 | Important notice: Some common points of argument are addressed in the FAQ below, which represents the consensus of editors here. Please remember that this page is only for discussing Wikipedia's encyclopedia article about Intelligent Design. Please see the article-specific /editing notes. |  edit | Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | | 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? (Yes.) A1: Yes. ID is a form of creationism. 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] Although intelligent design proponents do not name the designer, they make it abundantly clear that the designer is the Christian god.[3][4][5][1] 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, it becomes apparent—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? (No.) A2: No. 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] Intelligent design does not qualify as scientific theory, because it is untestable even in principle, while all scientific theories are in principle dis-provable. 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. —Norman A. Johnson Further, ID represents a fundamental reversal of the scientific method, in that it begins with a conclusion (a "designer" was responsible for complex living structures), and seeks to find evidence that fits with that conclusion. Finally, by positing a supernatural explanation for features that can just as easily be explained with in the framework of natural law, ID violates the principle of parsimony. Q3: Should the article cite any papers about ID? (No.) A3: No. The article does not cite any 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][9][10][11] 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. [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? (No.) A4: No. Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy does not require all points of view to be represented as equally valid. It requires that we present the majority viewpoint of people in the relevant field as such. In this case policy requires that we present ID from the point of view of biologists, who are almost unanimous in their support for evolution. Before complaining that this article is unfairly biased against ID, please familiarise yourself with the following policies: -
Wikipedia's only goal is to accurately describe the subject and the related viewpoints. If ID's critics have presented damning evidence, written scathing reviews or made a more compelling case than ID's proponents, that's not our concern. Our only concern is to accurately and thoroughly present both sides of the topic in proportion to the majority viewpoint, which happens to be the scientific community's, and this the article does. Some editors have compared this article with Evolution, asking why there is no criticism when evolution is so controversial. The fact of the matter is, that within the scientific community, evolution is not controversial at all, and the evolution article reflects this. Finally, other editors have complained that articles about other forms of pseudoscience give much more favourable descriptions of their subject. This is indeed a problem, though not as you may suppose with this article, but rather with those articles. This article has had more attention from more editors than any other pseudoscience article, because it's the only one that more than a handful of people take seriously. This pseudoscience, in fact, is being taught in some schools, in science classes, not philosophy or religious studies. So the ID article has benefited from a great deal of careful attention, because its the only currently viable pseudoscience. Q5: Are my comments being censored? (No.) A5: No. Established Wikipedia editors do not impose censorship, but they do remove dialog on talk pages that is not directed towards the article. If your comment is not about the article, then it may be deleted, archived or moved to your talk page, it could have been for any of a number of reasons, but such efforts are not censorship. The talk page is not a forum. The sole purpose of an articles talk page is to discuss changes or improvements to the article itself. The talk page is not for arguing over the merits of the subject, it is not for haranguing those who think differently to you, and it is not for gathering converts to your cause. Many suggestions are brought time and time again, if you do have a suggestion, please read this FAQ and the indexed talk page archives first, as you may find that your suggestion has been made in the past. While consensus is by no means set in stone, you are unlikely to change it through argument or persistence alone. If you think consensus on a topic is incorrect, you will need to bring strong supporting evidence, otherwise you're wasting your time and ours. While we encourage new users to get involved, you must understand that ID is a contentious subject, and the current article—the result of several years worth of work and discussion—is a frequent target for vandalism and POV pushing, and regular editors may seem snappy because of this. Q6: Is the Discovery Institute a reliable source? (No.) A6: No. The Discovery Institute is not a reliable source. It has a well established, well attested history of deceit, dishonesty and misinformation. Indeed, misinformation is a central part of their strategy, and as such their publications are considered a questionable source.[13][14][15] The core mission of the Discovery Institute is to push intelligent design, which is a public relations ploy that aims to repackage creationism as science. 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 can not be used as a reference for anything but their beliefs, membership and statements, and even then we should be circumspect and seek independent verification if at all possible. Questionable sources 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. | FAQ 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
- ^ Johnson, Norman A. (2007). Darwinian Detectives: Revealing the Natural History of Genes and Genomes. Oxford University Press. pp. page 28. ISBN 0195306759.
- ^ "Science and Policy: Intelligent Design and Peer Review". American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2007. http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/03_Areas/evolution/issues/peerreview.shtml. 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). http://law.wustl.edu/WULQ/83-1/p%201%20Brauer%20Forrest%20Gey%20book%20pages.pdf. 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. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html. "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. http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html. Retrieved 2007-07-19.
- ^ "Well, which is it? Is intelligent design merely a sophisticated form of biblical creationism, as most biologists claim, or is it science – an alternative to Darwinism that deserves discussion in the science classroom? ...you won't find the answers in the writings of the leading advocates of ID. The ambiguity is deliberate for ID is a theory that must appeal to two distinct constituencies. To the secular public, ID proponents present their theory as pure science. This, after all, is their justification for a slick public-relations campaign promoting the teaching of ID in public schools. But as is clear from the infamous "Wedge Document" of the Discovery Institute, a right-wing think tank in Seattle, and the center for ID propaganda, intelligent design is part of a cunning effort to dethrone materialism from society and science and replace it with theism. ID is simply biblical creationism updated and disguised to sneak evangelical Christianity past the First Amendment and open the classroom door to Jesus. The advocates of ID will admit this, but only to their second constituency, the sympathetic audience of evangelical Christians on whose support they rely." Brockman, John. Intelligent Thought : Science versus the Intelligent Design Movement (Vintage Original). London: Vintage. ISBN 0-307-27722-4.
- ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., Ruling, p. 105.
• "Finally, although Buckingham, Bonsell, and other defense witnesses denied the reports in the news media and contradicted the great weight of the evidence about what transpired at the June 2004 Board meetings, the record reflects that these witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions, and are accordingly not credible on these points." - ^ Attie, Alan D.; Elliot Sober, Ronald L. Numbers, Richard M. Amasino, Beth Cox4, Terese Berceau, Thomas Powell and Michael M. Cox (2006). "Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action". Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134–1138. doi:10.1172/JCI28449. A publication of the American Society for Clinical Investigation.. http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/full/116/5/1134. Retrieved 2007-07-20.
| |  | 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. | |  FA | This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale. | | High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. | | |  | This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections with no replies in 30 days are automatically moved. Sections with fewer than two timestamps (no replies) are not archived. An archive index is available here. | [edit] Creation according to Genesis can't be wrong! God created the world in 7 days, O ye sinners - and he spoke Hebrew, too, none of this Babylonian nonsense. Read all about it at Creation according to Genesis.PiCo (talk) 07:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC) - I can't tell if this is a joke or not. If not, what're you suggesting to improve the article? Mkemper331 (talk) 14:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Looking at the writer's user page, I think it's a funny. TheresaWilson (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- 6 days...surely? 213.31.180.126 (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Intelligent Design Do ID and science have much in commom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.106.38 (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC) - Perhaps reading the article again will answer your question? Gabbe (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Is this the future of Wikipedia? "Group X believes Y. And they're wrong. And they're bad people. And now we'll explain what they really believe, even though they won't openly admit it." Is that really how Wikipedia articles are supposed to read? Especially considering that there's a separate Intelligent Design Movement article with the extra-dishy dirt about how evil these people are? If that's the new direction of Wikipedia, then the Christianity article will need a re-vamping. Currently that article merely describes the beliefs of actual Christians. How silly! It should be re-written to emphasize that the beliefs of Christianity are scientifically false, and that many Christian leaders are evil people. But here's a crazy idea. Maybe this article could be re-written as "Group X believes Y. And now we will explain those beliefs in detail." Yeah, let's try it that way! If an article is about a belief, then it should primarily describe the belief, as stated by the believers. If the believers do not agree with the article, then the article by definition does not describe their belief. The content of a belief is what the believers say they believe, not what their critics say. This article isn't about the belief. It's about some of the believers, and the feelings of the people who hate them. Mostly it's about the hate. It's no mystery that Wikipedia is dying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.6.140.60 (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC) -
- I would just like to congratulate the author of the above comment for his brilliantly written criticism of this article as it stands. I am a Christian, I support creationism, I oppose intelligent design because it claims to be something it is not (science), and I believe that this article is terribly written. SineBot is right: this article should be rewritten to describe the views of intelligent-design proponents.
- Please see WP:UNDUE, WP:GEVAL, WP:PSCI, WP:FRINGE or the FAQ at the top of this page for explanations on why the article is written the way it is. Gabbe (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- Wikipedia articles reflect the majority view of experts in the field, see WP:NPOV. In articles on religious topics, we describe a topic giving most weight to the mainstream view amongst theologians. However, ID proponents insist that their ideas are scientific, so this article describes the reception and assessment of these "scientific" ideas among experts in the field of evolutionary biology. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- So the purpose of Wikipedia is to uphold the integrity of science, rather than inform its readers? Compare the ID article to the Astrology article, and see if you notice any differences in tone. The Astrology article informs. The ID article hates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.6.140.60 (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Your implication of mutual exclusivity is a false dichotomy. This article does both, uphold the integrity of science and inform its readers. If ID insists on presenting itself as science, any article on it should be written from a scientific standpoint, and that current standpoint is what the article currently presents. If you have a problem with that, you may find Conservapedia's article on Intelligent Design more to your liking. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- False dichotomy? No, more of a tradeoff. If Wikipedia's policy is, "We won't tell you about beliefs that aren't true," then I would love to see a public statement to that effect. I thought that Wikipedia was a bit more broad-minded than that.
- Your accusation of political motive implies a lack of WP:GOODFAITH. It's a foregone conclusion that the article will viciously attack ID. My complaint is simply that the article is uninformative and inaccurate. It disserves the reader. It tells us that the people are bad, and that the beliefs are wrong, but it does a very poor job of explaining the ideas themselves.
- My starting argument, which no one has yet disputed, is: If you're describing someone's belief, and the person you're talking about says, "No, that's not what I believe," then your description is ipso facto false. I don't see how citing a judge's attempts at mind-reading changes that basic fact.
- Consider this fascinating sentence from p. 28 of the oft-cited ruling: "Moreover, in turning to Defendants’ lead expert, Professor Behe, his testimony at trial indicated that ID is only a scientific, as opposed to a religious, project for him; however, considerable evidence was introduced to refute this claim." Behe says, "I believe X." The judge says, "Oh no. You believe Y." That kind of conversation may be appropriate in a courtroom, but is it appropriate in Wikipedia? And is it appropriate to jump a step further and simply announce: "Behe believes Y," even if he continues to deny it?
- So with the best of WP:GOODFAITH in my heart, I ask: Under what possible standard does a Wikipedia article claim that Behe believes X when he says that he believes Y? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.6.140.60 (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Creationists are notorious liars, for one thing. They were caught lying during the Dover trial. Or sometimes they weren't outright lying, but speaking falsehoods because they had never bothered to understand the issue they were talking about, although they claimed they had. In any case, what point or points do you have a problem with? Behe's motivations are demonstrably intertwined with his religious bias, they are not scientific.VatoFirme (talk) 07:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- If the premise of the article is that creationists are notorious liars, then that's what the article should say. The current article carelessly mixes together different types of statements: 1) the scientific truth about ID, 2) what ID proponents say that they believe, and 3) what ID proponents actually believe. Read through the article and try to classify each phrase. For example, do ID proponents agree that ID is a modern form of the teleological argument, or is that what their critics believe? I don't know, and this article doesn't tell me.
- Even if everything that you believe about ID and its proponents is true, this article is still a mess. It needs separate sections or at least clear identification for each type of statement: 1) Here's what they claim to believe. 2) Here's how we know that they're lying about what they claim to believe. 3) Here's what they really believe. 4) Here's what scientists believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.6.140.60 (talk) 10:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- You're attempting to make an issue where this none. It goes without saying that ID is a teleological argument, as it fundamentally is an argument from design, which is what teleological means. This article is objective and reflects the near-unaninmous views of the scientific community. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- 69.6.140.60, first, if you want to tell others how to do things on Wikipedia, you should follow the rules yourself. In every case you have posted here, you have not signed your post. All you have to do is put four tildes (~~~~) just like it tells you to at the top of the edit page. Sure, everyone forgets to sign their posts from time to time, but I see no attempt by you to do so at all - it just looks rude. Secondly, you are arguing against the consensus here. Maybe you should just drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. - Nick Thorne talk 02:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- 69.6.140.60 Your analogy that the article reads as "Group X believes Y. And they're wrong. And they're bad people. And now we'll explain what they really believe, even though they won't openly admit it." is not correct. The article reads more like "Y is Y by definition. Group X assert Y to be part of Z. Experts in the field of Z disagree with group X which consist mainly of non experts in the field of Z."--LexCorp (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have seen this argument on this talk page before, but I have a hard time imagining what this article would look like if suggestions were put in place. What is Intelligent Design? It not a cohesive, scientific theory. The most that can be said of it, without resorting to straw men, is the definition as put forth by the DI, which is the 1st sentence in the article. Beyond that, it's basically just a bunch of hand waving that says nature is so complex, it couldn't have possibly arisen through natural selection, so it must have been designed. Really, that's the whole theory. Behe is the most honest of the bunch, and his best arguments look at cellular structures that are so complex they couldn't have evolved, which have been debunked. So really there is no theory to explain. JPotter (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Speaking of Behe and honesty, thie same subject was raised recently in the blogosphere. . . dave souza, talk 10:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Jason, you say that the theory is all hand-waving, so there's no theory to explain. You could say the same about astrology or phrenology or phlogiston. Yet those Wikipedia articles are far better than this one, mostly because they're more readable. Those articles tell the reader what he actually wants to know, rather than skipping the explanation and jumping straight to the conclusion.
- Imagine for a moment that you're talking to someone who doesn't know anything about ID. If you read them the first four paragraphs of this article, they won't know what you're talking about. The article doesn't make sense unless you already know the subject. I would start the article with something close to the third paragraph of the Overview section, less the last sentence. That gives the reader a frame of reference. Now he knows what you're talking about. Wait until the second paragraph to get your first punch in: ID is not science. The current second paragraph isn't too bad, although the second half of the first sentence really shouldn't be there. And the whole paragraph is too long. I would drop the long quote from the NAS. Save it for later.
- Then in the third paragraph you get your second punch in: ID proponents are dishonest religious nutjobs with an evil plan to brainwash schoolchildren. But remember, this is just the summary. The current third and fourth paragraphs are trying to summarize in 219 words the entire 9900-word Intelligent Design Movement article, and it doesn't work. If you want to say that they're evil liars bent on brainwashing children, then just say that and drop a link to the full article.
- I just looked at the phlogiston theory page, and the lead sentence is almost identical to the lead sentence for ID: both tell the reader that mainstream opnion is that the theory (ID or Phlogiston) is not accepted by the scientific community. However, the editors of ID surely have a harder time, since I doubt there are hundreds of people constantly trying to edit phlogiston, to insert the view that it is correct.
- To the anonymous person here: as a scientist, i would like to know what data or experiment would disprove ID. It doesn't have to be something we can actually do , but it has to be scientific. 75.67.134.245 (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
cinnamon colbert -
- This really isn't complicated. There is a separate ID Movement article, yet the ID article has 219 words Movement words gumming up the introduction, and thousands more further down. On a quick count I'm coming up with about 4300 Movement words, with the whole article being about 11,000 words. If you cut out all the Movement stuff, then most of the rest of the article is actually pretty good. The Integral Concepts section is really the heart of the article, and it could maybe be a little longer. The Origins of the Concept section is pretty good. The sections on Defining Science through Arguments from Ignorance are all appropriate, though some are maybe a little longer than they need to be. And I would delete everything beyond the Arguments from Ignorance section, because that's all off point and covered elsewhere.
- This article should focus on ID as an idea, and responses to it. Other articles are already making the case that ID proponents are evil lying unconstitutional religious fanatics who want to brainwash children. The current article is a mix of what it should be and the other article, and as a result it's very difficult to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.6.140.156 (talk) 11:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- What you suggest is to divide the article in multiple content forks so as to sanitise ID from its criticism. This is against WP:CFORK. As you said most of the subsections have already their own article page but still WP policy encourages us to present the subject as the article stands now. If we follow your suggestion to the extreme then the article will only read "ID is creationism in disguise" followed by the appropriate Wikilinks, mainly creationism. Wikipedia is not short in page real-state so there is not need to try to not reproduce material here and in their own articles when said material is of importance to this article.--LexCorp (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Addendum: After imagining I don't known anything about ID and after reading the first four paragraphs of this article I learned the following information:
- 1. Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
- 2. It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument.
- 3. The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science.
- 4. Advocates of intelligent design argue that it is a scientific theory
- 5. The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science.
- 6. The concept of intelligent design originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling involving separation of church and state.
- 7. Its first significant published use was in Of Pandas and People
- 8. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents"
- Tell you what. I think now I have a pretty clear understanding of what is ID. Furthermore I think I am going to read the whole article.--LexCorp (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Article very misleading POV? This article is very misleading. The characterization of ID as creationism ignores the fact that all of the leaders mentioned in the article are evolutionists themselves.This article puts Behe,Dembski and other proponents of ID in the same group with Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis and other Young Earth Creationists. ID is, in fact, closer to theistic evolution than Young Earth Creationism. Both the tone of this article and lack of comprehensive treatment of the subject violate NPOV and smack of propaganda.It is apparent that the article was motivated by bias than a search for truth. Instead of a comprehensive view of Intelligent Design Movement which mentions differences as well as similarities with Creationism we got only cherry picked facts that were sanitized of any inconvenient truths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.251.102 (talk) 05:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC) - This article follows what reliable sources write, and reliable sources classify ID as creationism. See WP:DUE, WP:GEVAL and [1]. Gabbe (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- It is dubious whether all of the sources are reliable. Citing a district court judge as an authority on the definition of science might be citing a reliable witnesses if the article was about establishment clause jurisprudence. I say might because there is,as of yet, no Supreme Court precedent on ID. This judge, however, has no scientific credentials.
-
- Having said that,the big problem is not that the sources are not reliable, but that the article reflects only a single point of view. There is a lot of information that the article omits. Nothing is said about the beliefs that ID shares in common with evolution. Nothing is said about the fact that proponents of ID and Creationism would strongly dispute many of the statements found in this article concerning what the Intelligent Design Movement represents. This article is supposedly about the ID movement, yet it relies primarily upon the POV of it's opponents in defining what it is. As it is currently written, it is NEITHER an encyclopedic article nor NPOV, but an anti-ID polemic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.251.102 (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Your fringe viewpoint is noted, but is inappropriate as the proposals you make do not meet WP:NPOV and WP:v policies. . . dave souza, talk 18:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Dave. My viewpoint is not a fringe viewpoint.Millions of people, including most intellectuals would concur with my interpretation of NPOV as applied to this article. NPOV, at least in the common sense meaning of it, requires that you give due weight to self-disclosure when writing or speaking about them rather than taking exclusively the POV of their opponents. Failure to do so is called libel. My dispute with POV here has nothing to do with the alleged scientific claims of ID but the fact that this article is skewed in it's presentation of ID.
-
-
-
- NPOV requires "...requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly..." In this article NPOV requires that a comprehensive treatment of all significant viewpoints within the ID movement be presented. As for verifiability one simply goes to the authors of ID movement. Dr Stephen Meyer and Dr Michael Behe both defend evolution in their writing. Their dispute with evolution is not the processes of evolution but the insistence that these processes be random.Wikipedia rules about verifiability allow for "...Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves..." Your interpretation of NPOV and verifiability is simply wrong.
-
-
-
- This article, as it stands, would not make it into any other encyclopedia. It continued presence here as it stands raises serious questions about the credibility of Wikipedia. Whether NPOV is taken seriously or not. Perhaps the loopholes in Wikipedia interpretation of NPOV are too big, resulting in some contributors committing POV under the guise of NPOV by marginalizing anyone who disagree with them. (i.e. declaring the views of millions 'fringe') —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.251.102 (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Also relevant here are WP:UNDUE and WP:PSCI. ID is a pseudoscientific hypothesis, and so to implicitly equate the supporting and opposing arguments would not be good for the article, or for people who read it trying to understand the status of it. Mkemper331 (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Although we can of course note the claims of ID proponents, these sources cannot be given much weight, since Wikipedia tries to present the mainstream view of a topic within the relevant field. The views of Behe et. al. have no authority at all in evolutionary biology, which is the purported field of ID. The article relies instead on independent secondary sources written by real experts in the field, which discuss and analyse the writings of ID proponents and put their ideas into context. This is similar to our article on the Myth of the Flat Earth, which also uses authoritative secondary sources to discuss and analyse a pseudoscientific idea. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] This Article is biased and an embarrassment to Wiki - The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
All meaningful questions and criticism along these lines are still covered in Question 4 of the FAQ, and those seeking further enlightenment are directed toward this page. --TS 19:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
It is so obvious that it is simply people who are actively opposed to an idea trying to discredit it. Actually this article spurs people on to learn more about ID because and intelligent and curious person would wonder why the hatchet job persists. What are the opponents of ID trying to hide and why? Since the internet is not controlled by POVS anyone can google and get the other side of the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.150.99 (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC) - Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your constructive criticism!! Your concerns have been addresses before in this very talk page (read the two preceding sections[2][3]).--LexCorp (talk) 14:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- This issue is handled in a fair amount of detail in Question 4 of the FAQ. --TS 14:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
My point is that if you are trying to present a POV to promote your worldview you should do that in a more clever manner. I think if you presented yourself at first as being unbiased and fairminded, THEN subtly adding the biased materially further down, the article would come off as less dishonest. But right now it is just so, so obvious that you are fudging the sources. I think if you really defined what the concept is in the first paragraph, THEN went through your tirade against it in the second, the article would be more believable. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC) - Your failure to assume good faith and your personal attacks on the integrity of editors are noted – please remember that accusations of dishonesty are unacceptable. It appears that you are unhappy because "your worldview" is given due weight in accordance with policy. As for "really defined what the concept is in the first paragraph", the first sentence gives the definition presented by its proponents, followed by clarifications from reliable sources. If you have a reliable source presenting another definition, do please provide it here with links or book references so that we can discuss appropriate ways of incorporating it. . . dave souza, talk 21:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I never said the editors were dishonest. It is just that the article 'appears' dishonest. It really is impossible for me to know the intentions of the editors. You say you know my worldview? How could you? You said you KNOW it: what is it? First of all your first two sources are bad. Or do you consider the Discovery Institute a reliable scientific source? And if you do consider them reliable sources you are misquoting the definition. Read the definition carefully. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC) - Thank you again for commenting on the article. First, editors here are not "trying to present a POV" so your suggestion that we do so in a more subtle way is irrelevant and against policy. Second, The Discovery Institute is a good reliable primary source about ID most of the time. It is true that from time to time they have been vague in their statements and somewhat dishonest when disclosing some of their activities and their motivations. But fear not as we have a very capable and active secondary and tertiary source base with plenty to say about the subject and a large body of dedicated editors who take the time to improve on the article.--LexCorp (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Here is a source I think would be better. See the sources you use are sources that use this source from Stephen Myers. But the problem with your quote is that it is 'quote mined'. Taking something out of context: Just as creationists have many times misquoted Darwin. you have misquoted Stephens here. It is important to let the reader see the second very, very important sentence. Otherwise you are just quote mining. And remember there is a difference between 'intelligent design' and the 'theory of ...' just as there is a difference between gravity and the theory of gravity. This comes across as deceptive when you do not make that clear.
'In contrast, the theory of intelligent design holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause. The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it does dispute Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well the second sentence does not add to the definition. It is a clarification not necessary here because frankly the whole article already makes a lot of clarifications (mind you that when pressed for a more concrete definition some IDer invoke Special Creation which is very much at odd with evolution so even the veracity of that second sentence is in question). We do not use the word theory in the definition because most experts agree it is not a theory but nevertheless we do explain in the second paragraph that advocates of intelligent design argue that it is a scientific theory. All well within WP policies and NPOV. --LexCorp (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Well it really is not up to the quoter to determine what should be quoted. Other wise the evolution of the eye quote mines by creationists would be fair which they are not. Myers put the second sentence in because HE thought it was needed. And if it is not a theory do not quote someone who feels it is. That does not make sense. You say Myers is completely off base yet use him as a reliable source. ID theory cannot be defined in one sentence any more that 'evolution' can. If I say evolution is 'change over time' and do not allow all the other elements that is vicious quote mining. Really try to be fair. That is all I ask. See this article comes across so, so deceptive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC) - It is exactly up to the quoter to determine what should be quoted by simple definition and common sense. In this case we just quote the definition (The most clear and forthcoming to date from any IDer). We also provide the source and a link to it so that interested parties can read the context. I hardly think quote miners do that. Why shouldn't we quote one of the advocates of ID for his definition even when it is partially mistaken (as it is here when he think it is a theory, when experts say it is not)? The end result is still a correct and easy to understand definition in the article. ID and Evolution can and are defined by a couple of sentences each. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and thus considerable article space is used to discuss both subjects. To clarify, Myers is complete wrong when he states ID to be a theory (meaning scientific theory) thus we omit that from the definition. We do so with the backing of the majority of RS experts in the field of science. You may be under the impression that the article should define ID as the IDer want it to be defined (even when they are mistaken) and not as to what ID is in reality. Why should Wikipedia repeat the mistakes of the IDer and misinform our readers?--LexCorp (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Then dont quote Myers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
" ID and Evolution can and are defined by a couple of sentences each. " Then why are you cutting Myers def down to one sentence? That is just vicious quote mining. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC) - Who is this Stephen Myers? Please be specific about what part of the article you're commenting on. . . dave souza, talk 23:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- He clearly means Stephen C. Meyer. Me bad for no correcting him sooner. Addendum: as to why he thinks the DI misquoted him of even quote mined him is beyond my understanding. --LexCorp (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The two sentences that define ID are of course those in the article!!! Thus "Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer." Your position that we should use the rest that is not part of the definition or that we should use "theory" is not correct. I will try to explain with a very forced example. Say I was one of the originators of the ball. I define a ball to be a NASA space launch vehicle, a round object with various uses usually spherical but can be ovoid. NASA, the majority of the aeronautical engineers and quite a lot of people with some common sense clearly disagree with me as to a ball being a NASA space launch vehicle. Now I could be stating my definition as such because 1. I clearly do not understand what is a NASA space launch vehicle nor am I an expert in aeronautical matters. 2. I am mad or 3. I am being very dishonest and I am trying to pass my idea of a ball for a NASA space launch vehicle when I fully known it isn't. Either way Wikipedia will clearly define a ball as "A ball is a round object with various uses. It is usually spherical but can be ovoid" trying to quote me as one of the originators of the concept. It will also then explain that I believe a ball to also be a NASA space launch vehicle and the opinions of the overwhelming majority of experts that it is not. This is exactly what is been done in this article.--LexCorp (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Look if you are going to quote myer quote him accurately. and if you think he is full of it. DO NOT QUOTE HIM! And the smart ass comment about ' who is myers?' you knew exactly who i was referring to. just another deception. how obvious. jeez he is the one how was quoted in the article. really just more bull. heave it on! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC) - You are entitled to your opinion but in the end we are quoting the answer to the "What is the theory of intelligent design?" question in a FAQ of a well known page of the DI. No many people will think we are being deceptive in doing so.--LexCorp (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Then dont belly ache when creationists quote mine. Look, an intelligent person can see the deception in the article. And people can google and see a cool, even handed definition of ID etc. So you look like grifters. Actually your are the IDers best friend. Frankly I got interested in this by seeing this wacked out definitions. Sort of reminds me of when I met this really nice looking woman and asked my 'friend' for her number and he said ' oh, you dont want to go out with her'. Your article reminds me of the 'lend me your ears' soliloquy but in reverse. Really if you were smart would be a little more subtle in the tirade section. OK ' I come to bury Cesar not to praise him!' Or reminds me of 'Reefer Madness' Making the evils of pot so, so awful that it was unbelieveable and then discredited any message that would bring up the real health hazards. You honestly do not see this???????????? Jeez! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Intelligent design's leading proponents – all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank[7][8] – believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.[9][10]
... Berlinski believe in Jesus?? where do you get this stuff??? It's like saying all heroin addicts started by drinking milk. Really people! If you are going to lie, lie well! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Berlinski[4] is not a leading proponent of ID so he is clearly not included in the above statement.--LexCorp (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Intelligent design's leading proponents – all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute,..."David Berlinski is a senior fellow in the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture." From what list, with contents determined by who, are the "leading proponents" of ID defined? 96.252.13.17 (talk) 07:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- You should review your Set Theory.--LexCorp (talk) 10:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Upon review of your contributions to this Talk page I find that you have accused the editors of this page of 1. trying to discredit ID. 2. trying to present a POV to promote our worldview. 3. quote mining. 4. misquoting. 5. being deceptive. 6. being IDers best friend (this one hurts me personally the most). 7. Lying. In light of these I urge you to read the following Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Etiquette.--LexCorp (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- So how is it that the contributors to the article, who have had their contributions withstand reversion, are not trying to discredit ID or not trying to present a POV congruent to their worldview, have not selected a version of "truth" while rejecting other version? I don't like ID as portrayed by the DI, I think and have always thought that the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision was the correct decision, but it has been clear for years that this article is written in a biased manner with a clear intention to discredit ID, first by declaring unilaterally that it is the DI who defines for everyone what ID is and then making clear what the real transgressions of the DI are (that are many and hard to defend). It's a strawman. And there have been repeated episodes where dissenters to this biased writing were literally done away with by the defenders of this biased writing. For an unbiased observer, this article is clearly biased and a shame. The continuing denials of bias by the biased do not suffice to change that fact. 96.252.13.17 (talk) 07:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a soapbox, which is all you seem to be using this section for. Please comply with the talk page guideline and specifically note that "Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject." You seem to be proposing we present a new "truth" based on your say-so – that's original research which can't be included: verification from reliable sources is needed. You also don't seem to realise that this article has to give due weight to majority expert opinion in describing this pseudscientific subject. So, present specific proposals for improvements with sources, and comment on content, not on the contributors. . . dave souza, talk 09:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
NO soapbox! Just want honesty and accuracy in the article which seems to be a problem. SM was quote minded and Berlinski misrepresented. And as far as being ID's best friend. That is a FACT you just have to live with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.150.99 (talk) 11:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC) - I just finished a thorough read of this article. This is truly one of the biggest embarrassments to the wiki I have ever seen. The sheer amount of bias is disgusting (and I realized that only after reading the lead). How much longer are you guys going to kid yourselves and PRETEND that this article is not biased against ID? It is articles like this that make me detest the wiki. 95% of Wikipedia's articles are unbiased and genuine, however, it is articles like this which constantly attempt to skew and distort things in order to present a particular POV. The notice at the top of the page reads: Important notice: Some common points of argument are addressed in the FAQ below, which represents the consensus of editors here. Please remember that this page is only for discussing Wikipedia's encyclopedia article about Intelligent Design. Please see the article-specific /editing notes. Consensus of editors here? What does that mean? Five editors who hate ID? Give me a break. That is absolutely ridiculous. Not only is the lead AND the entire article a pathetic falsification of ID, but EVEN THE FAQ is distorted and presents biased info! I would attempt to amend some of the biases in this article, but I know that as soon as I do I'll have some senior editor revert everything I do and show me some Wikipedia policies that cover-up his/her reversions. -- ΙΧΘΥΣ T C 01:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- See WP:WEIGHT, WP:PSCI and WP:TALK. You appear to be biased against the overwelming majority view, particularly in science, and would do best to make specific proposals backed by citing reliable sources. . . dave souza, talk 03:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
IX, the worst part of it that any kind of dissent is banned. Just to criticize this article results in blocking etc. There are many, many factual inaccuracies. But the owners of this article will not correct them. And this is not a push for ID. I just hate the truth being hidden. This is no different than the church censoring Galileo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.150.99 (talk) 12:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Who bans dissent? who was blocked for criticizing the article? The least you could do is remain objective and engage in trying to improve the article. For those new to wikipedia I suggest you read the following pages that explain how the process of article making and consensus building works. Wikipedia:Editing policy, Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Help:Edit summary, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Editors that only criticize an article bur fail to engage in productive consensus building by not reasoning their suggestion, not citing or sourcing them, and not making sure they are in line with Wikipedia policy are engaging in behaviour that is not productive. See Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. There is also a very large archive of this talk page where many subjects are already covered and a nice search function to research the archive in depth. Many of the topics raised here are already discussed in the archives and it is good to read then to familiarise yourself with all the points of views for a given suggestion, then if you feel you have something new to add to the arguments of any side you are welcome to again rise the issue here. It is also very counter-productive when trying to contribute to a article to start your engagement with the former editorial body by assuming bad faith from them, accusing them of POV pushing and making unsubstantiated grave accusations of BANNING and BLOCKING people because of a difference of opinion.--LexCorp (talk) 13:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- How about WP:COMMON, WP:IGNORE, WP:NPOV, and WP:BIAS. I think that we should use some common sense here and give some neutral perspective to this article. You claim that WP:WEIGHT supports that this article should be biased. But that completely goes against the nature of Wikipedia. WP:WEIGHT applies for very small minorities that do not have valid opinions, however, ID does not fall under that category. In fact, a large percentage of people believe that ID is an acceptable and valid theory. Simply thinking that ID should hold no weight merely because a majority of scientists have stated that they do not believe in the theory does NOT mean that we should have an article that completely negates and criticizes ID. No scientist in the world has been able to discredit or proove that ID is false. Also, you CANNOT compare ID to the old Flat Earth theory. They are complete opposites. Flat Earth theory has been pragmatically disproven by valid and credible sources everywhere - ID can't be disproven. WP:WEIGHT says that Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. ID is NOT a tiny minority by any means. There is a significant number of people that adhere to its claims. So instead of pretending that this article is "not unfairly biased against ID" (as the skewed FAQ section suggests), how about we start to amend these revolting biases? If nobody agrees that this article needs to be seriously rewritten and amended, then I propose a rename to Criticisms of Intelligent Design (because that is EXACTLY what this article is). -- ΙΧΘΥΣ T C 21:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- WP:WEIGHT is part of WP:NPOV. Implementing WP:WEIGHT makes the article more in line with WP:NPOV not more biased. Wikipedia is not a democracy, see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. It is irrelevant to this discussion the amount of popular support that ID may have. What is important is how much support the particular view has within the field of expertise of the subject. In light of the almost non-existent support that ID has in the scientific community we regard it as WP:Fringe. For my part I do not agree that the article needs a substantial rewrite nor do a support a rename to "Criticisms of Intelligent Design"--LexCorp (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- ΙΧΘΥΣ, you've already been referred to the relevant policies, and don't seem to realise the requirements of WP:NPOV. You quote "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space." but don't seem to have read the next sentences: "However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." Weight is not about "numbers of people", it's about published expert opinion in the relevant field. As ID is claimed to be science, it is assessed on that basis – it's not science, but a religious argument, and no scientist has been able to "proove that ID is false" as it's unfalsifiable, one reason that it isn't science. As theology it's not accepted by mainstream churches, and has had a mixed reception from other creationists, as the article shows. . . dave souza, talk 22:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
The fact that 18% of Americans think the Sun revolves around the Earth (source) does not make that a "significant minority viewpoint", as the Geocentric model has virtually no support among contemporary mainstream astronomers. Similarly, that many Americans believe in ID does not change the fact that a vast majority of biologists consider ID to be pseudoscience. Gabbe (talk) 06:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- A couple of years ago I got interested in Intelligent Design, primarily because this article was so obviously biased. Things have gotten better but this article is clearly written from a biased POV. The best example? When this article claims an "unequivocal consensus"---uh ... right---just like the unequivocal consensus regarding global warming. What I find humorous is seeing the same bag of wiki-losers grinding away their lives defending this tripe from an endless string of detractors. 70.183.0.51 (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Just to make the usual reply to this type of contribution. This is not a forum for passing comments about other editors. If despite this you have anything constructive to offer to the development of this article your contributions will be welcomed otherwise keep your irrelevant thoughts to yourself, please Tmol42 (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit] An unbiased article from Britannica | Trolling. Collapsed under DNFT | | The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. | |
"" argument intended to demonstrate that living organisms were created in more or less their present forms by an “intelligent designer.”
Intelligent design was formulated in the 1990s, primarily in the United States, as an explicit refutation of the theory of biological evolution advanced by Charles Darwin (1809–82). Building on a version of the argument from design for the existence of God advanced by the Anglican clergyman William Paley (1743–1805), supporters of intelligent design observed that the functional parts and systems of living organisms are “irreducibly complex,” in the sense that none of their component parts can be removed without causing the whole system to cease functioning. From this premise, they inferred that no such system could have come about through the gradual alteration of functioning precursor systems by means of random mutation and natural selection, as the standard evolutionary account maintains; instead, living organisms must have been created all at once by an intelligent designer. In Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (1996), the American molecular biologist Michael Behe, the leading scientific spokesperson for intelligent design, offered three major examples of irreducibly complex systems that allegedly cannot be explained by natural means: (1) the bacterial flagellum, used for locomotion, (2) the cascade of molecular reactions that occur in blood clotting, or coagulation, and (3) the immune system. "" So what is wrong with this? Why is it so, so different from yours? Well because it is not POV. Show me the POV in it. Do creationist run Britannica??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.150.99 (talk) 12:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC) - It says the same thing this article does, that ID is a modern version of the teleological argument. The main difference seems to be, darn that's a short entry! also, we provide our sources. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 12:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- I will add that the Wikipedia article does a much better job in explaining every part. For example "Intelligent design was formulated in the 1990s, primarily in the United States," in wikipedia expands to "The concept of intelligent design originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling involving separation of church and state.[4] Its first significant published use was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes.[21] Several additional books on the subject were published in the 1990s. By the mid-1990s, intelligent design proponents had begun clustering around the Discovery Institute and more publicly advocating the inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula.[22] With the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture serving a central role in planning and funding, the "intelligent design movement" grew increasingly visible in the late 1990s and early 2000s, culminating in the 2005 Dover trial which challenged the intended use of intelligent design in public school science classes.". Easy to see which one is more complete and that is just comparing our lead to the Britannica article. --LexCorp (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- It is also worth noting that Britannica does not make an explicit definition of ID, thus the reader is left with an ambiguous opinion as to what is ID. Wikipedia clearly defines ID in the first two sentences of the article. Again kudos for Wikipedia here.--LexCorp (talk) 13:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- I could comment ad infinitum on how bad the Britannica article is. If we were to define ID as "argument intended to demonstrate that living organisms were created in more or less their present forms by an “intelligent designer." the roof will come down here in the talk page on POV grounds. What Britannica did there is say ID is an argument for creationism. Clean and simple.--LexCorp (talk) 13:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Also they do not mention that advocates of ID consider it to be a scientific theory and not just a negative argument on the theory of evolution!!! Gross violation of Wikipedia NPOV. I envy the Britannica editors for the freedom they have by not having to follow the WP:NPOV--LexCorp (talk) 13:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
OK Britannic is incompetent and you anonymous volunteers are the experts? Wiki is the only 'encyclopedia' that defines ID in such a biased manner. Are they all incompetent and controlled by creationists? Your conspiracy theory really does not hold water. And Berlinski is not an ID proponent? And all the ID proponents belong to the DI and all are Christians? any sources on that??? Talk about POV! - Since no one made the assertions you are so outraged about, I'm going to assume you're a troll. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
| [edit] Intelligent design and Christianity Is the belief of Intelligent design exclusive to Christians? Why does this article state in the lead that Intelligent design is the belief of the Christian God the belief in Intelligent design is related to the belief in the Christian God? Imad marie (talk) 13:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC) - ID origin can be traced directly to a group of Christians. Read [[5]] and [[6]]. Nevertheless there are some subsections in the article that broadly talk about its relations to other faiths. Read [[7]], [[8]] and [[9]]. If you feel there is room for improvement or want to suggest any change fell free to do so.--LexCorp (talk) 14:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- You must have read another lead. The one in this article says "It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer." Thus explicitly pointing out that ID avoids identifying any God.--LexCorp (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- Yes, but the last sentence of the first paragraph says: "Intelligent design's leading proponents – all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank – believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.". Which highlights the connection with the Christian God. Imad marie (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes this is correct. ID is part of a broader movement by some fundamental Christians that "seek to "defeat [the] materialist world view" represented by the theory of evolution in favor of "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"". After failing to reinstate creationism in the US public education system they slightly reformulated their creationism believes so that they resemble science by developing "Creation Science". This was also rejected so again they reformulated their believes into ID to avoid identifying the creator. Again this was unsuccessful as to their aims for the fact that all these is very well documented as seen in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. You may find of interest the following Intelligent design movement, Wedge strategy, Teach the Controversy and Critical Analysis of Evolution. In light of all these it is important for the article to point out that most of the proponents of ID are Christians belonging to this movement. This article is about ID in this context, for a more general approach you should really go to the creationism article and for a specific faith related approach you should see Islamic creationism.--LexCorp (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- This is well sourced: "A significant aspect of the IDM is that despite Defendants’ protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity."[10] For the similar generic argument used for other deities or supernatural powers see teleological argument. Also note, while a couple of the lesser lights who have tagged along with ID are Jewish or Muslim, the leaders consistently espouse a particular form of literalist Christianity, even though they do have differences between themselves over the age of the Earth or the extent of evolutionary common descent. . . dave souza, talk 18:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
" In light of all these it is important for the article to point out that most of the proponents of ID are Christians belonging to this move... " But in the article it says 'ALL'. Most of us learned in fourth grade that way one states 'ALL' of anything, the fact is doubtful. It shows bias. This is obvious. Would love to see the source that says 'all ID proponents are Christian'. Please show it to me. Thanks.
And how can you have an 'argument for the existence of God' which does not specify 'God'?? I am sure if you asked ID proponents if the designer could have been a space alien they would all agree. And they are being forthright in saying that even though they have no scientific basis to believe it is God, their religious beliefs lead them to that conclusion. It would be like if I had evidence that my wife was killed by a man 6 foot tall and my neighbor is 6 foot tall and though I have no evidence other than that: I BELIEVE he did it. I do not see how this concept is conjured to be so hard to understand. It seems that this article is 'designed' to provoke argument. It is simply NOT even handed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.150.99 (talk) 12:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC) - Please provide specific points of correction. Where, exactly, does the article say "ALL" as you claim. Also where does the article refer to ID as an argument for the existence of God? And yes, ID proponents would all agree that the designer could have been a space alien - in public. But as secret documents that they were too thick to destroy have revealed, they don't believe any such thing. I suggest you pay close attention to the article when you read through it again because I do believe that last part is explained.Farsight001 (talk) 12:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Its all in the first paragraph. Read the first paragraph. Again the point is the difference in BELIEVING something and saying there is evidence. ID states that there is evidence of a designer not God. I can say that the evidence points to a designer and BELIEVE that designer is God. I do not think this concept is so difficult. And you do not have to go to 'secret documents' (as your conspiracy theory indicates) many ID proponents OPENLY and in PUBLIC say they believe in God. Seems you are saying a person cannot believe in God and accept that evidence could point to an alien. This concept seems simple to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.150.99 (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Leading proponents is not the same as all proponents. So the article does not state that ALL ID proponents are associated with the Discovery Institute and believe the designer to be the God of Christianity. The article defines ID as a teleological argument, but one which avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer because the Reliable Sources tell us that is what ID is. I wish they would be more explicit and say ID is a propaganda tool to further the wedge strategy, but sadly no single reputable source states it in such a way.--LexCorp (talk) 15:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- I read it. And I must say, I think you probably need to re-read it. It doesn't say all ID proponents. It says all LEADING proponents - and it is well sourced. As for my "conspiracy theory" - it is no such thing. The so mentioned documents are only called secret because they were originally intended to forever stay that way, but are now in the public eye. I do not refer to documents that I believe exist but do not have proof of. I refer to documents that are quite visible and readable and last I checked, mentioned in this very article. Yes someone could believe in God and believe the evidence points to an alien. But again - check out the rest of the article and those documents, particularly the Wedge document (If I linked it right) where they freely admit that they don't believe the evidence points to aliens, but rather to God. The concept seems simple to you. If I was working with the information that you seem to be working with, I might come to the same conclusion as you. Your information, and I mean no insult, is just incomplete here.Farsight001 (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- IF it is not purely Christian, then surely it should be easy enough to find a leading ID proponent who actively denies the Christian God...? 213.31.180.126 (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ben Stein? 71.254.6.202 (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that Ben Stein was an idiot. It is very surprising to me that anyone will think him a leading proponent of ID.--LexCorp (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Am I interpreting Wikipedia:MOS#Religions.2C_deities.2C_philosophies.2C_doctrines.2C_and_their_adherents incorrectly, or should the first instance of "God" in the introduction be capitalised (as it is) and the second not capitalised? Cheers, Ben (talk) 12:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC) - Had a look at the MOS, and it raised questions of grammar that I didn't have any opinion on. So, don't know in terms of the MOS, but both the cited sources use "God".[11][12] The first source is cited correctly from the official court document, so you'd think that they'd know. Am inclined to change it back to match the sources, any comment? . . dave souza, talk 14:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Although I don't think our style conventions should be adopted from whatever sources we happen to be using in a particular article (outside of the obvious, like direct quotes, it would make for a messy project), I'm not too worried about it. If there is a preference to just leave it capitalised then by all means revert away. Cheers, Ben (talk) 11:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, as the inline citation links down to a quotation using capitals for the word, have reverted to the capitalised version. I'm personally unsure about how the MoS is to be interpreted in this case, but that's a reflection on my knowledge of grammar rather than anything else. . . dave souza, talk 10:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Misquoting etc Intelligent design's leading proponents – all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank[7][8] – believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.[9][10] .... source # 9 goes nowhere #10 simply states that Dembski believes in God not everyone who is a 'leading' proponent.
All leading intelligent design proponents are fellows or staff of the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture.[119]
.... if you look at the source Berlinski is listed. Berlinski is a jewish atheist and secondly where is your source that says who the 'leading' proponents are? I think that is just POV. .... circular logic: all lead proponents are from the DI. evidence: a list of DI members. you honestly do not see the circular logic there???
.... I could go through the article and find scores of misquotations, POVs in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.150.99 (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Source # 9 goes to "the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity". Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., Ruling p. 26 – try reading it.
- "All leading intelligent design proponents are fellows or staff of the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture." should be read in conjunction with source # 7, so I've added an inline link to that. Berlinski does not openly avow intelligent design and describes his relationship with the idea as: "warm but distant. It's the same attitude that I display in public toward my ex-wives."[13] Presumably the expert sources for the statement were aware of that when discounting this irreligious character with "no particular agenda beyond skepticism" as a leader. Do please continue with detailed examination of the article. . . dave souza, talk 13:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, and Dembski who is perhaps the most vocal leading ID proponentsist explicitly stated that "The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God". Who are you to disagree with him? . . dave souza, talk 13:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
'try reading' this http://home.kc.rr.com/bnpndxtr/download/HorsesMouth-BP007.pdf you are cherry picking? how can we stop that??
"All leading intelligent design proponents are fellows or staff of the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture"
should be: " All leading intelligent design proponents are fellows or staff of the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture except Berlinski" you really cannot expect the reader to go thru the sources to find out that Berlinski is not a proponent of ID yet is on the DI staff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.150.99 (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC) - Do please learn to sign your posts. The HorsesMouth page seemed supplementary to me, so I didn't check it. Presumably it was valid when cited, and an internet archive version can be found if need be.
- You're the one arguing that Berlinski is listed as a fellow or staff of the DI / CSC, the source we have says that "the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity". All leading proponentsists are associated with the DI, their writings show the Designer is the God of Christianity. You're the one arguing that Berlinski is a leading proponentsist (unproven) and doesn't fit the second statement. Do please find a reliable third party source making that argument. . . dave souza, talk 14:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
My point is that you are saying that 'all the leading proponents are members of DI' and your logic is that anyone who is is a member of DI is a leading proponent. Where is your source for the list of 'leading proponents' and then comparing that list to the DI list? Why is Bush not a leading proponent? There are no European proponents? and your use of 'proponentsists' shows contempt and bias no more childish than a creationist using the word: 'evilutionist'. You have taken great deal of Behe's quotes out of context. And it should be pointed out that Berlinski is part of DI but not a christian. It really does not matter. The bias is so obvious in the article that it portrays militant atheists as deceptive and mean spirited. And really puts main line scientists in a bad light. It certainly has changed my perception of 'science' in the US. I guess that is good. The quotes here are as cherry picked as the data for global warming. An eye-opening view into modern day 'science'. OK to improve the article the quotes should not be out of context and there should be equal weight to both sides of the issue. But still this is good that 'sciences' dirty laundry is aired here. Keeps people from accepting anything our present 'science' community says blindly. Keep up the good work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.135.184.178 (talk) 13:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- "My point is that you are saying that 'all the leading proponents are members of DI' and your logic is that anyone who is is a member of DI is a leading proponent." This is simply not the case; you're making a fallacious argument here. "All X are Y" does not imply "All Y are X." Saying that all leading proponents are fellows of DI does not imply that all fellows of DI are leading proponents. --BRPierce (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
... well of course it does not imply that "all Y are X". you missed the point. Here is my point: you need two separate lists and a source for each list. One list is the list of leading proponents. The next is a list of DI members. Then compare those two. Right now you illogically infer that all DI ID proponents are the leading proponents. OK is George Bush a leading proponent? He is very well know person whose opinion carries a lot of weight and he has stated that he IS a proponent. How do you differentiate a leading proponent from a non-leading proponent. Seems like your criteria is association with DI. The logic is circular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.150.99 (talk) 12:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
This would be better. Less parenthetical, less sneaky.
Intelligent design's leading proponents believe the designer to be the god of Christianity.[9][10] All the leading proponents are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank[7][8]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.232.53 (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC) [edit] One of the Best Written Biased Views of a Famous Historical American Debate I Have Ever Read -
- LexCorp, we have looked at the FAQ at the top of this page for explanations on why the article is written the way it is -- those explanations are NOT admissible. How is it possible for a skewed and biased FAQ to justify the bias in this article? --ΙΧΘΥΣ (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- What on earth do you mean by "admissible"? This isn't a court, so adding random legal jargon does nothing for your argument by assertion - ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
-
- Admissible -- synonymous with acceptable, appropriate, and justifiable. --ΙΧΘΥΣ (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- An FAQ is quite appropriate on a page devoted to discussion and it is justified by the number of repetitive questions people put forwards, so whether or not you personally find it acceptable, it will stay. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about an FAQ, I'm talking about the FAQ on this talk page which quite clearly is biased in and of itself. A biased FAQ cannot justify bias in an article (since, as stated above by LexCorp, "Please see the FAQ at the top of this page for explanations on why the article is written the way it is." I have looked at the FAQs and I do not think those are sufficient and accurate answers to very reasonable and relevant questions. An FAQ should fairly answer frequently asked questions without any bias. It is very obvious to me (and many others) that this article is biased, and the rebuttals made on this talk page that attempt to justify the bias refer to the FAQ (which is biased). So what I want to know is: how can an FAQ that answers frequently asked questions with a biased perspective warrant the biases present in this article? --ΙΧΘΥΣ (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
-
- You might find it helpful to study Talk:Intelligent design/editing notes. You seem unlikely to find that it fits your bias, but be assured that it reflects carefully considered Wikipedia policies and you won't change them by going on here about "bias". . . dave souza, talk 00:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- User dave souza makes a very good point. Pointing out ad nauseam that you and other editors find the article and its FAQ biased is not very constructive. You should make specific criticism, by reasoning or argument, and discuss also on how Wikipedia policy and the article reliable sources supports said thesis and also if possible make an edit suggestion that will resolve the issue in your view. Then we can engage in a meaningful exchange of views here in the Talk Page in the hope that a consensus may be reached.--LexCorp (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, and while you're at it, read the article on Myth of the Flat Earth and then try replacing each instance of the phrase "intelligent design" in the section of the ID FAQ that deals with the accusation of bias, with "idea of the Flat Earth". You might find it easier to grasp the principles involved in an area where you have no personal interest. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
An aside discussion: After re-reading the Talk:Intelligent design/editing notes. I find them very informative and they seem to answer fully all the points raised by the "biased Article criticism" type of objections. Why were they removed from the top of the page? If because of length. Can not we implement a collapsing link as with the FAQ?.--LexCorp (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC) [edit] To those who feel this article is biased: | Archiving due to WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOTFORUM | | The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. | | I have seen countless editors commenting on how biased the article is. And making efforts to right that. And then see a cabal projecting the bias. NOT TO WORRY! Interestingly the bias is so obvious that the article is a caricature of militant atheists trying to pressure their viewpoint on others. It also shows that they were not even clever enough to camoflage their attempt. Leave it as it it! It simply discredits itself as it is read and motivates the reader to search for the opposite side of the presentation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.135.184.178 (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC) | |
