Talk:Intelligent design

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

Please use the archive parameter to specify the number of the next free peer review page, or replace {{Peer review}} on this page with {{subst:PR}} to find the next free page automatically.

Please read before starting

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

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

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

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

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

Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Wikipedia's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON).

This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the article itself and not the inherent worth of Intelligent Design. See WP:NOT. If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of intelligent design or promote intelligent design please do so at talk.origins or other fora. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.

Notes to editors:

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

Intelligent design has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}.

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed.
For older candidates, please check the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

Intelligent design received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Creationism GA‑class Top‑importance

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

Intelligent design and the Roman Catholic Church

With the exception of the last sentance, this edit does not appear to be about ID. In addition, the Schönborn statement has been addressed elsewhere. I don' think this addition is particularly useful. Guettarda 19:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is related. It might find a better home on some other articles. So I might be inclined to steal it and you can put a shorter summary here.--Filll 19:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's already an article about Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church. This section is about that, and links to that article. I could see a link from Creation-evolution controversy, maybe even a sentance or two there, but I see it as too tangential for this article (especially since this one is already so long). Guettarda 20:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filll I would cation you in that the issue is not as black and white as the article portrays it. Both sides of the issue hotly debate what the Pope (and the other Catholics mentioned) actually meant and believe. Both sides of the debate claim them as siding with their respective positions. The DI claims the Pope and so do many ID critics. That section could use a crticism section all unto itself. Mr Christopher 20:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is a balancing act, and the RC Church does not want to repeat the performance with Galileo etc.--Filll 20:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy that you like this. I believe since the Catholic position wasn't there, it should be, because it adds a very interesting dimension to this. Personally I believe the right now the RCC has no actual position on the ID we see here in the article but has its position firmly in the original sin of first man, i.e - the 1st homo sapien, not sola scriptura which is the Protestant literal interpretation of the Bible. On this point it is important to cover that the RCC teach secular evolution in Catholic schools and that if ID contradicts it then by reason of deduction it can not support ID. By the way Galileo was wrong about the sun being the centre of the universe and Newton pretty much proved that Galilieo couldn't prove Jack without Newton's brains :)... although kudos he got the general idea right, but then again so did the Catholic Priest Copernicus. I don't see how anyone can think the Church rejects evolution because it does not and again by implication of association anything in ID that condtradicts evolution is inherently wrong to them. (CptKirk 21:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I removed the section and will do so again if it is restored. It adds nothing to the article, and is essentially sectarian. Shall we, in order to be fair, also have ID and Shia Islam , ID and Sikhism, ID and Pentacostalism, ID and Sunni Islam, ID and Buddhism, ID and Lutheranism, ID and Hassidic Jews, ID and the Anabaptists, ID and Orthodox Jews, ID and Shintoism, ID and Animist religions of Zimbabwe, etc? And if so, to what end? I fail to see the relevance of a long dissertation on any religion's views of ID. Jim62sch 21:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you feel that way and I am sorry that you do not want to debate it. Your opinion of it being "sectarian" means potentially that you have implied that all the references I used in that section are "sectarian". Remember this is not my opinion. It is the due weight of the facts cited using WP:CITE style. Sectarian? Unless you can WP:CITE in order to not violate WP:NOR then I think that opinion might not rub. For this reason you need to establish that opinion using sources to back up your claims which you have not done. I do not understand your end statement on ID. The Catholic Church does not believe in ID and subscribes to evolution. That article implies that all theists subscribe to ID and that is absolutely wrong. I will not revert the section but I will debate this here rationally and come to a conclusion wheither to keep it or not but the onus is on you to show where I failed to meet wikipolicy. Otherwise all you got is some subjective input that isn't wiki quality. And remember use WP:CITE style pls. (CptKirk 22:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Excellent point Jim. I still don't think that the section has anything to do with ID, but that misses a far more fundamental point of undue weight. A lengthy discussion of the RC position on ID doesn't belong in this article - not unless the article also dealt with the positions of other religious groups. We have a pretty solid consensus that Raelian ID, for example, doesn't belong here. There's nothing with an article about religious views about ID, but it needs to be (a) about ID (this section is about evolution), (b) well sourced, and (c) have an encyclopaedic scope (ie, cover every religion whose scholars have expressed an opinion on ID). Guettarda 22:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not too sure what this means, "And remember use WP:CITE style pls", or to whom or what it refers. I prefer specifics when one adds snarky little comments. So, pls provide them.

Next, "that opinion might not rub"? Rub what? Also, your assumption that it is an opinion is incorrect: I am adhering to sound Wikipedia principles. Perhaps, before attempting to lecture, you might want to get a few more than 48 edits under your belt. This is a time for you to be learning, not for you to be preaching.

Finally, the basic argument, as amplified by Guettarda holds: unless we are to provide the views of all religions, the long discursion into the might-be views of the Catholic church are utterly irrelevant and a textbook example of undue weight. Additionally, there is absolutely nothing in that section of the article that implies, or from which can be inferred using due diligence, that ID is supported by all religions, all religious sects or even any specific religions or religious sects. Jim62sch 23:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to note that CptKirk put a significant amount of good faith effort into what he believes was a improvement to the article. Sometimes those little details get overlooked. I think the consensus is that it might be better couched in the Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church article, and that it makes this article appear lopsided. I'm not sure if you were aware of that article, CK. Don't feel bad about your contribution not getting a warm welcome, it happens to all of us. Mr Christopher 00:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The material just added, then deleted, is potentially relevant as topic fork or link from the creation-evolution debate, but not to this article. Cardinal Schonborn's view is already mentioned in the intelligent design article. Note that the Pope was not referring to "intelligent design", a term carefully chosen as an end-run around the constitutional separation of church and state in the United States. The Church's official view on evolution, whether regarding it as fact, fiction, or theory, is irrelevant to this article. So too is the Pope's view on whether God "tweaks the works" or otherwise decides whether, when, to what extent, and/or how speciation will occur. These are matters for articles such as theistic evolution and old earth creationism. The position put forward by George Coyne S.J. is fairly typical of serious theologians and belongs, if anywhere, in a article on, for example, Intelligent design and the Roman Catholic Church. And as someone else pointed out above, there's already an article on Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church ... Kenosis 01:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't particularly relevant here, the RCC has not played a notable role in the debate over design. FeloniousMonk 01:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My main reason for the article section [1] is because …

The article does not cover theists who do not believe in ID.
…or any important (owed their due weight) church groups, such as the Roman Catholic Church, that reject ID.

It is precisely the issue of “Undue Weight” that I have addressed, which is occurring by omission. I believe that exclusion of official Catholic teachings is a little more than akin to "not telling the whole truth" or only giving "one side" to the story, an inherent bias the article has without the RCC section. Remember we are looking at a potential 1.3 Billion Catholics who may have to reject ID that contradicts evolution. That is what I mean by undue weight.

As it stands the removal of the article by Jim appears to be for reasons that he claims I am giving undue weight to the RCC if we mention them without all the other denominations. I feel this orientation is not how articles become better. If undue weight is properly corrected by citation, which includes the RCC, then due weight is formed. I do not understand what undue weight this section forms (when it does the opposite, it gives due weight) unless one of the major ones of the 33,000 Protestant denominations (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a120.htm) also rejects ID and accepts evolution. If this is the case then we may be giving undue weight to the RCC, but as it stands right now, it corrects the undue weight issue raised in the first point.
Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church was not introduced into the article. I introduced it. It has been removed again. Thus any claims that this article addresses the issue, omits that there is absolutely no reference to it here on ID.
Kenosis correctly identified (I bet he is an intelligent designer, like all you too, and me) that Cardinal Schonborn's personal views are mentioned. However they need to be understood in their complete context (which is actually only half referenced here, and biased (maybe not on purpose because Schonborn's article was updated but bias here none-the-less!), as Schonborn later added he believed in theistic evolution) which in the case of the RCC is secular evolution minus any claims that it disproves God (atheistic evolution which is evolution that attempts to debunk God). This is just one of the many problems I have with undue weight in this article. A Catholic may come across Cardinal Schonborn's position in this ID article and then through his article potentially finding Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church once you get past his personal views. The problem is Schonborn is not the Magisterium and this gives undue weight to his personal views. Due Weight needs to go the Magisterium as the official Roman Catholic position which I referenced in my article citing with WP:CITE style in order not to violate WP:NOR.

I also want to see the Catholic Church position covered in here because many Catholics actually don't know it. I feel it is unfair not to present it because as you can see even Cardinals of the Church may be misunderstood (and they do because they are not the Magisterium entire) when voicing person opinions, and get quoted on here, with statements that conflict with the official position without including their subsequent clarification. Again this is about undue weight and potential bias. Right now I know my article meets Wikipedia standards and that issues of undue weight are resolved by it. The bullet points are above. Would welcome feedback but if I feel the article does not currently give due weight to theists who are supposed to reject the type of ID that contradicts evolution then I will include it somehow. It would be unethical not too... after all we are looking at 1.3 Billion people in the RCC alone. (CptKirk 06:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I feel certain all the editors here already presumed that the proposed new section is well intentioned. But the recently inserted coverage of the RCC's position is extremely off-point for this article. As mentioned above, it's far more relevant as a topic fork (i.e. a separate article or external link) from the creation-evolution debate. In the intelligent design article, Cardinal Schonborn's view is already mentioned. The Pope, in the subsection advocated by User:CptKirk, was not referring to "intelligent design", a term carefully chosen as an end-run around the constitutional separation of church and state in the United States. The Church's official view on evolution, whether regarding it as fact, fiction, or theory, is irrelevant to this article. Also irrelevant is the Pope's view on whether God "tweaks the works" or otherwise decides whether, when, to what extent, and/or how speciation will occur. These are matters for articles such as theistic evolution and old earth creationism. The position put forward by George Coyne S.J. is fairly typical of serious theologians and may well merit, if there is adequate material specifically on the issue of "intelligent design" beyond what was just provided, a separate article on, for example, Intelligent design and the Roman Catholic Church. And even then, there's already an article on Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church, which can readily accommodate the Schonborn/Coyne "debate" about intelligent design per se (unless there's a great deal more to describe about that "debate" that is notable, in which case by all means create a separate article about it, citing sources of course). But this material simply doesn't belong here in the article on intelligent design because it's not adequately relevant and would force the editors of this article to afford equal coverage to the other 5.7 billion persons who are not Roman Catholic (plus perhaps to need to give additional coverage to any notable views among many hundreds of millions who are Catholic in name only insofar as they're on the RCC's list; and then there are the independently minded American Catholics, who frequently give the Pope agita by vocally choosing not to subscribe to the Pope's position, some of whose views may be notable, etc., etc., etc.).

The current article is already over 50kB (32kB is recommended), and there are many other far more directly relevant issues that have already needed to be spun off by the editors into separate articles. Even the links from this article often need additional editorial help because the list often gots too long. And all of this is primarily because of only one thing, which is the attention or notoriety or fame that ID has gotten in the course of the debate about the constitutional separation of church and state in the United States and this unique attempt to bypass it by conflating science with religion.

In sum, this issue of the Roman Catholic Church's positioning in the creation-evolution debate simply is way too far off topic for this article. ... Kenosis 14:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this discussion is about the frame that ID fits in.

Is it a religion vs science question? If so, then the POV of other religions is certainly relevant, so that the proper weight can be attributed to proponents of DI.

Is it a purely science issue? If so, then no other religious opinion is needed, and the article ought to be really small, because ID is not science by any reasonable current definition.

Is it a purely religious question? If so, then all discussion of science should be left right out of it, including mention of scientific claims by the DI.

Until we get a handle on what the framework is, our discussions are going to be like trying to hold a slippery fish.Trishm 10:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trishm, you may like to know (if you do already, then excuse me) that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (referenced in my edit) is a science body and advisor to the Pope.

Since ID is not scientific the Academy doesn’t even know what it is, except it contradicts evolution and thus is probably not scientific. So the Pope, who actually held chief positions in important RCC Vatican committees on evolution, will probably never get a conclusive report from that Academy if ID is not a proven science to begin with. In many ways the term ID, once described by Saint Thomas Aquinas (note not the Magisterium) has been seized by a pseudo-scientific crowd (remember Aquinas or the RCC do not directly claim to be scientific on theological matters unless they say so; obviously asking their own scientists on these matters and quoting them) and or refuted scientists, who just happen to please sola scriptura believers (i.e nearly 100% of Christian Protestants, a big sum).

The Catholic Church would obviously be very receptive to a scientific theory of God, especially if it turns out to be their one. It just so happens that this articles version of ID just isn’t it and that is the bottom line. 1.3 Billion Catholics need to be weighed in. (CptKirk 13:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Don't forget billions? of Protestants – the Kirk and the CofE are explicitly against ID, as are mainstream churches: it might be good to give that a brief mention. Always willing to suggest ideas, here's a proposal on the Catholic position to be added in at the end of "Religion and leading proponents" (with existing sentences either side shown in italics):

The vast majority of leading intelligent design proponents are evangelical Protestants. Behe is Roman Catholic, and so is out of line with the position of the Church that evolution and faith are compatible. Intelligent Design proponents have been quick to interpret statements such as a newspaper article by Cardinal Schönborn as heralding a shift in position, but further statements have rejected ID as confusing the scientific plane with philosophical or religious ideas. Jonathan Wells, another principal advocate, is a member of the Unification Church, headed by Reverend Sun-Myung Moon.

The proposed section looks like good work, but disproportionate in this article: where appropriate, points should be merged into Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church. .. dave souza, talk 14:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions :) That is all I am asking for anyway.I think the Billions of Protestants and Muslims are not left out of this article. In fact that is the problem. They dominate it... hahaha! I just want to correct you on something though. I am not against ID. In fact my belief might be different but that is not important. I actually might subscribe to some type of ID that can be scientifically varified. On your response, it was kind of shocking to actually find myself reading the article and thinking "that could sound like the RCC position if I didn't know better" because of the "all theists reject evolution" type of orientation that the article has. In short this article has the horrible ability to maybe cause many Catholics to start believing in something that is expressly contrary to what is found in Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church, which isn't mentioned here. Here is a lesson I have learned from this so far - Not only does ID start with the set up that scientists are divided on evolution, it implies that theists reject evolution. This is a critical flaw. (CptKirk 15:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Since ID is in fact a religious proposition put forth by religionists, would it be feasible to create a small section that covers some of the varying opinions of ID from within the major religious communities? This would include the Catholic church, Islam, and even criticisms from creationist groups. I think the Captain has made some important points that are not obvious in the article, one of them being not all theists are fond of or subscribe to ID, in fact some are quite hostile to it. Raspor had noted one leading Islamic creationist who it turns out is quite opposed to ID. As it stands now the article may give the appearance that ID is a conflic between science and religion when in fact the conflict is much more narrow and includes a small sample of religionists. Anyhow, I think looking at ways to include and broaden the viewpoints of major religious groups on ID could be a worthwhile improvement. Mr Christopher 15:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to try and maybe establish something. Lets represent the actual figures... There are 592,915,587 Protestants in the world, a little less than 3 in 10 Christians are Protestants. See Protestants by country. There are 1,018,857,238 Baptized Roman Catholics. See Roman Catholicism by country. My 1.3 figure was wrong, sorry but the due weight issue is now more apparent. (CptKirk 16:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I already knew Catholics outnumber everyone else, so what conclusion are you wanting us to come to? Your point is not obvious to me. Mr Christopher 16:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know it. I wanted first to correct my 1,300,000,000 figure. 1,000,000,000 potential Catholics (theists) can not reject evolution on grounds of Church doctrine. No Bishops seem to be actively telling their congregations to reject it. I also gave the correct Protestant figure. Someone else gave the World population figure. I think if we keep going we can actually get the statistics on this and the divisions in a very small chart if needed. (CptKirk 17:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

(ri) First, this isn't a popularity contest: I don't care, nor probably does anyone else here, how many Catholics there are in the world. The RCC view holds no more credence than the Zoroastrian view, which has far fewer adherents. The number of adherents to a particular sect or religion is an utterly inappropriate and misleading measure of value and merely serves as both argumenta ad verecundiam et baculum.

Second, the section that is being suggested is irrelevant to this article. If, as Kenosis has suggested, you wish to create a new article, one that focuses on the reactions of all religions to ID, do so.

Third, Wikipedia does not serve as a mouthpiece for any religion, so it has no duty to inform Caltholics or Protestants or Muslims or Sikhs what their opinion is "supposed" to be. If you really want to know what your opinion should be, see here. Jim62sch 21:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that we're not here to promote any religion, but if you look at Trish's slippery fish question above, the problem with ID is that it's a theological argument dressed up as science for a political campaign to change the philosophical basis of US education – doesn't fit neatly in boxes. There seems to be a widespread misunderstanding, promoted by the DI, that antiID=evolution=science=atheism, which is why it's worth pointing out that many different churches oppose ID, partly because it's not science, but also because it doesn't fit their theological beliefs – for example Darwin Goes to Church ... dave souza, talk 22:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a small single paragraph with sources, one noting that many religions do not support ID, would be OK; but a six paragraph dissertation on what the RCC or any other sect/religion/church believes is utterly out of place here. Jim62sch 22:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You just do not have the room for that. I think it would be very interesting as a spin-off article. I think it should be placed in another article, linked in. Volunteers?--Filll 22:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1 - Concerning statements that religious bodies should not be mentioned here:

For those who have read the article and have seen the references to religious bodies and their respective representatives who are fronted by name and title (which in certain instances can indicate, and do, the Church body they are affiliated with), this argument is near scandalous because they are being mentioned also with undue weight being assigned either intentionally or due to neglect to update. EXHIBIT 1 “Cardinal Schönborn, who sees "purpose and design in the natural world" yet has "no difficulty... with the theory of evolution [within] the borders of scientific theory." Bottom Line... This is not the Catholic position.

2 – Undue weight can use population numbers to correct orientation of a statement. For example there are 1 million and 2 people in the world. 1 million Catholics who are taught evolution in school and 2 zenewebee God followers are not taught evolution in school. The instance of the 2 zenewebees God followers does mean that theism rejects evolution. 3 – Nobody is saying that Wikipedia should be a mouthpiece for religion. What we are saying is that Wikipedia should not be assigning undue weight to a view in an article. See #2 above. (CptKirk 23:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

And, again, you are missing the point. Your entire argument centers around the number of Roman Catholics, as if that number gives the opinion of the church more solid ground, more caché, more power than the opinion the Archbishop of Canterbury, a Muslim Imam, a Hassidic Rabbi or the Dalai Lama. This popularity contest of yours is disingenuous, utterly irrelevant and creates a bogus argument regarding validity: a fallacy that appeals both to alleged authority and force as a function of numerical superiority. That there are a billion Catholics is primarily a function of Spanish, French and Portuguese colonialism, although I note that you neglect to mention that RC's are outnumbered by other Christians at a 1.1:1 ratio (see how nasty reliance on numbers can become). More impressive, is that Muslims outnumber Catholics at a 1.3:1 ratio, and Islam is the fastest growing religion without colonialism currently being, or having been a driving factor since about 900 CE. So, should we have a dissertation on the beliefs of Muslims (considering the Sunni, Shi'a and Wahabi sects, of course). What of the Ethiopian Coptic Church? What of the Orthodox Catholic churches? What of the Baha'is the Jains, the Sikhs, etc. The beliefs and doxae of those religions/sects are every bit as valid as those of the RCC.

Clearly, your function here, as evidenced by your cri de coeur on the Evolution talk page is to promote a specific point of view: that of the RC church, at least as you understand it (with a bit of personal inference thrown in for bad measure). Since, aside from Schornborn, the RC church has remained silent on ID, and since we already cover his comments, enough is already said regarding Roman Catholicism and ID. Barring a specific statement by the Pope, preferably an ex cathedra statement, there is no more to discuss. Jim62sch 12:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ID and the RCC, part II

The discussion seems to have gotten a little off track. It appears to me that the questions being raised are: Should the RCC's position on ID be included, should other religious groups positions be included, and how should this be approached? Please correct me if I'm not distilling this correctly. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is my take on it, yes. And adding to that I think clarifying that not all theists support and/or subscribe to ID. Mr Christopher 17:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Some Catholics are ID supporters, and I think it should be noted that Behe is RC, but it looks pretty likely that the majority of Christians / theists oppose creationism/ID, certainly worldwide and probably in the US. Taking account of space constraints, a brief mention linked to other articles would be best: the RC position is well covered, theistic evolution#Anglicanism mentions Anglicans/Episcopalians, but more research is needed. The kirk is one Presbyterian church opposing ID, as I recall.. dave souza, talk 17:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah best just restate the appropriate points to stay on topic.

The article has an inherent bias that all theists reject evolution and this is a fundamental flaw that needs to be addressed throughout the article. It means the entire article needs to be revised on this point.
The article does not reference theists and evolution directly. There is a big RCC article called Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church that should be referenced here expressly for Catholics reading about ID. There are other commentators of various other religions that reject ID. They should be referenced here.
The Article should reflect the undue weight that some variations of ID propose. For example some ID proponents incorrectly state that scientists are divided over evolution. This has been noted in the article, however it should also note that some ID proponents incorrectly state that all theists reject evolution. (CptKirk 18:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

"The article has an inherent bias that all theists reject evolution...It means the entire article needs to be revised on this point" - can you please point to the parts of the article that give you that impression? It certainly isn't intentional and needs to be fixed.
"The article does not reference theists and evolution directly. There is a big RCC article ...that should be referenced here expressly for Catholics reading about ID". No, it shouldn't. Articles should be written for all readers, not for any specific group. Our role here isn't advocacy - I'm no fan of ID, but that doesn't mean I think it ok to use Wikipedia articles for advocacy. I fully support the idea of creating an article about religious perspectives on ID, and linking to it from this article. I think that the section that deals with religious criticisms (The criticism of intelligent design has not been limited to the scientific community. Some religious individuals and groups have objected to intelligent design as well, often on theological or moral grounds....) needs to be re-written, sharpened a little (or maybe a lot)...I think it would be great if we could link from there to an article specifically dedicated to religious perspectives, both pro and anti. The problem isn't one of covering this material, the problem is one of maintaining balance in the article, and in preventing bloat. At 97kb, the article is already more than 3x the recommended length.
With regards to "undue weight", please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue_weight. Guettarda 20:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<reduce indent> Well in that case, it is time for a trimming, or a splitting. --Filll 21:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really - 3x the recommended length isn't horrible...but we shouldn't get any larger than that. Guettarda 21:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like a need for detailed backup sub-article for an improvement to a not very informative paragraph, see below for some details which I hope will be handy .. dave souza, talk 21:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some Presbyterian thoughts..

Just shows what turns up with a bit of searching: American Scientist Online – Being Stalked by Intelligent Design recounts being pestered with "e-mails asking how I explained this or that... I answered him time and again—until I realized that he was reading neither my answers nor the references I suggested." Sounds familiar, gives a neat summary of ID. More on topic, Johnson is an elder of First Presbyterian Church in Berkeley, but according to AiG the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) passed a resolution by a vote of 353-150 reaffirming its support of evolutionary theory in 2002. A 1998 panel survey found rather mixed results, with most supporting evolution but not believing in humans developing from earlier species of animals. More generally,Churches urged to challenge Intelligent Design -20/02/06 had ministers preaching that followers of Christ do not have to choose between biblical stories of creation and evolution at Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Unitarian, Congregationalist, United Church of Christ, Baptist and community churches. Must tidy this up and add some to theistic evolution. A Christian argument against ID: A More Intelligent Design, "At the end of the day, 'intelligent design theory,' fails not because there is no Designer, but because the God implied by such theories is not intelligent enough." ... dave souza, talk 21:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very impressive. Some great stuff there. I hope you dont mind if I use a bit of it for my own purposes on other articles. --Filll 22:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do: I should really be working on a summary of The Good Book ;) .. dave souza, talk 22:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On correcting existing theists who reject ID section

Since it appears it is already there it just needs revision and updating. It now includes references to theists who reject ID that contradicts evolution and or contradicts morality/ethics. (CptKirk 23:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I reverted it for several reasons: the language was unencyclopedic; a "logical" conclusion was reached that was both not supported by the argument and was OR; Wikipedia should never be used to support a claim in Wikipedia; "many" is not supported by any sources. FM has weighed in equally re editorialisation. Jim62sch 00:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support the reversion: you have failed to provide any sources which support your edits. This is not acceptable per WP:V. If there are edits you feel are indicated, post on this talk page for discussion. Please be specific; please be concise. You have failed to either make a clear case for any edits here on talk or provide sources. What exactly do you feel is indicated, and why? Do you have reliable sources per WP:V? Is there any support for your changes? Please try to discuss exactly what edits you feel are indicated. thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change a word from Many to Some then change the word, do not delete the whole section. What kind of rational was that?
The link to Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church contains the citations. I can easily mass reproduce them here again if you wish. I think fact tags are a better option for disputed references but since that other guy removed it, you couldn’t have done it, but just so you know. Here are the references. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church#References so we can easily cite those.
The revert to the previous existing section on theists who reject ID section is in error by producing statements that are inconsistent with Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church and other theists who reject an ID that contradicts evolution. For example the statement “The criticism of intelligent design has not been limited to the scientific community. Some religious individuals and groups have objected to intelligent design as well, often on theological or moral grounds” not only uses the word ‘Some’ which is like ‘Many’ which the other user has objected to above but omits that many theists reject ID that contradicts evolution because of science. Theists can be scientists. Theists are scientists. Theists teach evolution. Theists are medical doctors and scientists who have gained qualifications through learning and understanding evolution as part of the course work. The article is actually insulting as it exists right now. No offence or anything but I am sure the likes of Gregor Mendel would turn in his grave. (CptKirk 00:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You wish to change Some to Many; please explain why.
What change do you want to make concerning the RCC? Be specific, and provide a source.
This is an essay. Please be concise. What change are you suggesting?

KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In these articles, more perhaps than in any others, change is considered to be a bad thing unless it is a good thing. By which I mean that editors must prove to the other editors that the edit they wish to make will improve the article. Generally, editors are invited to suggest edits on the talk page. When one editor suggests a change, and another implements it, there is generally less oposition to it. But unilateral or overzealous change is less than appreciated. CptKirk, perhaps you should consider convincing others to make the changes to propose. -- Ec5618 00:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either one doesnt matter to me. Remove them or replace them with something better. To remove a whole section on the bases of a word used is concerning especially when the word is something like 'some' or 'many'.
I have made the edit concerning the RCC. The sources are on the Evolution and the RCC section including the full Cardinals statement and other Church officials but more importantly, includes the official RCC teachings on that subject.
What changes am I suggesting? Come on! Do I really need to entertain this? You just deleted it from the article.

I want to adhere to WP:CIV but come on folks. Deleting stuff like this for these reasons and then making these statements doesn't help.

Ec5618, agreed. I just haven't told them about this yet. Just seeing what I can hammer out here first then we will bring it to the attention of people who will want to see this. (CptKirk 00:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You seem to be confused. I did not delete anything from the article. You also seem to be confused about Ec's edit - the editors here are who you need to convince your changes are desirable. Why are you not answering my questions? Simply state what changes you want made and why, and provide sources. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this:

Many theists accept evolution. Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church is an example. This means that some theists believe that an intelligent design hypothesis that contradicts evolution is unscientific and unacceptable to them. Many theists have even rejected intelligent design on moral grounds. [94] This does not mean that some theists will reject all forms of intelligent design. They just believe that an intelligent design that contradicts evolution is non-viable scientifically.

what we are discussing? What does it even mean? This is sort of vacuous. I think the RCC has not said much, and the article is too long anyway. I would encourage you to take this and the previous material and make a new article or add it to Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church if you can make it comprehensible.--Filll 01:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, the RC has taken aposition on ID directly. [[2]]Trishm 12:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm well that is interesting, but is that an official position? It is just some article by a professor in their newspaper.--Filll 13:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting aspect of this AP material is how it reinforces the impression of a problem brewing in Rome. The Pope knows exactly what the DI's ID is and still keeps repeating language linked with them without any attempt to distance himself from the DI version. The official position of the RCC is that God is the creator of the universe. I for one do not see any reason for the Pope to go on about it to the degree that some infer he is taking the pro-ID side in an internal conflict. He does not need to push terms like "intelligent xxx" to refer to God. AvB ÷ talk 14:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And this is why Kraus and Miller etc have asked the vatican for an official reaffirmation of their position, or a new position. They want it clarified. I think that the Pope probably leans in that direction, but after 50+ years of supporting evolution, it is a bit difficult to back down in the face of all the evidence, and still remembering the embarassment of the Galileo trial (After all, they had a huge ceremony officially pardoning Galileo less than 20 years ago). If they make a new statement, it will have to be very carefully nuanced to support BOTH evolution and a creator (as their previous statements have done). The wording of the DI makes it difficult, because although I support a kind of "intelligent design"/teleological argument, I do not support the DI's version of intelligent design at all, which is anti-science and anti-evolution. This is truely their "wedge strategy" in action, because they are splitting hairs and redefining terms (an old game that creationists have played for decades).--Filll 14:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It will be interesting to watch where this is going. (Your personal position on ID sounds much like mine, BTW). AvB ÷ talk 22:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breadown of what the text means

Since some people do not understand my edit or what I means I will elaborate here,

The verse reads...

'Many theists accept evolution. Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church is an example. This means that some theists believe that an intelligent design hypothesis that contradicts evolution is unscientific and unacceptable to them. Many theists have even rejected intelligent design on moral grounds. [94] This does not mean that some theists will reject all forms of intelligent design. They just believe that an intelligent design that contradicts evolution is non-viable scientifically.'

Many theists accept evolution. The article has the orientation in the very definition of modern pop culture Intelligent Design that it rejects evolution and thus scientists who do not considered themselves illogical think ID a load of bunk. The problem is that scientists are not fully defined here. We are not revealing also that many of these scientists are theists. It has the orientation of creating a sort of Atheist Scientist versus Religious Pseudo-Scientist.
Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church is an example. This is an example of the argument established. It is not a reference as some here have suggested. It says it is an example. The references for this position are in that article though.
This means that some theists believe that an intelligent design hypothesis that contradicts evolution is unscientific and unacceptable to them. It appears that Intelligent Design that contradicts evolution is a hypothetisis that some theist scientists can not accept because it rejects evolution.
Many theists have even rejected intelligent design on moral grounds. This is not my work but previously existed in the problematic statement and appears valid in that ID can be rejected by some theists on moral or ethetical grounds.
This does not mean that some theists will reject all forms of intelligent design. Obviously there many be a case for ID that does not contradict science. The next statement just elaborates on this again.
They just believe that an intelligent design that contradicts evolution is non-viable scientifically. I believe this is self-explanatory. (CptKirk 08:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

As note... it is stuff like this In a leaked memo, commonly known as The Wedge Document, however, the supporters of the movement were told, "We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design. Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. in the article that creates the bias. Just read it. (CptKirk 08:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

So I guess what the verse should say is: Most religious bodies do not deny evolution, but a small fraction of extremist groups do. Most scientists do not deny evolution, but a small fraction of scientists holding extremist views do. I could even make it quantitative, with sources: Roughly 90% of the 12 largest Christian religious bodies in the US support evolution, and roughly 95% of all scientists support evolution, and more than 99.9% of all biologists support evolution. It says the same thing and it gives more information.--Filll 12:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other than to suggest you reread WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:NOR I shall be ignoring the point-by-point as it is not worthy of comment.

The Wedge Document is the work of the IDists, and is self-explanatory. If there is a bias, it is within the Wedge Document itself.

What, pray tell, is "modern pop culture Intelligent Design"? Apparentyly, this means that you "think" there is another Intelligent Design, but what would it be? Is it something you wish to invent? Jim62sch 12:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Factual references for the Roman Catholic Church and Evolution

For citations on theists who subscribe to evolution and theists who "reject ID that contradicts evolution" let them be repeated here so that no one can say this is not a fact not covered appropriately by the article which shows undue weight in the area of the theisism and ID that contradicts evolution. As a note I referenced some of these in my original contribution which was removed by Jim who is now asking for them.

Vatican Council I (1869-70), the full documents.
From the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia: Catholics and Evolution and Evolution, History and Scientific Foundation of
Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis 1950 encyclical
Roberto Masi, "The Credo of Paul VI: Theology of Original Sin and the Scientific Theory of Evolution" (L'Osservatore Romano, 17 April 1969).
Pope John Paul II, general audience of 10 July 1985. "Proofs for God's Existence are Many and Convergent."
Cardinal Ratzinger's Commentary on Genesis Excerpts from In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall.
Pope John Paul II, 22 October 1996. "Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution."
Jimmy Akin, "Evolution and the Magisterium" from This Rock, January 2004.
International Theological Commission (2004). "Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God."
Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, "Finding Design in Nature," published in the New York Times, July 7, 2005.
Cardinal Paul Poupard, "Vatican Cardinal: Listen to What Modern Science has to Offer," November 3, 2005.
Mark Brumley, "Evolution and the Pope, of Ignatius Insight

(CptKirk 13:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

These are excellent references provided by CptKirk on the issue of the RCC's present and recent historical position on the relationship of the concepts of creation and evolution.

Unfortunately, as has been pointed out many times on this talk page, the term "intelligent design" is formulated specifically as an attempt to bypass the constitutional separation of church and state in the United States (the "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment). More specifically, the words "intelligent design" were chosen as an end-run around the 1987 Supreme Court decision Edwards v. Aguilard. In 1989, Charles Thaxton's book Of Pandas and People, prior to being published, had the words "intelligent design" inserted as a replacement for almost every instance of the use of the word "creationism". In 1990, the Discovery Institute was founded, and fairly quickly became the locus of the intelligent design movement. In 1991 Phillip E. Johnson, having already become involved with Stephen Meyer (co-founder of the DI) and other DI affiliates, published Darwin on Trial. And in 1996 Johnson became the co-founder and program director of the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, under the umbrella of the DI. Consistent with the original use of "intelligent design" as an attempt to end-run Edwards v. Aguilard, the DI affiliates latched onto the term and proceeded to develop their synthesized variation of the ancient teleological argument. Etc., etc. It is this issue that made the words "intelligent design" famous within the past decade-- the use of a secular-sounding term for a set of teleological arguments for the existence of God, asserted to be science, the attempts to teach it as science, along with the ideological, socio-political agenda that accompanied it under the umbrella of "intelligent design". This is the primary focus of the intelligent design article, a focus that is very much in keeping with the vast amount of recent public discussion on the issue. In other words, the theological issue presented by the creation-evolution debate is not adequately central or relevant to the article on intelligent design.

Thus, a more appropriate place to discuss the matters presented by CptKirk would be the articles on old earth creationism, theistic evolution, evolution and the Roman Catholic Church, and other similar fora. ... Kenosis 14:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is going off-topic again here. I dont think there is a need to restate what ID is here. There is a need to correct the bias and undue weight violations of wikipolicy WP:NOR that exist in the article by inference that all theists believe in the supernatural (see natural theology to understand why this is flawed) and that theists who are scientists also reject forms of ID. I already outlined these and corrected then with citations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design#Breadown_of_what_the_text_means which was subsequentially removed for reasons I have yet to clearly understand other than the people representing the current model believe it is best. It isn't. My edit met wikipedia standards. That one violates all sorts of logic and new original research issues of undue weight. (CptKirk 16:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'm already tired of this. At this point the problem obviously is the way CptKirk chooses to self-define the words "intelligent design". Have a nice day. ... Kenosis 16:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again off-topic. I use WP:NOR guidelines by using WP:CITE. Please don't ignore the references put down before your face. I can't do the reading for you. Intelligent design is defined in the article not by men. If ID contradicts evolution in the article then the reference for it is there. I never came up with my own definition of it. I reject any assertion that I did as spurious. That artice section is wrong. (CptKirk 17:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

OK, I think it's safe to say that there's zero consensus that any of this is central enough to the topic to be included in the article. In fact, some consensus seems to be building that this stuff about the RCC is better suited to the RCC articles since the RCC has not been a major player on this topic. Time for this to wrap up and Kirk to beam over to the RCC articles and add it there, I think. Anyone else? FeloniousMonk 17:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that kirk should consider a separate article on religious views on ID,--Filll 17:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some confusion over what a consensus on wikipedia does and wikipolicy. Undue weight and bias is expressed condemned by WP:NOR. A consensus can not violate wikipolicy. This article is in violation of WP:NOR by giving undue weight including unfounded statements like theists subscribe to the supernatural realm which is wrong in light of natural theology. The debate is far from over. We have not yet even begun to explore the possibility of a dispute tag with my proposed content which then is binding until the dispute is over with. Hopefully rationale and logic will prevail... and wikipedia policy... and we won't have to do this. (CptKirk 18:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You are correct that consensus cannot override wikipedia policy. However, I do not believe that you have demonstrated that this article demonstrates undue weight to any one belief- particularly considering that natural theology is not a widespread belief and is certainly not the most common form of theology. In that sense it would violate undue weight to imply that belief in the supernatural is not the most prevalent view in ID, at least in the area in which the idea of ID (as such) holds greatest traction- that is, in American religious circles. Natural theology may be an idea of some standing, and as such I think you should mention it in a paragraph in the article if you feel strongly about it. --HassourZain 19:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CptKirk, please read my response to you here carefully: natural theology as properly described on that page is not what you seem to think it is. Although it's lost the favour it enjoyed in the 19th century, the current attempts to revive it by Snoke make clear its association with ID in opposition to modern theistic evolution which takes religion and science as separate realms. For examples see Roman Catholic criticisms of ID and reconciliation with evolution. .. dave souza, talk 19:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natural theology just shows that some statements like "theists believe in a supernatural realm where their God resides" is contradicted by natural theology. To say that natural theology is given more weight by theists than supernatural theology requires facts using WP:CITE style. It is not a debate for here but it an example of how definitions on this article are used without much consideration. The fact that the article covers church clergy and other church leaders making comments only suggests to me that somebody has a problem with the term RCC appearing here. Thiests who believe in evolution are not covered in the article. There are plenty of mistakes in it. It is certainly an article that comes nowhere near meriting a wikiaward for even coverage or accuracy either. (CptKirk 19:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

(ri) Are you truly as obtuse as you appear? You simply fail to get the point: your attempted inclusion of the alleged RC stance on ID is utterly irrelevant. How many times and in how many ways does this need to be stated to you? Are there words/phrase/concepts within the paragdigm of "irrelevance" of which you are noncognizant and that thus preclude you from apprehending the paradigm? As Kenosis has noted, I tire of this.

Finally, precisely whom do you think you are lecturing? Between myself, Kenosis, FM, Guettarda, Dave Sousa and Killer Chihuahua are nearly 100,000 edits (I note this as numbers seem so very important to you). Three of us are admins. All of us are well-versed in Wikipedia policy. All you seem to be able to spout is "WP:CITE style" and pseudosyllogisms that are bereft of logic. Quite frankly, I've had more than enough of you, a statement that I believe is echoic of the feelings of most of us on this page. Jim62sch 23:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have got your point well across a long time ago that the RC on stance on ID is utterly irrelevant. However your point is not supported by 'your own reverts to include already content of the names of individuals who are affiliated with Church groups.' So to deny the religious church positions appear in the article already is obviously in error. Run a search for Exhibit on this discussion and you will see some I have noted at example of this here. This claim was refuted right at the top fo the article. You are pretending that content is not there. Look at the heading of the next discussion topic for example. How can you fail to miss it? (CptKirk 07:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

And yet, you still miss the point. The affiliation of IDists, while crucial to explaining the teleological nature of ID, is not relevant to the specific stances of any church, religion or sect. As such, then, the specific stances of any church, religion or sect is not, as we appear to agree, relevant to the article. Jim62sch 13:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are all trying to improve the article. The question of relevance to the topic is difficult, and the application of policies is actually quite difficult. We can agree that the article should establish whether the ideas that the DI are promoting are mainstream or fringe. NPOV specifically addresses that a position that is held by an extreme minority should not be presented as anything more substantial.

I support the CptKirk, Kenosis and others who feel that the opinion of the RC church is relevant. The DI promotes as a core theme that evolution, and by extension science, is godless because it excludes God from the explanation of how people came to be. It also advocates the idea that Christian faith is incompatible with evolution. The fact that the overwhelming majority of Christians, of which RC's are a majority, do not see evolution as being inherently godless is directly relevant to correcting the idea that science and religion are incompatible. Pope Pius XII stated the churche's position on evolution quite clearly: "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36)

Perhaps it is time for a top-down approach. We are all well-versed in the topic and its implications. What we could do is produce a dot-point list of ID ideas as presented in the article, together with their implications. Then we will be in a much better position to sort out what is needed to provide a balance in line with POV, instead of getting bogged down with every edit. What do people think?Trishm 03:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the point really that hard to see? Whatever the Discovery Institutes pronouncements are about evolution, they are their own pronouncements and opinions and that is what we are reporting. Any discussion re evolution being in some way atheistic (which it isn't) or materialistic (which it is) that goes beyond si9mply reporting what the DI has avered to be true, belongs on the evolution page.

Also, what you suggest with your "top-down" approach will likely be OR -- implications, or really inferences, lead us into the realm of assumption, and thus we begin to lose sight of our task as writers of an encyclopedia. If we were writing a scholarly essay/book/professional paper fgor publishing in a journal of some sort, you would be correct in your proposal -- that, however, is not what we are doing.

Finally, this article is about ID, not about evolution. Looking over the sources provided by CptKirk, the RCC appears to habve issued no direct statements regarding ID. Even Schonborn's statements do not directly address ID, but rather theistic evolution. Jim62sch 17:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religion and leading proponents

I hit the "save" button before I quite meant to, and thus missed out on adding a decription of my edit. Sorry. Anyway, what I did was simply tighten up the argument and the language - no major change so far as I know. (Although I did change the reference to a "Book of John" to the "Gospel of John", which is the more common title). PiCo 07:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This introduced the erroneous impression that Behe is Protestant, so I've reorganised the wording a bit. Evangelicalism isn't exclusively Protestant according to the lead to that article, and all the leading proponents fit the general description so I've changed it to "evangelical Christian" rather than being more specific, and separated the religion of proponents section from the first part of the sentence. Hope that's clearer, .. dave souza, talk 10:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An intelligent designer in 'Concept' section needs to be revised

This [3] needs to be revised in order to see that the hypothesis of an intelligent designer is explained that this part is within the presentation of modern ID opinion that contradicts evolution. It has nothing to do with the concept that God permiates existance which some theologians state clearly can not proved scientifically as of yet. It is not that intelligent designers have been disproved (they are factual, I am an intelligent designer), but the modern ID that contradicts evolition model that promotes an intelligent designer is scienticially flawed. (CptKirk 16:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Huh? Well if you want to add material to teleological argument about some other kind of ID you can consider it. However, this article is about the ID that DI is pushing.--Filll 17:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't subscribe any ID to the unmoved mover. The theory of the beginning of the universe is virtually the same. The universe has an age for example which means it had a beginning. Big Bang contains the fact of this singularity instance although it unlikely that the singularity is the unmoved mover (as singularities no longer exist after the big bang in Einstein's General Relativity). I just interested in adding the content to this article that not all theists reject evolution and that many theists reject ID that refutes evolution on scientific NOT MORAL AND ETHICAL GROUNDS. The article makes a distinction between God Believers and Scientists. The problem is God Believers can be Scientists (CptKirk 19:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

How do you believe the article makes that claim? The article, to my knowledge, does not make that claim, nor do any of the editors here ascribe to that belief. Many scientists are religious. Some are even literalists.

In any case, the article deals with intelligent design, not religion per se. -- Ec5618 20:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed earlier, there's widespread theistic opposition to ID, primarily on the grounds that ID isn't science. Perhaps you've noticed this chappie Ken Miller, for example. From quickly reading the article, the last paragraph of the Controversy section gives this inadequate and misleading coverage: the links on this talk page can provide useful references for a rewrite, where they refer specifically to ID. However Catholic theological discussions about evolution aren't specific enough for this article. .. dave souza, talk 20:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The article makes a distinction between..." where does it say that? PatriotBible 23:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. CptKirk is drawing an erroneous inference. Jim62sch 23:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section on theological counteraguments not balanced (Undue Weight Problems)

The article remains in error because of WP:NOR undue weight problems when it says... The criticism of intelligent design has not been limited to the scientific community. Some religious individuals and groups have objected to intelligent design as well, often on theological or moral grounds.[94] Many religious people do not condone the teaching of what is considered unscientific or questionable material, and they support theistic evolution that does not conflict with scientific theories. An example is Cardinal Schönborn, who sees "purpose and design in the natural world" yet has "no difficulty... with the theory of evolution [within] the borders of scientific theory.

This doesn't cover that religious groups have objected to ID on scientific grounds (it just states moral grounds).
It says that many religious people support theistic evolition, however this is not a science. The article does not include that many religious people support evolution, a science.
The Cardinal's quote is a prime example of (1)Religious group affiliation already mentioned on this article. (2)undue weight to his views. His affiliated group spokesperson on this matter should be given the due weight, not Cardinal Schonborn's personal opinion. (3)The Cardinal has since updates his position. (CptKirk 07:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Sources, sources, sources. You are arguing from a vacuum. Ands remember, none of us here need to even respond to your silly nattering as you have proven nothing, and it is upon you that the burden of proof lies. Memento: Ei incumbit probatio qui affirmat, non qui negat. Jim62sch 13:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[4]. The burden is on you to remember what you have read. (CptKirk 17:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

...y tambien lo mismo para usted, mi amigo. Pienso que el discusion de todo nuestro es mejor que suficiente para solucionar lo que fue publicado y presentados originalmente. ... Kenosis 20:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Credo que tú haces razón, amigo. El niño había hablado como un perro loco que raspa en la luna. Es muy triste. Jim62sch 23:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schon gut. Na, bitte, zurück zum Thema. -- Ec5618 01:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Het is leven, Jaap - maar niet zoals wij het kennen. [EN: It's life, Jim - but not as we know it]. In short, WP:NPA applies to all languages. At any rate, those understood by present company. FWIW, even though I do not claim to be able to use Spanish to write encyclopedic material, I have no trouble whatsoever understanding it. From the looks of it, CptKirk hasn't either. IMO Kenosis is right. Jim62sch may want to reconsider. AvB ÷ talk 02:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I support "Zurück zum Thema". <Translations available on request> AvB ÷ talk 02:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reconsider nothing. My observation stands: CK is talking like a crazy dog barking at the moon. Note, that I did not call him a crazy dog, I commented on his writing: it is, as others have noted, unclear. I might add that much of the reasoning evidenced by the witing is circular and chock-full of various fallacies. By the way, I can read Dutch (although not extremely well, but well enough to not have needed the translation).

Ja meine Freunde, ließen uns zurück zum Thema erhalten. Jim62sch 17:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing links

A user is removing links critical of The Genesis Flood, removing a list of unaccredited schools from Name It and Frame It?, and removing the table of contents from Why People Believe Weird Things. Can some give advice or help? PatriotBible 00:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck is that monstrosity? Name It and Frame It? New Opportunities in Adult Education and How to Avoid Being Ripped Off by 'Christian' Degree Mills. Definately worthy of prod or AfD. -- Ec5618 00:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a notable book. To PatriotBible, if you have a dispute with one other editor, you may want to describe it on Wikipedia:Third opinion for resolution. Personally I don't agree that the links you want (to usenet articles, forums, and what not) are appropriate. And why are you asking on this talk page?? -Amatulic 02:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PatriotBible is fairly new - explain don't yell at new users. And Talk.origins archive is a reliable source. Guettarda 06:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance, I'd suggest a link to the main list of unaccredited schools as well as amending that list to include all the ones mentioned in the book, and highlight or identify them in some way. The list of chapter headings seemed quite useful to me, anyone else got comments on that? .. dave souza, talk 14:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed paragraph on religious opposition to ID

Since I'm struggling for time at the moment, here's a rough draft done from memory rather than properly cited. The intention is that this should replace the paragraph in the Controversy section which begins "The criticism of intelligent design has not been limited to the scientific community.":

Although ID proponents portray themselves as battling against "atheistic" science, several of the most prominent critics of ID are Christians, including Coyne and Miller. As a result of the controversy mainstream churches, including Episcopalians, Presbyterians and the Roman Catholic church, have issued statements distancing themselves from ID and reaffirming their understanding that their religious faith is compatible with science and with evolution, a position known as theistic evolution. While their objection to ID is commonly that it is not science, they also cite theological reasons for rejecting it. ID has also been sharply criticised by Creationists, who found their funding dwindling as donations were transferred to the DI.

The theological reasons, and the Schönborn muddled article and subsequent drawing back, could be dealt with in footnotes, or in a separate article going into more detail. Any comments? .. dave souza, talk 14:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'd need to qualify "Creationists" in some way; as it stands, the text implies that ID and creationism are entirely separate. I'm not sure that it should have a capital "C", either. "Other creationsts" might be too controversial, accurate though it may be; perhaps "some creationists" or "some creationist organizations"? We'll need specific quotes from anti-ID creationists, of course; Harun Yahya might be a start. Tevildo 16:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[5] This section has the references for the RCC for your suggestion which is ace work. Make sure to give theists believing in [evolution] (a science) not just [theistic evolution] (not a science), equal coverage.(CptKirk 17:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Speaking as just one editor, I would support a very brief expansion of the treatment of this dimension of the controversy (optimally one paragraph, or a couple brief ones) such as preliminarily proposed by Dave Souza to replace the existing one (the "Schonborn paragraph"). My preference would be to see the existing first sentence of that paragraph remain more-or-less intact, with a suitable version of the proposed summary added to it. Perhaps a sentence such as the following would introduce the thread proposed by Dave_Souza with reasonable effectiveness, coming as it does at the end of that section intro and leading into "defining ID as science". "Criticism of intelligent design has not been limited to the scientific community; many religious individuals and groups have objected to intelligent design as well, based on theological or moral grounds.^[1]" (end of proposed first sentence of paragraph) ... Kenosis 17:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda odd that none of the sources reference by Kirk specifically mention ID. The closest they get is a version of theological evolution. Wonder what's up with that. Jim62sch 23:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ID doesn't even have a clear definition because of the variations of ideas to prove that a God exists because of some ID hypothesis. Like we say, we are treating the ID that contradictions evolution in the discussion. The references show subscription to the science of [evolution] by the scientists referenced, not [Theoligical evolution] which is not a science. While there might be some talk of theological evolution it is never presented as a science but a theology that also incorporates the science of evolution. These people are being asked if they believe in a science not a theology. (CptKirk 00:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I have no idea what CK just wrote there. These sentances don't make any sense. Guettarda 01:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do I. So much for the theory that we invented language in order to communicate. Jim62sch 01:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think I can see what he's trying to say: (a) It's wrong to make an explicit contrast between "science" and "theistic evolution", and (b) The Roman Catholic Church objects to ID both on religious and scientific grounds. However, I don't see anywhere in the article that the first distinction is made, and I think the proposed revision makes the second point clear. I'd like to ask CK - if this is a correct summary of your position, what is it specifically about the current article and/or the proposed revision that you don't think adequately covers it? Tevildo 02:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. I just can't wait to read the good Captain's response. Having said that, I'd like to ask Jim <Kirk> to realize warp 10 is too fast. If you slow down to one thing at a time, and listen to experienced editors, all will be well. Beam me up, Scotty! (It feels so good to be able to say that again after ten years on a planet that is clearly not the one where I belong.) AvB ÷ talk 03:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see there is not a major mystery here because Tevildo could grasp the concept without a problem. (CptKirk 05:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

[reduce indent]I'm glad that Tevildo can understand what you are saying, but in future why not spare your fellow editors the need to guess at what you are saying and try writing in English?

"ID doesn't even have a clear definition because of the variations of ideas to prove that a God exists because of some ID hypothesis"... this isn't a sentance, it has two "becauses"...
"Like we say, we are treating the ID that contradictions evolution in the discussion"...again, huh? I even tried that out loud - what "ID that contradictions evolution in the discussion"? That's just gibberish.
"The references show subscription to the science of [evolution] by the scientists referenced, not [Theoligical evolution] which is not a science. While there might be some talk of theological evolution it is never presented as a science but a theology that also incorporates the science of evolution" - creative spelling and odd word choice aside, at least its readable.

As for Tevildo getting from this "It's wrong to make an explicit contrast between "science" and "theistic evolution""...surely that must come from the two latter sentances, but I can't see how. In addition, it doesn't seem to me that either Kenosis or Dave is making any such contract. So truly, I am in awe of Tevildo getting something from the statement that, looking at what was written, I see in neither CK's, not Kenosis', nor Dave's posting. As for the second point, that The Roman Catholic Church objects to ID both on religious and scientific grounds - now I am truly amazed, since CK never used to the words "Roman" nor "Catholic". Truly, they must have a powerful psychic link. Guettarda 09:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent Designer

Beyond the debate over whether intelligent design is scientific, a number of critics go so far as to argue that existing evidence makes the design hypothesis appear unlikely, irrespective of its status in the world of science.

Beyond the debate over whether intelligent design is scientific

and

irrespective of its status in the world of science.

I was jarred by these two phrases in the same sentence twice referring to the same idea which was not central to the sentence. I also have misgivings over using the word "debate" over the notion that intelligent design is scientific. Since there is no reasonable way of describing ID as scientific, it really isn't a debate.

My first attempt to improve this (that I thought would be uncontroversial, but I was mistaken - sorry) was to simply remove the first phrase, to let the sentence read:

A number of critics go so far as to argue that existing evidence makes the design hypothesis appear unlikely, irrespective of its status in the world of science.

If I read Kenosis' reversion comment correctly, this version downplays the centrality of Intelligent Design not being a science. Looking at it more closely "go so far as to" is editorial rather than informational, so I would remove that too.

Another possibility is

Apart from the fact that intelligent design is not a science, a number of critics argue that existing evidence makes the design hypothesis appear unlikely.

Anticipating that some would see the use of the word "fact" as POV pushing, it is no more POV than saying "the fact that English is a language". There is no reasonable way to call ID a science. Any comments or suggestions?Trishm 07:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just edited out the gaps in your reply to make it neater to read. I hope you dont mind (CptKirk 07:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Not at all. Thanks.Trishm

The whole article is very poor quality overall and has a whole bag of problems associated with it (see previous discussion and references). People worked to make it good but it is just the net result of lots of misunderstandings. As a note some people here just need to get over that the article is going to be edited. Once you get enough people who know enough about both science and theology you will see a better change.

*The biggest problem is just outright error in confusing scientific terms like evolution with non-scientific ones like theistic evolution. I am not sure if ‘atheistic evolution’ (where evolution is used to combination with something else to attempt to debunk God) exists in the article, but if it does, that is not scientific either. I must take a look again.

*Systemic bias has occurred because we have scientists who know little to nothing about theology making theological statements and maybe even worse theologians who know little to nothing about science making very poor scienctic statements through ID. While the later has been debunked by scientific counterarguments the former is presented in error and in undue weight with bias here.

As you can see from the previous topic it becomes apparent that there are those who ‘get lost’ or ‘don’t understand’ a statement that includes theological and scientific statements combined. This is because they simply have no formal theological training to be competent enough to understand the theistic position, and yet they comment on it in error. (CptKirk 08:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

CK, you have been making straw man arguments here all along. I asked you before to show where the article said the things you said it says, but you made no reply. Now you are doing it again:

"The biggest problem is just outright error in confusing scientific terms like evolution with non-scientific ones like theistic evolution - where in the article are the terms confused? Who is confusing the terms? Please, show us where this is going on.
"I am not sure if ‘atheistic evolution’ ... exists in the article" - it isn't, and [Control-F] could have told you that, "but if it does, that is not scientific either". Well, it isn't. So why, after saying you don't know if it is or isn't, do you carry on about it?
"Systemic bias has occurred because we have scientists who know little to nothing about theology making theological statements and maybe even worse theologians who know little to nothing about science making very poor scienctic statements through ID" - where, pray tell, is this happening? Are you calling us "scientists who know nothing about theology", or "theologians who know nothing about science"? Who are you calling "know-nothings"? And please read our policy on personal attacks before calling people ignorant.
"While the later has been debunked by scientific counterarguments the former is presented in error and in undue weight with bias here" - again, as I asked before, where in the article is "science ignorant of theology" being presented? And how is it undue to weight to present the scientific opinion on something that is purported to be scientific?
"As you can see from the previous topic it becomes apparent that there are those who ‘get lost’ or ‘don’t understand’ a statement that includes theological and scientific statements combined" - no, people "get lost" when you write something that doesn't resemble English.
"This is because they simply have no formal theological training to be competent enough to understand the theistic position" - really? I find that very interesting. Presumably you theologians understand "the intent of the writer" even when it bears little likeness to what was written. Well, I suppose that would explain a lot. But most people have not attended seminary, and expect that other people use English to communicate here. I don't care what language you use - English, Spanish or German, just write what you mean. And assume that other people are also writing what they mean. Guettarda 09:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guettarda you have made quite a few assumptions there that I would not agree with and do not believe I have said some of things you claim. Basically theistic evolution is not a science like evolution. Some people here get this, others do not. I have never mentioned being a theist or a atheist but I have taken positions to argue their context. I do not like things that are illogical or not well represented with due weight. As you can see some people are getting this so you have to explain why they are and you are not. That would be a rational place to start. (CptKirk 11:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

That some people have bothered to decrypt sentences such as "Like we say, we are treating the ID that contradictions evolution in the discussion." does not mean everyone should be expected to do so. In future, please formulate your comments so that they are easy to understand, as it would greatly facilitate discussion. Tevildo specifically asked you to confirm that he had correctly interpreted your comments. Does that suggest to you that your comments are easily decipherable? -- Ec5618 12:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"As you can see from the previous topic it becomes apparent that there are those who 'get lost' or 'don't understand' a statement that includes theological and scientific statements combined. This is because they simply have no formal theological training to be competent enough to understand the theistic position, and yet they comment on it in error. (CptKirk 08:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC))" -- No, I think it is you who's making the assumptions here, and obviously not many here agree with them. With statements like these, it's no wonder your proposals and objections are not finding any traction. The truly rational place to start is to ask yourself what are the possible reasons why no one finds your reasoning compelling, not to jump to the conclusion that editors here are ignorant. I know for a fact that contributors here understand claims that include combined theological and scientific statements, your personal opinion on the relevance and their state of formal theological training and competence aside. Reading all the previous comments, it's clear people here understand you, they just don't find your arguments very compelling or even relevant. FeloniousMonk 12:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I may get back to the topic, and I am obtuse enough to not see the application of the above discussion to this: Replace

Beyond the debate over whether intelligent design is scientific, a number of critics go so far as to argue that existing evidence makes the design hypothesis appear unlikely, irrespective of its status in the world of science. with

Beyond the debate over whether intelligent design is scientific, a number of critics argue that existing evidence makes the design hypothesis appear unlikely.

It also occurs to me that this statement is not cited, nor are the critics identified, which leaves very little of substance, really. Should it even be there at all?Trishm 12:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finding sources should not be difficult, as it is a common objection to ID. The real question is, at well over 100 sources presented already, do we really need to source every common viewpoint that is summarized? FeloniousMonk 12:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the article, you'll see that the passage introduces an example, Coyne, so it is already sourced. FeloniousMonk 13:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Coyne citation is an adequate source. I personally think that Trishm's original version - "A number of critics go so far as to argue that existing evidence makes the design hypothesis appear unlikely, irrespective of its status in the world of science." - is better than the proposed revision, but if that's unacceptable, this one will do. Tevildo 13:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trishm, I only put it back in tentatively until we can sort out the relevant concerns about that clause at the beginning of the sentence (Beyond the debate over whether ID is scientific,"). It was originally intended to make a clear demarcation for the reader about the range of debate that would be presented--i.e., that the succeeding paragraph is referring to a broader debate wherein the teleological argument, anthropic principle, etc. involve notable criticisms even when viewed from a merely philosophical standpoint. Whatever method is chosen for making that clear to the reader, I'm OK with it. I apologize if it appeared like I was necessarily disagreeing with you--I agree that sentence can be better written and support the effort to do so. ... Kenosis 14:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least it is good that a few here are seeing through all the smoke and fireworks. I can leave any time I want and come back under anything I please. I don't care about having my image and personality plastered in fancy writing to score brownie points with the local librarian. To be honest I simply don't care about wikipublic image. I just like pointing out that [evolution] is not [theistic evolution] and referencing up the due weight and plastering it across the page. Let's face it, if you cared about the article, just check the way you have handled a 'new' member here? Anyway this place is not a soap box. It is just good for making comments like natural theology to throw a monkey in the works of whoever is going around citing that God must be supernatural. (CptKirk 20:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You know, I wish I really understood what CptKirk is trying to say. I look at what he writes. And I read it again and again. And I never quite get it. Something tells me that under the loads of verbiage, there might be a thought or an idea in there, but I just can't find it. I am glad to know I am not alone in this. It looks like English (sort of). But something is not quite right. He vehemently argues points that I do not quite grasp. Like writing two or three pages of stuff about how "dogs elephant green. I swear it is true, as always it will has been. I can tortoise it, underwood Jackson proof applies in this instance." They are all English words, but somehow the meaning just does not quite come across. And when you think you have guessed the meaning, that makes no sense. Ugh. --Filll 20:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you not understand about this... evolution is a science. Theistic evolution is not a science. The section which is in question (the one I edited in the history) makes reference to the varified fact that theists reject any types of ID hypothesis (such as the refuted concepts in the article) that contradict evolution, not just theistic evolution as the article only states. The article currently suggests that theists only reject it because of moral/ethetical problems with ID that contradicts evolution. Theistic evolution should not be the only type of evolution covered there. The science of evolution should be mentioned also. (CptKirk 20:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The term 'theistic evolution' appears twice in the body of the article.

"Similar reasoning postulating a divine designer is embraced today by many believers in theistic evolution, who consider modern science and the theory of evolution to be fully compatible with the concept of a supernatural designer."
"Many religious people do not condone the teaching of what is considered unscientific or questionable material, and they support theistic evolution that does not conflict with scientific theories."

I don't see how any of these instances suggests that theistic evolution is a scientific theory. CptKirk, what are you saying? To which instance are you referring? -- Ec5618 21:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Similar reasoning postulating a divine designer is embraced today by many believers in theistic evolution, who consider modern science and the theory of evolution to be fully compatible with the concept of a supernatural designer." Is it fully compatible?(CptKirk 22:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

They consider it to be. Believers in theistic evolution believe that the theory of evolution needn't proclude the existence of a supernatural deity. I'm afraid I don't see an issue. -- Ec5618 22:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CK:

Guettarda you have made quite a few assumptions there that I would not agree with and do not believe I have said some of things you claim

Care to explain what parts? After all, I was quoting your words.

Basically theistic evolution is not a science like evolution. Some people here get this, others do not and What do you not understand about this... evolution is a science. Theistic evolution is not a science

I really don't know where you get that impression from. Who, other than you has even raised the idea that TE is (may be) a science? As I said above - why are you arguing about issues that are not in the article, that no one has raised, and that no one is trying to insert into the article?

As you can see some people are getting this so you have to explain why they are and you are not

How is someone supposed to "get" that you are talking about things that you have not said in your post? It's a simple courtesy to explain what you mean when someone asks. You keep making assertions...but you don't support any of what you say. Why not? Guettarda 23:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My guess would be that it is because whatever ideas may lurk in his meandering and enigmatic pseudo-English expositions are unsupportable. Filll's above example is quite close to the "style" of writing inflicted upon us by CK save one thing: Filll's parody shows at least some Lewis Carrol-type creativity. Jim62sch 12:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at CptKirk's Changes

And frankly, it was far easier to read BEFORE than it is now, after CptKirk has changed it. It was easier to read before and it made sense. Now it does not make any sense to me. Maybe someone else can make sense of it, but I cannot. It is irrelevant whether a "theist" (not a good word to use at all, frankly) agrees with the science or not. They are not qualified to judge the quality of the science. We have plenty of scientists weighing in on the science. We do not have scientists weighing in on religious or moral or ethical aspects. So we do not need a muddled confused mess about theists and evolutionary theists and science and intelligent design and who rejects what and for what reason. Some reject this and some reject that. No one ever claimed theistic evolution was evolution or a type of evolution or a science. It does not belong here. Frankly I am at odds to see where you might put it on Wikipedia at all. It seems like a sort of pointless discussion. Like wanting to put in an article about dogs endless discussion about "But dogs are not cats!" and then debate it endlessly on the talk page. And all of Cptkirk's changes come with no sources mind you. All a big mess. And impossible to read. Sorry. That is how I see it. I am in favor of reverting the changes that Cptkirk made back to what they were before. He can maybe try to explain himself here, but I doubt if he can make much headway since I and others do not seem to grasp whatever important point it is that he believes he is trying to make.--Filll 21:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to Analyze a CptKirk post

What do you not understand about this... evolution is a science. Theistic evolution is not a science.

True---so what?--Filll 21:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section which is in question (the one I edited in the history) makes reference to the varified fact that theists reject any types of ID hypothesis

The previous version of that section did not mention any "theists". I disagree vehemently with the word theists. This is supposed to be English, after all. I do not know what CptKirk's native language is, and it might be a reasonable thing to say in his language, but it is stilted and awkward and difficult in English.--Filll 21:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any "varified fact" (it is verified fact, and again this is not proper English) that theists reject "any types of ID hypothesis" (hypotheses would be more accurate in English) in the article's previous version. I do not understand what you are talking about. Before it made sense. Now it is just meaningless drivel.--Filll 21:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(such as the refuted concepts in the article)

They are not refuted in the article. We have to maintain NPOV. Some refute them. Some support them. Again this is totally stilted language and makes very little sense. We have a several thousand year history of teleology and many other instances of "intelligent design" and then this more modern incarnation which is being proposed by the Discovery Institute. This article is about the modern incarnation. When you start talking in grandiose flowery terms, I cannot tell what version if any you are talking about, or are you talking about all of them.--Filll 21:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that contradict evolution, not just theistic evolution as the article only states.

Again this sentence makes no sense. ID does not really contradict evolution, as I understand it. ID proposes that certain structures in biology could not be produced using evolutionary processes alone. And what on earth are you talking about with theistic evolution? It says no such thing in the article and did not before CptKirk turned that section into a disaster that is unreadable and only suitable for the waste basket.--Filll 21:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently suggests that theists only reject it because of moral/ethetical problems with ID that contradicts evolution.

Even if it DID say that, there would be no problem with the implication as I stated earlier because they were judging it on a moral or ethical basis, or did not perceive a conflict between evolution and faith. And the article currently is an embarassment of nonEnglish nonsense in this area. It is unreadable. Sorry.

However, it did NOT say that. And decidedly did not. I think you did not understand it before, and now have turned the section into something that no one else can understand. And still are not happy. And I do not know about what. You were permitted the mess up the article. And now you are arguing that you want to mess it up even more. --Filll 21:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theistic evolution should not be the only type of evolution covered there.

As you said above, theistic evolution is not really evolution or science, so this is a nonsense statement. However, the article did not claim this. I think you have misunderstood the article and the writing, perhaps because of your background in English. Sorry. --Filll 21:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The science of evolution should be mentioned also.

The science of evolution is mentioned throughout. And it was before. And I have no idea what your objection is. And the more I try to understand it, the more frustrating it is because it makes no sense.--Filll 21:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let us take one of Filll's points at random and explore them. Say the last one... The science of evolution should be mentioned also. Your reply is to simply break away from my context of my edit to other stuff in the article and pretend it is all over it. I was talking about the edit and nothing more. If you talked about an edit you made I think you would expect me to stay focused on your edit until you mentioned something outside of your edit. If you still don't understand then have a look at the reverts and tell me where [evolution] is in the section my edit was reverted too. Where does it say 'theists reject an ID that rejects evolution'? in whole article for that matter either? [personal attacks removed by Guettarda]. (CptKirk 22:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I am very sorry. I sure wish you could write in English. When I read something that is so disorganized and rambling that my eyes glaze over, and I have to read it over and over and over, it is not a good sign. And this is what I see above. Ugh. It makes me cringe. I think you might have some important point you want to make, but it just does not make it out through your writing. I wish it did. --Filll 00:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Guettarda thinks I have made a personal attack. I guess since I said 'I hope everyone here is over 18' was taken to mean an attack I better say I am very sorry if someone took it as a personal attack. I was not meant to be. However I think some people here believe maybe that I have another agenda other than trying to ask valid questions and so I think we are going to see lots of things like this on here whenever I make a comment. I will switch name and just continue on elsewhere and maybe back here later and try it all again. It doesn't matter if I am dead or alive. Facts are fact. WP:CITE. WP:NOR. For a 'new' member I was certainly treated very badly by most of the 'admin' people here. Bye. (CptKirk 00:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Even his somewhat testy fairwell message I do not quite understand. I do not mean any disrespect to CptKirk. He just is unclear. I feel bad for him since I am sure he means well and has something to say. But what is it? It just comes out so garbled I cannot quite grasp his issue that is so ultra important to him. As I said before, it is like going to the articles on cats, making some incomprehensible edits, and then proceeding to the talk page to have belligerent fights about "But Dogs are not Cats! Yes but what about Dog-cats! Are you all stupid? Catdogs dog cats cat cat dog cat! What is wrong with you people?" and so on. It just starts to sound like static after a while 8( --Filll 00:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I have checked, and I am glad to see that CptKirk's suggestions were reverted. I am not claiming what was there before CptKirk was perfect, but at least it could be parsed and understood as simple declarative English sentences. I speak a little French, but I would not dream of going in and arguing in French WP how they should construct their arguments. And that is what I think was going on here. I do feel bad for him. I wish I knew what he wanted, but I am not sure he even understood the article well enough to be able to come out with a coherent suggestion. Oh dear...--Filll 00:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I would like to help, but I can't see through the words to the point. AvB gave some great advice earlier on: "I'd like to ask Jim <Kirk> to realize warp 10 is too fast. If you slow down to one thing at a time, and listen to experienced editors, all will be well." CptKirk, if he is watching, should try to understand that there is no personal animosity, it's just that to contribute effectively, you need to be clear so that others can hear you.Trishm 00:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've unbolded the farewell. Might I suggest all editors here make an effort to patiently help any new editor understand that and why the long term editors are fed up? I get the feeling that new editors are rather put off by the sudden (from their point of view) frustration over seemingly trivial matters. In future, we might also consider approaching such editors on their own talk pages, to ease them into the pool, as it were. -- Ec5618 00:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hypothesize that a reasonably objective set of observers, upon taking sufficient time to review and analyze the recent discussions, would conclude differently than CaptKirk has asserted regarding his treatment here. Hopefully we'll not need to waste further time verifying or falsifying this hypothesis. ... Kenosis 00:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing for sure: If and when CptKirk returns with or without a new name, I for one will sure recognize the writing style.--Filll 00:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel bad. I am sure it is frustrating if a person is new, and using a foreign language to boot. I would be very frustrated trying to communicate. I think you are right, it is far better to go slow, try small short sentences, and try to make sure people understand. I do not want to put up a barrier to new editors. It is difficult enough to learn the ways of Wikipedia without the social barriers too. Then we have the clear language problem on top of it all in this situation, and it became an impossible situation and frustrating for everyone; us "old timers" and CptKirk too. I guess it might have seemed like a trivial matter to CptKirk, and I think whatever his point was, it probably was something that could be easily cleared up with a sentence or two from someone with some insight on both sides. But such a person did not exist in this situation, unfortunately. It is not trivial to me when someone comes in and writes gibberish text I cannot understand however, and insists on it being in the article for some unknown reason. It is annoying. I am sure he meant well. I suspect he did not understand some subtlety in English and thought he was correcting some huge hole in our argument (which I do not comprehend even now). And could not believe it when we did not appreciate it. My uneducated guess would be that he saw "theistic evolution" and immediately thought we were trying to say it was a type of evolution like NeoDarwinian evolution or Darwinian Evolution or Punctuated Equilibrium. I on the other hand, read the description a few weeks ago and after a sentence or two said to myself, oh yes that is the viewpoint or philosophy that I have and most people have. It is just reasonable and accommodating, and is not evolution at all. However, the name is confusing or potentially confusing. All theistic evolution means (at least to me) is that there is no reason God could not operate through evolution if he chose to. And it is not up to us puny humans to dictate to God how he does whatever he does, if he exists. So the conflict evaporates. For people who make their living by trying to push for a conflict like assorted creationist groups and a few atheists, this is bad, because it is competition. So I think that in the US, like most other things, it just boils down to one thing: MONEY. --Filll 00:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filll, if what you say is correct, then the problem is his hubris in thinking that he and only he had the correct perspective. And then to turn around and blame the messengers, while repeatedly obfuscating rational points in favor of pursuing his agenda? Please, gimme a break already, y'know? ... Kenosis 01:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Jim62sch 12:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

I must say I think this theory is crazy - BUT I also must say - is it really fair to put a creationism template on it? I mean from the arguments I've heard from ID supporters i've gotten the impression that it's not creationism. Any thoughts?--Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 22:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's fair for two reasons: if you check out the Kitzmiller links you'll find that under searching and objective examination it's been found to be thinly disguised creationism in the sense of opposing evolution on the basis of religious beliefs, and in the wider sense of belief in a creator the template also includes theistic evolution which has that belief while also having no problem with science and evolution dealing with the natural world, and no need to create a new "theistic science" mixing science with religion as is proposed by ID proponents. .. dave souza, talk 22:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proclaiming it as "thinly disguised creationism" - npov much? --Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 22:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What else do you call it when they start with an overtly creationist textbook and use a word processor to change "creationism" to "intelligent design", then tout it as an ideal ID textbook for schools? ... dave souza, talk 22:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Naturally they are continually given the benefit of the doubt in the article, as well they should, but you've got to admit that the above example is pretty damning. (See Of Pandas and People for more information.) Add to that that every proponent of intelligent design is first and foremost a creationist, and there's really little anyone can say in their defense. -- Ec5618 23:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's been quite well established that ID is creationist. Guettarda 23:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District: [6] FeloniousMonk 05:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For more detail, see Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context#Page 32 of 139 –

"By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards."

and so on to page Page 35 of 139 –

"there is hardly better evidence of ID’s relationship with creationism than an explicit statement by defense expert Fuller that ID is a form of creationism... Although contrary to Fuller, defense experts Professors Behe and Minnich testified that ID is not creationism, their testimony was primarily by way of bare assertion and it failed to directly rebut the creationist history of Pandas or other evidence presented by Plaintiffs showing the commonality between creationism and ID. The sole argument Defendants made to distinguish creationism from ID was their assertion that the term “creationism” applies only to arguments based on the Book of Genesis, a young earth, and a catastrophic Noaich flood" :.. dave souza, talk 12:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back to basics

While there's obviously much misunderstanding or disagreement about wording which in my opinion isn't central, the following paragraph seems to me to give the misleading impression that there's only some criticism outside the scientific community, and fails to convey the extent of opposition from mainstream religion:

The criticism of intelligent design has not been limited to the scientific community. Some religious individuals and groups have objected to intelligent design as well, often on theological or moral grounds. Many religious people do not condone the teaching of what is considered unscientific or questionable material, and they support theistic evolution that does not conflict with scientific theories. An example is Cardinal Schönborn, who sees "purpose and design in the natural world" yet has "no difficulty... with the theory of evolution [within] the borders of scientific theory."

Since Schönborn is a poster boy of the DI despite his subsequent back-pedalling, he seems a poor choice to represent the mainstream position. Here's another proposal for a replacement paragraph:

The scientific community includes many religious people who strongly oppose intelligent design, most prominently the astronomer George Coyne and the biologist Ken Miller. There is also widespread opposition to intelligent design amongst mainstream churches, and the leaders of several denominations including Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Roman Catholics have issued statements distancing themselves from ID and reaffirming that their religious faith is fully compatible with evolution (the term theistic evolution has been coined to describe such beliefs, where science is accepted within its limitations of dealing only with the natural world). The commonest objection they have is that intelligent design is not science, and there also several philosophical and theological reasons for rejecting it. From the opposite viewpoint, there is criticism of intelligent design from overt creationists who object to its failure to openly support their religious beliefs, or who see it as a rival.

In my opinion that's rather clearer. citations can be sought on request. ... dave souza, talk 22:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Handy resources rather than necessarily links for this proposal, but these [7] [8] are of interest, and this Methodist site makes useful points as well as having handy Suggested Resources links at the foot of the page ;) .. dave souza, talk 23:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These links were really worth reading.Trishm 00:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the new version is an improvement - a couple of minor corrections I'd suggest. Firstly (and most importantly) there isn't a denomination called "Episcopalian", and it's debatable whether or not Roman Catholicism is a denomination in the strict sense. I think "...mainstream churches; several religious leaders, including Episcopalians..." would be better. Incidentally, is the "Episcopalian" a reference to the Archbishop of Canterbury? If so, "Anglican" would be better - the relationship between the ECUSA and the greater Anglican Communion is decidedly shaky at the moment. On the other hand, leave it as "Episcopalian" if we're getting a quote from an ECUSA bishop. Secondly, I think "most common" would be better than "commonest", and we don't need the "several" - "The most common objection they have is that intelligent design is not science; there are also philosophical and theological reasons for rejecting it." Tevildo 01:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another draft, working from the above, that I think is consistent with the intent under discussion ... Kenosis 04:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of intelligent design has not been limited to the scientific community. Numerous religious individuals and groups have objected to intelligent design as well. Many such individuals and groups do not condone the teaching of what is considered unscientific or questionable material, yet support theistic evolution that does not conflict with scientific theories. Cardinal Schönborn, for instance, sees "purpose and design in the natural world" yet has "no difficulty... with the theory of evolution [within] the borders of scientific theory." Opposition to intelligent design has been expressed by mainstream churches such as the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion (which includes the Episcopal Church), and Presbyterian churches, which have issued statements distancing themselves from ID and reaffirming that their religious faith is fully compatible with evolution (the term theistic evolution has been coined to describe such beliefs, where science is accepted within its limitations of dealing only with the natural world). Though the most frequent objection from within churches is that intelligent design is not science, there also are philosophical and theological reasons for rejecting it. Also, there has been criticism of intelligent design from overt creationists who object to its failure to openly support their religious beliefs, or who see it as a rival. As well, a number of prominent scientists who are intensely religious, such as the astronomer George Coyne and the biologist Ken Miller, have expressed strong opposition to intelligent design. (end of draft) 04:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you think it might be better to give a papal quote for the RC, as in the third quote below, rather than a statement from a Cardinal, which was prompted from the DI, and got him into a bit of hot water? The speech I have in mind is [here]. The speech refers mainly to evolution, and distances the church from literal creationism:

In the context of "We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth":

"It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say."
"[there is] no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith" as long as evolution does not preclude the divine creation of the soul.Trishm 05:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would prefer to see any specific summaries of theology in a footnote, if anywhere. This is because the issue is (1) quite secondary to the issues regarding ID, and (2) vary from one faith to another, thereby potentially creating a nearly endless set of summaries of the various positions, including but not limited to theistic (which overarches numerous variations of theological view concerning actual or potential involvement of God in the development of things in the world), pantheistic, panentheistic (roughly the RCC's position at the upper levels of theological discourse), plus deistic (whereby God sets it all in motion then essentially gets out of the way), and so forth. It's just too much to present the various apologetics of the many faiths here in this article, in my opinion. ... Kenosis 05:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me.Trishm 11:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my take on Kenosis' version. I've rearranged things, removed the duplicate definition of theistic evolution, and made a couple of slight wording changes (removed "intensely" (religious) and added another "mainstream"). Tevildo 11:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of intelligent design has not been limited to the scientific community. Numerous religious individuals and groups have also objected to intelligent design, as they do not condone the teaching of what is considered unscientific or questionable material. Opposition to intelligent design has been expressed by mainstream churches such as the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion (which includes the Episcopal Church), and Presbyterian churches, which have issued statements distancing themselves from ID and reaffirming that their religious faith is fully compatible with evolution. Cardinal Schönborn, for instance, sees "purpose and design in the natural world" yet has "no difficulty... with the theory of evolution [within] the borders of scientific theory." The term theistic evolution has been coined to describe such beliefs, where science is accepted within its limitations of dealing only with the natural world; a number of prominent scientists who are religious, such as the astronomer George Coyne and the biologist Ken Miller, have expressed strong opposition to intelligent design. Though the most frequent objection from within mainstream churches is that intelligent design is not science, there also are philosophical and theological reasons for rejecting it. Also, there has been criticism of intelligent design from overt creationists who object to its failure to openly support their religious beliefs, or who see it as a rival. (end of draft)

I think if the interested editors work with these variations of Dave_souza's proposal a bit more and assemble appropriate citations, a summary of this kind would be an improvement to this part of the article. It would explain more to the interested reader, and if kept in the form of a brief summary of this dimension of the controversy, of this same approximate length as what's being proposed here, would be germane to the subject of the article. ... Kenosis 17:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archive discussion possibility?

Archive before 'back to basics'? Yes/No? (CptKirk 23:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I have archived the oldest discussions. -- Ec5618 23:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religious opposition to ID Mark III

Taking into account the above comments at #Back to basics, and leaving out parts which in my opinion simply duplicate points, here's another version, with cites for most positions, though not the creationists against ID – will try to add them later. Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church gives cites both for and against. The search turned up some fun links – in particular Catechism of Creation Part II: Creation and Science is interesting, especially for Kenosis.. It's amusing that Conservatives Against Intelligent Design exists, but the badly designed site seems useless. Resources for Evolution Sunday provides handy links. .. dave souza, talk 11:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition to intelligent design has been expressed by numerous clergy [9] and by mainstream churches such as the Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church in the United States of America,[10] Presbyterian [11] and other churches, [12] which have issued statements distancing themselves from ID and reaffirming that their religious faith is fully compatible with evolution (the term theistic evolution has been coined to describe such beliefs, where science is accepted within its limitations of dealing only with the natural world). Others making such statements include the Central Conference of American Rabbis.[13] A number of prominent scientists who are intensely religious, such as the astronomer George Coyne and the biologist Ken Miller, have been at the forefront of opposition to intelligent design. Though the most frequent objection from religious people is that intelligent design is not science, most also reject it for various philosophical and theological reasons.[14][15] There has also been criticism of intelligent design from overt creationists who object to its failure to openly support their religious beliefs, or who see it as a rival.<end of proposed paragraph>

Where are the cites for the RCC? Also, what is up with this, "(the term theistic evolution has been coined to describe such beliefs, where science is accepted within its limitations of dealing only with the natural world)"? For one, "coined" makes it sound like a recent neologism, second it's not really accurate. Also the last sentence needs a cite.

Additionally, this section cries out for a balancing section on religions/sects that have embraced ID. Do we really want to go there within this article? Jim62sch 12:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cites are work in progress (as stated), TO Archive cite Eugenie C. Scott 1999 for The Creation/Evolution Continuum which uses and defines the term Theistic evolution – changes to improve accuracy welcome. Since it's in the Controversy section it would be good to briefly mention the main denominations explicitly endorsing ID (if any), and it should really be mentioned that ID has had numerous supporters in faiths which have officially endorsed evolution. Rephrasing the paragraph to be more general while including the same links might be one way of avoiding the "lists" problem. In my opinion the revision's worthwhile to clarify the extent of opposition to ID outwith the scientific community.. dave souza, talk 14:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the "theistic evolution" sentence, how about "Such beliefs are described as theistic evolution; science, with its limitations of dealing only with the natural world, is fully accepted."? I think, whatever we decide on for the text, we should lose the parentheses. I'm still not sure about "intensely religious", as well. If "religous" without qualification is unacceptable, how about "who have strong religious faith"? On Jim62's point, I can't think off-hand of any churches who embrace ID, per se, rather than one of the more explicitly religious forms of creationism. If they exist, though, I agree we should mention them. Tevildo 20:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV issues

I'm shocked and disappointed that this article espouses an incredibly anti-Intelligent Design position. Almost ever paragraph is interwoven with an undocumented opinion regarding the "unpopularity" of ID. Even it was true that the scientific community does not accept Intelligent Design, this is not proof that Intelligent Design isn't a valid theory. Rather, this is proof that ID is not taught or studied in mainstream academia. In this article, it says that many of the concepts of ID are based upon ignorance of science. This is an example of the mildly inaccurate and biased statements that riddle this article. The truth is many of the people who espouse ID don't know anything about science and for many of them their beliefs may be based in faith or in ignorance. However, serious scholars of ID are fully aware of the modern science. The problem with this article is that it appears to have been crafted from essentially two types of minds.

Type One is an establishment educated science or biology expert who can recite the Theory of Evolution. I will call this type the "Biologist" Type Two is a non-scientist who believes intelligent design on faith. I will call this type the "Evangelist". The Biologists have used this as a forum to explain their limited understanding of ID, while at the same time undermining the basis for ID in nearly every paragraph. This is done by propping up strawmen and knocking them down, as well as using good old-fashioned peer-pressure to make their point. The Evangelist is unequipped to make a scientific arguement and thus ID is not given a fair shake. What this article desperately needs is a Type Three, a scientist who understands ID.

The reason that position is not filled, is because writing this article would become a full-time job for that scientist. He would be disbarred from presenting a rough over-view of the scientific basis for ID. As he would have to research and substantiate every claim. Then his research would be challenged, and experts would nit-pick the fringes of his argument just to get the camel's nose under the tent.

By comparing the Evolution article and the ID articles and then comparing the safeguards in place to prevent editting these pieces, it becomes apparent that Wikipedia in fact has a POV. This is pretty sad to me. What it ultimately means is that it's just a matter of time before there are new Wiki's with more conservative POV's. Which means that people who believe in Evolution will never see a thoughtful article about ID and those who believe ID on faith will never see a good article on Evolution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.108.89.17 (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comments:

Register
Sign your posts
It is not clear to me what a more "conservative" POV is
For better or worse, WP tries to report what exists. However, if the community at large has a bias, then by reporting it, WP will appear to have a bias because it is not blocking information. So as a result, the WP article has roughly the same attitude as the US federal courts, the vast majority of the science community and a very large fraction of the religious community (maybe 90% or more in the US. Now this might be a bias or a POV. But it comes by this bias honestly, through documenting the views of these groups. Could they be wrong? Sure. But for us to include contrary views that you claim are not addressed here, we need good quality sources. Bring them and we will include them. We cannot include what we do not have.--Filll 13:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

70.108.89.17, I concur with Filll. You seem to assume that while scientists don't understand intelligent design, it does have merit. What if it doesn't? What if the reason scientists reject intelligent design is not ignorance but understanding of the principles of science? -- Ec5618 14:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"What this article desperately needs is a Type Three, a scientist who understands ID." I had to chuckle when I read this. Um, ID is not science. Mr Christopher 16:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Mr. C., I surmise it was somewhat the other way around from what was fantasized as the ideal here. (There is a brief summary of part of this in Teleological argument#The anthropic principle and fine-tuned universe arguments.) Scientists and others who actually understood some of the new developments in cosmology and physics, especially quantum mechanics and astrophysics, saw implications that appeared to bolster the teleological argument. And some brilliant minds were excited enough and kind enough to publish some of their speculations based on the empirical evidence they saw, especially though the 1980s, though they didn't generally call these speculations science because they knew better. Then along came the hucksters who atttempted to apply similar methods to evolution, but did it backwards, starting from creationist predispositions, networking with others who were similarly predisposed, attaching to a pre-existing socio-political agenda and some fiduciary backing, and off it went. The best part was finding the great hook line--"intelligent design"-- to wit, something like "Aha! that's it! That's the angle we need...!" The words were so smooth and a delight to the senses that you could caress them; safe from the Edwards v. Aguilard decision; very impressive and modern and secular sounding and, gol'dang, YES, it's scientific. Eureka. (or something like that). .Unfortunately they did not understand it; they were most assuredly not in the same league as some of the brilliant minds that publicized the implications of the developing cosmology just a few years earlier. Though I guess they did feel like they were on the leading edge of something; it just didn't turn out to be what they thought. Great thing about it is it's a self-fulfilling prophecy; Heck that part's easy--just blame it on the bias of the materialistic world-view and the athiestic methodological naturalism that science has become in the last hundred-fifty years, ever since those evolutionists muddled up the works (a perfectly endless tautology of self-justification). But I digress somewhat-- sorry, I'm a little testy right now about some of the purported "insights" that've been put by us here recently, presuming on our kindness, and frankly, abusing it just a bit. ... ... Kenosis 16:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by User:71.166.165.104

Comment removed. From banned user Raspor. [[[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 06:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)}

As to your last paragraph, User:71.166.165.104, two things: (1) A "more conservative" POV or a "more progressive" POV is not relevant, and would be putting the socio-political cart before the conceptual horse in this or any Wikipedia article. (2) This article, if you read the text and follow the footnotes, will lead you anywhere you wish to branch out in discovering the various theological, scientific, ideological, and socio-political issues that intersect with this subject of "intelligent design". It's a unique, complex and interesting phenomenon of contemporary life in these United States (and to some extent elsewhere too), and such an investment of your time and learning capability might prove fruitful in understanding more about modern science,more about modern theology, and perhaps even more about modern politics and socio-political dynamics. There are over a hundred footnotes to scan, and numerous links leading to a wide variety of related topics.

But make no mistake please, when I described (in a sardonic way) the manner in which the words "intelligent design" were chosen by its leading proponents, it was a reasonable representation of the verified truth of the matter. Specifically, the words "intelligent design" were chosen as an end-run around the 1987 Supreme Court decision Edwards v. Aguilard. In 1989, Charles Thaxton's book Of Pandas and People, prior to being published, had the words "intelligent design" inserted as a replacement for almost every instance of the use of the word "creationism". In 1990, the Discovery Institute was founded, and fairly quickly became the locus of the intelligent design movement. In 1991 Phillip E. Johnson, having already become involved with Stephen Meyer (co-founder of the DI) and other DI affiliates, published Darwin on Trial. And in 1996 Johnson became the co-founder and program director of the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, under the umbrella of the DI. Consistent with the original use of "intelligent design" as an attempt to end-run Edwards v. Aguilard, the DI affiliates latched onto the term and proceeded to develop their synthesized variation of the ancient teleological argument. It is this issue that made the words "intelligent design" famous within the past decade-- the use of a secular-sounding term for a set of teleological arguments for the existence of God, asserted to be science, the attempts to teach it as science, along with the ideological, socio-political agenda that accompanied it under the umbrella of "intelligent design". This is the primary focus of the intelligent design article, a focus that is very much in keeping with the vast amount of recent public discussion on the issue.

I hope this helps. ... Kenosis 20:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kenosis has explained the issue very well. The essential point is that ID is not, and never can be, a scientific theory - and anyone with a basic understanding of the philosophy of science (which, I agree, is not something that everyone possesses) can demonstrate that. There isn't, and never can be, anyone in your "Type 3", because anyone who accepts ID - as formulated by the DI - has, by definition, rejected science. As is very common on this page, you seem to be confusing ID with the teleological argument, when you say "It's possible to be pro-Evolution and pro-ID." It's certainly possible to accept the teleological argument for God's existence and accept the scientific theory of evolution; however, it's not possible to accept both ID and the theory of evolution, as ID is in direct contradiction to the basic assumptions of science. If there were any scientific evidence for ID, we'd be delighted to put it here - but, there isn't. We can't provide citations for material that doesn't exist. Tevildo 21:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly User:71.166.165.104 skipped over the part of WP:NPOV which says "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one." and that "Debates are described, represented, and characterized ... background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular ... [and] contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint." Until he demonstates that presenting both viewpoints is necessary, there's no pointing in engaging him on specific points in the article. Once he does understand that, then he can work on graspingWP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience. And after that, then he'll be able to level valid appraisals of the article's tone. FeloniousMonk 20:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bit about attacking Galileo is great, considering it was both the Catholic and the Protestant Church leaders that were doing the attacking on science. Just as we see again here in the case of intelligent design: Religious extremists attacking science. It is a hilariously stupid analogy, and one that the DI uses (or misuses) a lot.--Filll 21:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it is clear that 71.166.165.104 does not understand that we have to try to be neutral. We cannot present Evolution without discussing its detractors. And we do discuss its detractors. We cannot present ID without mentioning the other side. And we do. There are articles on here which are completely biased because there are not enough scientists or rational thinkers to counter every religious extremist that exists. We just cannot keep up frankly. But WP is not supposed to be a soap box for you to try to entice people into your warped view of religion. There are millions of other sites devoted to that, and in fact we even provide the links to some of them on WP if you want. But do not expect us to not present the other side. This is not a recruiting tool for religious extremists, fundamentalists etc.--Filll 21:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And there might or might not be ppl here qualified to prove ID right or wrong. But there is a literature trail and that is what we describe, with links and references. If you do not like the literature? Go out and produce some ID literature that is peer reviewed that people can reference.--Filll 21:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed evident that User:71.166.165.104 will not find his preferred rendering of the subject here. ... Kenosis 21:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I would prefer to seperate the debate from the presentation of the theory itself. But the facists will shout down any opposition. But what did you win? Now I have to go look at the ID sites to figure out what ID is all about. I can't read about ID objectively here. That's a waste of my time. My "preferred rendering" is not a specific POV, but rather a seperation of the presentation of the theory from the presentation of the debate about the theory. I editted the outline about to reflect my opinion of what I'm reading.

Your preferred method for presenting the topic simply flies in the face of our core policies and guidelines. Any criticisms or suggestions that do know take into account Wikipedia's policies and guidelines will not make any headway, and ultimately be ignored. FeloniousMonk 22:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there is only one "intelligent design" worth discussing, which is quite political by design. If User:71.166.165.104 would like to discuss the teleological argument (a class of argument to which "intelligent design" belongs) that is another matter. The words "intelligent design" are part of the modern lingo for only one reason, which is the attempt to call it science and to teach it as science. The scientific community, the academic community, and the only US Federal court to hear the issue all agree that it is not. Worse, most of the theological community from most of the mainstream faiths agree it is not even effective theology, irrespective of its political overtones-- add in the political issues and the pretense of being science and it's not being touched with even ten-foot poles. Unfortunately, from here, there's no going back to some longed-for theoretical purity about what the words "intelligent design" might have meant had it not been for the socio-political and pseudoscientific dimensions of the words. ... Kenosis 22:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely said, Kenosis. In order to promote a socio-political agenda, the proponents of ID have misrepresented both science and religion. The strong sense of suppression that you sense is not aimed at the quite well accepted religious idea that a supernatural entity is responsible for creation. It is aimed at the misrepresentations that have been made, that even the mainstream churches fear hurt the religious movement more than help it. Part of the policy of wikipedia is to make sure that misrepresentations or other misleading material are not endorsed.Trishm 00:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

71.166.165.104, You should read about wikipedia. Try the help link on the main page. You don't need to be a scientist that agrees with ID to write this article. You can be a layperson who agrees or disagrees with it. To the extent that you can remove your personal biases, the better. Citing references will help your cause. Your ideas about a different presentation are not bad, in my personal opinion, but that does not matter. As others have pointed out, they may (and I say may because I don't know) not line up with wikipedia policies. You can go to the policy pages and argue for your ideas there. You may make some headway there. You cannot expect others to write or reformat on command. You are welcome to do so yourself, but be prepared to have your writing "edited mercilessly". Contributors are spending a good deal of time writing these articles, and while constructive criticism is appreciated, you should recognize the hard work people are putting into these articles, as well as the fact that controversial articles end up being compromises and less than perfectly presented. Also, due to the controversy, you have actions and reactions, which also make some articles less than perfect. This article is not frozen, and you can edit it. If you don't like what you see, do some research, assume good faith, and start writing. The more you contribute the more others will take you seriously. Other contributors are not here to do as you command, even if what you command is reasonable. If all you're going to do is complain, people will begin to think you're here to debate, and not contribute. If you want to debate, there are plenty of forums on the internet available for that. If you want to limit your contributions to what you believe to be constructive criticism, try to do so with tact and diplomacy. A little honey will go a long way. But you are clearly intelligent and have a capacity to write. I enjoyed your Abe Lincoln spoof, and think you have a point, and made it. Why not re-direct your energy toward making the article (or wikipedia policies) better by registering, researching, and contributing? StudyAndBeWise 06:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More for "will"

Well will why not log in? What are you hiding from? If you really are will that is. Not too smart to put your personal info on the internet you know.

To quote Cornholio, Do you threaten?

Is the pro-Evolution crowd that dangerous? Should I fear that they will strike at me for breaking the code of silence? This is typical internet debate tactics. Turn the argument against me personally and shift the work load onto me.

So this section:

Intelligent design (ID) is a teleological argument for the existence of God^[2] based on the premise 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."^[3]^[4]^[5] Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12] claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.^[13]

Does not tell you what ID is, give you references to check? And it is not more than one sentence huh? My goodness.--Filll 21:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about this section:

Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to natural explanations for the development of life. It stands in opposition to conventional biological science, which relies on the scientific method to explain life through observable processes such as mutation and natural selection.
The stated purpose of intelligent design (ID) is to investigate whether or not existing empirical evidence implies that life on Earth must have been designed by an intelligent agent or agents. William A. Dembski, one of intelligent design's leading proponents, has stated that the fundamental claim of intelligent design is that "there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence."^[14] In a leaked memo, commonly known as The Wedge Document, however, the supporters of the movement were told, "We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design. Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."^[15]

Proponents of intelligent design look for evidence of what they term "signs of intelligence": physical properties of an object that point to a designer (see: teleological argument). For example, if an archeologist finds a statue made of stone in a field, he may, ID proponents argue, justifiably conclude that the statue was designed and then reasonably seek to identify the statue's designer. He would not, however, be justified in making the same claim if he found an irregularly shaped boulder of the same size. The most commonly cited "signs of intelligence" include irreducible complexity, information mechanisms, and specified complexity. Design proponents argue that living systems show one or more of these, from which they infer that some aspects of life have been designed.
Intelligent design proponents say that although evidence pointing to the nature of an "intelligent cause or agent" may not be directly observable, its effects on nature can be detected. Dembski, in Signs of Intelligence, states: "Proponents of intelligent design regard it as a scientific research program that investigates the effects of intelligent causes. Note that intelligent design studies the effects of intelligent causes and not intelligent causes per se." In his view, one cannot test for the identity of influences exterior to a closed system from within, so questions concerning the identity of a designer fall outside the realm of the concept. However, no rigorous test that can identify these effects has yet been proposed.^[16]^[17]
According to a 2005 Harris poll, ten percent of adults in the United States subscribe to intelligent design.^[18] Although some polls commissioned by the Discovery Institute show more support, these polls suffer from considerable flaws.^[19]

Philosophers have long debated whether the complexity of nature indicates the existence of a purposeful natural or supernatural designer/creator. The first recorded arguments for a natural designer come from Greek philosophy. In the 4th century BC, Plato posited a natural "demiurge" of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the creator of the cosmos in his work Timaeus. Aristotle also developed the idea of a natural creator of the cosmos, often called the "Prime Mover," in his work Metaphysics. In De Natura Deorum, or "On the Nature of the Gods" (45 BC), Cicero stated that "the divine power is to be found in a principle of reason which pervades the whole of nature."^[20]
The use of this line of reasoning as applied to a supernatural designer has come to be known as the teleological argument for the existence of God. The most notable forms of this argument were expressed in the 13th century by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae,^[21] design being the fifth of Aquinas' five proofs for God's existence, and by William Paley in his book Natural Theology (1802).^[22] Paley used the watchmaker analogy, which is still used in intelligent design arguments. In the early 19th century, such arguments led to the development of what was called natural theology, the study of biology as a search to understand "the mind of God." This movement fueled the passion for collecting fossils and other biological specimens that ultimately led to Darwin's theory of the origin of species. Similar reasoning postulating a divine designer is embraced today by many believers in theistic evolution, who consider modern science and the theory of evolution to be fully compatible with the concept of a supernatural designer.
Intelligent design in the late 20th century can be seen as a modern development of natural theology which seeks to change the basis of science and undermine evolution theory. As evolutionary theory has expanded to explain more phenomena, the examples that are held up as evidence of design have changed. But the essential argument remains the same: complex systems imply a designer. Examples offered in the past included the eye (optical system) and the feathered wing; current examples are mostly biochemical: protein functions, blood clotting, and bacterial flagella (see irreducible complexity).
The earliest known version of the particular line of reasoning that would come to be called "intelligent design" began, according to Dr Barbara Forrest, "in the early 1980s with the publication of The Mystery of Life's Origin (MoLO 1984) by creationist chemist Charles B. Thaxton with Walter L. Bradley and Roger L. Olsen. Thaxton worked for Jon A. Buell at the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE) in Texas, a religious organization that published MoLO."^[23]
Intelligent design deliberately does not try to identify or name the specific agent of creation – it merely states that one (or more) must exist. Although intelligent design itself does not name the designer, the personal view of many proponents is that the designer is the Christian god.^[24]^[15]^[25] Whether this was a genuine feature of the concept or just a posture taken to avoid alienating those who would separate religion from the teaching of science has been a matter of great debate between supporters and critics of intelligent design. The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court ruling held the latter to be the case.
Though unrelated to the current use of the term, the phrase "intelligent design" can be found in an 1847 issue of Scientific American and in an 1850 book by Patrick Edward Dove.^[26] The term is also used in an address to the 1873 annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science by Paleyite botanist George James Allman:

No physical hypothesis founded on any indisputable fact has yet explained the origin of the primordial protoplasm, and, above all, of its marvellous properties, which render evolution possible—in heredity and in adaptability, for these properties are the cause and not the effect of evolution. For the cause of this cause we have sought in vain among the physical forces which surround us, until we are at last compelled to rest upon an independent volition, a far-seeing intelligent design.^[27]

The term can be found again in Humanism, a 1903 book by one of the founders of classical pragmatism, F.C.S. Schiller: "It will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of evolution may be guided by an intelligent design." A derivative of the term appears in the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1967) in the article on the Telological argument for the existence of God : "Stated most succinctly, [the argument] runs: The world exhibits teleological order (design, adaptation). Therefore, it was produced by an intelligent designer." The term "intelligent design" was also used in the early 1980s by Sir Fred Hoyle as part of his promotion of panspermia.^[28]
The predominant modern use of the term began after the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), ruled that creationism is unconstitutional in public school science curricula. Stephen C. Meyer, cofounder of the Discovery Institute and vice president of the Center for Science and Culture, reports that the term came up in 1988 at a conference he attended in Tacoma, Washington, called Sources of Information Content in DNA.^[29] He attributes the phrase to Charles Thaxton, editor of Of Pandas and People. In drafts of the book Of Pandas and People, the word 'creationism' was subsequently changed, almost without exception, to intelligent design. The book was published in 1989 and is considered to be the first intelligent design book.^[30] The term was promoted more broadly by the retired legal scholar Phillip E. Johnson following his 1991 book Darwin on Trial, which advocated redefining science to allow claims of supernatural creation.^[31] Johnson, considered the "father" of the intelligent design movement, went on to work with Meyer, becoming the program advisor of the Center for Science and Culture in forming and executing the wedge strategy.

Not more than one sentence? All negative? Does not tell you anything about ID?--Filll 21:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that is sentence 3. And it is an introduction. We have to have introductions. And the introductions have to be balanced, and have to represent the material in brief. Sorry if that bothers you but those are the rules. --Filll 22:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Separating the scientific communities view of ID (what you call "debunking") from the theory itself contrary to policy. Doing so creates a hierarchy of fact - the views of the ID proponents are "true" and "undisputed", whereas the view of the scientific community is "controversial", held by "critics" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that is both inaccurate and inappropriate, getting WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience exactly backward. FeloniousMonk 22:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"However, if the POV isn't separated from the debate, I will have a much diminished opinion of Wikipedia" Well cry me river. Hey here is an idea, how about you first learn about Wiki editing polices and then do your incoherant whining/bitching? Mr Christopher 21:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get it, the Evo-Nazi's run the show

<Comment from banned user Raspor removed> [[[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 06:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)}

We are not Nazis. We are just trying to balance a lot of complicated competing demands as best we can.--Filll 22:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plainly User:71.166.165.104 has either (1) chosen not to actually read the subject, or (2) does not find the facts to his/her liking and chooses to play the victim angle. See, incidentally, this recent treatment of the subject of victim-bullies, which is the direction in which User:71.166.165.104 has already taken this discussion. Unfortunate. ... Kenosis 22:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ID is dangerous because it is an attempt to force others to adhere to a particular narrow set of religious beliefs; I would even say a dishonest attempt in that its proponets, who should as christians adhere to honesty, are not honest: rather then saying they want to force everyone to do what they wnat, they come up with a non sensical theory no more scientific then green cheese on the moon. signed cinnamon colbert —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.60.137.141 (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

If I had a dollar for every whiner who has never read a single Wikidepia editorial policy, considers themselves an expert on Wiki policies, and who accuses the editors here of being bullies, nazis, bias, pov, I'd retire. Hey anon IP dude, cry me a river will ya? Mr Christopher 22:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering how all the above, this strikes me more as a bit of street theater meant to portray regular contributors here as unyielding and hidebound, I think. FeloniousMonk 22:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't surprise me if the exchange didn't show up on a blog somewhere, with Mr Nemo Oudes portayed as a victim of rabid left-wing neo-Nazi pseudo-intellectual bikers-for-Atheism or some such. Oh, btw, Nemo, the Romans never pretended Apollo was science, so your analogy, to be polite, is like so much elephantine fecal matter trodden under foot. Jim62sch 01:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Will

... and sorry you seem to be getting a hard time here - everyone's actually ok, but if you click on the of the old discussion links at the top of this page, you'll see that various wacky folk have been through here, testing the patience of most - and it's hard to see the wood from the trees sometimes...

I think your point about the seperation of the theory and the debunking is a good one - the trouble comes when you try to do that without promoting a point of view - this is a highly strung topic, so the article is delicately balanced to reflect the bodies of opinion out there - try and submit some re-written proposals, which will definitely let people know where you're coming from, and avoid the nasty poLarity that crept in so far (against you mainly!) - cheers, Petesmiles 21:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so Will, but that is not the rules we live with here. I have had many articles in trouble of deletion for doing exactly what you suggest. This is VERY hard to do. No one person can dictate what they want because other editors will tear him or her to shreds.--Filll 22:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will I mean no disrespect, but do you have any idea how hard it is to write any of this and get it in Wikipedia? And keep it from being destroyed? And obey the rules? Obviously not. Try writing something and then lets see what you feel. Or go to look at Jesus as mythology if you want to see something balanced teh opposite way. Or Noah's Ark. The article on Jesus as mythology is written as though he was not mythology, in spite of there being at least 2 other articles with the same theme. Noah's Ark is written as a scientific fact in places. We cannot fix these. Look at Religious perspective on dinosaurs and tell me it is biased towards evolution. It is very very difficult.--Filll 22:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hear where you are coming from. I argue all the time to keep creationist articles from being deleted, because I want to know what the other side is thinking. So I understand. That is just not how they laid down the rules for Wikipedia. It takes a while to get used to it, believe me.--Filll 22:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you are coming from. But in my article level of support for evolution, I have to bend over backwards to show the other side, right from the start. I cannot write ONLY about support for evolution in level of support for evolution, I have to write about support for creationism in my article level of support for evolution, even though I do not want to. Get it?--Filll 22:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will if you want to see a nightmare, try black people. It is awful. I gave up editing there because the fighting was so awful and we could not agree. And the article stinks. Even the English is unreadable. Oh well.--Filll 22:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: having a brain. Sometimes editors go overboard, like in mutation and it becomes too technical. So in evolution when it became too awful, I proposed and managed to get introduction to evolution which you can see is much easier to read. I want something for everyone. Something for the people who are sort of clueless, and something for people who are pretty advanced like yourself.--Filll 22:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

71.166.165.104. Over the years, many people have come here to claim that intelligent design is science. In response to that, we have tried to clarify in the article why it is not, since obviously these people don't understand. Perhaps the article is a bit too forceful in that respect, but the number of people who still come here to state that intelligent design is a theory (yourself included) suggests that the main point is still not getting through to readers. -- Ec5618 22:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EASY. if you want an uncritical exposition of ID, the Discovery Institute's various websites are linked in the article – just go there. If you want a careful critical balance of various opinions complying with WP:NPOV, this is the right place – but that's not what you seem to want. These blanket accusations are not constructively helping to improve the article, and have the appearance if not the intent of trolling. Suggest these threads be archived. .. dave souza, talk 22:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ID wiki, researchintelligentdesign.org, would be a great place for 71.166.165.104 to add his views on the topic. FeloniousMonk 22:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey anon IP dude, the truth is out there... <cue X Files theme song> You might start with the Discovery Institute web site...In between crying me a river that is....Mr Christopher 22:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me too! Hey anon IP dude, go here (the DI web site) http://www.discovery.org/ to learn what ID is really about (this Wiki article is a front by secular devil worshippers designed to fool the masses). Mr Christopher 22:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And of course you agree with him, Thomas Morgan, you're using Raspor's IP address :-) Mr Christopher 22:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Figures. I'm so suprised. FeloniousMonk 23:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<reduce indent> You know, I wish I had the professionalism and patience that guys like Dave and kenosis deomonstrate, and I wish I had the enthusiasm and technical know how that Filll has, and I know "biting" the newbies is against the spirit (and policy) of Wiki. But when you have "newbies" coming in and acting like complete assholes as they hurl insults and demonstrate how completely ignorant they are of Wiki policy and have no use for those who rely on policy and they demand we re-write the article to suit their POV, I tend to get short and quite franbkly could care less about them or their opinions. I'm sick of the assholes on the talk page is what I'm trying to say. Thanks for letting me share :-) Mr Christopher 23:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree MC. It is hard enough to write stuff here, even stuff I am REALLY interested in. I try to write a bit for my friends here and there to help out. It is a bit much for a total stranger who is acting unpleasant and obnoxious and insulting, a newbie who might not even sign in, to come and expect us to write FOR THEM. As I said to adlac, write it yourself. I cannot write for you. Then we can discuss your work AFTER it is written. Do not expect me to guess what will make someone else happy. I am NOT going to write a religious tract. I just am not. I often get a bit carried away and I rip them a new one, as I am sure everyone has seen. I try not to do that, but I get annoyed at the bullying. So I hear where you are coming from.--Filll 23:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oudes, the ~~Romans~~ Greeks never pretended ~~Apollo~~ Zeus was science, so your analogy, to be polite, is like so much elephantine fecal matter trodden under foot. Pick a new argument. Jim62sch 22:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous theory

We link like crazy to the discovery institute websites and ID material. So you can see it in its most positive light if you want. However, we are not allowed to do that here on WP. The article would be deleted immediately. I cannot even write about level of support for evolution without putting in support for creationism. But you are starting to make me wonder if you are not a troll. Sorry.--Filll 22:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another example: We cannot put only positive material or only negative material on about Scientology or even the Flat Earth Society. We have to have both sides.--Filll 22:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not let the supernatural into science?

It might be asked, why is there such resistance by scientists to include the supernatural in science? After all, as put by Stephen Meyer, director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, "Science should be open to whatever cause ... can best explain the data". This might sound eminently reasonable and fair at first glance. However, as pointed out by the National Center for Science Education's Eugenie Scott, opening science to supernatural causes like a god would be a "science stopper."

Scott explains, "Once you allow yourself to say God did it, you stop looking for naturalistic explanations. If you stop looking, you won't find them" ^[32]^[33] Scott also stated in a CNN interview, "In science, you never really say, you know, this is a mystery that we can't explain and, you know, stop there. In science, you always keep looking for that natural explanation, which is why most of us consider intelligent design to be not a very good science, because it's basically giving up and saying: We can't explain this; therefore, God did it."^[34]

The introduction of the supernatural into science would make it very difficult to do drug testing. How could the scientists know how to evaluate the outcome of a drug study? It is possible that the people were not cured by the drug, but by a miracle instead.— Preceding unsigned comment added by filll (talk • contribs)

What the fuck has this to do with the article? Jim62sch 01:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing. This is from another article in the sandbox. I think we got fooled into a discussion with a raspor sockpuppet.--Filll 01:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's too well written. Couldn't possibly be the person whom I won't mention by name. Orangemarlin 19:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feed the trolls

Please do not feed the trolls dave souza, talk 22:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to be mistaken for common Wikipedia sockpuppet trolls, here's a tip: read the talk archives before posting, and say something that hasn't been shot down a thousand times before. Some originality will go a long way towards convincing others that you're not one of WP's more egregious serial malcontents under a new IP address. Cheers, Kasreyn 05:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My view of the situation

The IP crowd (and the creationist crowd before it) have taken a very narrow religious view, and then tried to claim they have a huge following, when they are just a handful of radical extremists. They want to define Christianity, and religion for everyone else. And interpret the bible for everyone else. And define science for everyone else. And their real agenda, is attacking evolution, in some sort of vague idea that is stopping people from believing or causing social ills. But the evidence is not there. And when this is pointed out to them, they are FURIOUS; livid, with all kinds of charges of unfairness. They are really not much different than Scientology.--Filll 00:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What irritates me most is they want to dictate to God how he did his work. And then if anyone disagrees, they throw a tantrum.--Filll 00:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't claim to be a crowd of any kind. I'm an individual who would like to read about Intelligent Design---Wikipedia is worthless in this endeavor because of the POV that permeates every sentence of the article. I've been told on this talk page that "Intelligent Design" is not a scientific theory. Can any one here point to a resource that explores the origins of the universe from both a scientific and intelligent design stand-point? Better yet, since that is not called "Intelligent Design Theory", can someone please tell me what that theory is called so I can research that theory?.

BTW, at fill's suggestion I checked out the Scientology page. It seems like Scientology is treated more fairly than Intelligent Design. Here's my favorite quote from the discussion page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scientology

POV = Bad

Just a heads-up for people wanting to edit this page to show their dislike for Scientology: we don't need to vandalize this page or insert our own POV into the article. The madnesses of Scientology will be made quite clear by an unbiased article.203.131.167.26 10:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I knew someone else that used to say the same thing. I fear that your point may fly over the heads of more extreme editors though. --Justanother 15:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

For the benefit of any neutral party who may read this: (a) the teleological argument, (b) such a theory can't be scientific, by definition. My last comment on this particular issue. Can we get back to finalizing the wording for the "Religious Critisisms" section? Ta. Tevildo 02:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I also don't want to disprove Evolution. I have no agenda. I don't want to talk religion. I'd like to read about the scientific possibility that the universe was created by an intelligent design. Don't lump me in with the religious dudes. Religion is fine if that's your cup of tea. But that ain't me.

--Filll 00:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I'm feeding a troll, especially since it's a non-registered user, but there is not one single scientific theory that explores Intelligent Design, since by it's very nature, it is not science. It is assuming a supernatural being having the power to create the universe. I'm not buying into it. Now it's time to drive home, and read some atheist literature of some sort. Orangemarlin 02:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually respond to unregistered users, because it takes all of 2 minutes to register. However, no good comment should go unnoticed. First, Not sure where the ad hominem attacks are. It always amuses me that people resort to accusations without proof. Whatever. My opinion is only unsubstantiated if you don't include the hundreds of thousands if not millions of scientists who subscribe to the point that if you rely upon a supernatural being, who cannot be proved or disproved, you now move from science to something else. Evangelism. Whatever. Not so much here, just a believer in fact based observations. Orangemarlin 16:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of intelligent design relies on a supernatural entity to explain a physical phenomenon. This is the realm of philosophy and religion, and by definition not science. Do you honestly think that this is unsubstantiated? Do honestly even think that it is opinion? Trishm 03:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Harris poll is flawed

I've removed the brief paragraph with the reference to the 2005 Harris Poll. Here it is:

According to a 2005 Harris poll, ten percent of adults in the United States subscribe to intelligent design.^[35] Although some polls commissioned by the Discovery Institute show more support, these polls suffer from considerable flaws.^[36]

The footnote to the Harris Poll is "Nearly Two-thirds of U.S. Adults Believe Human Beings Were Created by God The Harris Poll #52, July 6 2005."

The footnote for the DI "polls" is: Polling for ID

... Kenosis 03:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want us to answer? I dont get it.--Filll 04:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filll, I should change the Talk-section title, which I'll do now. ... Kenosis 04:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but what specifically is the issue with it? I've read up on almost every poll that touches on ID and the Harris poll is one of the better. I'm re-adding to the article unless you've got something specific and concrete. FeloniousMonk 04:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the relevant Harris Poll format and summary:

**TABLE 5. WHERE HUMANS COME FROM**
-	% - June, 2005
Human beings evolved from earlier species.	22%
Human beings were created directly by God.	64%
Human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them.	10%
Not sure/Decline to answer	4%

Primary problems with this poll include, but are not limited to:

(1) It presents mutually exclusive options to the respondent for possible answers that are not mutually exclusive of each other.
(2) It fails to provide options such as "more than one of the above" and "none of the above"
(3) The manner of phrasing the alternatives for the respondent are not exhaustive, that is, they do not include all the reasonably possible answers to the question presented.

To which I would also immediately add that the term "intelligent design" was added by the Harris Group in its summary without consulting the respondents. And that's just for starters.

... Kenosis 04:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes well in that sense I agree with Kenosis. Some of those poll questions are obviously created by morons. But to be fair, I have yet to see any reasonable polls in this area. They all are confused, because the people writing the poll questions do not understand the issues. Mind you, neither do the respondants. Some polls indicate that only a few people can pick the right definition of evolution out of a list. I personally could happily choose any of these options listed above. For example:

Humans evolved from earlier species Yes, absolutely, the evidence is overwhelming.
Humans created directly by God Quite possibly,and I choose to believe this (based on no proof however), and the manner he did it was through evolutionary processes (by the way this is what most Americans would choose; both from earlier species and by God)
Humans are so complex they required an intelligent being or powerful force to help create them Again I agree with this. In my opinion, the "powerful force" creating humans is revealed in the scientific laws in the universe and principles like natural selection. So I agree with this too, in a way.
unsure Of course, I am unsure in several ways. I am unsure that there is a God, even though I have chosen to believe for my own personal reasons. I am unsure that this poll makes any sense, so I am unsure of my choices. And I am unsure about the process that resulted in man since I am confused about a lot of things; the nature of consciousness, the nature of thought, man's disctinctiveness, the nature of the universe and role of its laws, etc.

So now that I understand what you meant Kenosis, I agree completely.--Filll 14:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's flawed. But how flawed is it? In the US, Christians who are familiar with ID and think is not science will probably end up as part of the 64% or 22%. People who are familiar with ID and believe it is science will tend to select the DI-type response and become part of the 10%. Christians who are not familiar with ID will generally end up in the 64% group even if they would have selected the ID group if they had been fully aware of what it means. People who do not believe in a creator will probably select the evolution group. Only 4% had problems answering the questions so it's not all that flawed. If anything, it underestimates rather dan overestimates the number of people who believe that "human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them".

One reason to include information on the number of ID adherents in the article is from WP:NPOV: We need to say who believes what - if we can source it. I think the Harris poll shows the figure is at least 10%. IOW it could be higher. We may want to tell our readers the direction of the error. And quite obviously the text "human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them" should be cited instead of "ID".

(Including information on the number of ID adherents may also dampen the stream of often intelligent but grossly misinformed newbies arriving at this talk page. Apparently we are not making this point clear enough in the article. Or its intro - some newbies never read beyond it.)

AvB ÷ talk 15:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support including the Harris poll results, but including the caveats as we have discussed them. It is better than nothing, but the caveats tell everyone to be cautious about interpreting the results. Which is also valuable information. I have included the poll results with caveats in my article at level of support for evolution.--Filll 15:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which I'm about to read. I've already changed the ID article to the exact wording of the poll instead of "ID". Let's see if it sticks. AvB ÷ talk 15:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really hate polls for so many reasons, not the least of which was that I received a election day poll from the Democratic Party that John Kerry was going to win the election. I was partying. He lost. I was crying. Never mind. Here's what troubles me about polls:

It's US based. Who cares?
Wording matters.
Science isn't decided by polls.
Statistics can lie.
If you throw up that Harris Poll, then we'll have to put up the poll that shows Americans believe in little green men, astrology, ghosts, and a whole bunch of other hooey (scientific term for unprovable stuff). All this will prove is that Americans lack, well, something, and it's not good.

I suggest we refer to the poll obliquely through a fork of some sort. Orangemarlin 16:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well...

the whole ID fake controversy brouhaha is pretty much a US affair. Only in the US do we have the right level of luxury and sure instinct for melodramatics to waste our public servants' time on such a nonessential issue.
Agreed. This poll is severely flawed. It shouldn't be included without caveats; however, I worry that those caveats might get removed as original research.
Also true; but note that the overwhelming numerical majority of evolution-supporters among scientists is itself a kind of "poll", and is a frequent mainstay of pro-evolution arguments (ie., "we have the scientists on our side").
No, they don't - but they can be misrepresented and distorted. Polls which overly simplify the issue, introduce false dichotomies, or otherwise prevent the true opinions of the respondents from being recorded (why no write-in option?), are a prime example of how to manipulate statistics.
The term you're looking for, which Americans lack, is critical thinking. You can thank our laughable public education system, which for some inexplicable reason thinks its only goal is to crank out engineers and programmers.

I would say that a better course of action is to simply not use the poll. What use is it? We know damned well that the poll is flawed, as it makes no option available to believers in theistic evolution, which I would personally guess to be at least 30% of the adult population (whether they know the words "theistic evolution" or not). Any poll which is so seriously flawed that it doesn't allow a whacking great chunk of respondents to choose a representative option, has no place in an encyclopedia. Kasreyn 22:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polls definitely are problematic. However, some people put a lot of stock in them. We might not be able to discuss all the caveats clearly in this article like I did in level of support for evolution]. So maybe it should be a short statement with a referral to a longer article for the caveats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filll (talk • contribs)

Orange, considering that ID is mainly a US-based matter citing a US poll is not unreasonable. Second, given the highly political nature of the subject the statement that science isn't decided by polls while true is not a reason to make the poll not relevant. JoshuaZ 19:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. Still don't like it, but it seems like most of you don't mind using them. Orangemarlin 04:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One point that seems to be getting lost is that Harris highlight the figure of 10% as support for ID in their introduction: I share the caveats about the unreliability of polls, but Harris is one of the more reputable organisations and it might be expected that they would frame the questions with care using their expertise. So it's possible that the questions aren't as daft as we think they are. .. dave souza, talk 21:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Harris is a very reputable firm. But the poll means nothing to me. I'm just worried that someone comes here and thinks that science is decided by polls. Orangemarlin 04:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose one could use the poll to indicate that America lags far behind other countries in science because its populace is made up predominately of pitiful beings subscribing to blinkered Philistine pig-ignorance. Jim62sch 22:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but short of using some of your creative language, I've written that point. Science education in the US is bad, partially because school districts waste millions of dollars defending themselves in lawsuits either from creationists or from civil libertarians, because students are getting filled with pseudoscience malarky, or because science teachers just give up. Orangemarlin 04:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there was sarcasm there, but also sadness -- our being so far behind is utterly embarassing. Jim62sch 22:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random comment

This page should be a fair critique of the nitpicking, evidence-less mumbo-jumbo and should not be a Biblical recruiting page. The "protection" is nothing more than a heavy-handed attempt to spew religion on wikipedia? What, 24 or so pages aren't enough? too bad! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.204.151.5 (talk)

Thank you for your input. We'll ponder it. Justin Eiler 19:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I"m one of infrequent editors of this article, and since I don't subscribe to ID, I hardly consider this article to be a Biblical recruiting page. It is about as balanced as possible, and it clearly states that ID is pseudoscience. Did I just feed another troll? I can't help myself!!!! Orangemarlin 19:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This IP address, 63.204.151.5, is registered to Bellarmine College Preparatory, California, USA and is shared by multiple users. From talk page:

This IP has been repeatedly blocked from editing Wikipedia in response to vandalism. Further acts of vandalism from this IP may result in another immediate block without warning.

--Filll 19:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

first line of second paragraph

I think that

The scientific community views intelligent design as unscientific,[13] as pseudoscience[14][15][16] or as junk science.[17][18]

would be better as

The scientific community views intelligent design as unscientific,[13], and therefore a pseudoscience[14][15][16].

Having the three terms, unscientific, pseudoscience and junk science had the feeling of stamping a foot in frustration (no, no and again no!). I am also uncomfortable with the nuances of junk science, since the term has been used to refer to perfectly legitimate science that is politically undesirable. (e.g. greenhouse effect). Any thoughts?Trishm 00:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would support that - perhaps "unscientific or a pseudoscience"? The two terms are similar, but not identical, and I don't think that we can equate them as strongly as the "therefore" might imply. Getting rid of "junk science" seems like a good idea, though. The citations we have for "junk science" are from journalists rather than scientists, and I agree with your reservations about the term; ID isn't misapplied, biased, or distorted science - it's not science in the first place. Tevildo 03:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought pseudoscience covers it, in that it describes something that claims to be science but isn't. Unscientific to me is something that is done without scientific method, like I guess how much flour to add to a recipe, while junk science is science that is done badly. Just my opinion. --Michael Johnson 03:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of these terms are identical, and all of them are sourced. The sentance doesn't say it is X, Y and Z, it says that it is considered X, Y and Z. Guettarda 04:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed change creates a non sequitur. Not all unscientific notions are pseudoscience. Each of the sources presents its own objections, and there's not a lot of overlap between them; in fact, the only commonality is that they all reject ID as valid science, just for different reasons. FeloniousMonk 05:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The feeling of stamping a foot in frustration (no, no and again no!)" - I suggest we drop "unscientific" since the word appears only twice in a long list of sources, one of which is a wikipedia article. Dropping the most lenient qualifier is warranted since it is drowned out in the sources by "pseudoscience". The cite can be moved to "pseudoscience". This change seems uncontroversial and supported by most editors responding in this section. We could also consider dropping "junk science" since it appears in the sources only twice (three times if you count Pennock's book but I'm sure the book isn't primarily calling ID unscientific). Both are newspaper soundbites trying to capture the scientific consensus, not scientists giving their scientific opinion. I didn't really count "pseudoscience" but if you want to prove me wrong, fill your boots and do so. Something tells me you would be wasting your time though; the scientific consensus term here is "pseudoscience". AvB ÷ talk 08:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might have initially agreed that ID arguably is not junk science, though only on first glance, because the characterization "junk science" usually presumes that its purveyors are already reasonably familiar with scientific method, and are abusing it for personal gain of some kind (beyond merely wishing to get credit for their contributions to the progress of knowledge). Somewhat more specifically, the application of the term "junk science" generally presumes that the proponents of the particular "scientific" assertion have an understanding of scientific method (or at least an understanding of what kind of published material might publicly pass for "scientific") and have abused the method in some manner for some kind of selfish gain that is not consistent with an honest competition to contribute to the evolution of scientific progress, in a way that is available to be tested under well-defined conditions by all who are familiar with the particular arena of scientific inquiry.

In this case it may be irrelevant whether the leading ID advocates are familiar with scientific methodology because they presume to completely redefine science to allow the metaphysical to be included in their research methodology. The proponents of intelligent design have approached the subject very differently than would normally be characteristic of scientific inquiry, attempting to redefine science and arguing that science is wrong in setting its limits by working within what is empirically verifiable, testable by independent researchers under the same conditions, progressive in the accumulation of further understanding of the dynamics of the natural world, etc.

I argue that the inclusion of this characterization of ID in the article as "junk science", in addition to "pseudoscience" and "unscientific", is legitimate. The cited sources in the WP article say that ID has, in addition to being considered unscientific and pseudoscientific, also been considered "junk science" by notable participants in the widely published debate about "intelligent design". Given that it is impossible to conclusively establish the degree to which the proponents of "intelligent design" have a thorough awareness of scientific method, and given that it is impossible to reasonably conclude that there has been legitimate participation in the process of the scientific communtiy by the proponents of intelligent design, the three alternative assessments by competent scientists are, it seems to me, certainly appropriate for inclusion in the WP article on intelligent design. ... Kenosis 09:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to the proposed elimination of "unscientific", this, among the three characterizations put forward in the article with citations, is the most germane of the three, because it reflects official positions of scientific organizations who've put their foot down and stated unequivocably that ID is not in any way reflective of the business of science. Still, several scientific organizations and a number of prominent scientists have gone the extra step and verifiably called it "pseudoscience", and some have verifiably called it "junk science". ... Kenosis 09:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As argued by Tevildo and me, according to the many cites, "junk science" has been used by two journalists - I would not call them "notable participants in the widely published debate". I also argued that "unscientific" has only two sources. One of them was a letter by/from 38 Nobel Prize winners, cited indirectly via an entire Wikipedia article otherwise dominated by "scientific organizations". That leaves only one that may arguably be an official position of a scientific organization: Australian leaders representing scientific organizations who indirectly call ID unscientific ("similarly unscientific world views - be they astrology, spoon-bending, flat-earth cosmology or alien abductions"). I ignored the remaining instances since they are about "creation science" or "creationism", not ID, and can't be applied to ID by WP editors. And "several" have gone the extra step? Do you know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall?

Ceterum censeo SPLAT! is better than NO! *STOMP* I SAID NO! AvB ÷ talk 12:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AvB: "ceterum censeo esse delendam?" ;-) . ... Kenosis 18:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One has to pretend one does not belong to hoi polloi from time to time. Carthago iam deleta est and my VandalProof is broken so I'm looking for other stuff to delete. I've recently switched priorities and am now three parts deletionist and one part inclusionist. And rapidly warming to the use of WP:IAR. WP:Consensus allowing, of course. AvB ÷ talk 11:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I would think that the opinion of 38 nobel prize winners might would be fairly relevant. Also, I'm puzzled by the claim that journalists statements aren't as relevant which doesn't seem to have any basis in Wikipedia policy that I can find. However, the junk science claim is rare enough that it might make sense not to have simply because it isn't as common as the other two. JoshuaZ 14:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read more closely. I only addressed Kenosis' reasoning there, which looks quite elegant to me but (unfortunately) isn't borne out by the cites. In addition, we can't cite newspaper headline type material that's not a direct quote as if it were. Also, we don't really have to quote journalists here; we have many direct quotes from the scientists themselves to choose from. AvB ÷ talk 15:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing that we could do is actually explain each term, and why it is applied.Trishm 10:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To lessen the sting, I would suggest putting the three supposedly pejorative terms in quotes ("junk" science, or "junk science", "pseudoscience" and "unscientific") and then maybe a footnote added to each one explaining what they are.--Filll 14:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what would this accomplish? JoshuaZ 14:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson's "Darwin on Trial" is unscientific - Johnson is a lawyer, and works it like a lawyer. In other words, he seeks to support ID by discrediting Darwin. The process is unscientific. Behe's "Darwin's Black Box", on the other hand, feels like junk science - Behe sells his work "as a scientist", delves into the literature...and comes to a conclusion that supports his agenda, rather than reflects the literature fairly. Well's centriole stuff is pseudoscience, plain and simple. So I'd say that all three claims are accurate. I couldn't pick just one term that accurately characterises the whole endeavour. Guettarda 14:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to echo what I think FM was suggesting. The initial proposed sentence is

"The scientific community views intelligent design as unscientific,[13], and therefore a pseudoscience[14][15][16]."

Just because something is not scientific does not make it pseudoscience. So I think we should avoid the "therefore" conclusion and instead just say science regards ID as pseudoscience. As it stands now the reader is to assume all things not scientific are "therefore" pseudoscience which is incorrect. I hope this makes sense. Mr Christopher 15:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to that I proposed to drop "unscientific" since it's the most lenient qualifier from a scientific community that really doesn't mince words when it comes to ID. On reflection I think I have stronger arguments for dropping "junk science". I'd like to drop both. I'd be OK with (in order of preference):

The scientific community views intelligent design as pseudoscience.
The scientific community views intelligent design as pseudoscience and junk science.
The scientific community views intelligent design as unscientific and pseudoscience.

AvB ÷ talk 16:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My preference is for 3, with 1 as my second choice. Filll's suggestion shows how inappropriate junk science is, as he (very reasonably) proposed "junk" science as an option - the statement The scientific community views Intelligent Design as ... "junk" science. carries the very strong implication that the community views it as science, albeit science that can be critisised. To me, junk science is the term appropriate for things like The Bell Curve or Árpád Pusztai - situations where scientific metholodogy is followed, or, at least, played lip-service to, by people who seek to advance a particular agenda rather than the progress of human knowledge. We need to make it clear that ID is not scientific in any way - it explicitly disclames scientific methodology. I support the retention of unscientific, if only because it's a less judgemental term than pseudoscience, but I don't think it's an essential word to use. (NB - bolding used to enforce use/mention distinction as quotation marks are siginifcant.) Tevildo 16:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These kinds of debates have happened several times before, though generally not all at once. The purpose of the use of the three (unscientific, pseudoscience and junk science) is to cover all the bases of characterizations that have been verifiably used by the scientific community. Drop "unscientific" and along comes some folks who say "pseudoscience" and "junk science" are not official positions that scientific organizations use. (Indeed for a long time it read "An overwhelming majority[4] of the scientific community views intelligent design as pseudoscience[5] or junk science.[6]", then "unscientific" was added in_September,_2006 for just this reason.) Try to drop "pseudoscience" and we get arguments that "unscientific" fails to adequately capture the nature of ID and represent those contingents of the scientific community that have called it as such. (Moreover, "pseudoscience" is not synonymous with "unscientific".) Try to drop "junk science" and it fails to capture the assertion by some members of the scientific community that ID is driven by the kind of hidden motives generally assumed to be characteristic of "junk science". That's why all three characterizations are used in the article at present. ... Kenosis 17:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've got three distinct very well-sourced viewpoints critical of ID: Those that view it as unscientific, those that view it as pseudoscience, and those that view it as junk science. Each is distinct with it's own reasoning behind the view, and each is sourced, meaning the passage in the article is accurate and correct and should not be changed to lump all three together. FeloniousMonk 17:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1st Line 2nd paragraph arbitrary break

I think that junk science, pseudoscience and unscientific are all accurate. I also think "not science" and "not even wrong" and a few other epithets are appropriate as well. The question I have is, how can we put some of those in there, and not ruffle too many feathers and stay somewhat NPOV. People did say that. And more. And we can source it. Ok so that is accurate. But can we soften the blow somewhat? With quotes etc?--Filll 17:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about a slight rewording? How about

Members of the scientific community have described intelligent design as unscientific,[13] as pseudoscience[14][15][16] or as junk science.[17][18--Filll 18:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had previously thought about someting like "The scientific community has variously described ID as ...", in order to account for the "ant-colony behavior" that's involved with a term like "scientific community", but I decided not to pursue it. ... Kenosis 19:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filll, I do really like the characterization "not even wrong" and recall seeing sourcing for this view. But most readers will say "huh?" ... Kenosis 18:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. I was making a joke.--Filll 18:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. --Albert Einstein --Filll 18:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ROFL. ... Kenosis 18:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Members of the scientific community have described intelligent design as" - this would, even more than the current language, need other cites for junk science. The current cites don't contain an answer to the question: Which members of the scientific community have described intelligent design as junk science? AvB ÷ talk 20:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I have not looked at the current cites. Maybe we need a blizzard of sources? Should not be too difficult.--Filll 20:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need a source for the specific phrase "junk science" (if we're keeping it in) from someone other than a journalist. A scientist would be ideal, but someone like Forrest or Haught would be equally acceptable - someone who understands the nuances, at least. Tevildo 20:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Given that "junk science" is mainly a locker-room term that serious scientists don't often use in their writing, that may be difficult. The New Yorker article (the magazine, while not infallible, is legendary for its background research) refers to biologists having characterized ID as junk science. Robert J. Pennock, also refers to it as "junk science" in Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism. Perhaps Pennock should be split off from the combined footnote and put into a separate footnote. ... Kenosis 21:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you're kidding right? H. Allen Orr is hardly a journalist: [16] Orr is one of the most respected academics in his field. I mean really, if you guys don't know this stuff already editing here is not the proper way to learn. FeloniousMonk 01:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I hadn't known that Orr is a biologist, FM; thanks for pointing it out. Yes indeed, I now see he's the author of "Complex epistasis and the genetic basis of hybrid sterility in the Drosophila pseudoobscura Bogota-USA hybridization" in Genetics 158:1089-1100. Sounds like interesting reading ;-) . Kenosis 02:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FM, what took you so long? You're usually much quicker to educate the uninformed. AvB ÷ talk 11:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus seems to be to keep the three terms, but soften the stance. There are implications that follow from how it is softened. For example, the first paragraph takes the form:

ID is this idea, and is claimed to be a science.

I think the second paragraph needs to present a fact (with due explanation):

ID is not a science. ...

rather than as a POV:

Some people (i.e. scientific bodies) say that ID is not science.

"ID is not science" is no more POV than the statement "Astrology is not a science", or "The earth is flat". We start running into the territory of unintentionally endorsing a fringe theory if we treat "ID is not science" as a POV.Trishm 21:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what consensus is that? I've seen nothing compelling so far that the current phrasing is in anyway inadequate or inaccurate, and a lot of informed confusion over the notability of the sources. FeloniousMonk 03:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That, unfortunately, is what the POV guidelines require us to do. However, I wouldn't object to splitting the "unscientific" part of the sentence off:

The scientific community views intelligent design as unscientific. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. Some within the scientific community(*) have described intelligent design as pseudoscience or junk science.<end draft>

(*) I'd like to say "Some scientists", but we can't do that if we're using Pennock as a source for the "junk science" quote. "Some scientists and philosophers" is muddying the waters a bit too much, I think. Tevildo 00:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trishm, Filll and Tevildo, if you look back through the history far enough, you'll see that for a long time that sentence said "The overwhelming majority of the scientific community regards intelligent design as...", or words to that essential effect. Then it was changed to simply "The scientific community views intelligent design as...". ... Kenosis 01:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, we're certainly not dropping Orr as a source on the junk science passage. Please take the time to actually check the credentials of the sources you so blithely dismiss next time. FeloniousMonk 03:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked Orr out in Wikipedia. My bad. At any rate, this was my argument against the proposed edit, not a support vote for it or a proposal to drop anything. And it still stands; one scientist is not enough. AvB ÷ talk 10:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While checking out an anon edit to Project Steve which has added a link to an unusual looking but apparently official teddy, I noticed the petition helpfully says creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design,". Certainly a well supported citation, with 784 scientists as well as the NCSE.. ;) ...dave souza, talk 23:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look carefully, I think that teddy is a fake. Plus it is sort of sleezy looking. I have removed that link a couple of times already. Next time I talk to NCSE I might ask them about it. I think it is phoney.--Filll 23:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to the issue originally presented, the words "The scientific community views intelligent design as unscientific,^{[multiple refs combined as one note]} as psuedoscience^{[multiple footnotes]} or as junk science^{[three sources combined into two footnotes]}" constitute a most reasonable and parsimonious way that the WP editors have thus far found to synopsize the response of the scientific community to the assertion that intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory competitive with evolution. Note the use of the word "or" in the sentence of the article, in order to account for all three possiblilities in a concise way. It would be more accurate if it said "and/or", except that the next virtually inevitable complaint would be that the Wikipedia Linguistic Police (WPLP) has asserted an intolerance for the use of "and/or". ... Kenosis 06:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The responses to the criticism on "junk science" all failed to produce new cites so far, indicating that there are no acceptable sources that say "the scientific community views ID as junk science" or "members of the scientific community view ID as junk science". One scientist is not sufficient to make this inference ourselves. Unless I see sufficient evidence to the contrary, I remain convinced that the overwhelming majority of scientists think of ID as pseudoscience but would not call it "junk science".

A longstanding consensus does not mean there are no policy violations in an article.

Once again: this line makes Wikipedia sound like a parent whose kid isn't listening. That's why I would reduce it to one or two qualifiers. I would prefer to drop "unscientific" but I think there are better arguments for removing "junk science". AvB ÷ talk 10:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that Pennock fits into the "scientific community"; he as appointements in (1) the Lyman Briggs School of Science, (2) the Dept. of Philosophy, (3), the Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering and (4) the Ecology, Evolutionary Biology and Behavior programme[17], is coauthor on a Nature paper[18], and a review article (about ID) in Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics (scroll up one from the last link). On the same page, there's Kin-Selection: The Rise and Fall of Kin-Cheaters which reports on experiments that test hypotheses about the evolution of altruism. Given all this I'd say it's safe to consider Pennock part of the scientific community, despite the fact that his primary training is in philosophy. Guettarda 13:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Always ready to confuse the issue by suggesting another alternative, how about "In the considered view of the scientific community, ID is not science, but rather is pseudoscience which some describe as junk science." That seems to me to indicate the proportions holding each opinion. .. dave souza, talk 14:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sort of agree with FM, I am not sure we need to soften the blow, but if we do, we might think of: "The scientific community has charged ID with being unscientific^Ref or junk science^Ref or pseudoscience^Ref" OR "The scientific community has stated that ID is unscientific^Ref or junk science^Ref or pseudoscience^Ref" OR "The scientific community has opined that ID is unscientific^Ref or junk science^Ref or pseudoscience^Ref" OR something similar. --Filll 14:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional cite for junk science appears to be Dan Agin's book Junk Science. I don't have a copy of it (though I suppose I need to track one down), but Michael Pillinger's (NYU School of Medicine) review of the book [19] refers to intelligent design; Pillinger appears to be calling ID "junk science" on his own as well. Agin's book also has "intelligent design theory" as a keyword at Amazon. Agin is described as "PhD, Emeritus Assoc. Professor of Molecular Genetics and Cell Biology, University of Chicago"[20]. This all needs to be verified, but Agin's (apparent) use of the term, and Pillinger's ready acceptance of it, support the assertion the article makes. Guettarda 14:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure we could get 10 or 100 cites for the use of each of those words to describe ID. The problem is, ID supporters come to this article, and they are stunned and hurt to see this description in the 3rd sentence. They do not want to be told it isnt science, and it hurts even more to be told that in the 3rd sentence. They go to evolution, and there is no whisper of controversy until the very end. In their own closed-in little worlds, in their churches etc, they look around and no one seems to disagree with ID. Their pastor says ID is science. Their member of congress says ID should be taught in schools. Their president says ID should be taught in schools. Their neighbors all agree with it. They do not know any scientists but they might have seen one on TV or in the movies. They do not know what scientists do, but they have a vague idea that scientists are (1) powerful and (2) atheists, except for the scientists they read about on their creationist web site or in a creationist book they bought at the church book store. So it is a shock to see something like this up front. It seems very NPOV, because everyone they know believes otherwise. It just seems like those disgusting judges are "legislating from the bench" and misinterpreting the laws and constitution, and what seems to them like a small minority of discontented obnoxious atheists are attacking religion and God and the bible and Christianity and mocking them. They do not know anyone who is not a Christian. They barely even know any Catholics. They do not know any Jews. They only see Muslims on TV. They really have no idea what a Hindu or a Buddhist or a Shintoist or a Jainist etc is. So from their perspective, it is a bit of a shock to be hit and hit so hard in the first 3 sentences of this article.--Filll 14:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While this is probably true, we aren't supposed to write from a sympathetic point of view, we are supposed to write from a neutral point of view. There is very little controversy among scientists and philosophers of science that ID is rubbish. None of these terms describe the full scope of ID, and while there is overlap in their meaning/usage, they aren't synonyms. We are here to write an encyclopaedia, not satisfy popular misconceptions. Lots of people think that "ecology" means environmentalism, but we can either ignore it, or quickly dismiss it (the ecology article has done both at different times in its history)...what we shouldn't do is give equal validity to the misconception. Likewise here. That ID is science is either a misconception or deliberate misinformation. We should be honest in our description of it. Guettarda 14:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add that comparing the evolution article to intelligent design doesn't make much sense and is unproductive. One is science, the other is a creationist 3 card monty scam. We don't need to lose much sleep over people getting their feelings hurt because we rightly quote the scientific community who aggree that science considers ID to be wacky. And ID is PURE 100% unadulterated controversy. Evolution is only "controversial" amongst creationist and their dupes and supporters. To compare the two concepts or the two Wiki articles is not comparing apples to apples. Mr Christopher 15:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thus far I don't see any one proposal that causes most of us to say "aha, that's it". Without getting into great detail at the moment, it seems to me the complaints are mostly valid in that a close parsing of precisely what's meant by the language tends to cause one to ask further questions about it. But the complaints are all over the map, so to speak. One says the refs to "junk science" are insufficient; others disagree. Another complaint says it should be "unscientific, and therefore pseudoscience", when in fact pseudoscience is a subset of unscientific. Another proposes to drop unscientific; though in fact, that's the official characterization of most of the official statements of the professional organizations, most of which opt not to use terms such as "pseudoscience" and "junk science" in their official statements. And so on and so forth, from about a dozen different angles of criticism.

Here's another possibility: "The scientific community has unequivocally stated that intelligent design is quite unscientific;^citations> many scientists and at least one major organization of science teachers have also termed it pseudoscience,^citations> and some have termed it junk science^citations>." ... Kenosis 16:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice start, may I suggest "unequivocally stated that intelligent design is not science" as more accurate and unequivocal. .. dave souza, talk 17:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'll try it and see if it sticks, per WP:Be bold--if it's that far off-base it'll probably just get reverted. Hopefully it doesn't open up a can of worms. ... Kenosis 18:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I like it :)Trishm 23:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good here. I prefer "not science" to "quite unscientific", as "quite" is one of the many English words that changes meaning radically as it crosses the Atlantic. In any case, "unequivocally" expresses the point well enough without needing reinforcement. Tevildo 23:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debates

Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon - it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flys [sic] back to its flock to claim victory. --Anonymous reviewer of Eugenie Scott's Evolution vs. Creationism : An Introduction.--Filll 18:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny. But not all of the Creationists are like that. Homestarmy seems to be a good guy in this process. Orangemarlin 04:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some are more reasonable than others. But then the more reasonable creationists do not really debate.--Filll 04:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Reasonable creationists feel no need to debate; they're happy with their beliefs and feel no need to force them down others' throats. More power to them! Kasreyn 22:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have my beliefs. They are not identical to those of others, like Catholics or atheists or Mormons or Muslims or Hindus. But I feel no desire to get in their faces and tell them they are wrong, damned, ignorant, cursed, stupid, headed to hell, etc. I am perfectly fine letting them continue down their path, UNTIL they decide to force their beliefs on others. Then we have a problem.--Filll 22:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as much as I like Dawkins and believe that a good fraction of what he says about the creationism and the nonexistence of God is true, he makes me uncomfortable with his desire to "rally the atheists" and essentially recruit for a cause. Or maybe just to sell books. I think it is sort of unseemly and questionable.--Filll 22:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teleological in the first sentence

As true as this is, isnt it a bit much to throw at the casual reader? Cant we hide the world teleoligical away in a link as we did before and/or a <ref> ? --Filll 18:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did think it was being just a tad overly specific in using that clause in the first sentence. I would not at all disagree if it read: "Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God,^[1] stated in allegedly secular terms, based on the premise 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][3][4] But I don't mind either way. ... Kenosis 21:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the first line of that article, "A teleological argument (or a design argument) is an argument for the existence of God or a creator", wouldn't it be better to use "argument for the existence of a creator" – that complies with their definition that it needn't be God, and similarly it's pretty obvious who the "creator" is. ... dave souza, talk 21:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more to the point to say "argument for the existence of God". That's what it is; after that, they'all can debate elsewhere about the "nature" (or, pardon me, "supernature") of God all they wish. ... Kenosis 22:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok since some people previously didnt like the word "argument" and wanted the word "concept" or something else, why do we not figure out what phrase we want that includes the word teleology or teological etc, and then make a new article, and use that to link in. That is surely easier than this wrangling. So suppose we want to use ID is a principle and want to link principle to teleological principle so people are not surprised when they click on principle. Then we craft an article at teleological principle that is cross linked to teleology and teleological argument, taking care to make sure it is not a fork. And then, we are ok. Teleology is there, but hidden for the average reader who we do not want to scare away with big words. Comments?--Filll 23:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about teleological proposition? And link that to the word proposition in the first sentence?--Filll 23:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a suggestion that doesn't describe ID as an argument but does refer to the teleological argument, how about:

Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." This, although stated in [allegedly?] secular terms, is [a version of?] the teleological argument [for the existence of God?]. However, its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.<end draft>

I'm not sure about the "allegedly", especially where it is now (or in my proposed draft). The term (intelligent cause) is undeniably secular - the allegation is that the argument is secular. If we insist on "allegedly" somewhere in the first paragraph, how about "Although this is [an] allegedly secular [concept], it {is considered to be/has been ruled by the courts to be/is} a version of the teleological argument"? Tevildo 00:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's an argument for the existence of God, then the use of the qualifier "allegedly secular" is appropriate. The words "allegedly secular" get the reader right down to the heart of the matter in the very first sentence. The second sentence specifies what class of secular argument it is alleged to be. The third and fourth sentences (the second paragraph) show the response of the scientific community. In the third paragraph, the federal court's response to this quandary is readily visible, which is (A) don't teach it in science classrooms, and (B) it's "essentially religious in nature". ... Kenosis 00:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with that, I just don't feel that "allegedly secular terms" is the right way of expressing it. How about:

Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." This, although allegedly secular, is a version of the ancient religious "argument from design" for the existence of God. However, its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.<end draft> Tevildo 00:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to hide the teleology completely in the lead, either in a footnote and/or a hidden link.--Filll 00:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. How about "the ancient^{ref to Aquinas, Plato, etc} argument from design for the existence of God"?

Definitely better.--Filll 00:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why I am now convinced that this article is a joke

I started using Wikipedia a few months ago. I really liked it because it reminded me of when the internet was new. (I was here back when I used my 14.4k modem check the BBS.) So as I Wiki-newbie, I was reading an article that had a typo, I'd pitch in and correct a typo. I also did quite a bit of research and editting of Oriental to reflect all the facts in a so-called controversial topic.

Then I wandered into Intelligent Design. I wanted to learn more about this theory that I heard mentioned on TV. What I found in the article was not so much a discussion about Intelligent Design, but an effort to both acknowledge the existance of the phrasology while at the same time prove, point by point with lots of references, why the theory was flawed. I don't know if ID is good science, bad science or no science, but I'm quite sure that this article is a hit-job on the concept. I did not edit the page, but I did make a comment on the discussion page. This comment provoked responses to which I responded. I was called a troll. My opinions and statements were mocked by the most active "editors" on this page. Although I did receive some positive responses, I also felt as if I was beseiged by angry vitriol by those who don't understand the difference between questioning a theory and questioning the presentation of a theory.

The examples which I have were Bigfoot, Zeus and Abraham Lincoln. If you read the Bigfoot article you'll see that the editors don't feel the need to weave the fact that Bigfoot is an imaginary creature into every single sentence. In the article about Zeus you can read about the god's childhood, reign, wives and children, but no where does anyone site the easily provable archeological fact that no gods have ever lived atop Mt. Olympus or any other mountain in Greece. I also demonstrated how the A. Lincoln article could be interwoven with loads and loads of irrelevant data.

When I tried to voice the reason that I felt the article did not reflect a neutral POV and when I tried to suggest that the debunking of the theory should be kept seperate from the theory, I was blocked and all of my comments were editted out. I was accused of being a sock puppet for some user of whom I have no direct knowledge.

That pretty much sums up the life and death of my short experience on Wikipedia. I think that the certitude and arrogance of the juveniles who pretend to be editors on this article speaks for itself. I think that in their ferocity and in their zeal to prove their point-view they have created a mutual admiration society that squelches outside criticism. Worst of all they don't realize their their efforts to "prove facts" are wasted work. This is because the article in its current format is so-much unreadable tripe. It won't convince anyone to change their minds about anything. It won't even provoke thought on either side. It's just a long and windy extension of the article found at [| creation vs. evolution debate]. (If you want to read an especially (perhaps laughably) heinous POV on the "debate" page read the Arguments against Evolution! <begin sarcasm> If those arguments "against Evolution don't convince you that God created Heaven, Hell and all the cosmos, nothing will. </end sarcasm>

You can read more about me and why I was banned on my old talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.108.89.17 (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC). I won't be surprised if I get blocked again or even if I get a lifetime ban again, but I will be shocked if I get through the "editors" of this page. I'm a real person, btw, and I posted my name and phone number on my IP talk page and on this page (before it was wiped). Feel free to call to bitch me out or to agree with me. BTW, I read about "biting newbies" after I got blocked. I got bit ... hard. Everwill 23:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the Talk page to discuss changes to the article. This rant is irrelevant. -- Ec5618 23:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason this rant is relevant is because I was blocked and editted out when I tried to make my points. You obviously didn't get to this part of my rant:

The examples which I have were Bigfoot, Zeus and Abraham Lincoln. If you read the Bigfoot article you'll see that the editors don't feel the need to weave the fact that Bigfoot is an imaginary creature into every single sentence. In the article about Zeus you can read about the god's childhood, reign, wives and children, but no where does anyone site the easily provable archeological fact that no gods have ever lived atop Mt. Olympus or any other mountain in Greece. I also demonstrated how the A. Lincoln article could be interwoven with loads and loads of irrelevant data.

Secondly the reason the rant is relevant is because of this (from above):

I think that the certitude and arrogance of the juveniles who pretend to be editors on this article speaks for itself. I think that in their ferocity and in their zeal to prove their point-view they have created a mutual admiration society that squelches outside criticism.

I had to lay the groundwork for my criticism. Thus the rant.Everwill 23:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what specific changes are you suggesting? I seem to have missed them. Guettarda 00:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He wants a long discussion of Intelligent design, with no mention that anyone disagrees with it being a science, or the lawsuit or anything. And then at the very end, all the criticism. But if you look at bigfoot we are doing exactly what was done at bigfoot. This is just trolling so we should ignore him and maybe delete his comments and block him if he gets worse again.--Filll 00:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of the various editors probably agree the article's a joke. Heck, so's the topic on which it's written, which may explain why the article is arguably a joke. In fact, there are probably at least a hundred different reasons why it's a joke, all different, depending on who you ask. Move it in one direction, complaints come from the opposite side of some particular nuance of the subject; move that specific nuance in another direction, complaints come from the first side. Find a middle ground?, then complaints come from a third, fourth and fifth angle. And it's not just this way on one clearly identifiable issue either. Virtually every word of the article has been hotly debated at some point in its development. It's in the nature (or is it supernature?) of the topic. ... Kenosis 00:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While a total re-write is a bit extreme, I actually agree with his point about article readability. The constant "They claim ... but experts say ..." throughout the article make it pretty hard to follow a complete thought through a section. It's not hard to see how the article develops that way--the debates over a particular word or phrase tend to ADD clarifiers and cavaots, instead of taking them away. While more technically accurate, overall readability of the article suffers. BradC 00:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

grins* The constant "they claim ... but experts say" is because it would not conform to encyclopedic style for the entire article to consist of only the sentence "A skein of pseudoscience and distortions designed to provide creationism the scientific patina needed to further erode the separation of church and state", despite the fact that it would be far more concise without sacrificing any factual accuracy that I can see. ;) Cheers, Kasreyn 01:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, getting this right is terribly difficult to do, that's why so many people are putting in such an incredible effort. The difference between the articles that he mentioned and ID is that ID is the only one of those which is part of a current political and religious campaign, deliberately misusing language (e.g. "only a theory") aimed at undermining scientific theory, and changing what is taught in the classrooms around the world. This highly-charged situation shifts the balance between readability and accuracy toward accuracy. The basic reason for the difficulty in getting it readable is that so many of the ID claims have been carefully crafted to use ambigous terms to mislead. Trishm 01:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting exhausted trying to refute people by quoting what I already said. If my comments weren't edited away, I could reference them. I am not disputing a single fact or reference in the article. I'm not arguing for or against Intelligent Design. I'm just saying that the presentation is unreadable. It's impossible to tell what Intelligent Design is from the article. As I said before I suggest a format that separates the theory from the debunking of the theory. When they are intermingled, this becomes original research.

I've written this so many times, but I'm not getting through. The problem is I don't know how to say it any more simply or clearly than this: It doesn't matter if ID is bunk or not. It doesn't matter, because the presentation of baloney is a separate subject from the debunking of baloney.

The reason I kept bringing up Zeus is because I hope we all agree: Zeus is a myth. According to Wikipedia, Zeus had children. There is no mention in the article about Zeus' children that Zeus is in fact not a real person and that myth's can't actually have children. There is convoluted sentences or phrasologies that annihilate the possibility that Zeus had children or ever lived or ever will live. No, the article just tells you what Zeus is.

My concrete solution (which I've made before, track that old IP ID) is state the theory for Christ-sakes (pun intended). Don't question a word of it. Don't try to paint it out to be bunk. If it is bunk that will be painfully evident. Then under another sub-heading it is entirely appropriate to say that this is a controversial subject and that legions of smart, accreditted scientists think that this "theory" is a load of crap. Then give links to other creation theories. You're not going to change anyone's mind or convince anyone of anything no matter what you right, so you might as well let the opposition (I'm talking to both sides) take his best shot.

Stick to common ground. We can all agree that this "theory" can not be solved in this format. We can all agree that many people feel strongly both ways. Can we can agree that what the ID proponents say "X"? Can we agree that under another subheading the ID scoffers say "Y"? Why does it have to be so angry and complicated? Everwill

Trishm: If the ID community is "misleading" people it's not your job to correct that. It's your job as an editor to report what they say. Reporting what someone says is not an endorsement of what they said. Believe me, people everywhere are smart enough to figure things out on their own ... and they will do so regardless of what you write here. Everwill 01:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^ "While the ID crowd have some things of interest to say they, are indeed just a revamped God of the gaps and the Paylean argument from design in a more modern form. Their refusal to engage with the theological issues this engenders is their greatest weakness, it is also a deliberate strategy, to try and show to the secular world they are nothing but scientists and philosophers. It also hides from their Christian constituency that some of their people are not Christian - at least one is a Moonie. Their second weakness is to muddy the waters with terms like "methodological naturalism", "operations science" and "origins science". The fact that some leading Christian philosophers in the US (i.e. Plantiga [sic]) are also confused does not help. Their third weakness is ... their refusal to come clean on the age of the earth. This is to try and hide the fact that they have strong links with the young earthers, at least one of their leading people is a strong young earther. Fourthly, the movement is strongly driven by a US political agenda - the "renewal" of US society and culture through the destruction of materialism via its supposed foundation of "methodological naturalism", the greatest strength of which is supposed to be evolution. The export of this US agenda, redolent with the culture wars, to the rest of the world, is of grave concern." Intelligent Design? ISCAST Bullentin, Issue 48, Spring 2005. Institute for the Study of Christianity in an Age of Science and Technology. (PDF file)
^ "ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer." (Known as the teleological argument) Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, December, 2005
^ Discovery Institute, Center for Science and Culture. Questions about Intelligent Design: What is the theory of intelligent design? "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." Questions About Intelligent Design
^ Primer: Intelligent Design Theory in a Nutshell Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA)
^ Intelligent Design Intelligent Design network.
^ "Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement? A. Yes, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes." Barbara Forrest, 2005, testifying in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. Kitzmiller Dove Testimony, Barbara Forrest
^ Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive Jodi Wilgoren. The New York Times, August 21 2005.
^ Who is behind the ID movement? Frequently Asked Questions About "Intelligent Design", American Civil Liberties Union.
^ "Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank established in 1991. The institute, which promotes a conservative public-policy agenda, has occupied a lead role in the ID movement recently, most notably through its Center for Science and Culture, which boasts a number of leading ID proponents among its fellows and advisers." The Evolution of George Gilder Joseph P. Kahn. The Boston Globe, July 27 2005.
^ "Who's Who of Intelligent Design Proponents," Science & Religion Guide Science and Theology News. November 2005. (PDF file)
^ Intelligent Design and Peer Review American Association for the Advancement of Science.
^ Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134-1138 (2006). doi:10.1172/JCI28449. A publication of the American Society for Clinical Investigation.
^ Stephen C. Meyer, 2005. Ignatius Press. The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories. See also Darwin's Black Box.
^ Dembski. The Design Revolution. pg. 27 2004
^ ^a ^b Though intelligent design proponents say publicly the purpose of ID is to search for design, they've stated a very different goal to their constituency: "We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." The Wedge Strategy Discovery Institute, Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. 1998 (PDF file) That the stated purpose of intelligent design is merely a scientific pretense covering a religious agenda is widely believed: "members of the national ID movement insist that their attacks on evolution aren’t religiously motivated, but, rather, scientiﬁc in nature." ... "Yet the express strategic objectives of the Discovery Institute; the writings, careers, and affiliations of ID’s leading proponents; and the movement’s funding sources all betray a clear moral and religious agenda." Inferior Design Chris Mooney. The American Prospect, August 10 2005 and "ID's rejection of naturalism in any form logically entails its appeal to the only alternative, supernaturalism, as a putatively scientific explanation for natural phenomena. This makes ID a religious belief." Expert Witness Report Barbara Forrest Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, April 2005. (PDF file)
^ "...the ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims..." AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2002.
^ Kitzmiller v. Dover page 70, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, December 2005. page 70
^ Nearly Two-thirds of U.S. Adults Believe Human Beings Were Created by God The Harris Poll #52, July 6 2005.
^ Polling for ID
^ Cicero, De Natura Deorum, Latin Library.
^ Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae. "Thomas Aquinas' 'Five Ways'" in faithnet.org.uk. He framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer.
^ William Paley, Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, 1809, London, Twelfth Edition.
^ Dr Barbara Forrest. Know Your Creationists: Know Your Allies
^ Dembski: "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory," Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999
^ Phillip Johnson: "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." Johnson 2004. Christianity.ca. Let's Be Intelligent About Darwin. "This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy." Johnson 1996. World Magazine. Witnesses For The Prosecution. "So the question is: "How to win?" That's when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing"—the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do." Johnson 2000. Touchstone magazine. Berkeley's Radical An Interview with Phillip E. Johnson
^ Dove, Patrick Edward, The theory of human progression, and natural probability of a reign of justice. London, Johnstone & Hunter, 1850. LC 08031381 "Intelligence-Intelligent Design."
^ 'The British Association', The Times, Saturday, 20 September 1873; pg. 10; col A.
^ 'Evolution according to Hoyle: Survivors of disaster in an earlier world', By Nicholas Timmins, The Times, Wednesday, 13 January 1982; pg. 22; Issue 61130; col F.
^ William Safire. The New York Times. August 21 2005.On Language: Neo-Creo
^ National Association of Biology Teachers. A Reader's Guide to Of Pandas and People National Center for Science Education. Of Pandas and People, the foundational work of the Intelligent Design movement
^ "Although science has made great progress by limiting itself to explaining only through natural causes, Johnson would have us allow the occasional supernatural intervention for those phenomena that cause problems for his particular theology. Though he has no objection to natural explanations for how fluids pass through a cell membrane, we need to leave room for a "whimsical creator" (p. 31) or God’s "inscrutable purpose" (p. 71) to explain the origin of life or the origin of complex body plans. Confusing unsolved with unsolveable, he wishes us to stop seeking natural causes for these phenomena. Johnson wishes to take us back to an earlier, less scientifically productive time when science had to wait for religious approval before daring to explain something that was religiously sensitive." Darwin On Trial: A Review by Eugenie C. Scott. NCSE
^ Does Seattle group "teach controversy" or contribute to it?, Linda Shaw, Seattle Times, Thursday, March 31, 2005.
^ As an example, consider John who has physics homework to do. John knows the answer he is supposed to get from the back of the book. There are twenty steps to get from the initial assumptions to the answer, but John is stumped at step 5. Should John invoke the divine or a miracle or magic to get from step 5 to the answer at step 20, and expect to get a good grade for his work? Will John learn anything if he solves all his problems in science this way?
^ CNN Newsroom, ID Featured on CNN: Transcript and Questions, May 2, 2001.
^ Nearly Two-thirds of U.S. Adults Believe Human Beings Were Created by God The Harris Poll #52, July 6 2005.
^ Polling for ID

[1] "While the ID crowd have some things of interest to say they, are indeed just a revamped God of the gaps and the Paylean argument from design in a more modern form. Their refusal to engage with the theological issues this engenders is their greatest weakness, it is also a deliberate strategy, to try and show to the secular world they are nothing but scientists and philosophers. It also hides from their Christian constituency that some of their people are not Christian - at least one is a Moonie. Their second weakness is to muddy the waters with terms like "methodological naturalism", "operations science" and "origins science". The fact that some leading Christian philosophers in the US (i.e. Plantiga [sic]) are also confused does not help. Their third weakness is ... their refusal to come clean on the age of the earth. This is to try and hide the fact that they have strong links with the young earthers, at least one of their leading people is a strong young earther. Fourthly, the movement is strongly driven by a US political agenda - the "renewal" of US society and culture through the destruction of materialism via its supposed foundation of "methodological naturalism", the greatest strength of which is supposed to be evolution. The export of this US agenda, redolent with the culture wars, to the rest of the world, is of grave concern." Intelligent Design? ISCAST Bullentin, Issue 48, Spring 2005. Institute for the Study of Christianity in an Age of Science and Technology. (PDF file)

[2] "ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer." (Known as the teleological argument) Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, December, 2005

[3] Discovery Institute, Center for Science and Culture. Questions about Intelligent Design: What is the theory of intelligent design? "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." Questions About Intelligent Design

[4] Primer: Intelligent Design Theory in a Nutshell Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA)

[5] Intelligent Design Intelligent Design network.

[6] "Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement? A. Yes, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes." Barbara Forrest, 2005, testifying in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. Kitzmiller Dove Testimony, Barbara Forrest

[7] Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive Jodi Wilgoren. The New York Times, August 21 2005.

[8] Who is behind the ID movement? Frequently Asked Questions About "Intelligent Design", American Civil Liberties Union.

[9] "Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank established in 1991. The institute, which promotes a conservative public-policy agenda, has occupied a lead role in the ID movement recently, most notably through its Center for Science and Culture, which boasts a number of leading ID proponents among its fellows and advisers." The Evolution of George Gilder Joseph P. Kahn. The Boston Globe, July 27 2005.

[10] "Who's Who of Intelligent Design Proponents," Science & Religion Guide Science and Theology News. November 2005. (PDF file)

[aaas_pr-11] Intelligent Design and Peer Review American Association for the Advancement of Science.

[jci-12] Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134-1138 (2006). doi:10.1172/JCI28449. A publication of the American Society for Clinical Investigation.

[13] Stephen C. Meyer, 2005. Ignatius Press. The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories. See also Darwin's Black Box.

[14] Dembski. The Design Revolution. pg. 27 2004

[wedge1-15] Though intelligent design proponents say publicly the purpose of ID is to search for design, they've stated a very different goal to their constituency: "We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." The Wedge Strategy Discovery Institute, Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. 1998 (PDF file) That the stated purpose of intelligent design is merely a scientific pretense covering a religious agenda is widely believed: "members of the national ID movement insist that their attacks on evolution aren’t religiously motivated, but, rather, scientiﬁc in nature." ... "Yet the express strategic objectives of the Discovery Institute; the writings, careers, and affiliations of ID’s leading proponents; and the movement’s funding sources all betray a clear moral and religious agenda." Inferior Design Chris Mooney. The American Prospect, August 10 2005 and "ID's rejection of naturalism in any form logically entails its appeal to the only alternative, supernaturalism, as a putatively scientific explanation for natural phenomena. This makes ID a religious belief." Expert Witness Report Barbara Forrest Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, April 2005. (PDF file)

[16] "...the ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims..." AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2002.

[17] Kitzmiller v. Dover page 70, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, December 2005. page 70

[18] Nearly Two-thirds of U.S. Adults Believe Human Beings Were Created by God The Harris Poll #52, July 6 2005.

[19] Polling for ID

[20] Cicero, De Natura Deorum, Latin Library.

[21] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae. "Thomas Aquinas' 'Five Ways'" in faithnet.org.uk. He framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer.

[22] William Paley, Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, 1809, London, Twelfth Edition.

[23] Dr Barbara Forrest. Know Your Creationists: Know Your Allies

[dembski_logos-24] Dembski: "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory," Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999

[wedge2-25] Phillip Johnson: "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." Johnson 2004. Christianity.ca. Let's Be Intelligent About Darwin. "This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy." Johnson 1996. World Magazine. Witnesses For The Prosecution. "So the question is: "How to win?" That's when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing"—the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do." Johnson 2000. Touchstone magazine. Berkeley's Radical An Interview with Phillip E. Johnson

[26] Dove, Patrick Edward, The theory of human progression, and natural probability of a reign of justice. London, Johnstone & Hunter, 1850. LC 08031381 "Intelligence-Intelligent Design."

[27] 'The British Association', The Times, Saturday, 20 September 1873; pg. 10; col A.

[28] 'Evolution according to Hoyle: Survivors of disaster in an earlier world', By Nicholas Timmins, The Times, Wednesday, 13 January 1982; pg. 22; Issue 61130; col F.

[29] William Safire. The New York Times. August 21 2005.On Language: Neo-Creo

[30] National Association of Biology Teachers. A Reader's Guide to Of Pandas and People National Center for Science Education. Of Pandas and People, the foundational work of the Intelligent Design movement

[31] "Although science has made great progress by limiting itself to explaining only through natural causes, Johnson would have us allow the occasional supernatural intervention for those phenomena that cause problems for his particular theology. Though he has no objection to natural explanations for how fluids pass through a cell membrane, we need to leave room for a "whimsical creator" (p. 31) or God’s "inscrutable purpose" (p. 71) to explain the origin of life or the origin of complex body plans. Confusing unsolved with unsolveable, he wishes us to stop seeking natural causes for these phenomena. Johnson wishes to take us back to an earlier, less scientifically productive time when science had to wait for religious approval before daring to explain something that was religiously sensitive." Darwin On Trial: A Review by Eugenie C. Scott. NCSE

[32] Does Seattle group "teach controversy" or contribute to it?, Linda Shaw, Seattle Times, Thursday, March 31, 2005.

[33] As an example, consider John who has physics homework to do. John knows the answer he is supposed to get from the back of the book. There are twenty steps to get from the initial assumptions to the answer, but John is stumped at step 5. Should John invoke the divine or a miracle or magic to get from step 5 to the answer at step 20, and expect to get a good grade for his work? Will John learn anything if he solves all his problems in science this way?

[34] CNN Newsroom, ID Featured on CNN: Transcript and Questions, May 2, 2001.

[35] Nearly Two-thirds of U.S. Adults Believe Human Beings Were Created by God The Harris Poll #52, July 6 2005.

[36] Polling for ID

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]