Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 19

message: I apologize for the inconvience as a result of the premature archiving, it was carried out by another editor who is overly concerned about the 32k limitation. I was going to revert everything back but decided against it given things are relatively quiet here; and referencing /Archive 18 seems to be going smoothly. - RoyBoy 800 00:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 18 

message: I still can't tell what this article is about. This is an encyclopedia, so we don't want to have personal essays on "Intelligent design," which is what it looks like to me when defined the way it is in the article. The introduction says "Intelligent Design (sometimes abbreviated ID) is the controversial assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection." Therefore, according to the article, intelligent design is arguably no different from a Teleological argument. Clearly there is more to it than that. You cannot, (as I learned) say it is simply Dembski's assertion, because he is not the only one who developed it. What about "Intelligent design is term used to describe a particular system of beliefs and theory based on a teleological argument?"--Ben 22:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You know there are. -- Ec5618 01:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed he does. He's been trying to justify a POV fork for a while now FeloniousMonk 01:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Refusal to discuss. Misintrepretation. Bad faith. WP:FAITH. --Ben 02:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a lack of discussion that is the problem here. You took nearly a 25% of this page the other day with your claims and personal attacks and your claims and arguments didn't generate much interest then or now. The real problem here is your refusal to accept consensus. Please do not start with the personal attacks and disruptions again. FeloniousMonk 02:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great. --Ben 06:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What is this article about?

message: I'm wet. I must've been shot by a water gun. sorta. Likwid Swzzl 22:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  the creationism argument is all like 

message: I'm gonna stay out of the contraversy of the moment for now and start talking about saving space. I propse moving the extended reading sections into list of works on intelligent design. Lets get this article tidy. NPOV or POV, we need to keep it readable!--Tznkai 18:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: concur, and would suggest also the fiction be deleted or moved, except to be accurate the title would have to be something like List of fiction which inlcudes something which resembles Intelligent design slightly My $.02, I think the fiction section is silly. KillerChihuahua 14:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I return and I return with scissors. 

message: This subsection has been retitled and re-written to clear up some ambiguities about the topic.
RickReinckens 05:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (Irrelevant side note for other geeks: 13.7 billions years is 5 trillion days, 120 trillion hours, 7.2 quadrillion minutes and 432 quadrillion seconds. But I digress . . .)
Most mutations are either neutral or harmful. But, we'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume one mutation in 10 is beneficial.
43 beneficial mutations per day would mean 430 total mutations--each day.
And . . . those mutations would have to be passed on to offspring! That is almost 20 mutations per hour for 13.7 billion years!
Let's assume Gould overestimated by a factor of four, i.e., human beings are the result of "only" fifteen trillion beneficial mutations. That still would be more than ten beneficial mutations per day, continuously for 13.7 billion years, passed on to offspring.
Remember--if our solar system is only 4.55 billion years old, that means two-thirds of those mutations had to occur and be passed on before our solar system even existed!
There simply hasn't been enough time for advanced life to evolve by chance.
* Few planets are in the "Goldilocks" zone where they are not subject to too much radiation from their own sun and other stars, where they are not subject to severe gravity fluctuations from multiple suns, and multiple other things that would make life impossible. Accumulated mutations would have to occur on such rare worlds and then somehow be transferred to Earth from another solar system over dozens if not tens of thousands of light years. (The closest star system is Alpha Centauri, which is a trinary system--too strong fluctuations in gravity and radiation.)
RickReinckens 08:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Co-evolution and Ecosystems 

message: 4. Is this really ID?  Even though ID appears to be creationist, these book titles don't sound very ID.
I want to be clear that the two books are a mixture. Some of the chapters are straight out of biblical creationism and Christian theology and have virtually nothing to do with science. But many of the chapters present arguments based strictly on ID science and/or statistical analysis. Keep in mind that the books are not written for peer review, so they are not full of equations, etc. They state the substance of the various arguments, including the co-evolution argument.
Taking that into consideration, yes, co-evolution and parts of the books really are ID, despite the book titles. ID is not just the argument, "The universe is too complicated to be the result of random chance." It includes arguments like these:
*There is a general consensus among scientists, theologians, etc., that either life arose through abiogenesis or it arose through specific creation. No one has ever proposed a third fundamental way. Therefore, if one of the two is conclusively disproved some version of the other must be correct.
*Fruit flies have been studied extensively. Since Darwin proposed his theory of evolution there have been over eighty thousand generations of fruit flies. No evidence of macro-evolution has ever been observed.
* One of mine: (As you might guess, I have a strong interest in cosmology.)
Stephen Jay Gould, Ph.D., was a paleontologist and Professor of Zoology, Professor of Geology, Biology, and the History of Science at Harvard University. He was not just an evolutionary biologist--he was one of the leading theorists in the field. In fact, he invented the theory called Punctuated Equilibrium.
When Darwin originally proposed his Theory of Evolution he proposed various tests, including the fossil record--if his theory is true there should be a continuous line in the fossil record from very simple to very complex organisms. So, if lizards evolved from snakes, we should see ancestors of lizards with appendages that are not quite legs.
However, the fossil record reveals jumps rather than continuous development. All of a sudden new, fully formed species are found, with no predecessors.
To explain this, Gould proposed Punctuated Equilibrium. Essentially, this says that slight mutations continually accumulate with no obvious effect. Then, suddenly, a "master gene" is activated and a mutation manifests. Master genes are well-documented in living organisms.
In an interview on PBS around 1991 in a program titled A Glorious Accident, by Dutch producer Wim Kayzer, Dr. Gould "guesstimated" that human beings are the end result of approximately sixty trillion beneficial mutations stating, "Through no fault of our own, and by dint of no cosmic plan or conscious purpose, we have become by a glorious evolutionary accident called intelligence, the stewards of life’s continuity on earth. An accident is the 60 trillion contingent events that eventually led to the emergence of Homo Sapiens. . . . There was never anything in the history of life that has had such an impact upon the earth, as the evolution of human mind. But that doesn’t mean that it was meant to be. It could still be accidental as I think that it was.”
For the purpose of examining macro-evolution, we won't quibble about whether the number should be fifteen or sixty or a hundred trillion. We'll accept Gould's sixty trillion as a reasonable approximation.
Since Gould's death, astronomers have proved that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. Earth is 4.55 billion years old. The fossil record establishes that fully-formed simple organisms existed 3.7 billion years ago.
So what? Sixty trillion beneficial mutations divided by 13.7 billion years divided by 365.25 days per year comes out to forty-three beneficial mutations per day for 13.7 billion years!
:(Irrelevant side note for other geeks: 13.7 billions years is 5 trillion days, 120 trillion hours, 7.2 quadrillion minutes and 432 quadrillion seconds. But I digress . . .)
Most mutations are either neutral or harmful. But, we'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume one mutation in 10 is beneficial.
43 beneficial mutations per day would mean 430 total mutations--each day.
And . . . those mutations would have to be passed on to offspring! That is almost 20 mutations per hour for 13.7 billion years!
Let's assume Gould overestimated by a factor of four, i.e., human beings are the result of "only" fifteen trillion beneficial mutations. That still would be more than ten beneficial mutations per day, continuously for 13.7 billion years, passed on to offspring.
Remember--if our solar system is only 4.55 billion years old, that means two-thirds of those mutations had to occur and be passed on before our solar system even existed!
There simply hasn't been enough time for advanced life to evolve by chance.
* Few planets are in the "Goldilocks" zone where they are not subject to too much radiation from their own sun and other stars, where they are not subject to severe gravity fluctuations from multiple suns, and multiple other things that would make life impossible. Accumulated mutations would have to occur on such rare worlds and then somehow be transferred to Earth from another solar system over dozens if not tens of thousands of light years. (The closest star system is Alpha Centauri, which is a trinary system--too strong fluctuations in gravity and radiation.)
RickReinckens 08:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Co-evolution Are Ashton's books ID, not creationist? 

message: Quick question: is there anywhere other than 2 books by Ashton that could be cited? This article is awfully long already, and I think you yourself said you'd never heard of this before reading the books. Of course, that might well be an argument in favor of including it, in the interests of being thorough - I am wondering if it is a Ashton thing or an ID thing, if you follow. KillerChihuahua 04:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: RickReinckens 04:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

text: thanks, but do any of these authors say anything on the same subject anywhere else? That would clarify who is being cited. Thanks! KillerChihuahua 12:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this limited to Ashton? 

message: This is something I've noticed on Wikipedia (probbaly due to its very nature), not just on this article: There is so much debate within the article that makes it unnecessarily long. I'm of the mind set that an article should tell what something is, not what it is, what it isn't, what people think about it, criticisms, et al. Certainly, some articles should fully feature criticisms, like event articles, but articles about an idea (escatology, theory, et al) should (in my most humble opinion) simply state what that opinion is. As most of these ideas are really just an opinion, or a point of view, to begin with. When there is an article about one's point of view, shouldn't that article simply show that point of view? The countering points of view should have their own articles (and most do anyway), and they can certainly be linked to each other. Just a thought. glocks out 19:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your reductivist impulse is laudable, but cannot be accomodated for very apparent reasons. When reporting on beliefs that are inaccurate, an encyclopedia that is exhausitive must be able to report that they are inaccurate. Unfortunately, the only NPOV way to do this is to report criticisms. If we didn't do this, we would have articles that would devolve into POV platforms which would be exactly the opposite of the NPOV rules. Joshuaschroeder 19:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for even bringing this up here. I'm moving it to the NPoV talk page. You do make a great point, however. When dealing with a "minority view" you do have to make it clear it is one. On the other hand, when there exists "point-counterpoint" articles, it's not much of an article, and more of a message board with either side continuing to add more points and more coutnerpoints. It's just my feeling that when I go to read an article about (for example) monarchy, I want to learn about what a monarchy is, not all about how so many people oppose monarchies, and the socialist position, the democratic position, et al. In this article about ID, for instance, there is a "creation-evolution controversy" article that can (and does) cover the debate contained within. A shorter paragraph mentioning how the idea is thought to be outside of rational thinking by the majority of scientists linking to the articles for evolution and the controversy would suffice, in my humble opinion. As I stated when I opened this discussion, I'm sure this all happens because of the nature of a wiki. glocks out 19:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: According to Undue weight, this article needs a lot of reworking. The portions supporting this minority view are intermingled with the main-stream view, and then there is  about half of the article on criticism. Like, each point made for ID has a counterpoint, and then there is a large section (currently section "4") criticising it. This is basically my point. There is more telling what it isn't, and criticism to it, than there is information about it. glocks out 20:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, do whatever. I don't even care about this article except in the Wikipedia macro view. I can't even think of a way to do an article of a minority view while not having to give the minority view as much space as the majority view. It's weird to me I guess. I will go work on articles I care about instead. glocks out 21:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Uh, ID is the minority viewpoint. Read WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience with WP:NPOV#Undue weight. The scientific community is the majority, their response is presented in an appropriate level per WP:NPOV#Undue weight. FeloniousMonk 21:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate 

message: I just saw this news this morning ,, about the Kansas Education Board actually approving of Intelligent Design, requiring it to be taught in schools. Is a section going to be added concerning ID being taught in certain states? Spencer 23:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Spencer. We're covering this at the Intelligent design movement article. This article covers topics central to understanding the concept. FeloniousMonk 00:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  In The News: Kansas Education Board 

message: I just reverted a new section: "Manipulative genetics" placed under "Intelligent Design concepts: Key component of ID" - no sources, no discussion here, by the ip 24.99.160.185 (no other contribs.) I hate, hate hate Rv'ing unless it is clear vandalism... I may have acted in haste, but it made no sense to me and had no sources, and this is a topic I follow fairly closely and I have never heard of this being used as a component of ID. Will whoever put that section in please discuss here, and cite sources? thanks! KillerChihuahua 06:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Manipulative genetics ?

message: Hopefully we all agree that this article would be better in a shorter form.  I'm not proposing anything too radical, but I think as a starting point we could cut back on the Intelligent Design Movement section which is well-covered in it's own article.  For anyone wondering, the policies and explanations can be found at Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:Summary style (for the record this article is currently 85K).  Any other ideas for getting the article size down, or any issues with this? --Brendanfox 06:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, whatever gets trimmed, we'll need to be careful about creating POV forks. The ID fiction section is a no-brainer for its own article: List of Intelligent Design in fiction. And the Problem of Distant-Future Co-evolution subsection has still not been shown to be a significant viewpoint within ID, or necessary to the article, and so best given its own article. FeloniousMonk 06:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The Sternberg/Smithsonian peer review controversy is worthy of it's own article , and can readers here can be directed to it. FeloniousMonk 17:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I've moved the Sternberg peer review controversy content to its' own article and updated the footnotes. FeloniousMonk 08:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's address the article size 

message: Here's an argument I haven't seen stated anywhere:
Let's assumen there's an Intelligent Designer, and that it/she/he indeed has powers like the Christian God. Then the Designer could have perfectly well designed and created a universe in which evolution would happen.
As I see it, that simple argument makes the case for Intelligent Design completely orthogonal to scientific theories about life. Juancarlo Añez
:That's been stated a lot, actually. A good place to begin reading about that idea is Deism. KillerChihuahua 15:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orthogonality 

message: Apologies if I'm blind, but I've looked and cannot find when the opening sentence changed from "Intelligent Design (ID) is the controversial... " to "Intelligent Design (ID) as opposed to current scientific belief - evolutionary theory is the controversial... " and if there is discussion in the verbose mess which is this talk page I missed that too. IMHO this is POV and adds length, strongly move for a revert back to the simpler version which does not have opposition before it even states the definition. Please make objections known here (promptly - I'm tempted to revert wording and then ask for commentary.) KillerChihuahua 16:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've returned it to the original wording. It was somewhat redundant as well. FeloniousMonk 16:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

text: It was User:advanet  FeloniousMonk 16:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening sentence

message: # Based on what I can find about Ashton's books, they are YEC, not ID.
# The following is simply nonsense
Some proponents of this "problem of distant-future co-evolution" argument, including some chapter authors in Ashton's two books, extend the argument to ecosystems. In an ecosystem, there are various groups of organisms, and each group generally has 2-3 members with similar functions, e.g., pollinating a particular plant, predation against a particular animal, etc. If one member becomes extinct, another member assumes the function. This extended/related argument essentially states that Group A would not evolve to need the functions performed by Group B before Group B evolved such functions and Group B would not evolve those functions until Group A evolved the need for them.
:To begin with, this is not about ecosystems, this is about communities.  More importantly, this totally conflates generalists and specialists.  The idea that "each group generally has 2-3 members with similar functions" shows that whomever the unnamed "scientist" who said is, s/he is totally clueless about species interactions.  Some species are visited by dozens or hundreds of efficient pollinators, some by only one.  These are some of the most basic evolutionary trade-offs - one is a low-risk, high-cost endeavour, the other is a low cost, high risk endeavour.  The idea that "If one member becomes extinct, another member assumes the function" does not reflect reality.  A species that is adapted to "2-3" pollinators would be unusual, and yes, would be among the more difficult to explain evolutionarily.  However, a species with 2-3 efficient pollinators is likely to be unusual.  I really can't believe that any scientist who knows anything about ecological communities would say such a thing.  
:Without proper attribution this material cannot remain in the article.  It's very suspect to me.  Let me know who said what, make sure that the quote is accurate.  Until then, I don't see how the material can stay in the article.  You've had several days to clarify this.  Guettarda 04:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. FeloniousMonk 05:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to coevolution 

message: I've gone ahead and collappsed the further reading and fiction sections into List of works on intelligent design. Feel free to move that article to a smarter title. This will both save space, and is better organization. We do not have a need to address everybook written on a contraversial topic. We may well be here until shortly before Ragnarok! Gonna be looking over the article some more and proposing a few organizational changes--Tznkai 16:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization for space saving. 

message: I seem to recall this being and old issue between myself and another user that ended up on a couple WP:RFAs. Anyway this section seems to be better served as part of the IR section of the article.--Tznkai 16:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What's IR section? Who designed the designer is a separate issue than any of the other subtopics. It's also a very significant and quite common issue raised in ID debates, as is cited in the article It's fully worthy of it's own section. FeloniousMonk 16:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant IC, but its moot now. I'm creating a new structure that should wrap things up quite nicley anyway. Will have a test out soon.--Tznkai 17:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You can see it in progress at User:Tznkai/workshop/Intelligent design/criticism--Tznkai 17:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's some issues with your proposed format. Moving discussion on the the motivations of ID proponents to the intelligent design movement article creates a POV fork, which isn't going to work. Also, it appears you're attempting to lump all viewpoints of the scientific community into one criticism section, which makes for difficult reading and is not supported by the WP:NPOV policy. Further, your sections gloss over the majority viewpoint and do no real explaining of why these criticisms are made, which again isn't going to fly per the policy. To be frank, as it stands, I don't see your proposed change as an improvement or working here. FeloniousMonk 17:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "What (or who) designed the designer?"

message: I have been trying to follow the discussion on the proposed layout; this is obviously an important topic. I have opinions, everybody has opinions and they should all be expressed. Unfortunately, I have  a hard time figuring out who said what, which is a problem, since I don't want to repeat what somebody else said. Could I propose that responses not be placed in the middle of someone else's comment? Or if they are, that each and every insertion be signed and labelled as response to so and so?  Thanks.--CSTAR 16:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's called "splitting comments" and it's bad form. Splitting comments can be misused to lessen the impact of an opponent's response, and so is to be avoided. Quote that which you are responding to instead. See Wikipedia:Talk_pages#Formatting and Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#General_standards. FeloniousMonk 17:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion: A plea