under original research policy. Trust you find that informative. . dave souza, talk 20:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It is stated very clearly in the FAQ of this discussion page that ID = Creationism. If that is indeed the position of the consensus of the authors of this article then it follows that when the article gives the history of ID, it would be incorrect to say that the "Concept" of ID began began in response to the US Supreme Court case of 1987. You yourself have noted that the concept has predated even Wallace which is long before 1987. It is becoming clear that this isn't really an article about the concept of ID in general, rather it is specifically about the current ID movement and it's critics. If that is the case then the article should read "The current Intelligent Design movement began in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court..." or perhaps "Intelligent Design as it is currently known began in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court..." The way it is stated now is misleading in that it implies that the 'concept' didn't exist prior to 1987 which is factually inaccurate as you have essentially agreed with, even citing several others from history that held similar 'concepts'. NYC2LA (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the phrase "concept of intelligent design" could be improved. In context, it's clearly referring to the modern form of intelligent design, but the word "concept" can definitely be construed (as NYC2LA has pointed out) to include theistic evolution as a whole, which is definitely older than 1987. However, we still have this distinction to make: Intelligent design is different from other forms of theistic evolution/creationism in that it tries to present creationism as a valid scientific theory, and that is what began in 1987. Removing "concept" seems like a good edit to make, since ID is defined in the previous paragraph as being presented as scientific theory. If we try to add more distinction, I'm worried that splitting hairs between theistic evolution and intelligent design, especially in the lede, will detract from the quality of the article. Mildly Mad^T_C 19:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thanks to both of you. . . dave souza, talk 20:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth Merriam-Webster's puts the origin of the term "intelligent design" back in 1847.[14] Gabbe (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, see the #Origins of the term section of the article: The phrase "intelligent design" can be found in an 1847 issue of Scientific American, in an 1850 book by Patrick Edward Dove,[58] and even in an 1861 letter of Charles Darwin. – we give more detail than they do! We also draw the distinction between use as a descriptive phrase, and the modern term. By the way, we don't seem to cite a source for that, but this gives a handy reference. . . dave souza, talk 21:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so it does. :) Gabbe (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Concept of ID traced back to 1759! . . dave souza, talk 12:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Has an exhaustive search been done?

Has an exhaustive search of every peer-reviewed scientific journal been done? The claim that "The article does not cite any papers that support ID because no such papers have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals" seems to be begging the question, and the sources do not seem to point to any exhaustive studies - they only present further arguments. —CobraA1 21:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. This was a significant feature of the Kitzmiller trial, as shown. The idea that ID proponents are hiding their peer-reviewed scientific journal articles is absurd. They do make claims from time to time, and invariably the articles are in inappropriate publications, and fail to support ID. An update to the article will of course be welcome, to be based on a reliable source and not on ID posturing. . . dave souza, talk 12:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that explains why creationist/ID organizations are now publishing their own journals. Thanks. —CobraA1 16:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Can't find a source, but seem to recall that ID proponents pretty much gave up on their own journal without actually publishing anything resembling a paper supporting ID. More recently, this is an example of something with at the most something resembling obscure tangential "support" for ID getting into an inappropriate journal. More detail. . . dave souza, talk 22:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall AiG has their own journal. But I guess that's more creationist than ID. Just wondering, though, not saying I agree or disagree or whatever. —CobraA1 20:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed publications, in science and academia, refer to verification by experts of the rigorous standards of methodology, ethics, and reasonable interpretation that research needs to be included in said publications. ID papers are not and cannot be included until reliable, repeatable, and reasonably interpreted studies with the proper methodology has been done and support the ID hypothesis. The publications created by creationist or ID organizations do not have these same standards, and are not considered by the scientific community to be sufficient. 07:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DenaChemistry (talk • contribs)

One of the Best Written Biased Views of a Famous Historical American Debate I Have Ever Read

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

All meaningful questions and criticism along these lines are still covered in Question 4 of the FAQ. Archiving due to WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOTFORUM--LexCorp (talk) 12:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Why Wikipedia cannot tell this article fails as an objective piece with a straight-forward purpose such as to explain, discuss, inform, or present facts is beyond me. It is clearly primarily persuasive, attempting to set the American populace off in the direction of its rival's view and recent court rulings. Wikipedia cannot thus assume this article was written in good faith and neutral unless it is supporting a particular point of view itself. The article is clearly evolutionists' view of a two-sided national debate. For the most part, this probably reveals a severe weakness in Wikipedia's editorial policies, in that it is willing to protect voluntary labor and free contributions from anyone willing to embellish and giftwrap them sufficiently. Wikipedia's sense of fairness and even-handedness thus are taking back seats here to a majority view. And it is willing to yield control to any group's rival who is willing to move early into a scholarly vacuum and expend considerable resources in bludgeoning its opposition, as long as Wikipedia gets its publication rights. Why hasn't Wikipedia concluded that this article lacks an expository purpose, and is essentially persuasive in character? The article begs that question. The piece is to be commended for having an abundance of subtopics and references built on top of a historical framework. However, Wikipedia has earned the right to be criticized about editing naivety here. The naivety shown by its taking the carrot-stick approach, following tantilizing tidbits from one side of a national debate (most the moderators over this encyclopedic entry are bitter opponents of the topic's viewpoint), will probably go down in the history books. Is the abortion issue being handled with such obvious one-sided bias by Wikipedia? Are all national debates and issues? It is time for the American media to wake up and check this one out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.243.138.198 (talk) 10:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ at the top of this page for explanations on why the article is written the way it is.--LexCorp (talk) 12:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

LexCorp, we have looked at the FAQ at the top of this page for explanations on why the article is written the way it is -- those explanations are NOT admissible. How is it possible for a skewed and biased FAQ to justify the bias in this article? --ΙΧΘΥΣ (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

What on earth do you mean by "admissible"? This isn't a court, so adding random legal jargon does nothing for your argument by assertion - ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Admissible -- synonymous with acceptable, appropriate, and justifiable. --ΙΧΘΥΣ (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

An FAQ is quite appropriate on a page devoted to discussion and it is justified by the number of repetitive questions people put forwards, so whether or not you personally find it acceptable, it will stay. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not talking about an FAQ, I'm talking about the FAQ on this talk page which quite clearly is biased in and of itself. A biased FAQ cannot justify bias in an article (since, as stated above by LexCorp, "Please see the FAQ at the top of this page for explanations on why the article is written the way it is." I have looked at the FAQs and I do not think those are sufficient and accurate answers to very reasonable and relevant questions. An FAQ should fairly answer frequently asked questions without any bias. It is very obvious to me (and many others) that this article is biased, and the rebuttals made on this talk page that attempt to justify the bias refer to the FAQ (which is biased). So what I want to know is: how can an FAQ that answers frequently asked questions with a biased perspective warrant the biases present in this article? --ΙΧΘΥΣ (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You might find it helpful to study Talk:Intelligent design/editing notes. You seem unlikely to find that it fits your bias, but be assured that it reflects carefully considered Wikipedia policies and you won't change them by going on here about "bias". . . dave souza, talk 00:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

User dave souza makes a very good point. Pointing out ad nauseam that you and other editors find the article and its FAQ biased is not very constructive. You should make specific criticism, by reasoning or argument, and discuss also on how Wikipedia policy and the article reliable sources supports said thesis and also if possible make an edit suggestion that will resolve the issue in your view. Then we can engage in a meaningful exchange of views here in the Talk Page in the hope that a consensus may be reached.--LexCorp (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and while you're at it, read the article on Myth of the Flat Earth and then try replacing each instance of the phrase "intelligent design" in the section of the ID FAQ that deals with the accusation of bias, with "idea of the Flat Earth". You might find it easier to grasp the principles involved in an area where you have no personal interest. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

An aside discussion: After re-reading the Talk:Intelligent design/editing notes. I find them very informative and they seem to answer fully all the points raised by the "biased Article criticism" type of objections. Why were they removed from the top of the page? If because of length. Can not we implement a collapsing link as with the FAQ?.--LexCorp (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In case you haven't notice I implemented your fabulous suggestion.--LexCorp (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You Sir are a fine man!--LexCorp (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks to all of you! You've done a splendid job. . . dave souza, talk 18:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Display the "Theory of Intelligent Design"?

I just looked over the article, and couldn't find any information on the "scientific theory" behind the intelligent design movement. (There is a source link in the introductory paragraph, but the "theory" is not actually printed.) This might be worth mentioning, since much of the criticism of ID stems from a perceived lack of use of the scientific method, and it'll explain the ID-ers claim to scientific relevancy a bit more. I'll provide a couple links that detail ID's reasoning: One from the ID-ers: [[15]] Another from a more neutral POV: [[16]] And of course, the one already listed in the sources: [[17]] Does anyone else think that the "theory of intelligent design" is worth a mention? Bpenguin17 (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the information that you're looking for is in Intelligent_design#Integral_concepts. But you know what? I did notice that the lede doesn't really explain any of the central concepts of ID. It jumps right into the debunking without really explaining what ID is. The lede is supposed to summarize the article, not just the debunking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The opening sentence states verbatim the "theory" of intelligent design given in the first and last sources, carefully describing it as an assertion rather than using the misleading word theory, which "holds 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." As is properly required by policy, this assertion is put in the context of the vast majority scientific view of this claimed "science". If you'd like to propose a brief well sourced summary of the "central concepts" together with their scientific reception, that can be considered. . . dave souza, talk 07:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The lede is supposed to summarize the entire article, not just the debunking, much of which is repetitive. Ledes don't need cites. On a side note, another thing I noticed previously is that the US federal court ruling is cited as if it has some sort standing within the scientific community. Nah, not enough free time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This was actually an unusual court ruling. The scientific community made a case before a conservative judge, who accepted it and ruled. One day Wikipedia, and America, may possess the detachment to write about the situation, but for now it's enough to write about the facts. --TS 03:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning the federal ruling in the lede might make more sense if we tied to it the fact that it effectively killed the ID movement as a serious political force in the US. Do we have a cite for that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Objection

I don't understand something about the various articles on "Intelligent Design". It is clearly understandable why there would be an article about this in wikipedia, because of the court cases regarding the introduction of creationist ideas in schools in america. What I cannot understand is why there are so many sub-articles like "specified complexity" etc explaining concepts which are clearly not encyclopaedic. These concepts which stem from self-published individuals and which are clearly not science since they have never been published in scientific journals but which claim to be scientific although at the same time flawed and discredited as such by scientists shouldn't be in wikipedia. Here is the reason why I think this: By this logic we would have to include books and literature published by individuals on a subject like e.g. astrology not only in a general form (as already existent on wikipedia) but in detail discuss the concepts - as if scientific - presented in these books. This would clearly be nonsensical and waste a lot of space. Why this particular set of self-published individuals gets this preferred treatment of discussion of their ideas in an encyclopedia is beyond me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.50.203.40 (talk) 10:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Although these concepts are not necessarily entirely scientific or encyclopaedic in nature, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is notability, not encyclopaedic-ness. Remember, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia, so we can include any topic that is adequately covered by reliable sources, including ID concepts such as specified complexity. Having the sub-articles also serves the interest of keeping the ID article to a reasonable length. Thanks for your comment! Mildly Mad^T_C 14:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

In light of new evidence

After reading through 58 pages of archived discussion, it has become clear to me that the patience exhibited by dave souza is irrefutable evidence of an infinitely benevolent force in the universe. This article ought to be updated accordingly.66.134.4.226 (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL. I always suspected it was due to a genetic mutation myself. Auntie E. (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(Golf Clap) thanks for the laugh. Nefariousski (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL also. Just put it down to Wikisloth and a misspent retirement. . dave souza, talk 22:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Factually Incorrect

The Discovery Institute does not seek to prove that the "intelligent designer" is the Christian God. It has Muslim, agnostic and Jewish scientists associated with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.249.116 (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice of you to tell us this, but Wikipedia requires attribution of such claims, and the statement in the article is based on a reliable source. . . dave souza, talk 22:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The sources (footnotes 9 & 10) for the claim that the intelligent designer is the God of Christianity are 1) a Wikipedia article, which though it is probably accurate should not be used to source another Wikipedia article, 2) a dead link, and 3) a publication of Focus on the Family. Shall I add Focus on the Family to the list of WP:Reliable sources?

I'm quite sure Dave will not object if I just go ahead and replace those references with this one:

In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

Is the Discovery Institute exclusively Christian?

Berlinski is a secular Jew and agnostic. .... A critic of evolution, Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture,... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berlinski
...Dr. David Berlinski, a senior fellow with Discovery's Center for Science & Culture. http://www.discovery.org/a/2846

But those factual references can't be used because one is from WP and the other from the Discovery Institute. This would work:

Berlinski, a Princeton Ph.D. in mathematics who has written a number or popular books on math and science, describes himself as a "secular Jew" and "agnostic" with "no religious convictions and no religious beliefs."

http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/34048328/Delusions-of-Scientific-Adequacy

I don't know about Muslims; using this article would be OR and SYN-- http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/groups/discovery-institute

Jonathan Wells has been a member of the Discovery Institute since 1996. As early as the 1970’s, as a member of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church,... http://www.sunflower.com/~jkrebs/JCCC/07%20Wellsv4.pdf

Yopienso (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Editing that page looks too complicated for the likes of me! So I won't change the footnotes, but there's all the information if anyone else cares to. Yopienso (talk) 08:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You err in thinking that this source is Wikipedia – it's Wikisource and an accurate transcript of http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf which provides a well supported basis for the statement. While you may consider the god of UC members, Jews and Muslims to be different from the god of Christianisty, that was not the conclusion of the court. . . dave souza, talk 11:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me about Wikisource. How I might define the god of various belief systems, should I care to, has no bearing on this discussion. I was providing the attribution you required of the unsigned commenter. Yopienso (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Drifting away from FA quality

This article covers a lot of great material and it helpfully summarizes the scientific consensus. But it seems like WP:NPOV is beginning to slip through disregard of WP:UNDUE. Noting in the lead that ID is "not science/pseudoscience/junk science" is totally appropriate, doing so five different times seems like a bit much--more than a bit really. Saying that there is a clear scientific consensus against ID is likewise totally appropriate, saying that the consensus is "unequivocal" seems like slight over-reach, especially considering the statement is connected to a footnote that states that "over 700 scientists" support ID. Also, some of the counter-points in the sections dedicated to the specific ID arguments give the impression that any stick is good enough to beat the theory. There must be better responses to "specified complexity" than Richard Dawkins' amateurish forays into philosophy that were met with chagrin by professional atheist philosophers like Thomas Nagel... not to mention the almost gleeful refutations by Christians like Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig. And Victor Stenger, against fine-tuning, really? The issue of fine-tuning's appropriateness on this page aside, given Stenger's marginal standing in the field and open misotheism, why in the world is he the go-to critic here and not someone like Martin Rees or David Malet Armstrong? I'm afraid that the FA quality of this article is in serious jeopardy. Please, regular editors, get the article in shape so it can keep its FA status. Eugene (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If one looks at the FA and FA review (links above on this page) and compares the article then and now, it appears the article was much the same as it is now. No doubt there are some things to be cleaned up, but major issues like the inclusion and basic approach of this section were well scrutinized. The fundamental issue with this section is this: Fine-tuning arguments were among those raised by intelligent design advocates, and as noted in the article it is untestable and scientifically unproductive, being mainly an argument that there's some as-yet-undiscovered (or supernatural) cause of fine-tuning. If you have specific that might constitute an improvement, please put them forward so they can be discussed and considered-- or alternately, there's always permission to start by being bold and see where it goes. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I've checked the past FA approved version of this article and it seems that you're right, the tone and vigor of its denunciation of ID is pretty much the same. I had assumed that, given the difficulty the Christ myth theory is having achieving FA status for POV objections, the ID article must have been more moderate at some point. Silly me. This just makes the "oppose" votes to the CMT's FAC all the more aggravating. I still think, though, that if fine-tuning (FT) is going to be kept as an integral part of this article then the FAQ and tone of the article will have to change. Far better to just cut the FT material and avoid the big hassle. Eugene (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

RE "the tone and vigor of its denunciation of ID is pretty much the same." and "Far better to just cut the FT material and avoid the big hassle.": I think you've made your POV clear. As always, feel free to seek consensus to remove this section by articulating the case for it and letting others weigh in as they may wish to do so. I'll try to keep an open mind to your arguments, though frankly, lacking a new set of reliable sources we haven't already reviewed that are something other than obscure primary-source anthropic-principle arguments, I basically think I've already said my piece here and in the section below. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

this is not a definition

This is not an unbiased definition of intelligent design, rather, it is an attempt to portray intelligent design as having no scientific basis and unapproved by anyone remotely related to science. Talk about using Wikipeida to push one's own view...wow....this is the textbook example of such! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.49.86 (talk) 07:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the FAQs at the top of this page to answer your concerns.--Charles (talk) 08:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Einstein's intelligence

This addition appears to be original research, with no established connection to ID, so I've moved it from the article:

Martin Gardner quotes Albert Einstein as saying, "We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many tongues.... The child does not understand the languages in which they are written. He notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order which he does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects." ref>http://www.jstor.org/pss/185680</ref Einstein, in his 1934 book, The World as I See It, wrote, "But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation....His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection." ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=JFXWosy8ywYC&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=einstein+world+as+i+see+it+utterly+insignificant&source=web&ots=dKeiZyk1OK&sig=hkkIxiuST_h02p7AyhYbWRODIJI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#v=onepage&q=&f=false</ref He concludes a brief essay of the same title thus: "I am satisfied with the mystery of life's eternity and with a knowledge, a sense, of the marvelous structure of existence -- as well as the humble attempt to understand even a tiny portion of the Reason that manifests itself in nature." ref>http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay.htm</ref

Since Einstein famously thought in terms of Spinoza's god, any relation to ID is tenuous at best, and this appears to be a peacock addition suggesting borrowed greatness out of context. . . dave souza, talk 10:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

For the sake of continuity I'm pasting in a dialog with Dave I started on his talk page. I should have started it here.

Hi, Dave. Unfortunately, just as I finished (or almost finished--I was going to change something) editing the Intelligent Design article last night, my internet went down and I was unable to write you a note asking you to check it out. I see you have anyway! I didn't see the article is semi-protected until I was showing the preview.

In any case, I think the Einstein quotes are very relevant to the history of the concept and are no more "peacock additions" than the inclusion of Plato, Cicero, Aquinas, Paley, and Browne. He would be the last in a string of great thinkers to have conceived of the idea of a higher intelligence behind the ordered cosmos.

I will come back later today as I really don't have time for this right now but did not want to just leave this hanging. Thank you for moving my contribution here instead of deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopienso (talk • contribs) 18:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, one big problem with Einstein is that we really need a source connecting his concept with modern ID – there are plenty of references saying that Paley was a predecessor, and as I recall the same applies or should apply to the others. The other problem is that Einstein didn't conceive of a higher intelligence "behind the ordered cosmos", like Spinoza he conceived of cosmic order as the intelligence. Thus the perception in the universe of "profound reason and beauty constitute true religiosity; in this sense, and in this sense alone, I am a deeply religious man." A moral religion embodying the ethical imperative, "a development [that] continued in the New Testament", was an immature stage with a fatal flaw: "the anthropomorphic character of the concept of God," easy to grasp by "underdeveloped minds" of the masses while freeing them of responsibility, would disappear in Einstein's "cosmic religious feeling" that sheds all anthropomorphic elements.[21] Don't think the IDers would be too pleased about that rather deistic notion. So, reliable secondary source needed to establish the connection. . . dave souza, talk 20:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Dave, I'm home now and my internet's working. Yay!

"One big problem with Einstein is that we really need a source connecting his concept with modern ID."

But his concept doesn't connect to the modern ID movement. For the most part, the modern ID movement is a thrust to justify the biblical narrative. Einstein would never have done that! Neither would Plato or Cicero if they stumbled across some version of the Tanakh. Aquinas and Paley are more precursors of the current movement. (Not familiar with Browne.) I think Einstein belongs in this chronology of philosophers, and would hope no reader would think Plato or Cicero or Einstein endorsed the present movement.

I understand the "Origins of the concept" part of the article to give the progressive history of the concept itself, apart from the current movement. The next part discusses the origin of the modern-day term and offers a link to a timeline. The timeline begins in 1920, when Einstein was 40, but the events it traces are far removed from any of his ideas or work.

"The other problem is that Einstein didn't conceive of a higher intelligence 'behind the ordered cosmos', like Spinoza he conceived of cosmic order as the intelligence."

Yes, your wording on this is more accurate. Still, he saw design and intelligence and reason, not randomness. I'm perhaps OK with the idea of a randomly fashioned design, like driftwood carved by the sea or the fantastic wind sculptures in the world's deserts.

"Don't think the IDers would be too pleased about that rather deistic notion."

I wasn't trying to please nor to ruffle them...nor anyone else; just adding relevant material.

In sum, I thought and think I had a worthwhile contribution, but at least I have the satisfaction of knowing the facts, whether I'm allowed to publish them or not. I do have a little problem with your calling it "original research" since I merely provided germane quotes from a man of science and philosophy.

Now, the other business of reverting my correction of no ID article ever being published in a peer-reviewed journal is a different matter. It's not worth it to me to argue or get a referee about your overriding preference regarding my Einstein quotes, but Meyer absolutely did, by hook or by crook, pull off the coup of getting his ID article published in a peer-reviewed journal. Wikipedia has two long and contentious articles on that very deed. I'm astonished you don't see Harper-Collins as mainstream, but no problem--I'll use "The Panda's Thumb" and "Skeptical Enquirer." So that one I'll polish up and restore. Maybe Harper-Collins isn't mainstream cuz they just published Sarah Palin's Going Rogue!! :D Just kidding. (Hey, I know how to spell both rogue and rouge!)

Dave, I always feel hampered by this format where you can't see the twinkle in my eye. Yes, I have some fundamental differences of perspective and consequently of opinion with you, but I'd love to have a friendly visit with you over a glass of Shiraz. Best, Yopienso (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that in my haste this morning on a borrowed computer I answered on your talk page instead of the article talk page. If you wish, please feel free to move either one so they're on the same page.

Came back when I found it's the National Enquirer but the Skeptical Inquirer. I read neither. Yopienso (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC) ==============================End of copy-and-paste

Peer review and Sternberg

So, what I propose to do is change this sentence:

No articles supporting intelligent design have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, nor has intelligent design been the subject of scientific research or testing.[36]

A specious argument could be made on what "supporting" means, but that is too nice a distinction. I believe it should be replaced with:

To date, the intelligent design movement has published only one quickly repudiated article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and its review process is a subject of hot debate. http://ncseprojects.org/news/2004/09/more-meyer-00565

It was the first time the intelligent design movement has published in a peer reviewed biology journal. http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/deja_vu_all_over_again/

Actually, I find I've left my flashdrive in my office and am not going to go looking now for the more than half dozen reliable sources I copied for this assertion. So tomorrow I may change it again. Aaarghh! Yopienso (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that The Biological Society of Washington issued a statement noting that the article represented a “significant departure from the nearly purely taxonomic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 124-year history” and was “inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings.” and that it is known that the peer review process was substantially bypassed for this particular paper. My opinion is that we shouldn't really change anything. In any case if we go on and decide to implement some kind of change on those lines then it is my view that we should then explain the publication "controversy" fully per Stephen C. Meyer page.--LexCorp (talk) 11:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The peer review was at best questionable, and this later source describes "the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory". The issue is dealt with in the body of the section, Yopienso apparently wants to move that discussion into the first sentence of the section, giving undue weight to a discredited paper showing a creationist negative argument rather than any positive support for ID. . . dave souza, talk 11:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying you want to keep a false statement in the article? Yopienso (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

What falsehood? The Meyers article neither supports ID as such, and shouldn't have been published according to the journal's policy. In addition, you can't say that something is "subject to hot debate" based on a 5.5-year-old source. Guettarda (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The falsehood that the paper was never published. The fact that the council later issued a repudiating statement doesn't change the fact that it was published. Just because people wish something didn't happen doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I agree that my proposed change should say "provoked hot debate" rather than "is a subject of hot debate." (Perhaps the only place it's still a subject of hot debate is on WP talk pages! LOL)

New suggestion: to avoid the kinds of explanations requested by LexCorp, why not just delete the false statement? Yopienso (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

We have the oddity that when ID proponents had the opportunity to present all their "peer reviewed" work at Kitzmiller, they didn't include that one. You seem to be going further than them in claiming that it has any credence. . . dave souza, talk 17:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not claiming the article has any credence whatsoever, only that it was, in fact, published in a peer-reviewed journal. If you don't want to get in to all the in's and out's, (I don't!) let's just delete the offending sentence.

Here is what the WP article says about why Stephen C. Meyer did not testify:

This tension led to disagreements with the Thomas More Law Center and the withdrawal of three Discovery Institute fellows as defense experts prior to their depositions – William A. Dembski, Stephen C. Meyer and John Angus Campbell. This was purportedly because the Thomas More Law Center refused to allow these witnesses to have their own attorneys present during deposition,[7] but Discovery Institute director Bruce Chapman later said that he had asked them not to testify (as well as Behe and Minnich, who testified anyway). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Background

We don't really need to extend our discussion into the question Dave has raised. But I do want to provide ample proof that an ID article, albeit much to the chagrin and displeasure of the scientific establishment, was published in a peer-reviewed journal. I am not passing judgment on the merits of the article or of the manner in which it was published. I am unequivocally declaring that it was indeed published, and further, requesting that the statement in this WP article saying otherwise be modified or deleted.

The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070926214521/http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html

http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/03_Areas/evolution/issues/peerreview.shtml

http://ncse.com/news/2004/09/bsw-repudiates-meyer-00552

http://ncse.com/news/2004/10/bsw-strengthens-statement-repudiating-meyer-paper-00528

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801680_pf.html

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/mustread/

http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/funk40.html

http://debunkcreationscience.hostse.com/meyer.htm

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&t=1369

"It was the first time the intelligent design movement has published in a peer reviewed biology journal."
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/deja_vu_all_over_again/

Peer-reviewed paper defends theory of intelligent design
Jim Giles
Abstract
Critics of evolution score publishing success
A new front has opened up in the battle between scientists and advocates of intelligent design, a theory that rejects evolution and is regarded by its critics as another term for creationism. A scientific journal has published a paper that argues in favour of intelligent design — the first time such material has appeared in a peer-reviewed publication, according to biologists who track the issue. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7005/full/431114a.html

The Scientist.com likewise reported,

It was the first pro-ID article to be published in a refereed publication, raising concern among some scientists that it might be used to enhance the academic argument for intelligent design.
Read more: Smithsonian "discriminated" against scientist - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences http://www.the-scientist.com/templates/trackable/display/news.jsp?type=news&o_url=news/display/38440&id=38440#comments#ixzz0gE5W5Syx (Registration required.)

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer#Peer_review_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sternberg_peer_review_controversy

Yopienso (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If you really think that the article as it stand now is misleading then simply changing

No articles supporting intelligent design have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, nor has intelligent design been the subject of scientific research or testing.[36]

to

No peer-reviewed articles supporting intelligent design have been published in scientific journals, nor has intelligent design been the subject of scientific research or testing.[36]

will suffice. Do you really think the change is absolutely necessary and that the article as it stands now is really misleading the readers? I ask because to me it seems a bit nitpicking and immaterial.--LexCorp (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I really think the sentence as it stands now is really misleading the readers.

This article seems on the whole to be quite accurate, complete, fair, and unbiased. (I admit I haven't studied every word of it.) It seems a shame to allow it to be tainted with an untrue assertion.

This, "No peer-reviewed articles supporting intelligent design have been published in scientific journals,..." is not true, except for the nitpicking fact that it is in the plural. The Meyer paper was peer-reviewed. The exact circumstances of the reviewing and the identities of the referees are unknown, but, after the initial alarmed flurry, no one is accusing Sternberg of totally obviating the review process. Some did allege the process was unorthodox. To get all those innuendos and explications into one sentence in an encyclopedia is impossible. The Sternberg peer review controversy article and the Expelled:No intelligence allowed articles track those controversies ad nauseum. Can we just leave them out of this one? The sentence is gratuitous. Yopienso (talk) 00:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No one is offering any reason why I cannot delete the sentence in question, so I'll go ahead and delete it along with half another such sentence, and change one word in yet another. The report of Meyer's paper being published in the BSW journal is right here in the article, annotated with footnote 193. We don't want the article to contradict itself.

As to why Judge Jones in Kitzmiller concluded no ID paper had ever been published in a peer-reviewed journal, I can only ascribe that to the foibles of our judicial system. One contributing factor was likely the absence of several Discovery Institute fellows as expert witnesses, and another factor could be how limiting the definition of an "ID paper" may be: Michael Behe is quoted in this article as saying,

"There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred". (My bolding.)

The largest factor, however, is most likely simply the human one: this was one man's conclusion, and while decisive, another person may have decided otherwise. The SCOTUS, too, shows its human foibles in such contradictory rulings as the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 that says, at least in the English translation,

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Not quite 100 years later the court ruled in CHURCH OF THE HOLY TRINITY V. UNITED STATES

These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.

So we must accept that Judge Jones wrote--or copied--what he did for his own reasons and accept his decision as the official word of the court. Yet at the same time we know that at least one ID paper--the one by Stephen C. Meyer--has been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

To summarize:

1) Do we editors agree that the paper was published?

2) Do we want the article to reflect that reality?

I'm assuming there is a consensus that the answer to both questions is "Yes." Yopienso (talk) 08:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Your assumption is incorrect. The paper as published and subsequently withdrawn was not properly peer reviewed, and in addtional it's questionable if it actually supported ID. Taking your assertions into account I've modified the rections you edited accordingly. . dave souza, talk 08:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I have in good faith sought consensus on this page; no one pointed out any errors in my reasoning. I would appreciate your joining the discussion instead of waiting to pounce and change my work as soon as I move forward with my unopposed plan. You have summarily removed or changed my work without any discussion four times this week.

"Wikipedia pages develop by discussion, with users following editing policy and trying to work together to develop consensus, and by seeking dispute resolution and help if this isn't working. An edit war occurs when individual contributors or groups of contributors repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion."

Please work together with me. If my assumption (not presumption, as you called it in your edit summary) is incorrect, does that mean you believe Stephen Meyer's paper, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," was not published in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington? Surely you do, since it was. Therefore, you must mean you do not want the WP article to reflect that reality. Why not?

Did you intend to cast aspersions on the BSW journal with this sentence?

"The intelligent design movement has not published an article in a properly peer-reviewed scientific journal."

It is a properly peer-reviewed scientific journal. Meyer's paper may even have been properly peer-reviewed. If it wasn't, I don't think it's fair to the journal to characterize it as not properly peer-reviewed because of one article out of hundreds. Yopienso (talk) 09:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The journal presumably is usually properly peer reviewed, but as shown in the Sternberg peer review controversy, in that instance it wasn't, according to the publishers of the journal. Their statement, not mine. The fact remains that it predates a detailed examination in court of claims to peer reviewed publication, and we report the findings of that detailed review. Your speculation as to the reasons for ID proponents not even putting this discredited paper forwards is no more than speculation. . . dave souza, talk 10:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The editors withdrew the paper, saying it wasn't done right, wasn't in the scope of their journal. Getting published isn't a game that you can win by gaming the system. It's not like a trial where you can get off on a technicality. If the paper should never have been published, it can be withdrawn, sometimes years later like the Wakefield vaccines-cause-autism paper, or some others where it came to light that data was falsified. The role of a journal's editorial board in protecting the integrity of it's "product" doesn't end when the editor signs off on a paper. Guettarda (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I should have written "speculate that to be one of" rather than "ascribe that to."

Please answer my 2 questions. For your convenience, here they are again:

   1) Do we editors agree that the paper was published?
   2) Do we want the article to reflect that reality?

Fact: for a paper to be withdrawn, it first must have been published.

We want both facts that conform with reality and internal consistency in all WP articles. This one briefly and accurately recounts the Meyer episode in the "Peer review" section. I'm asking that the rest of the article conform to the facts there presented.

New suggestion: Change the troublesome sentence to, for example, "No paper on intelligent design currently stands in a peer-reviewed scientific journal." Or, "No paper on intelligent design has withstood the rigors of a peer-reviewed scientific journal." Or some such.

This would be consistent with the treatment of the withdrawn Wakefield paper here:

"In February 1998, a group led by Andrew Wakefield published a controversial paper in the respected British medical journal The Lancet. ... In response to the GMC investigation and findings, the editors of The Lancet announced on February 2, 2010 that they 'fully retract this paper from the published record.'[10]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy

I maintain that it is unfair and inaccurate to cast the BSW journal as improperly peer-reviewed:

"The intelligent design movement has not published an article in a properly peer-reviewed scientific journal.[8][187]"

Another suggestion:You could modify your sentence to work in the notion Judge Jones eloquently expressed here:

"'A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory'.[187]"

As far as I have been able to ascertain, that sentence is completely true if we leave out the peer-reviewed publications that are unacceptable to the mainstream scientific community. Which we should.

New question: Do you think it is good policy to promote the statement of one court document against 15 reliable sources? Is this not giving it undue weight?

My goal here is to help improve a good, informative article. Yopienso (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI

I have just posted this on Dougweller's talk page:

Intelligent Design

I'm sure you're very busy, but would you have time to read through the most recent part of the talk page at the ID page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design The sections to which I've contributed are "Factually Incorrect," "Einstein's intelligence," and "Peer review and Sternberg."
I am now retiring from the scene unless I am asked for further comment. I am disappointed in the responses of LexCorp, Dave souza, and Guettarda. My specific request to you is that you explain to me how I could have been and can be a better Wikipedian. Thanks.

Yopienso (talk) 01:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It's simple - if the DI folks really thought that a paper had been published, they would have said so in the Kitzmiller trial. Instead, Behe said "no". It's not our place to second guess reliable sources, especially when you're talking about statements made under oath by leading people in the DI. Guettarda (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I personally have no objection to modifying the language in the peer-review section of the article to the effect that one paper (by Sternberg) was published then withdrawn by the JPBSW due to failure to properly follow the normal peer-review process. But please note that right in the opening paragraph of the "peer review" section it already says: "The intelligent design movement has not published an article in a properly peer-reviewed scientific journal." with two appropriate citations in support of this statement. Having said that, I think LexCorp, Souza and Guettarda all have put forward sound perspectives here. Yopienso, w.r.t. your request to explain "how I could have been and can be a better Wikipedian", I think you have been a good Wikipedian here. Further improvements tend to come with experience, via further good-faith participation and by gaining more familiarity with WP conventions and its editorial policies and guidelines. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Kenosis, for your response, but it seems you didn't notice that the sentence you quote is the subject of this part of the talk page! I am asking to have it removed and modified. I removed it, and my removal was quickly reverted without discussion or explanation. I have asked twice if editors believe it is true and received two evasive answers. What I was looking for was a "Yes" or "No." What I got was:

"The paper as published and subsequently withdrawn was not properly peer reviewed, and in addtional it's questionable if it actually supported ID. Taking your assertions into account I've modified the rections you edited accordingly. ."

and

It's simple - if the DI folks really thought that a paper had been published, they would have said so in the Kitzmiller trial. Instead, Behe said "no". It's not our place to second guess reliable sources, especially when you're talking about statements made under oath by leading people in the DI.

Regarding the first answer, it admits the paper was published (!! That's all I'm saying.!!); the nature of the peer-review process has not been made available to the public; if it didn't support ID, what's the objection, then? (Although it did not "provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred," it is considered "an ID paper.") As to the second, the editor is second guessing "what the ID folks really thought" without sourcing.
Examining the two footnotes on what I have variously called the false, erroneous, troublesome sentence (not all in one breath!), we find #8 saying just the opposite: "However, in June 2004, a paper by Stephen Meyer advocating ID was published (my bolding) in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (i.e., DC)." The second, #187, uses an altogether acceptable wording: "A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory." There is indeed, as far as I know, a complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory since the PBSW does not support the paper that was, in fact, published in it under controversial circumstances and quickly retracted.
My stance is that every inexactness in an argument weakens it, and since this one is so easily rectified, I see every reason to do so and none to leave it as is.
A third question I asked--if promoting one court document against a full dozen reliable sources plus 3 WP articles is good policy or if it is not in fact giving it undue weight--has gone unanswered.
I would like to see this article as clear, readable, factual, and helpful to the layperson as this one http://people.howstuffworks.com/intelligent-design.htm/printable.
My question as to how to proceed as a "good Wikipedian" is whether I should continue to work for integrity and consonance within this article, or whether I should realize there are ideological arguments for preserving the flaw and so leave it be. Yopienso (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I have modified the troublesome sentence to make it clearer. It is after all scientific papers that are peer reviewed, not the journals that they are placed in. I hope this will address Yopienso's concerns.--Charles (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I hadn't noticed the potential problem with the prior language, as I'm already familiar with the facts. I can readily imagine how someone not yet familiar with the information could draw an incorrect impression from the prior language. (Many diligent attempts were made by my English instructors to teach me to always try to append adjectival clauses directly to the noun to which they refer, but sometimes I miss these things anyway.) This edit renders it more accurately. I trust the brief explanation of the Sternberg controversy in the fourth paragraph of the peer-review section of the article is now adequately consistent with the second sentence of the introductory paragraph of that section? ... Kenosis (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you both for your contributions! And yet, not meaning to carp, we don't know that the paper wasn't peer-reviewed. Sternberg, whose word isn't, unfortunately, unimpeachable, insists it was peer-reviewed. An email from Roy McDiarmid, the president of the BSW, to Hans Sues, confirms that assertion. A poster claiming to be Nick Matzke (and no one challenged the claim) posted the email in the comments section of a Brayton article. http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/12/answering_krauze_and_sternberg_1.php (Both Matzke and Brayton are foes of ID.) The entire exchange of emails is here: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1490 Although this is currently online only at a Discovery Institute site, it was previously available on a US government site. Although some editors cite WP:Reliable technicalities on why the site is unreliable, Michael Shermer (anti-ID) seems to believe the emails are genuine. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-04-17/#part2 There seems to be enough doubt about the reviewers that our article should neither assert nor deny that the Meyer paper was properly reviewed. Also, it actually is proper to refer to a journal as "peer-reviewed." Look here http://lib.calpoly.edu/research/guides/peer.html or google any of a great number of such sites.
Can the sentence be recast as, "The lone paper published in a peer-reviewed journal, and that under controversial circumstances, was quickly repudiated and withdrawn." The only footnote necessary would be #8, although if someone insists on using the same footnote twice and leaving two footnotes on one sentence, I won't object. And, yes, this further refinement would agree with the later narrative. Yopienso (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I already gave my opinion on this issue here. I've no objection to a brief sentence akin to what you propose in the introductory paragraph of Intelligent design#Peer review. Maybe lose the words "and that", which are grammatically incorrect where they're placed, and rework the syntax a bit. But I can only speak here for myself as one editor among many. ... Kenosis (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. "The lone paper published in a peer-reviewed journal was quickly repudiated and withdrawn due to controversial review procedure and questionable content." (We'll omit "...and pressure from the NCSE." It's there in the emails, though.)Yopienso (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what part(s) of my statement you're agreeing to, since you've not only changed the proposed syntax but also significantly changed the language. What I would support, speaking as one editor only, is, for example, a sentence that reads as follows:
"The lone paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, under controversial circumstances, was quickly repudiated and withdrawn."
Or, for another example, which I would agree to support if put within parentheses in the introductory paragraph of the peer-review section, is:
"(One paper advocating intelligent design was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal under controversial circumstances, and was subsequently withdrawn by the publisher.)"
In the second example I've added the words "by the publisher" to hopefully give a sense for what I agreed to support. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I was agreeing with, "Maybe lose the words and that, which are grammatically incorrect where they're placed, and rework the syntax a bit." This sounds good:

"(One paper advocating intelligent design was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal under controversial circumstances, and was subsequently withdrawn by the publisher.)"

Possibly transpose under controversial circumstances to immediately follow was published to indicate it was the publishing and not the journal that suffered "controversial circumstances." Thus, "(One paper advocating intelligent design was published under controversial circumstances in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and was subsequently withdrawn by the publisher.)" Could delete "scientific." Another way: "The lone paper published in a peer-reviewed journal provoked a storm of controversy and was quickly repudiated and withdrawn by the publisher." Or any reasonable wording that acknowledges an ID paper was published but later repudiated. Yopienso (talk) 07:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Any comments, Dave souza? Yopienso (talk) 09:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

We have just established that peer reviewing applies to scientific papers rather than the journal publishing them. Your latest attempt to reverse this by linking peer review to the journal would be weasel wording, implying that the paper was peer reviewed. There is no evidence that it was peer reviewed in the normal way. The email from Roy McDiarmid is so ambivalent when seen in full that it does not prove anything, except perhaps that some funny business was going on. There is no need for further changes.--Charles (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

We did not establish that peer reviewing applies to papers rather than journals. You said so, but you were wrong. I provided a link showing that. Did you click on it? Here's another: "Peer-reviewed journals can be identified by their editorial statements or instructions to authors and in sources such as Ulrich's International Periodicals Directory. In Ulrich's, the graphic: icon that means a journal is refereed icon indicates a "refereed" (peer-reviewed) journal." http://www.knowledgecenter.unr.edu/instruction/help/peer.html

I am absolutely not using weasel words but trying to be as accurate as possible. I do not want to validate the paper, but I do want to acknowledge it was published, for the very simple reason that it was. What McDiarmid's email proves is that the paper was in some sense reviewed, enough to get it "snuck" (to use an ungrammatical weasel word) into a peer-reviewed journal. In wielding Occam's razor, perhaps I've omitted too much, unreasonably hoping the reader would continue down to the Meyer episode that provides more detail. This email, from which I've omitted the last 14 lines of address/phone #'s

From: Roy McDiarmid

To: Hans SUES

Date: 1/28/2005 2:25:52 PM

Subject: Re: Request for information

Hans,

I will check and see if I have an electronic copy of your original message. If I don't I suspect that Carole does. I recall that you sent it to her too, possibly first. I am almost sure that I have a hard copy. I have seen the review file and comments from 3 reviewers on the Meyer paper. (My bolding.) All three with some differences among the comments recommended or suggested publication. I was surprised but concluded that there was not inappropriate behavior vs a vis the review process. Whether one would consider the reviews appropriate is another issue and I would be pleased to share my views on that with you if you so desire. ROY

unambiguously states that at the time McDiarmid concluded there was not inappropriate behavior vis a vis the review process. After the brouhaha erupted, he would naturally have paused and reflected, especially with the NCSE down his neck. So let us say, "(One paper advocating intelligent design was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal but was subsequently withdrawn by the publisher under a cloud of controversy regarding the review process. See below.)" Imho, the simplest thing to do, as I have suggested before, is to delete the sentence and let the fourth paragraph tell the story. But if we want to be redundant, let's at least be accurate. I do like the parentheses, which equate with the treatment given the Behe/Snokes paper on p. 88 of Judge Jones conclusions on Kitzmiller v. Dover. (Sorry, I'm having a little trouble with my formatting.) Yopienso (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The current version as edited by Charlesdrakew at 22:36, 13 March 2010, is clear and accurate. The intelligent design movement has not published a properly peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal. The detail and context is given in the remainder of the paragraph. Simply getting an "off-topic rhetorical edifice [constructed] out of omission of relevant facts, selective quoting, bad analogies, knocking down strawmen, and tendentious interpretations"[18] improperly published in what is normally a peer-reviewed journal dealing with taxonomy, not with whether or not Cambrian lineages required magic intervention, does not in any normal meaning of the word give that edifice the credence normally given to peer-reviewed publications in such a journal. Twisting the situation to claim such status merely promotes a fringe view contrary to WP:WEIGHT. . . dave souza, talk 19:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The sentence is better than it was a week ago. Yay! As I said above, my original research and synthesis bring me to the conclusion that something was fishy in the review process, but at WP we insist on verifiability, not truth. So regarding consensus, I'm seeing Dave and Charles have one view while Kenosis and Yopienso have another. As far as agreeing with the scientific community, I'll go with Gishlick, Matzke, and Elsberry over Dave and Charles, with all due respect to the latters' time and effort and good faith. See the section, "A Long Walk Off a Short Peer Review."

"Whether or not editorial discretion was abused in order to enable 'intelligent design' to make a coveted appearance in the peer-reviewed scientific literature is not currently known, [my bolding] and is at any rate not the most important issue." http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/08/meyers-hopeless-1.html

There has been much investigation and speculation since that was written, but I have been unable to find any clear documentation with a later date that proves Sternberg abused the process. Only he and McDiarmid really know, and of the two, Sternberg is untrustworthy and McDiarmid mum. Yopienso (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I kind of brought up this issue before, but it is somewhat interesting to see how it persists. I don't believe that published article was scientific perfection, but I did want to point out that the assertion of the article not being peer-reviewed was questionable. We now have at least one source hostile to intelligent design theory conceding it was peer-reviewed; e.g. this one referring to the article as "a peer-reviewed article in The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington." The Washington Post notes that the Sternberg "mailed Meyer's article to three scientists for a peer review." Then of course there is the investigation by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), an independent federal agency, which had this to say (as can be verified here):

"They also assumed that you [Sternberg] violated editorial regulations of the Proceedings because you were the primary editor of the article. These comments were made to and by SI and NMNH managers and were published to several outside organizations. It was later revealed that you complied with all editorial requirements of the Proceedings and that the Meyer article was properly peer reviewed by renowned scientists. As an aside, the information received by OSC does not indicate that any effort was made to recall or correct these comments once the truth was made known. [bolded emphasis mine] "

I doubt this will convince anyone here, given the intransigence I've seen above. After all, one can always say that the independent federal agency, while not an ID organization, was still biased in some way (no doubt one can find someone on the Internet who thinks so); one can also believe that both the "debunking creation science" website and the Washington Post are misinformed (they must be, since we know the article wasn't peer-reviewed, right?). And while The Statement From The Council Of The Biological Society Of Washington says what Sternberg did was not typical and does not say he didn't follow proper peer-reviewed procedure, that won't prevent some people from using some creative interpretation to the contrary. So for the most part I give up on trying to correct the questionable claim in the Wikipedia article. --Wade A. Tisthammer (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Assertion

Re. [19] and the preceding talk page section: There actually is a problem with the article's definition of ID as an "assertion". The problem is, quite simply, that ID is not an assertion. An assertion is an affirmative sentence: Roses are red; violets are blue. "Intelligent design", lacking a verb, cannot be a sentence at all, let alone an assertive one. ID might be a belief, set of beliefs, etc. whereby a given assertion is made or is held to be correct. But a statement of the form, "[Adjective] [noun] is the assertion that..." is intrinsically false, because assertions always contain verbs (e.g., the "is" in the line, "Intelligent design is the assertion", which is itself an assertion, albeit an erroneous one). I see nothing wrong with invoking the assertion that the article's definition invokes. But the wording could use a minor tweak so that it doesn't equate a non-assertion to an assertion. Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"assertion" is many things (see link[20]) and it is used here mainly due to the fact that it is the least contentious term precisely because it encompasses most things.--LexCorp (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

1) A substantive point: The "assertion" which defines ID (according to the definitive cited source, the Discovery Institute) is 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."
2) This was discussed to death a couple years ago, where, after considering "concept" (which it had been for roughly a couple years prior), "proposition", "belief", "assertion" and several other possibilities, the participants settled on "assertion". Of course I recognize a new consensus can always be sought. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit conflict] That's an interesting link, but as far as I can tell, all of its examples of assertions (of various stripes, to be sure) include verbs. In this article, the quoted material in the opening line is indeed an assertion ("certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained"), but "intelligent design" per se is no more of an assertion than "birthday cake" or "panda bears". ID makes the given assertion; indeed, the opening line, as it now stands, could be restated as, "Intelligent design asserts that...", but it (still) would not define the entity that is making the assertion. Might I suggest modeling the opening line after the (consensus-based) opening of an article about another contentious subject? The astrology article begins as follows: "Astrology is a group of systems, traditions, and beliefs which hold that the relative positions of celestial bodies..." So, for this article, how about something like, "Intelligent design is a group of arguments and beliefs which hold that 'certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained...'"? I suggest "arguments and beliefs" (or something to that effect) for neutrality's sake, allowing for ID to run the gamut from the teleological argument on one end of the rationality spectrum (even Elliott Sober defends that line of thought, at least up to a point) to blind faith on the other. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Cosmic Latte that intelligent design is not an assertion, but a belief, or even a philosophy or worldview. Note that the examples LexCorp links to include some form of the verb "to be." To still be blandly uncontentious, however,--a noble goal--we could say, "Intelligent design asserts that certain features of the universe..." Yopienso (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Read 6.1 on my link. The benefits in using assertion here is that it is a declaration of belief that could be disingenuously uttered by the person making the assertion. There is plenty of evidence that this is what ID proponents are doing. Yopienso suggestion lacks an actor. It should read as "Intelligent design proponents or followers asserts that certain features of the universe...". And thus the problem is exposed in my view. ID is as shallow as it appears to be. It is a simple assertion (disingenuous or otherwise). No philosophy nor worldview (I will require citation on that). At most it is a propaganda tool within the teach the controversy campaign (I lack citation for this sadly).--LexCorp (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"Intelligent design proponents or followers assert that certain features of the universe...": Yes, something like this was tried a long time ago too, but ran into WP:MOS issues, since the standard is to present a straight definition of the topic in the first sentence of the lead. I forgot to mention proposals such as ID is the intellectually dishonest concept that... And ID is a trojan horse which purports to ... And, well, you get the general picture. We got it from all sides of the controversy here. To be sure, this article was challenging to all involved. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The premise that ID is not an assertion because it lacks a verb is surprising to me. As Kenosis point out "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." is the assertion known as Intelligent Design with verb to be and all. Thus an actor uttering 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." or uttering " I assert ID" are making the same assertion.--LexCorp (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, why not just say what it is: "ID is a pseudoscience that asserts...". The definition in the PS article fits perfectly. "Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology". It certainly claims to be scientific and especially the latter part of this definition is also confirmed and sourced in the ID article "The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science." Janfrie1988 (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It's in the second paragraph, as it has been for several years now, cited to the American Association for the Advancement of Science and National Science Teachers Association. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I'm not entirely sure whether the preceding [Janfrie1988's entry] was intended to be serious or sarcastic. Either way, an encyclopedia would not define ID as pseudoscience because there is a substantial number (perhaps even a majority) of people who do not regard it as pseudoscience. And it should not define ID as an assertion, because ID is not an assertion. Yes, it makes an assertion, but if "ID makes the assertion..." is non-MoS, it cannot be substituted with "ID is the assertion...", any more than a line like, "Hamlet makes the assertion that 'to be, or not to be' is 'the question'" could be replaced with, "Hamlet is the assertion that 'to be, or not to be' is 'the question.'" Serious or sarcastic, the question of pseudoscience is irrelevant. I'm not challenging the association of any assertion with ID; I'm not denying that ID makes any particular assertion. All I'm saying is, essentially, that the words "makes" and "is" do not mean the same thing. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Look we are in a very difficult situation here. The proponents of ID say it is a scientific theory. The scientific community says it is not. Beyond that there is no real definition given by anyone. The solution we have implemented 'til now is for a definition as close as possible to the one promoted by the ID proponents without making the mistake of classifying it as a scientific theory. The result, while not the most elegant in the world, is informative, neutral and stable. Anyone reading the whole lead will leave with a clear sense of what is ID. Isn't that enough?--LexCorp (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion of the first sentence of the article has been round and round many times, with occasional disagreements about even the very use of the word "is" (I hear several of the WP editors who were then regular participants today reside in padded rooms--myself, IIRC I escaped while the guards were asleep ;-) The website of the Discovery Institute's CRC, which the editors here took as self-definitive, says:

"The theory of intelligent design holds 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."

This article, for a long time now, says:

Intelligent design is the [insert your favorite word for the class of conceptual objects to which ID belongs here] 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."

As examples of the quibbles, several have asserted w.r.t. the word "is" that "is the [concept, proposition, belief, assertion] should be changed to ..." to "refers to the [concept, proposition, belief, assertion] that..." It was necessary for other editors to point out that "refers to" is generally taken as synonymous with "is". There were many other examples of this sort of quibbling over language, most of which I can't specifically recall at the moment. But a major discussion revolved around how much of the DI's definition of ID to use in the article. As LexCorp points out, the editors could not properly fall into the trap of having to distinguish for the reader between an informal theory or an armchair theory and a scientific theory. There were already more than enough linguistically delicate twists and turns in this interesting contemporary study of this think-tank driven, religio-political-pseudoscientific "movement", unfortunately with a great deal of "sleight of hand" performed by the principal advocates in attempting to get their preferred creationist "textbook" into the high-school biology classes. So the word "theory" was out, for sure.
....... Another point of discussion several years ago was that "intelligent design" can't "hold" anything. So that was out too. Which leaves us pretty much where we are today, the same place we were in during several previous go-rounds on this issue, which amounted to the following: Simply insert your favorite name of the class of conceptual objects to which ID belongs; e.g. "concept" (as it had been for roughly a couple years), "proposition", "belief", "assertion" or other favorite word. Proposition was criticized as too formal. "Belief" was criticized as being unable to verify what people believed and that one could only take at face value the words actually uttered. "Concept", despite having been there for quite a lengthy period, was criticized for being too vague. A few other words were suggested but each was in turn criticized on various grounds. So we ended up with "assertion". But it still amounts to picking a favorite word for the class of entities to which ID belongs, and "assertion" seemed to have the least objections on an issue that really satisfied no one completely. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I was totally serious. And I am aware that the issue might be delicate. However, I was proposing "pseudoscience" for the first sentence because there are obviously problems with the term "assertion". Technically, "pseudoscience" is absolutely correct and a lot more fitting than "assertion". Science is not a democracy where you can vote by majority if something is proven fact or not. Anyway: How can you claim to be a scientific theory without having any support from peer-reviewed scientific publications? To me the current introduction looks massively as if it was the result of some kind of compromise and shying away from the facts just because this might upset some people. Actually the matter is conveniently settled in this page's F.A.Q. So why shy away from putting the fact that it is a pseudoscience in the first sentence? Janfrie1988 (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Janfrie1988: A key feature of pseudoscience is that is masquerades as science. Many (myself included, by the way) would say that ID tends to do this. However, if ID wears such a mask, it is more subtle a mask than that which creation science wears. Also, a significant number of people maintain that ID is science. Some (again, myself included) might find this approach misguided; however, editorial disagreement with the masses is not an encyclopedic excuse for editorial refutation of the masses. (Besides, science is such a diverse morpheme that its role even in the term "creation science", while in a technical sense misleading, is in another sense--the sense in which "science" roughly means "study"--quite correct.) Anyway, I seem to have spotted a relevant discussion within the massive talk page archives for this article. Beyond what I've already said, I don't know how much more I can add; but I would point out that, if the problem with "hold" is that it applies more to ID's adherents than to ID per se, then precisely the same problem plagues "assert". And if ID doesn't precisely "assert" anything, and if it isn't precisely an "assertion", then it's got to do and be something else. As for what it really is or does... well, in a sense this all might be just a "quibble", but it's a quibble whose results are going to stick in readers' minds. I'll be glad to make suggestions if I think of any, but at the very least I'd recommend that alternatives be sought, and that the current wording (i.e., the "assertion" assertion) be taken with a grain of salt. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You claim that a significant number of people maintain that ID is science and speak of "masses" that we are up against. Well, its far from being that onesided in the public opinion in all countries I know of. And besides: We have to adhere to Wikipedia policies. If you can present any reliable source which claims ID to be science the premises of this discussion might change. For the time being the sources are overwhelmingly unanimous about the issue (as far as I have checked, feel free to correct me). Besides: the article already makes the point about ID being a pseudoscience. So, again: Why do we not put it in the first sentence? Are you afraid there is going to be an outcry by ID proponents? Janfrie1988 (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ultimately Janfrie1988 is quite right. The lead is a compromise and the correct definition is that ID is a modern/novel form of the argument from design. We have plenty of sources stating so. Thus why did we compromised in the first place?. In order to avoid endless pov objections. The article should really start like:

Intelligent design is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer. Intelligent design proponents assert 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."

So the question we must consider is quite simple. Do we trade encyclopedic standards for stability?. --LexCorp (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

We had an edit conflict there, LexCorp, and you have added a most worthy suggestion. ID is not the innovation here, but the conservative thought resisting the "new" idea of evolution. I would love to see your introduction replace the present lede. Anyway, here's what I had written:

LexCorp said, "Beyond that there is no real definition given by anyone."

Any number of reliable online dictionaries and other reference sites define "intelligent design."

Merriam-Webster ^[1] calls it a "theory."
American Heritage^[2] says, "The assertion or belief...."; Dictionary.com's 21st Century Lexicon on the same page calls it a "theory."
The Encyclopedia Brittanica^[3] calls it an "argument."
Yourdictionary.com^[4] calls it a "concept."

Any refusal of ours to dignify intelligent design with appellations we may personally not prefer would be POV or OR and SYN; our job is to report what mainstream sources say. That said, I now see the "assertion" assertion :) as valid: the words "intelligent design" in this case are not a common noun modified by an adjective serving as the subject of the sentence, but code words, if you will, for an assertion regarding reasons for the complexity found in the universe. Which means I'm signing off on this discussion: any word'll do! Yopienso (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

:I'm comfortable with swapping the first two sentences verbatim except for appropriate syntax adjustment such as LexCorp proposes. Perhaps it would be better to get some feedback from long-term participants in the article. Dave souza, Guettarda, and KillerChihuahua are still active on the 'pedia, as I imagine are some others who were instrumental in bringing it to FA standards. Or, there's always permission to WP:Be Bold and just see where it goes from there. But I personally won't resist this particular change. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure if LexCorp's suggestion for the first sentences completely holds, since ID technically is no argument for the existence of a deity but an argument for the notion that a deity has designed/created life (the existence of said deity is just presupposed). As such, it is clearly a pseudoscience since it is neither testable nor falsifiable nor provides any evidence that is accepted by any reliable source (see also the F.A.Q. above). Concerning LexCorp's last question: What happens if we don't? In case anyone claims POV we can provide quite an impressive amount of sources that see it as pseudoscience, too. Janfrie1988 (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I just saw that the claim that ID is an argument for the existence of God is already in the intro and also sourced. But is this really true? Janfrie1988 (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You are ignoring the qualifiers "modern" and "which avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer". If you take those into account then your reservations vanish into thin air. Mind you maybe changing "modern" to "novel" is more explicit and helpful.--LexCorp (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, but ID doesn't argue that there is a God, it just presupposes his existence. Or does it? Janfrie1988 (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Forget what I said, you are right. Its rather the other way round. "Oh look, how great this is, there must be an intelligence behind this (and therefore exist)." I now endorse your proposal as well :) Janfrie1988 (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

massive bias and BS in this article. Clean it up. Too many claims which are untrue. ID isn't even "Christian" and the claim that it is, is one of the biggest lies in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.231.173.133 (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Your massive bias is noted, reliably sourced statements are not "lies". . . dave souza, talk 01:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE

I've recently editted the WP:FRINGE guideline[21] and commentted in the talk[22] in a way that may interest editors working here. Eugene (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Your edit to WP:FRINGE, returning it essentially to the prior language about secondary-source attribution of fringe theories is, IMO, reasonable if a bit wordy. I trust in due course it'll get boiled back down to the basic thrust. It certainly is an issue that oftentimes scientists and researchers simply choose not to even respond to fringe theories, thereby creating a situation where secondary sources critical of such fringe theories are quite limited. ... Kenosis (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Arguments outside the ID movement or outside biology?

Hi, Kenosis, I see your intent here, but have a little quibble and a larger question: Little quibble--"outside biology" sounds funny to me. Larger question--I think "outside the ID movement proper" was correct, although your note,

"Fine-tuned Universe: outside of biology, "not outside of the ID community proper" . According to the RSs, Gonzalez, Sewell and William Lane Craig are part of the "ID community proper")

is certainly correct. However, I understand the sentence or two to be referring to unreferenced sources outside the ID movement, such as Paul Davies. See the article, "Fine-Tuned Universe," which quotes him, and then even quotes Hawking as providing a premise for the idea. (Craig, btw, is not mentioned in the ID article, so I don't know why you included him.) Here is a list of scientists to which at least one design proponent (one Rich Deem, of whom I had never heard) appeals: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/quotes.html#PD3KTtUGzOaP Yopienso (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I included a mention of Craig due to Talk:Intelligent_design#Fine-tuning?, where links provided by Eugeneacurry deal with William Lane Craig at least twice. As to the language "outside of biology", this, or a close equivalent, was in the long-standing summary sentence of this section for at least a couple years now, until it was recently changed from:

"Intelligent design proponents also raise occasional arguments outside biology, most notably an argument based on the concept of the fine-tuning of universal constants that make matter and life possible and which are argued not to be solely attributable to chance".

changed in this edit to:

"Intelligent design proponents also occasional appeal to broader teleological arguments developed outside of the ID community proper, most notably an argument based on the fine-tuning of universal constants that make matter and life possible and which are argued not to be solely attributable to chance. "

After correcting a grammatical error involving the words "also occasional appeal", I edited it here to read:

"Intelligent design proponents have also occasionally appealed to broader teleological arguments developed outside of biology, most notably an argument based on the fine-tuning of universal constants that make matter and life possible and which are argued not to be solely attributable to chance."

I chose not to mess with Eugeneacurry's addition of the words "broader teleological" and "developed" which created the phrase "to broader teleological arguments developed outside of ". Now that you mention it, I should remove the word "developed [outside of biology]"--they're outside of biology, period. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So, do you think the fact that ID proponents sometimes (perhaps frequently) appeal to scientists and philosophers outside their movement proper should be included in the article? Yopienso (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The idea that these are persons noted in the article as "appealing to arguments outside of biology" are persons who are "outside their movement proper", as you say, isn't accurate here. Guillermo Gonzalez is is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, the hub of the intelligent design movement, as well as a fellow of the ISCID. Granville Sewell is signatory to the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism petition. In 2000 he had an anti-evolutionary article published in The Mathematical Intelligencer, cited by the Discovery Institute as one of the "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design", a claim rejected by both his critics and the judge in Kitzmiller v. Dover (citations provided in the WP article on Sewell. William Lane Craig, whose work was referenced by Eugeneacurry above though not included in the article, is a fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
In general, if one follows the paper trail, all roads tend to lead to the Discovery Institute. Gotta go for now--talk with y'all later on. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

On closer inspection, I see the list I provided names only one biologist. He is, however, the eminent Carl Woese. My observation is that ID proponents appeal to any source possible, and so lean toward including that fact. Seems to me the "teleological arguments" bit belongs in the next section, under Intelligent Designer, and this section, Fine-tuned Universe, should deal with appeals to science, including biology, chemistry, physics, and astronomy. [Sigh.] This is considerably more rearranging than I have time to consider at present. What do you think? Yopienso (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd not necessarily object to retitling the section, as it already goes beyond fine-tuning and the anthropic principle, dealing also with the 2nd LOT. But I must go back to RL concerns--bye for now. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Kenosis; I think I now understand your points and the article and agree with them. Yopienso (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

"Some"--Who?

I just undid Eugeneacurry's "weasel word" tag. All you have to do is click on the two footnotes to discover that, specifically, among scores of others, Alan D. Attie, Elliot Sober, Ronald L. Numbers, Richard M. Amasino, Beth Cox, Terese Berceau, Thomas Powell and Michael M. Cox and D. P. Agin call it junk science. Yopienso (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Messy footnotes

I tried to put footnotes 13-16 into one footnote--I've seen that done in other articles--but was unable to. Anybody willing and able? --Yopienso (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine-tuning?

I notice that this article clearly indicates that ID is seen as decidedly fringe in the relevant specialties and, according to the FAQ, "does not cite any papers that support ID because no such papers have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals." It seems that, as long as the article focuses on biology, this is completely true. But as the article currently stands, it doesn't just focus on biology, it discusses cosmology too with reference to the "fine-tuning" argument. But if cosmological "ID" is to be considered, then there certainly are a number of articles that discuss these theories approvingly in mainstream peer-reviewed journals. Just off the top of my head I can think of a handful from Rodney Holder (e.g. [23], [24], [25]) and a few from William Lane Craig (e.g. [26]) and I know there are many others.

So it seems like the regular editors here have a choice: either they can exclude cosmology from consideration, keeping the focus clearly on biology and the denial of evolution and thus keep the thundering condemnations, or they can keep the cosmology bit, revise the FAQ, start citing pro fine-tuning sources, and moderate the tone of the article concerning ID fringiness. I think the former option is the better way to go. Eugene (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

W.r.t. your first and second sentence, agreed. As to "But if cosmological "ID" is to be considered," This article is not about the teleological argument per se nor about the anthropic principle, but rather about intelligent design in the only sense it's become a notable topic in modern discourse. We're not in the business of attempting to reframe modern terminology-- ID is a term created specifically to push an alternate theory of evolution to biology students, primarily in the United States. Fine-tuning came into the picture because affiliates of the Discovery Institute such as Plantinga and Craig were concurrently putting forward their own philosophy under the general auspices of ID, bringing such arguments into directly relevant play. "Cosmological ID" appears to be your term. As to the arcane journal articles you've mentioned (apparently not available for full viewing online), I've no inherent objection to considering these sources, but please see WP:NOR, especially WP:PSTS, which deals with the parameters within which consideration of the use of primary-source journal articles must occur in WP. As to Barrow and Tipler (which you link to in parentheses after mentioning Craig), they're notable in the context of the anthropic principle and are already discussed both there and in teleological argument. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I haven't made myself clear. I wasn't trying to coin the phrase "Cosmologial ID", I was attempting to show that arguments for design which appeal to cosmology (as opposed to biology) are meaningfully distinct from ID proper. My point was that this article doesn't indicate that and so gives the impression that teleological interpretations of cosmology are regarded by an "unequivocal consensus" of scientists as silly nonsense. Such an insinuation is both unhelpful and untrue and undermines the legitimacy of this article and Wikipedia in general. I'll add some little phrase to the article to correct this but I'm already busy with another time-consumming article so I won't have the chance to "be bold" in any drastic way. (p.s. The link after Craig is to an article by Craig interacting with Barrow and Tipler's work, not an article by Barrow and Tipler themselves.) Eugene (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that my qualification of the teleological arguments related to cosmology was changed. The new wording just restores an old problem: the FAQ currently says "The article does not cite any papers that support ID because no such papers have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals." But if fine-tuning arguments are seen as a part of ID, then this statement is false. Craig's fine-tuning based review of Barrow and Tipler was published in The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science [27] and Rodney Holder has published a number of similar arguments in mainstream peer-reviewed journals [28], [29], [30]. So does the FAQ need to be corrected on this point? Eugene (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

We have reliable sources for the assertion, this looks like original research and is dependent on establishing that The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science is a scientific journal rather than a philosophical journal. The same would apply to Rodney Holder, and we'd also need a secondary source extablishing that his arguments weren't just similar, but explicitly supported ID. . . dave souza, talk 19:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The concerns over The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science seem a bit nit-picky, but okay, I get the point. What about the Journal of High Engergy Physics? Articles have been published in that venue that imply design in the structure of the universe (e.g.[31]). And with regards to the OR comment, are you saying I must first find a secondary source that states that any given primary source is actually supportive of ID before it will be deemed so? I feel that I should reiterate that I'm not try to "de-fringe" ID or anything like that. I'm merely concerned that general teleological arguments predicated on cosmology aren't being clearly distinquished from ID proper. Eugene (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, you assume that the concept of "fine-tuning" is equivalent to "supportive of ID"; yes, there are articles supporting the existence of "fine-tuning" in the universe presented in cosmological publications. But the interpretation and implications of detected "fine-tuning" on the origins or "purpose" of said universe is a purely philosophical, not a scientific problem: See the second paragraph of the section on fine-tuning in the main article - in a nutshell, the philosophical problem is: The universe appears fine-tuned to us as the observers, because no other kind of universe could have produced us as we are. If the universe were different, we would either not be here at all to observe anything, or we would be different. The choice of some scientists to label a certain finding with "fine-tuning" therefore does not add any evidence to ID as a scientific theory. Does that make sense? Madbat089 (talk) 04:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand your perspective, my point is more that there are articles advocating a design interpretation of fine-tuning that have appeared in mainstream peer-reviewed journals. As the article currently stands, the claim is made that no pro-ID articles have appeared in such journals. So, either a design interpretation of fine-tuning is part of ID--in which case the article needs to be corrected--or it isn't--in which case the article needs to be corrected. Eugene (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you do understand his perspective. The idea that the universe is fine-tuned, or as you say, designed, is pretty much irrelevant to this article. Intelligent Design is a very specific idea - basically that life came about pretty much as is some 6 to 10 thousand years ago. However, a fine tuned universe says only that the universe is designed. In what way, it does not specify. The idea that the universe is fine tuned does not contradict the big bang or evolution, nor support in any significant way the ID movement. In fact, many scholarly articles suggesting design in the universe actually suggest design in a way that would directly contradict the central tenants of Intelligent Design. There really just isn't a significant enough relationship to merit inclusion.Farsight001 (talk) 09:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a misrepresentation to say that ID says that "that life came about pretty much as is some 6 to 10 thousand years ago". That is Young-earth creationism. There are plenty of ID advocates (say, Francis Collins for one) that are far more comfortable with the belief in a 14 billion year old universe, a 4.5 billion year old Earth, and a human race that's been around for millions of years. You, Farsight001, are misrepresenting the facts. The central tenants if ID say nothing about 6000 to 10000 years of human existence. ID does not even deny evolution, even the evolution of human beings. What ID denies is that this evolution was from an undirected random process (implying that there was someone around to direct it), which is clearly *all* that scientific evolution can point to for the mechanism of mutation and natural selection.

There is plenty to pick on the ID and some if its advocates, particularly those that think that ID should be taught as science alongside of evolutionary biology, but this article has been nakedly biased against any sympathetic depictation of ID (mostly be demanding that ID and DI are one and the same) for years. And the biased editors of this article have been enforcing their biased version by use of the most nasty and dishonest tactics for years.76.118.23.40 (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

In support of 76etc., YEC is part of the big tent but other cdesign proponentsists express OEC views. The central tenet of ID is goddidit, as the article explains, but it's specific to a movement and reliable sources are needed describing an argument as ID. Thus, natural theology has ideas in common with ID, but we only refer to it when reliable sources explicitly make that connection. As for the complaints, IP, epic fail of WP:NPA, please behave yourself. The current version has been developed to accord with WP policies, as it says at the top. Any changes must also comply with these policies. . . dave souza, talk 19:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, I think the problem here is that you are using a definition of "intelligent design" which is far broader than anything that's used by reliable sources. As for calling Collins an ID advocate - according to Collins bio (which you linked to) he explicitly rejects ID. I think you're conflating ID with theistic evolution. Guettarda (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the IP; I gave up a long time ago. My only point was that the article casts fine-tuning arguments as the wholly owned property of the ID movement when, as you say, there are those who would make theistic arguments on the basis of fine-tuning while nevertheless repudiating ID in very strong terms. Eugene (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Just read this article from top to bottom. It is obvious that the very same people who wrote the wiki evolution article heavily vandalised this article then put a lock on it to protect it from being repaired. I would recommend a new article on ID be prepared from scratch and, like the highly one sided evolution article, be locked to prevent vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.56.91.210 (talk) 09:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

New source

John C. Avise Footprints of nonsentient design inside the human genome PNAS 2010

Useful analysis and commentary in a very reliable source. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This is important and should be included in the article (the PNAS findings) as it literally disproves the notion of Intelligent Design. Accordingly, a new section should be written on the matter. Giving credence to ID after these findings is like calling the Flat Earth Society's beliefs a scientific theory. This has nothing to do with politics or religion, which I don't believe belong on Wikipedia. It's just that there is new, irrefutable evidence (unless one confuses abject denial with refutation) against the very basis of the notion and the article should therefore reflect these new findings. After all, what's the point of openness if the latest information on the subject being addressed isn't included? Osiriscorleone (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Section 4.4, Intelligent designer, covers similar ground re. Vitamin C pathways. An extra sentence or two added there with this as a reference would be useful. I don't think a new section is needed.--Charles (talk) 09:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Awkward phrase 2nd paragraph 1st line

The phrase in question reads:

Advocates of intelligent design seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations,

Shouldn't this say "some advocates"? Other alternatives include "many advocates", "a vocal minority use this issue to advocate", "a majority of advocates" and so forth. But to say "advocates" is to imply that this is a fundamental dogma of Intelligent Design and all advocates of Intelligent Design are concerned with some political agenda. This is not only an error, it is demonstrably false. 70.183.0.39 (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No, words like "some" or "many" are weasel words which are to be avoided, especially in a featured article.

And actually, I think it's demonstrably true that advocates of ID seek to redefine science. There's a difference between actual advocacy versus mere belief or acceptance.

Perhaps it could say "The primary proponents" mentioned earlier in the lead. All of them are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, which does seek to fundamentally redefine science. However, while true, the sentence would not cover the remainder of the population of advocates, all of whom also want ID taught in science classes.

If the word "advocates" were changed to "activists" I doubt there would be a problem. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

@70.183 Can you provide a reliable source which demonstrates that a major advocate of ID has no interest in redefining science? AFAIK, the entire mission of the movement is to put creationism into the science classroom. This political component is the only difference between being a creationist and being an advocate of ID. If you could provide a source which reliably demonstrates otherwise, I'd be open to changing my position. Jess ^talk _cs 15:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"School of thought"

I for one applaud changing "assertion" to "school of thought that asserts." Rarely do I choose a wordier rendering over a briefer one, but this one seems more encyclopedic and more accurate. The synonym "Worldview"Weltanschauung) somehow doesn't seem to fit as well. (Just my opinion, and subject to change.) --Yopienso (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The wording of the lead is a carefully constructed compromise, so changing it to "school of thought" without discussion is inappropriate. In addition, making changes to the lead of an FA without supplying supporting references is clearly inappropriate. Guettarda (talk) 05:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I thought it well to open a discussion to see whether the edit should stand, be reverted, or be modified.

"Ideology" is another possibility if there's a consensus that "assertion" isn't exactly right. ("Assertion" may well be judged the best word at present. The American Heritage Dictionary uses that word. Surprisingly, the most recent Merriam-Webster and a 5-yr.-old National Geographic News report call it a "theory." One can only assume "theory" is used in a loose lay sense.) --Yopienso (talk) 06:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead/lede excessive

I've mentioned this elsewhere, but I see it's still a problem so I want to bring it up here. I think the lead is very excessive. It's just supposed to give a quick overview of the subject, but it comes across as overly detailed and redundant. I think it should be cut down to the following, and the rest moved to the Overview section, or something similar.

Intelligent design is the assertion 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][2] It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer.[3] The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science.[4][5][6] Intelligent design's leading proponents – all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank[7][8] – believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.[9][10]

Advocates of intelligent design seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations,[11] arguing that intelligent design is a scientific theory under this new definition of science.[12] The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science.[13][14][15][16]

I imagine some might fear that removing the latter section reduces the impact, but I disagree. Doing this helps get straight to the point, making it less likely that people will simply skim the lead, rather than reading it fully. It avoids the repetition and simply ends by making a clear statement of fact. Further information regarding who specifically says this can and should be detailed in the body of the article. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You've basically cut out the last 2.5 paragraphs in your proposed revision above. I think that the lead section must summarize the article, and this article is long. The parts you cut out are summaries of much longer parts. If I were to revise the lead, I'd probably cut out the quote from the NAS and the part about history, since quotes look like detail (unnecessary for a lead paragraph) and I don't typically see history summarized in the lead except maybe one line about origins. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have, and I believe there are good reasons for cutting that much. The second paragraph currently mostly consists of the same sentence rephrased four different ways, with different sourcing, so I believe once is enough in the lead, and move detailing the remaining sources to the body. The third paragraph is going into further detail of what was already described in the third and fourth sentences of the first paragraph. It's repetitive and an unnecessary level of detail for the lead. The one place where, on further consideration, I could potentially see a reason for keeping some of what I suggest should be cut, is a short one-sentence reference to Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, since it was a significant decision. I'm not convinced it's necessary, though. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 06:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned previously, I reconsidered a couple of points, but I still strongly believe the lead is very excessive, repeating itself and going into excessive detail. This is my revised proposed lead:

Intelligent design is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which purposefully avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer.[3] The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science.[4][5][6] Intelligent design's leading proponents – all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank[7][8] – believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.[9][10]

Advocates of intelligent design seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations,[11] arguing that intelligent design is a scientific theory under this new definition of science.[12] The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science.[13][14][15][16] In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents"; therefore, the Dover School District's promotion of it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[24]

As before, all details removed from the lead would be moved to the body. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The lead section should be proportionate to the article. It is currently four rather short paragraphs for an article that is 183K long - making it proportionately quite short (and the article itself appears far too long, though the number of sources makes this a little muddy). I think the four paragraphs neatly summarize the major points, controversies and historical context. The quotes could possibly be summarized and reduced to a generic statement about it being scientifically worthless with only the NAS retained as an explicit, named entity due to its prominence. The third paragraph illustrates the antecedents of ID and the reason it was ever created - to do an end-run around creationism (which it is explicitly shown to be) being barred from schools - as well as who created it (it's essentially solely the baby of the Discovery Institute), and is thus necessary. Dover v Kitzmiller was the first, probably the last test of ID in court where it was conclusively shown to be creationism - a hugely important part of the debate over ID since it was essentially killed it. The lead is meant to summarize the body, and if anything needs to be expanded to include its core concepts of irreducible complexity and specified complexity.

The current lead seems very adequate to me - it summarizes the definition of, nonscientific status of, beginnings of, and ending of intelligent design. I can't see what else can be removed without leaving gaping holes in what ID actually is.

But primarily, I don't believe the intro is too long given the length of the article and the guidelines found in WP:LEAD. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur with WLU - the lead is fine. Raul654 (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"Proportional" does not make it a good lead. The length listed there gives a general idea, but it's important that the lead be concise, and it is very definitely not right now. The third paragraph repeats in greater detail what was already said in the third and fourth sentences of the first paragraph. Also, your comments still do not address the redundancy of the second paragraph. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:LEAD; the lengths are not necessarily set in stone, but there is guidance and that guidance says it should be proportionate. Also, doesn't a longer lead for a longer article make sense? A three section stub about a book shouldn't have a lengthy lead, while the main topic article for a lengthy and detailed subject should be considerably longer. Ultimately, the question about the lead is, does it accurately summarize the main points of the article? I actually think some information is missing and it should be expanded. The information all reads as appropriate to me, though perhaps it could be reorganized. I see nothing that should be removed. The third paragraph is about the origins and history of the idea, while the latter half of the first paragraph is about who came up with the idea. The two are complimentary, not redundant. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Below is a new proposed lead, with the refs removed 'cause they're lengthy and make the paragraphs nigh-impossible to edit. They would be tedious to replace, but doable. I've chunked the development and proponents together, added the underlying claims of ID, and made some wording adjustments. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that the third paragraph can be shortened a bit more. I've edited the text of it below, but just commented out the text I've removed (i.e. so it's still visible when editing). Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 07:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I replaced "think tank" since it helps to identify what the DI is, and think it is worth noting the DI's role in leading the advocacy of ID, but agree the number of books released doesn't really help that much. My suggested revisions are shorter than the original, but I do think those particular points are worth including. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Good. I've moved words around, but it's probably better, as you say, to note the DI's role this way. --PLUMBAGO 10:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed revision

Hidden - too hard to keep current in a different section

Intelligent design is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which, for political and legal reasons, purposefully avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer. Its primary concepts include irreducible complexity, specified complexity and the fine-tuned Universe,all of which have been shown to be invalid arguments, introducing an unnecessary supernatural cause for natural phenomena. The unequivocal consensus of the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science and evolution elegantly explains the diversity of life on Earth. Despite this, advocates of intelligent design have used the the slogan "Teach the Controversy" as part of a campaign to force intelligent design into science classrooms by alleging the existence of debate among biologists regarding the theory of evolution.

Intelligent design is part of the wedge strategy of the intelligent design movement, the long-term effort to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural (in particular, theistic) explanations, the only way which intelligent design would be considered a scientific theory. Advocates for intelligent design have failed to publish their claims in the scientific literature with proper peer review; proponents blame the scientific community for a priori rejected their explanation, while critics counter that no such research has been appropriately submitted to a scientific journal and that the supernatural ideas that underpin intelligent design can not be tested by science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science" and other agencies have described intelligent design as pseudoscience and junk science. Religious commentators have also expressed support for evolution and objected to intelligent design on both theological and philosophical grounds.

Though having roots in as far as Ancient Greece, the modern concept of intelligent design originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling involving separation of church and state. The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science. Intelligent design's leading proponents – all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank – believe the designer to be the God of Christianity. The first significant published use of the term was to replace the word "creationism" in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook published by a Christian non-profit organization that was intended for high-school biology classes. By the mid-1990s, intelligent design proponents had begun clustering around the Discovery Institute and more vocally advocating the inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula, culminating in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in 2005.

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, a group of parents of high-school students opposed a public school district requirement for teachers to present intelligent design in biology classes as an alternative "explanation of the origin of life". U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Intelligent design has also been criticized outside of the United States as a form of creationism that should not be taught as science, but finding greater acceptance in Islamic countries.

I think it could use a little tweaking, but this lead feels much less repetitive than the current one. At this point, I think the second paragraph should start off with "The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science." (I'm all for getting right to the point) The current first sentence of that paragraph feels like a obscured way of saying "Scientists believe ID is not logical nor does it help explain anything." If we've got the sources, perhaps it can be rephrased. I'm not sure the last sentence of that paragraph adds much besides detail, either (detail is good, but best in the body rather than the lead).

The third paragraph of the last sentence still feels a little repetitive with the entire last paragraph. Perhaps just dropping "which challenged the intended use of intelligent design in public school science classes" from the end would help, since the trial is immediately explained. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 14:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have made some adjustments and am trying to better summarize all parts of the page. There are whole sections of the body not currently included in the lead. I think the current version captures most of the page now. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Not at all happy with the way this reads, for example "Advocates of intelligent design also insist there is controversy among biologists regarding evolution" gives false credence to a spurious claim. There's also a problem of going into excessive detail of the ID subclaims, so that someone reading only the first paragraph comes away with a distorted impression. If they are to be mentioned in the lead, they belong in a subsequent paragraph together with clarification that they have been refuted by scientists and rejected in court. It's also important to show that it's regarded as pseudoscience. Rather tight for time these days, but this doesn't look like an acceptable version. . dave souza, talk 17:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

My preferred version would include firmer language such as "spurious concepts", "discredited idea there is controversy" and "pseudoscientific proposition" but given the previous round of talk page activity, somehow got the impression that it wouldn't go over well. I agree - the lead should clearly show that ID is utterly, utterly worthless pseudoscience, on par with AIDS denialism, creationism and Holocaust denial (and for anyone who thinks these comparisons are hystrionic or extreme - please review the scientific sources criticizing ID; it really is that bad and frankly anyone who thinks otherwise simply isn't adequately familiar with the topic. I recommend starting with Judge Jones' ruling on wikisource). Though the current version doesn't cover all significant parts of the article, we still have to be concerned over length - which makes it hard to both introduce, and contextualize the concepts involved. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, as you'll appreciate there was quite a struggle to achieve the present version which covers things pretty well. There are good ideas in your proposal, will try to think them over and find a way of keeping them in the proper context so that readers are not misled about this fringe pseudoscientific view. . dave souza, talk 18:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite there yet, either. In a lead, less is often more; repetition and too much detail make it less effective. I don't think the additions to what is now the first sentence of the second paragraph of the proposal are necessary, for example (besides which, "elegantly" is a bit too POV a word). Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Elegant is pretty much a standard way of describing the theory of evolution and one I'm sure most scientists would endorse. [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]. Evolution is an elegant explanation because it so simply and sensibly accounts for such a huge, diverse and fascinating subject as all life on earth with so few concepts. The very elegance of the theory is one of the reasons it is accepted by so many and appreciated as a such a powerful and evocative scientific theory. Elegant conveys the respect the theory holds among scientists and appropriately places it in context next to intelligent design. What must be conveyed is the respect and acceptance that evolution holds in the scientific community - in contrast with the essentially total rejection of intelligent design as little more than a cheap and tawdry lie built upon the foundations of an extremely old, long-since dealt with, spurious set of religiously-based objections to evolution. Evolution dominates biology, nothing makes sense without evolution. Creationists may hate this, but it is the reality of things and must be conveyed. NPOV does not mean we give equal, or even friendly treatment to all ideas (particularly with one so worthless and mendacious as intelligent design), and we are urged to convey ideas with not merely workaday prose, but elegant prose. Hence, "elegant" is appropriate, poetically so. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The objection I have to many editing choices in this article is that the consensus of the scientific community is not simply stated as such with neutral description but rather it is used to take a forceful stand, which I believe violates NPOV in the name of avoiding Undue Weight. WP has chosen not to adopt a SPOV even on scientific subjects. This quotation from [NPOV-FAQ] is helpful:

"Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) 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; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth." (Emphasis added.)

When the article puts the consensus view into the mouth of WP instead of reporting it as the consensus view, it violates the aspect of NPOV that says "we must not take a stand on them." Some editors are eager to take such a stand and to do so as forcefully as possible. I think that violates the Pillars. If a scientific association has described evolution as an "elegant theory," just quote it. SPOV is not the WP standard. Scoopczar (talk) 00:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The opinion is attributed to the scientific community, which does indeed consider it an elegant theory and it is appropriate to convey both the simplicity and explanatory power of the theory. Considering ID is purportedly about the diversity of life, and purports to put itself in the scientific arena, the scientific point of view is the most relevant (i.e. neutral) one - the mainstream that ID purports to compete with. Neutral does not mean "conciliatory", "friendly", "apologetic" or "positive". It means proportionate to the response in the relevant community. The relevant community - be it religious, scientific, political, judicial, or anywhere except the creationist - has concluded that ID is a pathetic lie. It is uncontroversial that evolution is seen as an exemplary theory, uncontroversial in its existence and remarkable in its explanatory power, and that creationists, including the DI and ID proponents, have lied and created controversy where there is one for religious reasons. Othere relevant sections from policies and guidelines include:

Please click for guidelines on POV and neutrality.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

“

Don't misrepresent the relative prominence of opposing views. In attributing competing views, it is necessary to ensure that the attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity.

”

“

In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. Regarding this article, the ID viewpoint is always the minority viewpoint that requires attribution, while uncontroversial statements about science and the clear scientific majority opinion does not need extensive attribution

”

“

The Wikipedia neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views such as pseudoscience, the claim that the Earth is flat, or the claim that the Apollo moon landings never occurred. If that were the case, the result would be to legitimize and even promote such claims. Policy states that we must not take a stand on these issues 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; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth. The very section you claim supports your position, I read as supporting the plain, flat, simple factual description of evolution being the elegant theory that describes the diversity of life as the unequivocal opinion of the scientific community.

”

“

Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, scientific consensus is by its very nature the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should be proportionate, and the scientific view and the pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly

”

“

Assert facts, including facts about opinions--but don't assert opinions themselves. What does this mean? What we mean is that when it is a fact (a piece of information that which there is no serious dispute) it can be asserted without simon-says inline-text phrasing and when it is an opinion (a matter which is subject to dispute) it can be attributed using inline-text attribution...Requiring an inline qualifier for widespread consensus of reliable sources on the grounds that it is "opinion" would allow a contrarian reader to insist on an inline qualifier for material about which there is no serious dispute, using the argument that the material is an "opinion". This would mean, in the end, that all material in Wikipedia would require an inline qualifier, even if only one Wikipedia editor insisted on it, which is not the goal of ASF. Presenting a "fact" as an "opinion" is needlessly attributing uncontroversial statements, and so creating the appearance of doubt or disagreement where there is none. That evolution is accepted is a fact; that evolution may be an "elegant theory" is not necessarily a fact, but is both good writing and uncontroversial and does emphasize the esteem in which the theory is held. Wikipedia has not taken this stand, but the scientific community clearly has.

”

“

Many encyclopedic topics can be evaluated from a number of different perspectives, and some of these perspectives may make claims that lack verification in research, that are inherently untestable, or that are pseudoscientific. In general, Wikipedia should always give prominence to established lines of research found in reliable sources and present neutral descriptions of other claims with respect to their historical, scientific, and cultural prominence. Claims that are uncontroversial and uncontested within reliable sources should be presented as simple statements of fact — e.g. "An electron has a mass that is approximately 1/1836 that of the proton"... creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. In this case, the claim that is uncontroversial is that evolution is a powerful, simple and dominant theory explaining the diversity of life on Earth, that is universally accepted by biologists; intelligent design is also clearly a religious and political movement - something which could inform the first sentence of the lead.

”

“

The careful use of sources is vital when writing about criticism of fringe theories. Since fringe theories may be obscure topics that few non-adherents write about, there may only be a small number of sources that directly dispute them. Care should be taken not to mislead the reader by implying that, because the claim is actively disputed by only a few, it is otherwise supported. Particularly harsh criticism should be attributed — "Oxford philosopher A. C. Grayling dismisses intelligent design as 'a little driblet of childish ignorance; a mark of mankind's infancy.'" — while simple facts — "humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor" — are best left stated simply as facts rather than recast as opinions. Again, that evolution is accepted, simply and without controversy, as the explanation for the diversity of life, is a fact and one that does not require attribution.

”

One thing I don't like is an endless parade of attributed quotations for uncontroversial things. It is uncontroversial that evolution explains the diversity of life on Earth (and combined with abiogenesis, the existence of life on Earth). It is uncontroversial that the theory of evolution is universally accepted by the scientific community. It is uncontroversial that ID is religious and disingenuous.

I've made some changes to the proposed lead, given Dave Souza's comments. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That is much tidier, thanks WLU. No sane person should take issue with that as a lede. If Scoopczar is really here to improve Wikipedia there are thousands of article in need of work on the lede.--Charles (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Still pondering this, one particular problem is about the concepts, "all of which have been examined and rejected as scientific explanations and criticized for not requiring an intelligent designer to evolve.' Perhaps better to move the whole sentence lower in the lead, and possible rephrasing would be "all of which have been shown to be invalid arguments, introducing an unnecessary supernatural cause for natural phenomena." Still not there, but can't do more on this just yet. . dave souza, talk 22:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The bigger problem here is that the lede is excessively long because it conflates intelligent design with the intelligent design movement. Everything should be deleted except the first three sentences and the very last one. All the rest is fine information (though some copywriting is needed) for Intelligent design movement, but has no place here.

In other words, delete everything from "Despite this, advocates of intelligent design have used the the slogan..." through "...therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."

Does this make sense? The lede states: Intelligent design originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling involving separation of church and state. But the main body says the origins of the concept date back to ancient Greek philosophy, and the origins of the term to an 1847 issue of Scientific American. No, it doesn't make sense, because the first statement deals with the movement while the body deals with the concept and term. There's a difference, and that's why we have two separate articles. --Yopienso (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, given the guidelines of WP:LEAD, I don't think these four, relatively short paragraphs, are excessive. Calling for the deletion of all but four sentences would be far too short, not cover at least two-thirds of the article (and the purpose of the lead is to summarize the article), remove virtually everything about why intelligent design is rejected by the scientific community and is not science, fail to give due weight to the majority scientific opinion, remove the informative, valuable and factual history of the movement including why creationism was rebranded in the first place (as well as that it is creationism), remove the extremely important role of the discovery institute in creating and leading the charge of ID creationism into the classrooms, and probably the most critical aspect of intelligent design - it's very clear labelling as creationism, not science, in the crucial Dover v. Kitzmiller trial. I'm quite baffled that anyone would think it appropriate to include a description of ID without a suitable emphasis on the mainstream opinion. Again, neutral doesn't mean "the ID perspective" and it's impossible to discuss ID without listing it's myriad failings - ID is on par with holocaust denial, AIDS denialism, 9/11 demolition theories and, well, creationism, and none of these concepts can be discussed without going into why they are not considered mainstream.

Per Dave's suggestion and Yop's comments regarding history, I've adjusted a bit. The roots of intelligent design are found in creationism, hence going back to Ancient Greece, but the true roots are found in the short period after Edwards v. Aguillard - see Intelligent_design#Origins_of_the_term - when "creationism" was essentially replaced with "intelligent design" in Of Pandas and People (I don't think it's worth including the first 'mere mention' of the phrase, since it is the concept that is important and I doubt Scientific American meant the term in the same way this page uses it). The IDM and ID are fairly indistinguishable since it's essentially a DI initiative - and some coverage should be included in the lead particularly as part of the history. I read it as a very smooth discussion of the concept, its failings, the reaction of the scientific community, followed by the major players and events of ID. A four-sentence lead is far too short in my mind (and not in keeping with WP:LEAD). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, WLU, for your work. On second thought, since there's a section about the movement, some mention can be made of it in the lede, but less than the present suggested revision.

This is an awkward sentence, and wedge strategy should be booted: Part of the wedge strategy of the intelligent design movement involves an effort to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations, the only way which intelligent design would be considered a scientific theory. Suggestion: The intelligent design movement involves an effort to fundamentally redefine science so supernatural explanations can be accommodated as part of a supposedly scientific theory.
Another awkward sentence: Though having roots in as far as Ancient Greece, intelligent design originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling involving separation of church and state. Recasting: Although its roots reach back to ancient Greece, the concept known today as "intelligent design" originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling involving separation of church and state.
I don't have time right now to proceed, but there are some suggestions for starters. --Yopienso (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The wedge strategy is pretty fundamental to both the Discovery Institute and the concept of intelligent design. It lays out the fundamental goal of replacing methodological naturalism with "god did it" science. I've reworded a bit to try to make it flow better, but still think there is merit to retaining it in the lead as it places ID within the larger theoretical (?) framework of the wedge and makes it obvious it is one step of a goal-directed process. It's not crucial, but I think it's worth keeping.

The Ancient Greece thing I'm not very wedded to - the relationship is more to creationism than contemporary ID. I added "modern" to distinguish this intelligent design as a strategy from previous versions of intelligent design (i.e. creationism).

Speaking of "strategy", I would be in favour of replacing "proposition" with "political and legal strategy" though that would require more modifications and some explicit sources. Though ID is an idea, it's far more accurately described as a strategy since it differs only in detail from Paley's original argument and the "scientific" creationism of the 80s. For all that Johnson is supposed to be the spectacular intellectual shining light of the DI/ID, he's not bringing much that is new to the table. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 03:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The wedge strategy is pretty fundamental to both the Discovery Institute and the concept of intelligent design. But, this article isn't about the Discovery Institute, which is the bosom and engine of the movement. Is a shoehorn the same as a foot? The wedge strategy has nothing to do with the concept itself, but with surreptitiously forcing it into the culture. Many followers/believers of the concept did not even know there was such a strategy. In fact, there wasn't until 1998. The wedge emphatically belongs in the movement article. The roots of the concept actually go back to mankind's first philosophical/religious glimmerings. I will point out that Job, Psalms, and Proverbs predate the Greeks, and propound the notion of an intelligent designer. So, yeah, I'm "wedded" to giving the Greeks their day, or at least a moment's mention, for spelling out the design aspect. You're right that the "Intelligent Designer" was originally called the "Creator," which proves how ancient the concept is, while the movement is a modern phenomenon--a reaction, in fact, to the dethroning of the Creator.

After all the discussion, it's out of the question at this point to change "proposition." --Yopienso (talk) 08:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The wedge strategy is so much part of the history of ID that excluding it would amount to censorship, which is of course what creationists like Yopienso are after.--Charles (talk) 09:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Not just that, header articles like this one should summarize and include the information found in more specific articles like intelligent design movement. It's like saying "we've already got an article on the smallpox vaccine, why would we mention that smallpox was eliminated through vaccination in the lead of smallpox?" On the article about shoehorns, I would certainly indicate that it is "used to put a shoe on a foot". ID was essentially a political strategy of, and championed by, the DI; the three (ID, DI, IDM) are intertwined heavily and all should appear in the lead, though with less detail than the leads of the other articles. The wedge strategy has everything to do with intelligent design - please take at least a cursory look at wedge strategy. ID is intrinsic to the wedge strategy as it is the thin end of the wedge designed to destroy science's use of methodologicla naturalism. It doesn't matter what many followers believe (if any followers bothered to research the topic, they'd realize that ID is nothing new and, as has been said, nothing but creationism in a cheap suit). All articles should mutually describe, in appropriate detail, the relating concepts and articles. You can't talk about intelligent design without talking about, among other things, creationism, science, the discovery institute, Dover v. Kitzmiller, scientific consensus, evolution, Christianity, specified complexity and irreducible complexity. And again I have to point to WP:LEAD - the article should summarize the body. Yopienso, why should the lead of this article not summarize the body of the whole page?

Also, I don't like the comma splice and relocation of the DI in the lead. It's a stylistic point, not a substantive one but I'd prefer the descriptor came before the name.

It's never out of the question to change anything, it's a matter of what is most appropriate per WP:RS and WP:NPOV - but more sources explicit on the point would be required, and it would probably require contextualization and attribution. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It's never out of the question to change anything, it's a matter of what is most appropriate per WP:RS and WP:NPOV Sorry, it's also a matter of WO:CON. We've had considerable input about this very word and it would be most inappropriate to change it at this point.
Real-life acquaintances will be mystified and amused to hear it alleged that I'm "after censorship." I'm a strong advocate for the unvarnished truth and for examining all sides of every issue. You've missed my point entirely, which is focus. No one has responded to the question I've posed at least twice: Why do we have separate articles on the idea and on the movement? Then we have another one devoted to the Wedge strategy. (Yay! We should treat all those aspects, and links are conveniently placed in the right-hand column to quickly access them, along with hyperlinks in the text.) WLU has made my point: On the article about shoehorns, I would certainly indicate that it is "used to put a shoe on a foot". This is the article on the foot, not the shoehorn. If you'll notice, our article on Shoehorn logically mentions the foot, while the one on the Foot entirely omits any whisper of a shoehorn.
You can't talk about intelligent design without talking about, among other things, creationism, science, the discovery institute, Dover v. Kitzmiller, scientific consensus, evolution, Christianity, specified complexity and irreducible complexity. I agree. The wedge strategy (shoehorn) as it's presented in the current version of the article--not the proposed revision--is adequately covered within the scope of ID (foot). ID is indeed intrinsic to the wedge strategy but not vice versa. The wedge strategy, as we all know, is a much newer development, and a strategy for implementing the idea (or, as I more baldly stated above, "surreptitiously forcing it into the culture"), not part and parcel of the idea itself.
Yopienso, why should the lead of this article not summarize the body of the whole page? You'll remember I reconsidered and realized some mention of the movement should be included.
No response on my two suggestions of 01:15, 22 July 2010 on changing awkward sentences. Anyone agree? disagree? I stand by them. --Yopienso (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Response to Two Suggestions

Intelligent design is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."^[5]^[6] It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which, for political and legal reasons, purposefully avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer.^[7] Its primary concepts include irreducible complexity, specified complexity and the fine-tuned Universe, all of which have been shown to be invalid arguments, introducing an unnecessary supernatural cause for natural phenomena. The unequivocal consensus of the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science and evolution elegantly explains the diversity of life on Earth. Despite this, advocates of intelligent design have used the the slogan "Teach the Controversy" as part of a campaign to force intelligent design into science classrooms by alleging the existence of debate among biologists regarding the theory of evolution.

The intelligent design movement's wedge strategy aims to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural (specifically theistic) explanations, the only way which intelligent design would be considered a scientific theory. Only a small number of controverisal articles supporting intelligent design have appeared in the scientific literature; proponents have attributedd the lack of publications to the scientific community a priori rejecting their explanation, instead publishing books for the general public without a scientific peer review. Critics counter that no such research has been appropriately submitted to a scientific journal and that the supernatural ideas that underpin intelligent design can not be tested by science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science" and other agencies have described intelligent design as pseudoscience and junk science. Religious commentators have also expressed support for evolution and objected to intelligent design on both theological and philosophical grounds.

Though restating arguments from natural theology, the modern concept of intelligent design arose in response to Edwards v. Aguillard, a 1987 United States Supreme Court ruling that creationism was a religious concept which could not be taught in science classes as it violated the separation of church and state in the United States.^[8] The proponents of intelligent design - all of whom are associated with the politically concervative think tank the Discovery Instituteand believe the designer to be the God of Christianity^[9]^[10] - reformulated their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent the ruling. The first significant published use of the term was to replace the word "creationism" in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook published by a Christian non-profit organization that was intended for high-school biology classes. By the mid-1990s, intelligent design proponents had begun clustering around the Discovery Institute and more vocally advocating the inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula, culminating in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in 2005.

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, a group of parents of high-school students opposed a public school district requirement for teachers to present intelligent design in biology classes as an alternative "explanation of the origin of life". U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Intelligent design has also been criticized outside of the United States as a form of creationism that should not be taught as science, but finding greater acceptance in Islamic countries.

suggestions

For convenience, I'm repeating Yopienso's earlier suggestions and responding to them in this new section, as others may wish to do:

This is an awkward sentence, and wedge strategy should be booted: Part of the wedge strategy of the intelligent design movement involves an effort to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations, the only way which intelligent design would be considered a scientific theory. Suggestion: The intelligent design movement involves an effort to fundamentally redefine science so supernatural explanations can be accommodated as part of a supposedly scientific theory. [Emphasis added]

Another awkward sentence: Though having roots in as far as Ancient Greece, intelligent design originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling involving separation of church and state. Recasting: Although its roots reach back to ancient Greece, the concept known today as "intelligent design" originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling involving separation of church and state. [Emphasis added]

On suggestion 1, I prefer:

The Intelligent Design movement attempts to redefine science to accommodate supernatural explanations within a "scientific" theory.

On suggestion 2, I prefer:

Though its roots reach back to ancient Greece, the modern concept of "Intelligent Design" arose in response to a 1987 US Supreme Court ruling involving separation of church and state, Edwards v. Aguillard.

More concise flow is behind these preferences. Others' thoughts on Yopienso's two suggestions? Scoopczar (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Scoopczar; I like your improvements on my suggestions. --Yopienso (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The article on shoes would probably mention both shoehorns and feet. More aptly, evolution discusses natural selection, random mutation and common descent. But irrespective the instructions regarding the lead still says we summarize the article, and the article body mentions the movement and wedge strategy with no reason not to include a single sentence incorporating both concepts. As I've said before, ID is a part of the wedge strategy, making the wedge strategy appropriate to include - as well mentioned five times in the body (and arguably should appear more, it is pretty important - the wedge strategy was developed in 1998 and has a twenty-year timeline with sub-projects, goals and milestones over short, medium and long timelines. This is not an insignificant document in the history of intelligent design and again - appropriately describes the much larger context ID is located in within the maleficent plans of the Discovery Institute). The wedge strategy is a fundamental document by the IDM, and the IDM movement is mentioned many times in the body as well as having an entire section dedicated to it. Both pages give more weight to their basic topics - the IDM page goes into detail regarding the activities undertaken, the WS discusses the itself document and strategy itself while this page covers both those concepts as well as the reactions to ID overall, the basics of the concept and its origins. Again, the lead summarizes the body, and the amount of detail on the movement itself is minimal - a single sentence. Please answer this question - why should these extensively discussed, important concepts not be in the lead? The wedge strategy is particularly important because it is the long-term plan of the DI; without mentioning the wedge strategy, ID looks like an isolated incident when it's verifiably part of a larger plan.

I wouldn't support the use of the word "supposedly". It's also inaccurate, the redefinition is about changing all of science to make the supernatural part of it. If their redefinition occurred, then ID would be a scientific theory (not a "supposed" theory. Right now it's a "supposed/purported/alleged theory" but if they succeeded it would indeed become a theory). I very much prefer the current proposed version. Regarding suggestion 2, I don't really have that much problem with either version, but the scare quotes are unnecessary, as is the capitalization. I do see merit in naming the court case that resulted in the creation of ID.

My biggest issue is that I still fail to see the merit of not discussing the wedge strategy or intelligent design movement - as said repeatedly, in numerous previous comments, we have separate articles on these concepts and they are found in {{Intelligent Design}}. That's an indication that they are sufficiently notable to be described in the lead. It's very much not a reason to exclude it. In case there is something I am missing - why would we not include these concepts, referenced extensively in the body, in the lead as WP:LEAD says we should?

I've lost track - are these the only sticking points of the proposed lead? Are the other revisions acceptable? If so, that considerably tightens the discussion and I'd like to move it to a new section 'cause this one is unweildy and currently sporting multiple versions. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex

Rather concerned about the proposed changes, suggest:

1) "The intelligent design movement's wedge strategy aims to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations."

2) "Though restating arguments from natural theology, the modern concept of intelligent design arose in response to a 1987 US Supreme Court ruling involving separation of church and state, Edwards v. Aguillard."

Just my tuppenceworth, . dave souza, talk 22:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC) amended as below, dave souza, talk 23:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I quite like those suggestions - they capture the same ideas but are shorter. I wouldn't mind the first one mentioning that part of the goal is having ID be considered a scientific theory. Natural theology is a superior phrase, but again - scare quotes an caps are not good choices in my mind. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Blast, copy and paste without paying enough attention, "caps" etc. struck and proper version added. Thanks, dave souza, talk 23:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

struck the striking since it just made things messy WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex

@WLU: Please answer this question - why should these extensively discussed, important concepts not be in the lead? I've answered twice; here's the third time: It should be briefly mentioned in the lede.

For the record: 1. Thanks, WLU, for your work. On second thought, since there's a section about the movement, some mention can be made of it in the lede, but less than the present suggested revision. 2. Yopienso, why should the lead of this article not summarize the body of the whole page? You'll remember I reconsidered and realized some mention of the movement should be included.

The wedge strategy is particularly important because it is the long-term plan of the DI; without mentioning the wedge strategy, ID looks like an isolated incident when it's verifiably part of a larger plan. Isolated? It's clearly identified as "Part of a series of articles on Intelligent design" above the symbolic stopwatch and amply linked to related articles below it.

@Dave: Your renderings are fine by me, so long as you're not suggesting we kick Plato and Aristotle out of the body. But, if they're in the body, why wouldn't we mention Ancient Greece in the lede? --Yopienso (talk) 23:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

@ Yopienso, Plato, Aristotle and Ancient Greek ideas relevant here are all part of natural theology, the influence of William Paley is rather more relevant, so it's a general term rather than the specific examples given in the body. . . dave souza, talk 23:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Rethink 1) onwards – "The intelligent design movement's wedge strategy aims to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations, so that intelligent design could be promoted as though it was a scientific theory. No peer reviewed scientific literature has been published supporting intelligent design, and while proponents claim that their approach is rejected a priori, no intelligent design research has been appropriately submitted to a scientific journal. Supernatural explanations inherently cannot be tested by empirical science." Just thinking, dave souza, talk 23:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Although you're technically correct that natural theology includes the old Greeks, most informed readers will think of Paley and perhaps Aquinas instead. Many readers from the general public who google "intelligent design" and wind up here have no inkling as to what "natural theology" may entail. Neither this atheistic discussion of natural theology nor this Christian one mentions Greece. (This comprehensive one does.) Besides, "roots reaching back to Ancient Greece" is, well, poetic... :-)

Do you actually know or only assume no ID research has been appropriately submitted to a scientific journal? (I'm guessing you have Sternberg and Meyer in mind. To actually know you would have to have viewed a list of all submissions to all journals for the last 20 years.) What do you think of this reworking? Bracketed words could be omitted.

"The intelligent design movement's wedge strategy aims to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations, so that intelligent design could be promoted as [though it were] a scientific theory. Supernatural explanations are inherently untestable by empirical science. No peer reviewed scientific literature supports intelligent design." --Yopienso (talk) 04:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

More informed readers should think of Paley, the nice thing about natural theology is that it does have roots in Ancient Greece (making the original statement more accurate) but ID's roots are far more firmly in 19th century England. Natural theology allows for both. It may be more poetic, but it's less accurate and greater detail should be found in subsidiary articles. In particular, this gives the idea considerable weight due to longevity, when it's actually a much more recent, much less reputable idea in its current form.

This is where I'm confused then - the IDM is mentioned only briefly in the lead, once. Later the Discovery Institute, which is a large part of the movement and the leader, is mentioned, in a different context, once. I assume that sentence is OK since no-one has suggested changing it. As for the wedge strategy being mentioned in the template - that's very different from being mentioned in the lead. The lead highlights it, and describes it, which is far more important than noticing it's in a fancy coloured box with a couple dozen other, context-free links. Hence why I believe it important to include.

I would suggest "defined" over "promoted", but it's a judgment call.

A verifiable criticism of ID is that it doesn't have any real literature, see Intelligent design#Peer review. Again, I'm not pulling this out of my ass, I'm summarizing the body. There's a ton of literature that contradicts it, but actual proponents spend more time writing direct-to-public books and on speaking tours than doing actual science.

It actually sounds like we're close to consensus here, I'll try to paste new versions into the proposed lead (possibly in a new section, again very long and messy. I hate having to scroll up this much to navigate replies). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yopienso is right to question the "appropriately submitted" portion. This is something that is very difficult to ascertain since journals do not (to my knowledge) publish information about what has been submitted to them (as opposed to published by them). And the qualification "appropriately" seems more to do with the Meyer et al. paper that actually was published ... and then withdrawn when its peer review process was questioned. Furthermore, Behe et al. published their bona fide (if quickly dismissed) research paper in 2004, so claiming "no such research" is probably overstating the case. I've been trying, but failing, to come up with some alternate wording that captures ID proponents' limited publication, and its dismissal, in the scientific literature in a single sentence. The difficulty for me seems to be judging the balance in getting across that, yes, ID has a tiny number of papers (vanishingly tiny when one considers how important the topics they claim to address are), with the point that they've either been retrospectively withdrawn or destroyed by subsequent papers. My "best" suggestion is that the entire sentence beginning "Advocates for intelligent design ..." is deleted. Largely because it is not strictly true (i.e. number of ID papers = small, but non-zero), but also because the point about scientific testability (the lack thereof) is made in the very next sentence and tied to a major scientific society. I'm not sure if this is a particularly helpful suggestion though. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 12:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with everything except the "deleting" part - two publications are essentially nothing. Perhaps the emphasis could be placed on their direct-to-consumer book publishing instead. However, "failed" is not the same thing as "not submitted" and incorporates both the idea of not submitting and the idea of those submissions not being accepted. Adding the word "substantially" or "generally" before "failed" could also offset the inaccuracy of the absolute by allowing for those two publications. Another option is phrasing it thusly: "Almost no articles about intelligent design have appeared in the scientific literature; advocates blame the scientific community for a priori rejected their explanation (publishing books directly to the public without scientific peer review)..." This way the emphasis is on the lack of articles rather than the people, with each "side" presenting their reasoning why. We can't get into how there have been only two articles, both have been soundly dismissed for lack of peer review and theoretical failings.

I've also added a qualifier to the wedge strategy sentence - ID proponents don't want "ghost" supernatural explanations, they want "god" explanations. I could also see using [[Theistic realism|theistic]] instead of "supernatural". It's more specific. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I strongly urge that we keep the reference to Ancient Greece since all parties admit it is more accurate. Remember we're talking about the origins of the concept, not the movement. I would conversely oppose a mention of Ancient Greece in Intelligent design movement.
No peer reviewed scientific literature supports intelligent design accurately and concisely states the facts without going into particulars. We have articles dealing ad nauseum with submissions and rejections and retractions and controversies.
As a heavier user than editor of WP, I find the boxes to the right immensely helpful. Should the Stein and Sternberg articles be added under "Intelligent design movement"?
Being facetious here to avoid being too serious, but this is technically true: to say no ID paper has ever been appropriately submitted one would have had to view a list of all submissions IN A SECONDARY SOURCE! ;-) --Yopienso (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I would not agree that "Ancient Greece" is more accurate - it is, to a certain extent, true, but only through its relation to the much more relevant natural theology. My preference is for natural theology. The origin of intelligent design as it is discussed in this page is a court case, it's only relevant to ancient greece because ID is the same thing as creationism, which has its roots in natural theology, which could be traced back to ancient greece through the history of natural theology via the teleological argument for god when the Ancient Greeks were actually talking about the original questions of first cause. Ancient Greece has nothing to do with the Christian God, the origins of life, or evolution, it has to do with proof of "the (Greek) gods". We should discuss the origins of the concept proportionate to the weight in the page itself, which is skewed to Paley rather than Plato. Let the reader click on teleological argument or natural theology if they want to see the utmost roots, the most reasonable and fairest representation of intelligent design's origins is, in my opinion, far more clearly in Paley's writings. Greece may be the most ancient origin of the argument, but the most relevant is found far more clearly the 19th century.

As for no literature appearing, its inaccurate on two levels - publications have appeared, and they did support intelligent design. In addition, there is the matter of their direct-to-public books such as Darwin's Black Box, The Edge of Evolution and whatever Dembski's published that I'm not going to bother reading. The ideas contained were soundly criticized by the scientific community though, but I would say that is captured in the first paragraph and does not need repeating.

Based on (mostly my) comments, I've made some more adjustments to the proposed lead. They're not set in stone but it helps me to see how the whole fits together. And it's all about me.

You'd want to start a discussion on {{Intelligent Design}}'s talk page to get a really solid answer; I could see Sternberg falling under IDM, but Stein, being much more pop culture (and far more blatantly dishonest) I would put under "Campaigns". But let's not clutter this talk page, I'd say go here or simply make the change and see what happens. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Objection, your honour! As the article rightly states, "No peer-reviewed articles supporting intelligent design have been published in scientific journals, and intelligent design has not been the subject of scientific research or testing." Source: Kitz pp. 87–88. Have a read, and note that Behe and Snoke was specifically discussed, including "that it does not mention either irreducible complexity or ID." Thus, "Only a small number of controverisal articles supporting intelligent design have appeared in the scientific literature" is wrong. Kitz p. 87 neatly describes a "complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory", perhaps "No peer reviewed publications supporting intelligent design have been published in the scientific literature" would be best. Maybe we should also note that ID "has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community." p. 88, paraphrase to suit. . dave souza, talk 19:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh, that is simpler and more accurate. I'm guessing Sternberg peer review controversy is the same issue...

Now are we better off being 100% accurate, or attempting to address the "spirit" of the thing where those two are considered efforts to support ID? Will think and comment further. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

These two may have been "efforts", but they were before the Kitzmiller trial and the finding takes them into account. Regarding the Stermberg published paper, our article states "Meyer's article was a literature review article, and contained no new primary scholarship itself on the topic of intelligent design." It seems to have been handwaving, "oh look, Cambrian explosion, must have been new designs hence a designer", and the defense at Kitz don't even seem to have tried to present it as supporing their case. That's from memory, but the fact remains that it was already out in the open for consideration before the judgement. . dave souza, talk 20:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that's a fair point about the Behe et al. paper. I was reading in-between the lines to see its ID content but, you're right, it doesn't mention ID or IC in its pages. Hardly the mark of a publication setting out the stall for ID. Anyway, I retract my previous concern, and note that this is already addressed in the article. Duh. --PLUMBAGO 08:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

With no further comments, I've made some changes based on the above discussion. If there are no other objections, I will begin integrating references in preparation to paste it into the lead of the main page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

^ http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/intelligent%20design
^ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intelligent+design
^ http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1081911/intelligent-design
^ http://www.yourdictionary.com/intelligent-design
^ "Top Questions-1.What is the theory of intelligent design?". Discovery Institute. Retrieved 2007-05-13.
^
"Primer: Intelligent Design Theory in a Nutshell" (PDF). Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center. 2004. Retrieved 2007-05-13. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |publisher-link= ignored (help)
- "Intelligent Design". Intelligent Design network. 2007. Retrieved 2007-05-13.
^ Numbers, Ronald L. (2006). The Creationists, Expanded Edition. Harvard University Press. pp. 373, 379–380. ISBN 0674023390.
^ Cite error: The named reference kitz21 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ "the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity". Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., Ruling p. 26. A selection of writings and quotes of intelligent design supporters demonstrating this identification of the Christian God with the intelligent designer are found in the pdf Horse's Mouth (PDF) by Brian Poindexter, dated 2003.
^ William A. Dembski, when asked in an interview whether his research concluded that God is the Intelligent Designer, stated "I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God". Devon Williams (December 14, 2007). "CitizenLink: Friday Five: William A. Dembski". Focus on the Family. Retrieved 2007-12-15.

[1] ttp://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/intelligent%20design

[2] ttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intelligent+design

[3] ttp://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1081911/intelligent-design

[4] ttp://www.yourdictionary.com/intelligent-design

[DIposition-5] "Top Questions-1.What is the theory of intelligent design?". Discovery Institute. Retrieved 2007-05-13.

[6] "Primer: Intelligent Design Theory in a Nutshell" (PDF). Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center. 2004. Retrieved 2007-05-13. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |publisher-link= ignored (help)
"Intelligent Design". Intelligent Design network. 2007. Retrieved 2007-05-13.

[7] "Intelligent Design". Intelligent Design network. 2007. Retrieved 2007-05-13.

[7] Numbers, Ronald L. (2006). The Creationists, Expanded Edition. Harvard University Press. pp. 373, 379–380. ISBN 0674023390.

[kitz21-8] Cite error: The named reference kitz21 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[KvD26-9] "the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity". Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., Ruling p. 26. A selection of writings and quotes of intelligent design supporters demonstrating this identification of the Christian God with the intelligent designer are found in the pdf Horse's Mouth (PDF) by Brian Poindexter, dated 2003.

[CitizenLink-10] William A. Dembski, when asked in an interview whether his research concluded that God is the Intelligent Designer, stated "I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God". Devon Williams (December 14, 2007). "CitizenLink: Friday Five: William A. Dembski". Focus on the Family. Retrieved 2007-12-15.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]