Talk:Intelligent design

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Intelligent design article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives (index): 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, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89: 6 months

Intelligent design is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 12, 2007.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 2, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
January 21, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
October 16, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
January 9, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
February 23, 2007	Featured article candidate	Promoted
July 24, 2007	Featured article review	Kept
December 14, 2008	Featured article review	Kept
Current status: Featured article

Discussions on this page have often led to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to pseudoscience and fringe science, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

Arbitration ruling on the treatment of pseudoscience

In December 2006, the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision included the following:

Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.
Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Alternative views High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Creationism: Intelligent design 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Intelligent design task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Christianity Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Mid‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Science / Religion Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of science
	Philosophy of religion

Skepticism Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion Top‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning Intelligent design (ID).

To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Q1: Should ID be equated with creationism?

A1: ID is a form of creationism, and many sources argue that it is identical. U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and Phillip E. Johnson, one of the founders of the ID movement, stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast creationism as a scientific concept.^[1]^[2]

Not everyone agrees with this. For example, philosopher Thomas Nagel argues that intelligent design is very different from creation science (see "Public Education and Intelligent Design", Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 36, no. 2, 2008). However, this perspective is not representative of most reliable sources on the subject.

Although intelligent design proponents do not name the designer, they make it clear that the designer is the Abrahamic god.^[1]^[3]^[4]^[5]

In drafts of the 1989 high-school level textbook Of Pandas and People, almost all derivations of the word "creation", such as "creationism", were replaced with the words "intelligent design".^[6]

Taken together, the Kitzmiller ruling, statements of ID's main proponents, the nature of ID itself, and the history of the movement, make it clear—the Discovery Institute's protestations to the contrary notwithstanding—that ID is a form of creationism, modified to appear more secular than it really is. This is in line with the Discovery Institute's stated strategy in the Wedge Document.

Q2: Should ID be characterized as science?

A2: The majority of scientists state that ID should not be characterized as science. This was the finding of Judge Jones during the Kitzmiller hearing, and is a position supported by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.^[7] Scientists say that ID cannot be regarded as scientific theory because it is untestable even in principle. A scientific theory predicts the outcome of experiments. If the predicted outcome is not observed, the theory is false. There is no experiment which can be constructed which can disprove intelligent design. Unlike a true scientific theory, it has absolutely no predictive capability. It doesn't run the risk of being disproved by objective experiment.

Q3: Should the article cite any papers about ID?

A3: According to Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, papers that support ID should be used as primary sources to explain the nature of the concept.

The article as it stands does not cite papers that support ID because no such papers have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Behe himself admitted this under cross examination, during the Kitzmiller hearings, and this has been the finding of scientists and critics who have investigated this claim.^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10] In fact, the only article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that made a case for intelligent design was quickly withdrawn by the publisher for having circumvented the journal's peer-review standards.^[11]^[12]

Broadly speaking, the articles on the Discovery Institute list all fail for any of four reasons:

The journal has no credible editorial and peer-review process, or the process was not followed
The journal is not competent for the subject matter of the article
The article is not genuinely supportive of ID
The article is published in a partisan ID journal such as PCID

If you wish to dispute the claim that ID has no support in peer-reviewed publications, then you will need to produce a reliable source that attests to the publication of at least one paper clearly supportive of ID that underwent rigorous peer-review in a journal on a relevant field.

Q4: Is this article unfairly biased against ID?

A4: There have been arguments over the years about the article's neutrality and concerns that it violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. The NPOV policy does not require all points of view to be represented as equally valid, but it does require us to represent them. The policy requires that we present ID from the point of view of disinterested philosophers, biologists and other scientists, and that we also include the views of ID proponents and opponents. We should not present minority views as though they are majority ones, but we should also make sure the minority views are correctly described and not only criticized, particularly in an article devoted to those views, such as this one.

Q5: Is the Discovery Institute a reliable source?

A5: The Discovery Institute is a reliable primary source about its views on ID, though it should not be used as an independent secondary source.

One of the core missions of the Discovery Institute is to promote intelligent design. The end purpose is to duck court rulings that eliminated religion from the science classroom, by confusing people into conflating science and religion. In light of this, the Discovery Institute cannot be used as a reference for anything but their beliefs, membership and statements. Questionable sources, according to the sourcing policy, WP:V, are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight, and should only be used in articles about themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

Q6: Are all formulations of intelligent design pseudoscience? Was William Paley doing pseudoscience when he argued that natural features should be attributed to "an intelligent and designing Creator"?

A6: While the use of the phrase intelligent design in teleological arguments dates back to at least the 1700s,^[13] Intelligent Design (ID) as a term of art begins with the 1989 publication of Of Pandas and People.^[14] Intelligent design is classified as pseudoscience because its hypotheses are effectively unfalsifiable. Unlike Thomas Aquinas and Paley, modern ID denies its religious roots and the supernatural nature of its explanations.^[15] For an extended discussion about definitions of pseudoscience, including Intelligent Design, see Pigliucci, Massimo; Boudry, Maarten, eds. (2013), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem, University of Chicago, ISBN 978-0-226-05179-6.

Notes and references

^ ^a ^b 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
^ "I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science."…"Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth?"…"I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves." Johnson 1999. Reclaiming America for Christ Conference. How the Evolution Debate Can Be Won
^ 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
^ Wedge Document Discovery Institute, 1999.
"[M]embers 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.
^ "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.
^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., pp. 31 – 33.
^ ^a ^b Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., 4. Whether ID is Science, p. 87
^ "Science and Policy: Intelligent Design and Peer Review". American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2007. Retrieved 2007-07-19.
^ Brauer, Matthew J.; Forrest, Barbara; Gey, Steven G. (2005). "Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution" (PDF). Washington University Law Quarterly. 83 (1). Retrieved 2007-07-18. ID leaders know the benefits of submitting their work to independent review and have established at least two purportedly "peer-reviewed" journals for ID articles. However, one has languished for want of material and quietly ceased publication, while the other has a more overtly philosophical orientation. Both journals employ a weak standard of "peer review" that amounts to no more than vetting by the editorial board or society fellows.
^ Isaak, Mark (2006). "Index to Creationist Claims". The TalkOrigins Archive. With some of the claims for peer review, notably Campbell and Meyer (2003) and the e-journal PCID, the reviewers are themselves ardent supporters of intelligent design. The purpose of peer review is to expose errors, weaknesses, and significant omissions in fact and argument. That purpose is not served if the reviewers are uncritical
^ "Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington". Biological Society of Washington. Retrieved 2007-07-19.
^ See also Sternberg peer review controversy.
^ Wilkins, John (9 November 2013), "The origin of "intelligent design" in the 18th and 19th centuries", Evolving Thoughts (blog)
^ Matzke, Nick (2006), "Design on Trial: How NCSE Helped Win the Kitzmiller Case", Reports of the National Center for Science Education, 26 (1–2): 37–44
^ "Report of John F. Haught, Ph. D" (PDF). Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (NCSE). 2005-04-01. Retrieved 29 August 2013.

Archives

Philosophy sources

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be auto-archived by if there are more than 4.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The definition of Intelligent Design should EXCLUDE the term pseudoscience and the definition should be this: is a philosophical/theological movement and subsequent teleologically scientific movement which seeks to reinvigorate and expand scientific language concerning the Aristotelian category of telos and thus expand the parameters of modern science and its tendency towards positivistic emphasis in the natural sciences. Mountbrocken (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replied above: it is not clear what Aristotle has to do with ID.

The only mention of telistic science was Thomas Nagel's paper on ID. For the rest, neither proponents, nor opponents made a connection between ID and Aristotle. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aristotlelian philosophy held that truth was established by quality of rhetoric and appeal to authority. For Aristoteleans, heavy objects fall faster than light ones, and both fall at constant speed. This was replaced in the 17th Century by the concept of fact, a loanword from law. Where truth was established by authority, fact was established by weight of empirical evidence.

Anybody who has been paying attention will realise that there has been a concerted effort over more than half a century to roll back the scientific revolution and go back to Truth as the arbiter of reality. This has been led by two particularly powerful lobbies: cdesign proponentsists and climate change deniers.

Wikipedia still runs on facts. Try Conservapedia. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forum posts about philosophy

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

The definition of a scientific theory is not that has been proven (verified), but that the theory can be falsified. This must be the case, since an absolute verification is impossible for any theory (even mathematics and logic rely on assumptions which need not be true). And it is easy to falsify Intelligent Design. Just do a biological experiment to let any kind of organism evolve a flagellum where it did not have one at first. You may use any kind of environment to speed up the process.

Then if ID can be falsified, and it is easy to imagine a falsification (spontaneous generation of life was pretty popular before it was discovered to be false), why call it pseudoscience? 77.164.151.163 (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should ask real Aristotelico-Thomists how they feel about ID. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is truth not the arbiter of the reality? If X is real, then we can say that the statement "X is real" is true. Empirical evidence is important precisely because it points us in the direction of the truth.

And that's not to mention that "fact" is often defined in reference to truth. For example, Wikipedia defines fact as "a true datum about one or more aspects of a circumstance". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on "facts" mentions the word "truth" 103 times.

If "facts" don't correspond to any truths (and are consequently false statements), then we should, in the words of Hume, commit them to the flames. Brent Silby (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is truth not the arbiter of the reality? Guy literally explained it in his comment. Why are you asking questions that have already been answered?

If "facts" don't correspond to any truths (and are consequently false statements) This statement betrays a serious misunderstanding of what a fact is. If the truth and the facts disagree, then the facts win. Every time. Welcome to methodological naturalism. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"If the truth and the facts disagree, then the facts win"

There is no such thing as truth and facts disagreeing. Funnily enough, I don't even have to go past Wikipedia to demonstrate this. Wikipedia page for truth defines "truth" as "the property of being in accord with fact or reality". Wikipedia page for fact defines "fact" as a true datum about one or more aspects of a circumstance. Brent Silby (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two people can have diametrically opposite views, one according with reality and one not, and yet both can believe that they are speaking the "truth". Only one, however, will be speaking facts. Indeed, WP:V used to say that Wikipedia is based on "verifiability, not truth" and was removed for exactly the reason that some people found it confusing. Black Kite (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What you just wrote would still be true if you substituted facts for truth: two people can have diametrically opposite views, one according with reality and one not, and yet both can believe that they are speaking the "truth". Only one, however, will be actually making true statements (assuming that their views are actually diametrically opposed). Brent Silby (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If everyone only believed facts that aligned with reality were their "truth", you would be correct. In the real world, however, people believe many things, a lot of which are either non-factual or cannot ever be proved to be facts. Black Kite (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how that makes me wrong, though. The fact that people often hold false beliefs to be true and to correspond with reality only tells us about the less-than-perfect cognitive faculties of the aforementioned humans. Not to mention that there are lots of people who think that they hold factual beliefs, while they actually don't, so truth and factuality are in the same boat here. Brent Silby (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you were wrong, but in a Wikipedia environment the two words are not quite congruent, especially where we are talking about beliefs, such as in this article. Black Kite (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't dispute the Wikipedia ruling and I understand why it was made. Basically, as far as I can tell, what Wikipedia means is that everyone has their personal beliefs/opinions, but Wikipedia only cares the academic consensus (as it should).

My problem is that due to poor phrasing ("verifiability not truth"), it got many people to have confused takes about what Wikipedia actually cares about. That's why one of my favorite essays is WP:Truth, not verifiability. Brent Silby (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The connection with creationism should be removed

OP says they will not propose any concrete change. --McSly (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Although ID points to a designer, it has little connection with creationism. Creationism wants to prove Genesis 1 fully, while ID only says there was a designer (like the Big Bang theory says there was a beginning) regardless of whether that was an alien, a supercreature or whatever. Of course speculation about the designer is common, but it does not necessarily have anything to do with the bible (how many other religions have a story about how life began?)

There are creationists who try to make use of the success of Intelligent Design, of course. But their opinions are not central or influential in the movement. It's like atheïsts making use of the success of pychoanalysis, and then considering the entire field of psychoanalysis to be motivated by atheïsm. Maarten Havinga (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read and understood the article? N.B. the hatnote and the second paragraph of the lead section. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Judging what is science or not is not something to be left to judges and courts. It should be the task of philosophy of science. Making it judged by a judge or court will not change the opinion of the scientists. Maarten Havinga (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

unless a motivation from philosophy of science is given by the judge or court, of course. Maarten Havinga (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice deflection. The Kitzmiller case came after the Discovery Institute's framing of creationism in "intelligent design" terms. The core thesis of the article may be found in the second paragraph's first sentence:

Although the phrase intelligent design had featured previously in theological discussions of the argument from design, its first publication in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 creationist textbook intended for high school biology classes.

N.B. the first sentence of the hatnote:

This article is about a specific pseudoscientific form of creationism.

I am finished with this thread. regards, Just plain Bill (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ID and creationism are thoroughly linked together through the proponents at the Discovery Institute. Other, similar, propositions are covered at Teleological argument. Black Kite (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From their website:

The two most prominent creationist groups, Answers in Genesis Ministries (AIG) and Institute for Creation Research (ICR) have criticized the intelligent design movement (IDM) because design theory, unlike creationism, does not seek to defend the Biblical account of creation. AIG specifically complained about IDM's “refusal to identify the Designer with the Biblical God” and noted that “philosophically and theologically the leading lights of the ID movement form an eclectic group.” Indeed, according to AIG, “many prominent figures in the IDM reject or are hostile to Biblical creation, especially the notion of recent creation'.” Likewise, ICR has criticized ID for not employing “the Biblical method,” concluding that “Design is not enough!” Creationist groups like AIG and ICR clearly understand that intelligent design is not the same thing as creationism. Maarten Havinga (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Yep, exactly. Maarten Havinga, you should read the article more carefully. I specifically direct you to the section mentioning "cdesign proponentsists", showing how they screwed up doing a basic search and replace while simply rebranding creationist books to ID books. --McSly (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't advise reading the article with anything but extreme caution indeed! Maarten Havinga (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

after all, my advisors at the UvA when I completed my master thesis did not consider wikipedia to be a reliable source. I'm pretty sure they back me up to read cautiously and check all the references. Maarten Havinga (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia agrees with your advisors at the UvA, so that's good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:29, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is also covered by the FAQ at the top of this page. So we should probably stop wasting too much time here. --McSly (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite you forgot to mention Isaac Newton in Teleological argument. See [1] bottom of page 35:

Moreover, the second edition contains the theologically charged and methodologically significant General Scholium, in which Newton, amongst other things, urged that the system of the world is dependent on “the design and dominion of an intel ligent and powerful being,” Maarten Havinga (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't intended as a forum to discuss ID, it's only for making changes to the article. To do that, you'd need to show that you read and *understood* the FAQ and not claim that it's just 'a judge'.

Furthermore, the science vs pseudoscience question is separate from whether ID is linked with creationism.

If you have specific changes you'd like to make, you can suggest them. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest to link the term to Isaac Newton as one of the first people using it as the underlying belief under his scientific works, and note that the opinions on ID being creationism or serious science differ among scientists. Maarten Havinga (talk) 10:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so what specific wording are you proposing? and what are the sources you want to use to back up those changes? With that, we will be able to discuss. --McSly (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that my opinion is not really liked here, therefore I'd rather not grind you on specific wordings and position. As source the pdf I gave is fine. For the rest, I leave it up to you guys, if or what you'll do with this talk - if you have questions for clarification, in case I wasn't clear earlier, I'll happily answer those. My wish is only the suggestion just above this comment. Maarten Havinga (talk) 16:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Should be mentioned as Creationism

in the lede, preferably even in the first 10 words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.72.161 (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Such impatience! It's in the third sentence of the lede, as well as in the hatnore. . . dave souza, talk 23:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence has a problem.

No one in the ID movement suggests ID is creationism. It posits there is intelligence behind certain things in nature. It makes no suggestion as to what that intelligence is. Some will address that with a deistic or theistic creator, others with concepts such as the simulation hypothesis. The best description of ID I have heard posits it as a critique of concepts like Neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis. In this case, ID has more in common with Critical Theory than theology. Meh130 (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Meh130, please read the FAQ at the top of this page. --McSly (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was to "discuss improvements to the Intelligent design article", per the first line of this page.

Thank you. Meh130 (talk) 23:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And that is covered by the FAQ. --McSly (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, I would make an edit, but someone would revert it. When people revert the fuselage length of an airplane supported by a link to the manufacturer's web page stating the length of the airplane, Wikipedia become 100% unreliable across the board. We could have a discussion about a philosophy, and ID is a philosophy, just like many other fields of philosophy. But if the powers that be decide that some philosophies are more equal than others, it is time for Jimmy to wrap up this experiment, because if that is the case, it is not working. Meh130 (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. See WP:FORUM. Also, no one stops you to close your browser tab and move on if you are unhappy with WP. --McSly (talk) 00:07, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That comment proves you have no interest in the truth, and should get your privileges permanently revoked. Meh130 (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NPA HiLo48 (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Over more than four decades of life and twenty thousand edits on this project, it has been my unfailing experience that anyone who responds to a comment by saying it 'proves' that the commenter doesn't care about the truth has already lost the argument and is simply being too stubborn to admit it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 06:16, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ID isn't a philosophy, it's an attempt to prove the existence of "intelligence behind certain things in nature" (your words). Attributing things you cannot explain to the supernatural isn't science.

BTW, do you have any sources that compare ID to critical theory? TFD (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Meh130 - I've thought ID was a productive criticism of the then-common simplistic views of evolution as Modern synthesis (20th century), with the misconceptions of March of Progress about linear progress and that natural selection explained everything, but where did you see that description of it as a critique ? It does seem that enough time has passed that historical perspectives might have kicked in so I'm wondering.

But for what it's worth, I'll suggest the way I got more or less reconciled to seeing the vague pejorative 'pseudoscience' in the first line was that I think the article is irretrievably biased so being obvious about it in the first line is better in a fair-warning or two-wrongs make an almost-right sense. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh - not this again. The reason "pseudoscience" is in the first sentence is simply because ID is pseudoscientific. Indeed, it might even be the poster child for pseudoscience, being something that claims to be science but which has no scientific grounding whatsoever and is completely untestable by any scientific method ... which is pretty much the definition. Black Kite (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

100% agreement with this. Prior to ID, YEC was the ur-example of pseudoscience, a title which ID took by being a form of creationism that tries even harder to masquerade as science. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well now. Grokipedia begs to differ: "Intelligent design (ID) is a scientific theory that holds certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than undirected processes like natural selection." Which perhaps says more about Grokipedia than about Intelligent design. -- JMC (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And we should accept Grokipedia as a reliable source... why, exactly? TechBear (he/him) | Talk | Contributions 04:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because nothing, literally, says "reliable and trustworthy sources" more than a Wikipedia mirror site set up by a notorious rightwing flimflam man documented with a personal grudge against Wikipedia, populated with thousands of plagiarized Wikipedia articles rewritten by his personal AI program to give them "rightwing spins" in order to sate said flimflam man's documented pathological need to deceive and ensnare people with rightwing propaganda. Mr Fink (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gockipedia is an ideologically-driven, right-wing Wikipedia mirror built by an LLM that was deliberately trained on neo-nazi conspiracy theories, Christo-fascist talking points and the naval gazing nonsense of the world's most fragile ego.

And no, I did not type the name wrong. If you don't get it, turn your google safe search settings off and do an image search for 'gock'. You may want to make sure you're alone before you do. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Black Kite thanks for a civil comment but *sigh* back - yet another presenting of WP:OR to defend doing it does not make it better, that still just makes it look like WP:RGW. The first line instead of defining the article topic is characterising it with a vague pejorative, and then continues relating how it is characterised "by its proponents" which instead cites to 5 critics. It all seems just being obvious about the bias. Meh - makes an almost-right.

In this thread I was curious about where User:Meh130 saw ID said in terms of being a critique, and to offer a somewhat less BITEY interaction. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:16, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Enough with the "vague pejorative" bit, Mark. Yes, "pseudoscientific" is pejorative, but is in no way vague, except to those who do not understand it, or stubbornly refuse to understand it. Can you explain how you think "vague" is an apt description here? Just plain Bill (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I could - but it's the strong desire of editors here to be starting with an insult - repeatedly shown by WP:OR WP:RGW as above, and despite WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, or WP:V, is what's giving the fair-warning what the article's going to be like. That the pejorative is vague doesn't matter particularly though it adds a bit to the line per se being a bit more off. You can google further on why it's vague or the origin by Popper or common overuse of the term in more imprecise ways if you want to look at it, but I think such do not matter in articles where there is the apparent desire for leading with a WIKIVOICE denouncement. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite The reason "pseudoscience" is in the first sentence ..." I'll quibble with this. The noun "pseudoscience" doesn't appear anywhere in the lead. I would prefer that it did. The adjective "pseudoscientific" is what we have instead, and it comes across, like most adjectives, as unqualified subjective opinion. That is why we have these tiresome endless discussions here. I have argued for replacing the adjective with the noun, but it fell on deaf ears, and I have even been bold and made the change myself a long time ago, but it was reverted. I don't recall any of the regulars here presenting an intelligent argument about why the adjective would be preferable to the noun. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:55, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[wedge2-1] 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

[PJC-2] "I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science."…"Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth?"…"I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves." Johnson 1999. Reclaiming America for Christ Conference. How the Evolution Debate Can Be Won

[dembski_logos-3] 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

[wedge1-4] Wedge Document Discovery Institute, 1999.
"[M]embers 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.

[5] "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.

[kitz31-6] Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., pp. 31 – 33.

[kitzruling_pg87-7] Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., 4. Whether ID is Science, p. 87

[aaas_pr-8] "Science and Policy: Intelligent Design and Peer Review". American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2007. Retrieved 2007-07-19.

[9] Brauer, Matthew J.; Forrest, Barbara; Gey, Steven G. (2005). "Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution" (PDF). Washington University Law Quarterly. 83 (1). Retrieved 2007-07-18. ID leaders know the benefits of submitting their work to independent review and have established at least two purportedly "peer-reviewed" journals for ID articles. However, one has languished for want of material and quietly ceased publication, while the other has a more overtly philosophical orientation. Both journals employ a weak standard of "peer review" that amounts to no more than vetting by the editorial board or society fellows.

[10] Isaak, Mark (2006). "Index to Creationist Claims". The TalkOrigins Archive. With some of the claims for peer review, notably Campbell and Meyer (2003) and the e-journal PCID, the reviewers are themselves ardent supporters of intelligent design. The purpose of peer review is to expose errors, weaknesses, and significant omissions in fact and argument. That purpose is not served if the reviewers are uncritical

[11] "Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington". Biological Society of Washington. Retrieved 2007-07-19.

[12] See also Sternberg peer review controversy.

[Wilkins-13] Wilkins, John (9 November 2013), "The origin of "intelligent design" in the 18th and 19th centuries", Evolving Thoughts (blog)

[14] Matzke, Nick (2006), "Design on Trial: How NCSE Helped Win the Kitzmiller Case", Reports of the National Center for Science Education, 26 (1–2): 37–44

[15] "Report of John F. Haught, Ph. D" (PDF). Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (NCSE). 2005-04-01. Retrieved 29 August 2013.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]