Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 35

message: Just shows what turns up with a bit of searching: American Scientist Online – Being Stalked by Intelligent Design recounts being pestered with "e-mails asking how I explained this or that... I answered him time and again—until I realized  that he was reading neither my answers nor the references I  suggested." Sounds familiar, gives a neat summary of ID. More on topic, Johnson is an elder of First Presbyterian Church in Berkeley, but according to AiG the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) passed a resolution by a vote of 353-150 reaffirming its support of evolutionary theory in 2002. A 1998 panel survey found rather mixed results, with most supporting evolution but not believing in humans developing from earlier species of animals. More generally,Churches urged to challenge Intelligent Design  -20/02/06 had ministers preaching that followers of Christ do not have to choose between biblical stories of creation and evolution at Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Unitarian, Congregationalist, United Church of Christ, Baptist and community churches. Must tidy this up and add some to theistic evolution. A Christian argument against ID: A More Intelligent Design, "At the end of the day, 'intelligent design theory,' fails not because there is no Designer, but because the God implied by such theories is not intelligent enough." ... dave souza, talk 21:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do: I should really be working on a summary of The Good Book ;) .. dave souza, talk 22:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some Presbyterian thoughts..

message: I hit the "save" button before I quite meant to, and thus missed out on adding a decription of my edit. Sorry. Anyway, what I did was simply tighten up the argument and the language - no major change so far as I know. (Although I did change the reference to a "Book of John" to the "Gospel of John", which is the more common title). PiCo 07:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This introduced the erroneous impression that Behe is Protestant, so I've reorganised the wording a bit. Evangelicalism isn't exclusively Protestant according to the lead to that article, and all the leading proponents fit the general description so I've changed it to "evangelical Christian" rather than being more specific, and separated the religion of proponents section from the first part of the sentence. Hope that's clearer, .. dave souza, talk 10:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion and leading proponents 

message: A user is removing links critical of The Genesis Flood, removing a list of unaccredited schools from Name It and Frame It?, and removing the table of contents from Why People Believe Weird Things. Can some give advice or help? PatriotBible 00:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What the heck is that monstrosity? Name It and Frame It? New Opportunities in Adult Education and How to Avoid Being Ripped Off by 'Christian' Degree Mills. Definately worthy of prod or AfD. -- Ec5618 00:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually a notable book. To PatriotBible, if you have a dispute with one other editor, you may want to describe it on Wikipedia:Third opinion for resolution. Personally I don't agree that the links you want (to usenet articles, forums, and what not) are appropriate. And why are you asking on this talk page?? -Amatulic 02:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PatriotBible is fairly new - explain don't yell at new users.  And Talk.origins archive is a reliable source.  Guettarda 06:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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

message: :Since I'm struggling for time at the moment, here's a rough draft done from memory rather than properly cited. The intention is that this should replace the paragraph in the Controversy section which begins "The criticism of intelligent design has not been limited to the scientific community.":
:Although ID proponents portray themselves as battling against "atheistic" science, several of the most prominent critics of ID are Christians, including Coyne and Miller. As a result of the controversy mainstream churches, including Episcopalians, Presbyterians and the Roman Catholic church, have issued statements distancing themselves from ID and reaffirming their understanding that their religious faith is compatible with science and with evolution, a position known as theistic evolution. While their objection to ID is commonly that it is not science, they also cite theological reasons for rejecting it. ID has also been sharply criticised by Creationists, who found their funding dwindling as donations were transferred to the DI.
:The theological reasons, and the Schönborn muddled article and subsequent drawing back, could be dealt with in footnotes, or in a separate article going into more detail. Any comments? .. dave souza, talk 14:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we'd need to qualify "Creationists" in some way; as it stands, the text implies that ID and creationism are entirely separate.  I'm not sure that it should have a capital "C", either.  "Other creationsts" might be too controversial, accurate though it may be; perhaps "some creationists" or "some creationist organizations"?  We'll need specific quotes from anti-ID creationists, of course; Harun Yahya might be a start. Tevildo 16:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking as just one editor, I would support a very brief expansion of the treatment of this dimension of the controversy (optimally one paragraph, or a couple brief ones) such as preliminarily proposed by Dave Souza to replace the existing one (the "Schonborn paragraph").  My preference would be to see the existing first sentence of that paragraph remain more-or-less intact, with a suitable version of the proposed summary added to it. Perhaps a sentence such as the following would introduce the thread proposed by Dave_Souza with reasonable effectiveness, coming as it does at the end of that section intro and leading into "defining ID as science". "Criticism of intelligent design has not been limited to the scientific community; many religious individuals and groups have objected to intelligent design as well, based on theological or moral grounds."While the ID crowd have some things of interest to say they, are indeed just a revamped God of the gaps and the Paylean argument from design in a more modern form. Their refusal to engage with the theological issues this engenders is their greatest weakness, it is also a deliberate strategy, to try and show to the secular world they are nothing but scientists and philosophers. It also hides from their Christian constituency that some of their people are not Christian - at least one is a Moonie. Their second weakness is to muddy the waters with terms like "methodological naturalism", "operations science" and "origins science". The fact that some leading Christian philosophers in the US (i.e. Plantiga [sic]) are also confused does not help. Their third weakness is ... their refusal to come clean on the age of the earth. This is to try and hide the fact that they have strong links with the young earthers, at least one of their leading people is a strong young earther. Fourthly, the movement is strongly driven by a US political agenda - the "renewal" of US society and culture through the destruction of materialism via its supposed foundation of "methodological naturalism", the greatest strength of which is supposed to be evolution. The export of this US agenda, redolent with the culture wars, to the rest of the world, is of grave concern." Intelligent Design? ISCAST Bullentin, Issue 48, Spring 2005. Institute for the Study of Christianity in an Age of Science and Technology. (PDF file)" (end of proposed first sentence of paragraph) ... Kenosis 17:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kinda odd that none of the sources reference by Kirk specifically mention ID.  The closest they get is a version of theological evolution.  Wonder what's up with that.  •Jim62sch• 23:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ID doesn't even have a clear definition because of the variations of ideas to prove that a God exists because of some ID hypothesis. Like we say, we are treating the ID that contradictions evolution in the discussion. The references show subscription to the science of [evolution] by the scientists referenced, not [Theoligical evolution] which is not a science. While there might be some talk of theological evolution it is never presented as a science but a theology that also incorporates the science of evolution. These people are being asked if they believe in a science not a theology. (CptKirk 00:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea what CK just wrote there.  These sentances don't make any sense.  Guettarda 01:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor do I.  So much for the theory that we invented language in order to communicate. •Jim62sch• 01:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think I can see what he's trying to say: (a) It's wrong to make an explicit contrast between "science" and "theistic evolution", and (b) The Roman Catholic Church objects to ID both on religious and scientific grounds.  However, I don't see anywhere in the article that the first distinction is made, and I think the proposed revision makes the second point clear.  I'd like to ask CK - if this is a correct summary of your position, what is it specifically about the current article and/or the proposed revision that you don't think adequately covers it? Tevildo 02:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points. I just can't wait to read the good Captain's response. Having said that, I'd like to ask Jim <Kirk> to realize warp 10 is too fast. If you slow down to one thing at a time, and listen to experienced editors, all will be well. Beam me up, Scotty! (It feels so good to be able to say that again after ten years on a planet that is clearly not the one where I belong.) AvB ÷ talk 03:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  I see there is not a major mystery here because Tevildo could grasp the concept without a problem. (CptKirk 05:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed paragraph on religious opposition to ID

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

message: What do you not understand about this... evolution is a science. Theistic evolution is not a science.
True---so what?--Filll 21:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let us take one of Filll's points at random and explore them. Say the last one... The science of evolution should be mentioned also. Your reply is to simply break away from my context of my edit to other stuff in the article and pretend it is all over it. I was talking about the edit and nothing more. If you talked about an edit you made I think you would expect me to stay focused on your edit until you mentioned something outside of your edit. If you still don't understand then have a look at the reverts and tell me where [evolution] is in the section my edit was reverted too. Where does it say 'theists reject an ID that rejects evolution'? in whole article for that matter either? [personal attacks removed by Guettarda]. (CptKirk 22:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am very sorry. I sure wish you could write in English. When I read something that is so disorganized and rambling that my eyes glaze over, and I have to read it over and over and over, it is not a good sign. And this is what I see above. Ugh. It makes me cringe. I think you might have some important point you want to make, but it just does not make it out through your writing. I wish it did. --Filll 00:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Ok I have checked, and I am glad to see that CptKirk's suggestions were reverted. I am not claiming what was there before CptKirk was perfect, but at least it could be parsed and understood as simple declarative English sentences. I speak a little French, but I would not dream of going in and arguing in French WP how they should construct their arguments. And that is what I think was going on here. I do feel bad for him. I wish I knew what he wanted, but I am not sure he even understood the article well enough to be able to come out with a coherent suggestion. Oh dear...--Filll 00:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree.  I would like to help, but I can't see through the words to the point.  AvB gave some great advice earlier on: "I'd like to ask Jim <Kirk> to realize warp 10 is too fast. If you slow down to one thing at a time, and listen to experienced editors, all will be well."   CptKirk, if he is watching, should try to understand that there is no personal animosity, it's just that to contribute effectively, you need to be clear so that others can hear you.Trishm 00:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've unbolded the farewell. Might I suggest all editors here make an effort to patiently help any new editor understand that and why the long term editors are fed up? I get the feeling that new editors are rather put off by the sudden (from their point of view) frustration over seemingly trivial matters. In future, we might also consider approaching such editors on their own talk pages, to ease them into the pool, as it were. -- Ec5618 00:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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

text: I feel bad. I am sure it is frustrating if a person is new, and  using a foreign language to boot. I would be very frustrated trying to communicate. I think you are right, it is far better to go slow, try small short sentences, and try to make sure people understand. I do not want to put up a barrier to new editors. It is difficult enough to learn the ways of Wikipedia without the social barriers too. Then we have the clear language problem on top of it all in this situation, and it became an impossible situation and frustrating for everyone; us "old timers" and CptKirk too. I guess it might have seemed like a trivial matter to CptKirk, and I think whatever his point was, it probably was something that could be easily cleared up with a sentence or two from someone with some insight on both sides. But such a person did not exist in this situation, unfortunately. It is not trivial to me when someone comes in and writes gibberish text I cannot understand however, and insists on it being in the article for some unknown reason. It is annoying. I am sure he meant well. I suspect he did not understand some subtlety in English and thought he was correcting some huge hole in our argument (which I do not comprehend even now). And could not believe it when we did not appreciate it. My uneducated guess would be that he saw "theistic evolution" and immediately thought we were trying to say it was a type of evolution like NeoDarwinian evolution or Darwinian Evolution or Punctuated Equilibrium. I on the other hand, read the description a few weeks ago and after a sentence or two said to myself, oh yes that is the viewpoint or philosophy that I have and most people have. It is just reasonable  and accommodating, and is not evolution at all. However, the name is confusing or potentially confusing. All theistic evolution means (at least to me) is that there is no reason God could not operate through evolution if he chose to. And it is not up to us puny humans to dictate to God how he does whatever he does, if he exists. So the conflict evaporates. For people who make their living by trying to push for a conflict like assorted creationist groups and a few atheists, this is bad, because it is competition. So I think that in the US, like most other things, it just boils down to one thing: MONEY. --Filll 00:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Filll, if what you say is correct, then the problem is his hubris in thinking that he and only he had the correct perspective.  And then to turn around and blame the messengers, while repeatedly obfuscating rational points in favor of pursuing his agenda?  Please, gimme a break already, y'know? ... Kenosis 01:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. •Jim62sch• 12:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trying to Analyze a CptKirk post

message: Archive before 'back to basics'? Yes/No?
(CptKirk 23:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have archived the oldest discussions. -- Ec5618 23:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive discussion possibility? 

message: Well will why not log in?  What are you hiding from? If you really are will that is. Not too smart to put your personal info on the internet you know. 
::To quote Cornholio, Do you threaten?  
::Is the pro-Evolution crowd that dangerous?  Should I fear that they will strike at me for breaking the code of silence?  This is typical internet debate tactics.  Turn the argument against me personally and shift the work load onto me.  
So this section:
Does not tell you what ID is, give you references to check? And it is not more than one sentence huh? My goodness.--Filll 21:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually that is sentence 3. And it is an introduction. We have to have introductions. And the introductions have to be balanced, and have to represent the material in brief. Sorry if that bothers you but those are the rules. --Filll 22:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Separating the scientific communities view of ID (what you call "debunking") from the theory itself contrary to policy. Doing so creates a hierarchy of fact - the views of the ID proponents are "true" and "undisputed", whereas the view of the scientific community is "controversial", held by "critics" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that is both inaccurate and inappropriate, getting WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience exactly backward. FeloniousMonk 22:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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

text: We are not Nazis. We are just trying to balance a lot of complicated competing demands as best we can.--Filll 22:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plainly User:71.166.165.104 has either (1) chosen not to actually read the subject, or (2) does not find the facts to his/her liking and chooses to play the victim angle.  See, incidentally, this recent treatment of the subject of victim-bullies, which is the direction in which User:71.166.165.104 has already taken this discussion. Unfortunate. ... Kenosis 22:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ID is dangerous because it is an attempt to force others to adhere to a particular narrow set of religious beliefs; I would even say a dishonest attempt in that its proponets, who should as christians adhere to honesty, are not honest: rather then saying they want to force everyone to do what they wnat, they come up with a non sensical theory no more scientific then green cheese on the moon. signed cinnamon colbert —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.60.137.141 (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I had a dollar for every whiner who has never read a single Wikidepia editorial policy, considers themselves an expert on Wiki policies, and who accuses the editors here of being bullies, nazis, bias, pov, I'd retire.  Hey anon IP dude, cry me a river will ya?  Mr Christopher 22:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering how all the above, this strikes me more as a bit of street theater meant to portray regular contributors here as unyielding and hidebound, I think. FeloniousMonk 22:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't surprise me if the exchange didn't show up on a blog somewhere, with Mr Nemo Oudes portayed as a victim of rabid left-wing neo-Nazi pseudo-intellectual bikers-for-Atheism or some such.  Oh, btw, Nemo, the Romans never pretended Apollo was science, so your analogy, to be polite, is like so much elephantine fecal matter trodden under foot. •Jim62sch• 01:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More for "will"

message: <Comment from banned user Raspor removed> [[[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 06:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not Nazis. We are just trying to balance a lot of complicated competing demands as best we can.--Filll 22:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plainly User:71.166.165.104 has either (1) chosen not to actually read the subject, or (2) does not find the facts to his/her liking and chooses to play the victim angle.  See, incidentally, this recent treatment of the subject of victim-bullies, which is the direction in which User:71.166.165.104 has already taken this discussion. Unfortunate. ... Kenosis 22:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ID is dangerous because it is an attempt to force others to adhere to a particular narrow set of religious beliefs; I would even say a dishonest attempt in that its proponets, who should as christians adhere to honesty, are not honest: rather then saying they want to force everyone to do what they wnat, they come up with a non sensical theory no more scientific then green cheese on the moon. signed cinnamon colbert —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.60.137.141 (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I had a dollar for every whiner who has never read a single Wikidepia editorial policy, considers themselves an expert on Wiki policies, and who accuses the editors here of being bullies, nazis, bias, pov, I'd retire.  Hey anon IP dude, cry me a river will ya?  Mr Christopher 22:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering how all the above, this strikes me more as a bit of street theater meant to portray regular contributors here as unyielding and hidebound, I think. FeloniousMonk 22:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't surprise me if the exchange didn't show up on a blog somewhere, with Mr Nemo Oudes portayed as a victim of rabid left-wing neo-Nazi pseudo-intellectual bikers-for-Atheism or some such.  Oh, btw, Nemo, the Romans never pretended Apollo was science, so your analogy, to be polite, is like so much elephantine fecal matter trodden under foot. •Jim62sch• 01:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I get it, the Evo-Nazi's run the show

message: ... and sorry you seem to be getting a hard time here - everyone's actually ok, but if you click on the of the old discussion links at the top of this page, you'll see that various wacky folk have been through here, testing the patience of most - and it's hard to see the wood from the trees sometimes...
I think your point about the seperation of the theory and the debunking is a good one - the trouble comes when you try to do that without promoting a point of view - this is a highly strung topic, so the article is delicately balanced to reflect the bodies of opinion out there - try and submit some re-written proposals, which will definitely let people know where you're coming from, and avoid the nasty poLarity that crept in so far (against you mainly!) - cheers, Petesmiles 21:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe so Will, but that is not the rules we live with here. I have had many articles in trouble of deletion for doing exactly what you suggest. This is VERY hard to do. No one person can dictate what they want because other editors will tear him or her to shreds.--Filll 22:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will I mean no disrespect, but do you have any idea how hard it is to write any of this and get it in Wikipedia? And keep it from being destroyed? And obey the rules? Obviously not. Try writing something and then lets see what you feel. Or go to look at Jesus as mythology if you want to see something balanced teh opposite way. Or Noah's Ark. The article on Jesus as mythology is written as though he was not mythology, in spite of there being at least 2 other articles with the same theme. Noah's Ark is written as a scientific fact in places. We cannot fix these. Look at Religious perspective on dinosaurs and tell me it is biased towards evolution.  It is very very difficult.--Filll 22:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hear where you are coming from. I argue all the time to keep creationist articles from being deleted, because I want to know what the other side is thinking. So I understand. That is just not how they laid down the rules for Wikipedia. It takes a while to get used to it, believe me.--Filll 22:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: The ID wiki, researchintelligentdesign.org, would be a great place for 71.166.165.104 to add his views on the topic. FeloniousMonk 22:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey anon IP dude, the truth is out there... <cue X Files theme song> You might start with the Discovery Institute web site...In between crying me a river that is....Mr Christopher 22:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too!  Hey anon IP dude, go here (the DI web site) http://www.discovery.org/ to learn what ID is really about (this Wiki article is a front by secular devil worshippers designed to fool the masses). Mr Christopher 22:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And of course you agree with him, Thomas Morgan, you're using Raspor's IP address :-) Mr Christopher 22:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Figures. I'm so suprised. FeloniousMonk 23:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree MC. It is hard enough to write stuff here, even stuff I am REALLY interested in. I try to write a bit for my friends here and there to help out. It is a bit much for a total stranger who is acting unpleasant and obnoxious and insulting, a newbie who might not even sign in, to come and expect us to write FOR THEM. As I said to adlac, write it yourself. I cannot write for you. Then we can discuss your work AFTER it is written. Do not expect me to guess what will make someone else happy. I am NOT going to write a religious tract. I just am not. I often get a bit carried away and I rip them a new one, as I am sure everyone has seen. I try not to do that, but I get annoyed at the bullying. So I hear where you are coming from.--Filll 23:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oudes, the Romans Greeks never pretended Apollo Zeus was science, so your analogy, to be polite, is like so much elephantine fecal matter trodden under foot. Pick a new argument. •Jim62sch• 22:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi Will 

message: We link like crazy to the discovery institute websites and ID material. So you can see it in its most positive light if you want. However, we are not allowed to do that here on WP. The article would be deleted immediately. I cannot even write about level of support for evolution without putting in support for creationism. But you are starting to make me wonder if you are not a troll. Sorry.--Filll 22:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another example: We cannot put only positive material or only negative material on about Scientology or even the Flat Earth Society. We have to have both sides.--Filll 22:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What the fuck has this to do with the article? •Jim62sch• 01:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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

message: It might be asked, why is there such resistance by scientists to include the supernatural in science? After all, as put by Stephen Meyer, director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, "Science should be open to whatever cause ... can best explain the data". This might sound eminently reasonable and fair at first glance. However, as pointed out by the National Center for Science Education's Eugenie Scott, opening science to supernatural causes like a god would be a "science stopper."
Scott explains, "Once you allow yourself to say God did it, you stop looking for naturalistic explanations. If you stop looking, you won't find them" Does Seattle group "teach controversy" or contribute to it?, Linda Shaw, Seattle Times, Thursday, March 31, 2005.As an example, consider John who has physics homework to do. John knows the answer he is supposed to get from the back of the book. There are twenty steps to get from the initial assumptions to the answer, but John is stumped at step 5. Should John invoke the divine or a miracle or magic to get from step 5 to the answer at step 20, and expect to get a good grade for his work? Will John learn anything if he solves all his problems in science this way?  Scott also stated in a CNN interview, "In science, you never really say, you know, this is a mystery that we can't explain and, you know, stop there. In science, you always keep looking for that natural explanation, which is why most of us consider intelligent design to be not a very good science, because it's basically giving up and saying: We can't explain this; therefore, God did it."CNN Newsroom, ID Featured on CNN: Transcript and Questions,  May 2, 2001.
The introduction of the supernatural into science would make it very difficult to do drug testing. How could the scientists know how to evaluate the outcome of a drug study? It is possible that the people were not cured by the drug, but by a miracle instead.—Preceding unsigned comment added by filll (talk • contribs) 
::What the fuck has this to do with the article? •Jim62sch• 01:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's too well written.  Couldn't possibly be the person whom I won't mention by name.  Orangemarlin 19:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why not let the supernatural into science?

message: Please do not feed the trolls dave souza, talk 22:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't want to be mistaken for common Wikipedia sockpuppet trolls, here's a tip:  read the talk archives before posting, and say something that hasn't been shot down a thousand times before.  Some originality will go a long way towards convincing others that you're not one of WP's more egregious serial malcontents under a new IP address.  Cheers, Kasreyn 05:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't feed the trolls

message: This page should be a fair critique of the nitpicking, evidence-less mumbo-jumbo and should not be a Biblical recruiting page. The "protection" is nothing more than a heavy-handed attempt to spew religion on wikipedia? What, 24 or so pages aren't enough? too bad! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.204.151.5 (talk • contribs) 
:Thank you for your input. We'll ponder it. Justin Eiler 19:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I"m one of infrequent editors of this article, and since I don't subscribe to ID, I hardly consider this article to be a Biblical recruiting page.  It is about as balanced as possible, and it clearly states that ID is pseudoscience.  Did I just feed another troll?  I can't help myself!!!!  Orangemarlin 19:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This IP has been repeatedly blocked from editing Wikipedia in response to vandalism. Further acts of vandalism from this IP may result in another immediate block without warning.
--Filll 19:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Random comment

message: Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon - it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flys [sic] back to its flock to claim victory.
--Anonymous reviewer of Eugenie Scott's Evolution vs. Creationism : An Introduction.--Filll 18:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny.  But not all of the Creationists are like that.  Homestarmy seems to be a good guy in this process.  Orangemarlin 04:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: All comments from Everwill have been removed since he has admitted to being a sockpuppet of permanently banned editor Raspor. FeloniousMonk 17:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please use the Talk page to discuss changes to the article. This rant is irrelevant. -- Ec5618 23:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

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

text: While a total re-write is a bit extreme, I actually agree with his point about article readability. The constant "They claim ... but experts say ..." throughout the article make it pretty hard to follow a complete thought through a section. It's not hard to see how the article develops that way--the debates over a particular word or phrase tend to ADD clarifiers and cavaots, instead of taking them away. While more technically accurate, overall readability of the article suffers.  BradC 00:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *grins*  The constant "they claim ... but experts say" is because it would not conform to encyclopedic style for the entire article to consist of only the sentence "A skein of pseudoscience and distortions designed to provide creationism the scientific patina needed to further erode the separation of church and state", despite the fact that it would be far more concise without sacrificing any factual accuracy that I can see.  ;)  Cheers, Kasreyn 01:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed, getting this right is terribly difficult to do, that's why so many people are putting in such an incredible effort.  The difference between the articles that he mentioned and ID is that ID is the only one of those which is part of a current political and religious campaign, deliberately misusing language (e.g. "only a theory") aimed at undermining scientific theory, and changing what is taught in the classrooms around the world.  This highly-charged situation shifts the balance between readability and accuracy toward accuracy.  The basic reason for the difficulty in getting it readable is that so many of the ID claims have been carefully crafted to use ambigous terms to mislead. Trishm 01:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everwill, it's not as simple as Zeus.  For one thing, Zeus doesn't have a buttload of supporters who regularly vandalize the article on Zeus with "Zeus is a real god, and he is angry at the LIE-berals for claiming he is not!!"  It's easy to say Zeus is a myth, because no one's going to come along five minutes later and revert it and demand five reliable sources calling Zeus a myth!  Here, the partisan warfare is too bitter for simple solutions.  Individual adjectives are fought over like trenches at the Somme.  And apparently it makes too many peoples' fingers twitch over their keyboards to see their opponents' words in one long block, undisturbed.  When it's just a matter of organization of information, I agree with you and I think it would make the article more readable.  But it will probably only last a short while before the article again dissolves into point-by-point rebuttals.  Cheers, Kasreyn 01:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It is my job as an editor not to mislead people.Trishm 02:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Why don't you explain to us why bigfoot is not written the way you want, even though you claimed IT WAS????????????????????????????????--Filll 01:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, it's tragic.  Please remember to sign using four tildes. ... Kenosis 02:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I for one am fine with the article as is. Given the overwhelming  scientific consensus against ID, to describe this any other way wouldn't be neutral but would be "balanced" in that idiotic way that some journalists use the term. Neutral does not mean we need to give equal time. Neutral does not mean that we need to deemphasize critics when the critics are almost all of the relevant experts. Most importantly for these purposes. neutral does not mean that we need to put criticism in separate sections when almost every single claim made by the proponents has largescale criticism from the scientific community. Simply put, given how much criticism there is (and that criticism is necessary, neutrality doesn't mean "equal time") there's no other reasonable way of organizing this. JoshuaZ 02:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Why I am now convinced that this article is a joke" What a fantastic way of getting the editors here to stop what they've been doing for the last few years to hear your points.  Comparing this article to bigfoot and thus demonstrating in vivid technicolor your lack of understanding for the subject is yet another really smart approach on your part.  Thank you for your meaningful and well thought out contribution!  Another effective apoproach is to describe how sad this article makes you and how you can no longer have any faith in Wikipedia.  That always brings about positive change.  Best of luck!  Mr Christopher 15:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I see it, the problem here is that ID proponents make numerous claims that are false and/or misleading, and it is much easier to present the rebuttals to those claims as they come up.  The alternative is to present the article devoid of criticisms, then present the whole thing all over again in the "criticism" section, with the appropriate rebuttals inserted this time around: which would be, shall we say, inefficient. --Robert Stevens 16:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing that I think the author of this section (whichever blocked user he happens to be) needs to realize is that articles about controversial subjects (especially subjects in academic fields) can and must portray without re-enacting a subject's controversy. Bigfoot does not have as a significant theme in the article the subject's nonexistence because of the fact that in the academic world or world of thought, Bigfoot's existence is a nonissue to nearly everyone. No one talks about it except for a handful who, as the saying goes, "want to believe". ID is a much more particular issue because there is a devoted, not-insignificant movement to put it forward as a scientific theory, in addition to the fact that there is a very large part of the academic community that asserts that there is no scientific basis to it. Being that these are both well-documented voices, and that one is far more prevalent than the other, the article, in tone, reflects this controversy as it is, and the article for example at Bigfoot is not a useful comparison except in some specific details. --HassourZain 16:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why I am now convinced that this article is a joke

message: All comments from Everwill have been removed since he has admitted to being a sockpuppet of permanently banned editor Raspor. FeloniousMonk 17:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There might be value to some of these comments. But the obnoxious way that this editor introduced himself really did not build good will.--Filll 16:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should the article say "Intelligent Design is founded upon evidence of intelligence in nature" when this is not true?  Similarly, why should it say that "The theory is that although evidence pointing to the nature of an "intelligent cause or agent" may not be directly observable, its effects on nature can be detected" when ID is not a "theory" at all, in the scientific sense of the word?  Similarly with your comment "Does the theory purport that the “Christian god” is the one true god or not? If not, then this reads like a petty cheap shot on so many levels" - basically, the answer to that question is yes: ID is not a scientific theory at all, but essentially a Christian religious denomination.  Your wording seems to assume that what the ID-proponents say publicly about ID is correct, and proceeds on that basis: whereas the view of its opponents (backed by evidence of what ID-proponents say in sources not intended for the public, such as the Wedge document) is that this is not the case. --Robert Stevens 16:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think these are some valuable ideas, Everwill, and you will definitely find that these types of suggestions will be more well-received than your prior postings. That doesn't mean, of course, that these edits will ultimately get approved by the community here--I happen to agree with your assessment of the user climate on these pages. Anyway, enough meta-comments. I'll take a look at the substance of your suggestions if I get some time later today. BradC 17:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Recycling some of his ideas and presenting them is fine. Stepping into his shoes by either posting in his stead or continuing his neverending tendentous and fruitless arguments would likely be viewed as  meatpuppetry, not sockpuppetry. FeloniousMonk 19:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FM's exactly right. Raspor wasn't blocked because of the ideas that he had, but rather the hostile, disruptive way in which he insisted on presenting them. I did my absolute best to try to get him to understand that but evidently his wall was too high or he had no intention to contribute constructively. --HassourZain 19:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Version

message: Posts from banned editors should not be responded to, but removed. Period. Responding to trolls is discouraged as well. FeloniousMonk 17:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was suspicious that it was Raspor, but the English was too good.  Oh well.   Orangemarlin 17:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Banned editors completely lose the right to contribute under any account, and new accounts set up by them are considered sock puppets used to avoid a ban. Now that he's established for us that he's willing to evade his block using sock puppets, any comments in a similar vein from new accounts need to be scrutinized first, and if they are indeed suspicious they should have Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Raspor added to the bottom of the user page and we'll add a checkuser request to confirm or discount the suspicions. FeloniousMonk 18:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record raspor often used perfect english.  His "Borat" style english was probably just a part of his game.  I pointed this out on one of the raspor related pages.  And I'm sure he'll be back.  Mr Christopher 18:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is why I think he was a troll. He could be coherent and make reasonable suggestions, and then just engage other editors in endless stupid nasty fights.--Filll 18:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I mostly ignored anything he wrote, so I honestly did not analyze his writing skills.  On the RfC page, his writing skills were atrocious.  Orangemarlin 18:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I noticed that as well- his edits as Everwill seemed to be perfectly well-typed, but his edits as Raspor and one of the two similar IP addresses used broken english with numerous misspellings. If it was an act and he was trolling, it was a very convincing act- so much so that I cannot decide if I was correct in my original estimation of his intent. --HassourZain 18:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My suspicion is that Raspor was several different people, just pulling our chains from the same account.--Filll 18:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please do not engage trolls and banned users 

message: Right, returning to the last paragraph in the Controversy section before the first subsection, at present it reads as follows:
My opinion is that this gives the mistaken belief that there is only "some" religious opposition, and I've reframed a proposed alternative more broadly, with cites:
This version leaves out the positions of individual denominations – these can be explained in a footnote and/or set out in a subsection about ID in Level of support for evolution. If preferred this question could form a new article, giving the faiths of ID proponents and the position of various religious groups. Note that the creationist critique has been referenced and refined. .. dave souza, talk 20:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good here.  Perhaps "opposed to religion" rather than "atheistic"?  "Materialistic" might be a possibility, too, because that's the word used in the Wedge Document itself, but science can legitimately be described as "materialistic", and we want to avoid too much technical philosophy jargon.  Comma needed after "science" in the second sentence - "...is fully compatible with science, which is limited...".  Apart from that, I wouldn't change anything. Tevildo 23:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly is a major creationist charge that people who support evolution are atheists; is the same true of intelligent design? If we can find references (which I am sure we can because Phillip E. Johnson has such a big mouth and can get pretty offensive sometimes), then we can keep it. It is an example of how inflammatory anti-evolution forces (like creationist, creation scientist and intelligent design supporters) get when they start talking beyond a very narrow set of "talking points" that they have agreed on beforehand. This claim is as old as the hills; if you look at the history of creationism, it dates back about a century at least, and maybe considerably more.--Filll 23:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for these pointers: in attempting to paraphrase earlier points in the article as "intelligent design arguments are framed to portray science as atheisic and attract widespread support from religious people" I've strayed beyond the sources at hand, so have had a look for a source and found that Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator which is already cited (no. 81 at present) gives a useful basis for "intelligent design proponents aim to gain support by unifying the religious world–Christians, Jews, Muslims and others who believe in a creator–in challenging Darwinism with a God-friendly alternative theory". Hope that's a fair summary of points from that article and is generally acceptable: I'll try to amend the proposal to incorporate it. .. dave souza, talk 10:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As intended but hadn't got around to, a link to Harun Yahya – The "Intelligent Design" Distraction is now added to the creationist objections line. I've left it as "creationist organisations", since just saying "creationists" might imply the DI aren't. An alternative formulation considered was "overt creationists". Any further suggestions or comments before I add this to the article? ... dave souza, talk 09:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy within religion

message: Apologies that the opening is the subject of yet another post, but we now have the double whammy of 'a teleological argument for the existence of God' - which seems to me to be a tautology (or is it tautologous? who knows....) This is Kenosis' suggestion from above - and seems to help with the accessibility Filll is after....
Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God, stated in secular terms and based on the premise.......
whaddya reckon?
cheers, Petesmiles 22:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pete I would agree. If a person wants to still sneak teleology in there, the clever idea of a link like that will do it. It just should be remembered that this is an encyclopedia for the general public, not scholars or philosophers.--Filll 22:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Best of luck to you both. :)  I agree that Pete's version is good.  I've split the first sentence into two, which was the arrangement that FM preferred and which I think is another slight improvement. Tevildo 23:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good.  I like it too.Trishm 04:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tautology at the opening 

message: Filll has provided a heads-up for a discussion at Talk:Level of support for evolution#Requested move:  I've trimmed out the discussion from this page to avoid duplication. .. dave souza, talk 08:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe we have the makings of a disagreement on this issue.--Filll 05:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: If you see this and are not a true believer, there is something wrong with you : --Filll 17:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the following two interesting as well (Scholastic_Films_Presents_Intelligent_Design and the musical presentation Origin_of_Species) ... Kenosis 18:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brilliant intelligent design video 

message: Is there anyone out there who can somehow place the two infoboxes so the lower one (ID) doesn't appear to the left of the upper one (creationism)? On my screen the ID box starts near the bottom of the SC one, but is overlapped slightly, so it is pushed to the left and seriously narrows the text area beside it. Thanks! Maury 20:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On all my available browsers and settings, there's a very significant vertical space between the two infoboxes, and they are well out of each other's way. May I inquire, on what browser is this overlap occurring on? Is your screen a particularly wide one? Do you know what the screen resolution is? ... Kenosis 20:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Firefox 2, 1280x1024. Nothing magical here. Maury 21:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With similar horizontal resolution and Firefox, it appears that if you hide the article table of contents, the second infobox gets pushed to the left a bit; if you show the contents, they fall one above the other with a space in between.  I trust the text is readable either way? ... Kenosis 21:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem is due to the TOC. I have this turned off, so the vertical space is less. Isn't there any way to fix this so it will work with the TOC on or off? It works with images... Maury 14:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  info box placement 

message: Discussion moved to the subpage /Off_topic_discussions since it was not directly related to specific article content and was becoming disruptive with ad hominem attacks of regular editors. FeloniousMonk 19:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Agendas and Stereotypes

message: After a startling lack of disagreement at #Controversy within religion above, I've implemented it. For those struggling to work out what ID is, a brief transcript of the words of the master and a link to the movie at Talk:Creation-evolution controversy#Johnson in A War on Science provide educational viewing in an entertaining format. Personally, I like the monkey song. .. dave souza, talk 21:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Enough of religious disagreements

message: FeloniousMonk reverted a ref I added to the intro, on the grounds that it was advancing a particular point of view. 
:rv Ed's edits, which are promoting a particular view) 
Since this is a controversial article, with much to say on both sides, I think we should apply NPOV, which says that "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."
Surely one footnote from an Upper West Side museum's magazine - Natural History - is not out of proportion. And didn't the arbcom rule last year that it's not correct to delete material simply because it "advances a point of view"? FM would seem to be admittedly going against the arbcom, on the basis of his edit summary. --Uncle Ed 22:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, not a very subtle misuse of sources that, Ed. If your footnote stood was meant to support the passage "Intelligent design (ID) is an argument for the existence of God", then why out of all the passages in that article did you choose to include the one that contains the rhetoric of ID proponents ("...who maintain that their version of the idea (unlike Paley's) is soundly supported by both microbiology and mathematics")? It also runs completely counter to the source that preceded it, the Dover trial ruling, which explicitly said that ID proponents version of the idea was not supported by microbiology or mathematics. So please Ed, explain to us how this does not backhandedly promote the ID viewpoint. As far as my going against the arbcom, from what I remember, it is you who is on permanent probation for disruption, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2#Ed_Poor_placed_on_Probation, not me. FeloniousMonk 23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I might add that the "Natural History" article was from 2002, prior to the full public disclosure and public discussion of the scope of the DI's agenda, and also prior to the showdowns over teaching it as a scientific alternative to evolution in science classes, as well as prior to the completion of analysis, discussion and commentary by the scientific community. ... Kenosis 23:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it has been largely overtaken by more recent events and sources. It reads almost quaint now. FeloniousMonk 00:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The line implied a scientific argument, where no scientific paper has been published.  Definitely misleading, POV aside.Trishm 00:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: EXACCLTY i agree COMPLEELY iwht what you just said i hope that this silly IDEA of a ID does not get reppresented as as citnetific theory because its not! Smith Jones 04:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WAIT Also i would like to archive this talk page because it sis gettng HUGE!!! Smith Jones
Good idea about the archiving – will have a go if no-one gets round to it shortly. Anyway, Ed's quaint source does have some value: his selective quotation missed the rest of the paragraph "These antievolutionists differ from fundamentalist creationists in that they accept that some species do change (but not much) and that Earth is much more than 6,000 years old. Like their predecessors, however, they reject the idea that evolution accounts for the array of species we see today, and they seek to have their concept -- known as intelligent design -- included in the science curriculum of schools." – isn't that what they've been denying seeking as soon as the Dover board got into trouble for doing just that? The start of the next paragraph also adds balance: "Most biologists have concluded that the proponents of intelligent design display either ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of evolutionary science."....dave souza, talk 08:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: As mentioned above, the quote was from 2002, prior to the full public disclosure and public discussion of the scope of the DI's agenda, and also prior to the showdowns over teaching it as a scientific alternative to evolution in science classes, as well as prior to the completion of analysis, discussion and commentary by the scientific community.  Today, "most biologists have concluded" would be an understatement of the strength of the assertions put forward by biologists and by the scientific community in general.  ... Kenosis 19:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately "all" is not accurate either, as shown in the footnotes in the article.  But thanks for challenging us to try to come up with a better way of saying it. ... Kenosis 20:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Viewpoints which favor ID

message: I have avoided commenting on this for a few days. However, this is just a pure nonsense comment. Of course no large body of individuals ever "speaks" or "does"  or "believes" anything really. However, as a convention in English, we use this type of expression all the time. For example, is the US in a war in Iraq? Are Sunnis and Shiites fighting in Iraq? Is there a war on terrorism? Are issues debated in Congress? Did the class read the assignment? Did the class take an exam? Did the professor   give the class an exam? Did the class study English grammar? Did the farm sell its produce? Did the corporation announce earnings? Is the stock market going up? Did the stock market crash? In ALL of these cases, which are common types of expressions used all the time, someone fluent in colloquial English will understand exactly what is meant. However, not one of these statements is literally true, depending on how you interpret the statement. It is far more correct to say that some individual congressmen and their aides are debating each other on some issues, for example. Or it is probably far more correct to say that some of the members enrolled in Professor Johnson's class on Classical History meeting on Mondays Wednesdays and Fridays from 2 pm to 3 pm Eastern Standard Time in room 112 of the Smith Building this semester read some parts of the assignment for today. However, we use shorthand expressions and figures of speech. If one hears a statement that the "scientific community has done a substantial amount of work on global warming", then obviously the meaning is clear. This is a well known figure of speech, but I do not at the moment recall the name for it. However, if 95%, or 99%, or 99.9%, or 99.99% of the members of a community believe something, then it might be said with no problems of misinterpretation that the community believes it. If the governing body of the organization issues a statement, we will typically describe this as an organization issuing the statement. We are all smart enough to know what this means, arent we Everwill? Or do you not understand English?--Filll 19:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might also quote from Everwill, who stated, among other things: "You guys can and will write whatever you want, because it's your article. You may not realize this but it is not possible for communities in this sense of the word to state, ascribe, assert, say, write, transmit or otherwise communicate."  It is clear from this and other comments that he has a conception of group behavior, but plainly uses that conception only selectively, dependent on his preferred outcome of group-based events. ... Kenosis 20:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Filll. As I said above, intellectual shorthand and use of intuitive symbolic language is much faster than literally saying everything needed to make something factual. "the scientific community has unequivocally stated" is far easier to manage than "every biological researcher within the scientific community that has spent time investigating the matter has stated". The case here is that you can argue the point Everwill brings up ad absurdum- the important part is that what the article is stating is understood, which I think is the essence of the point we're trying to convey. --HassourZain 20:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Hopefully moving past such things as conspiracy theories about WP editors, mob rule, consensus-based Naziism, etc., are there any other specific substantive issues related to the article on intelligent design? If there are about 200, as stated above, it should keep various participants busy for awhile. But please keep in mind that many points are likely to have been thoroughly discussed before, and are contained in the archives linked to at the top of this page. Please also keep in mind that in general, if a point has already achieved a consensus, the ante is generally increased to provide adequate justification to completely re-discuss and re-consensus such an issue. ... Kenosis 20:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You might look into Wikipedia's guideline articles on consensus- what Kenosis is true in that much of this stuff is improvement off of what was there before or has been talked through thoroughly. I am happy to help look at any parts of the article and make any changes to problem parts of the article you object to. However, if you have only come here to make a point (As in the guideline "state your point, and don't look to prove it experimentally), you may be mistaken in some of your assumptions about what the Wikipedia project is for. --HassourZain 21:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everwill's objection 

message: How do these two work in conjunction:
::Intelligent design (ID) is an argument for the existence of God,[1] 
Which is backed up by this quote:
::ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century
Then you say:
::Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute
Can someone please tell me what is Thomas Aquinas' affiliation with the Discovery Institute? If this is an "old religious argument" then it would seem to imply that the ID argument is much older than the Discovery Institute. Was the Discovery Institute around in the 13th Century?  Or, is Thomas Aquinas only affiliated with Intelligent Design in the opening sentence, but not affiliated with Intelligent Design in the subsequent sentences? Everwill 19:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kidding, right?   The article on intelligent design, in the second sentence, states the class of argument that ID is asserted to be by its leading advocates, which is that it is asserted to be a scientific argument. ... Kenosis 05:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Son of Raspor? Mr Christopher 19:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is it. No real interest as far as I can tell to contribute. Only trying to pick fights. Has agreed to stay away from this page but continues to violate his agreement. I am tempted to drop a dime and get him permanently banned from WP for repeated violations and general irritation.--Filll 20:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The intellectual pedigree of an idea is not the same as the organisational structure which promotes it in its current form.  Guettarda 20:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true that ideas can be said to be "inherited" by people whom the original idea inspired. I updated the wording per Everwill's objection, it now reads "its contemporary leading proponents, all of whom...". I think it now conveys the idea more clearly. --HassourZain 20:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, "contemporary leading proponents" is misleading - this idea, this intelligent design, dates back to the 80s.  It is based on/recycles older teleological arguments, but it is wrong to conflate the intellectual antecedents with the modern movement.  So no.  Guettarda 21:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose your line of logic is correct, on consideration. The two ideas are indeed different, though subtly. I have no problem with the wording as it is, then. --HassourZain 21:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: In an interview on NPR, I heard a DI representative (I think it was Dembski) claim that ID had absolutely nothing to do with previous versions of teleology, including the Paley arguments and was completely new objections. I think part of what they are basing this on is the idea that previous teleological people did not have access to genetic information, so now a whole range of information theoretic arguments are available to them which were not before.--Filll 21:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they're just trying to dissociate themselves from previous times creationists were disproven by scientists.  Lemme think of an analogy here...  If you were a football team that had never won a major playoff in over 50 years, would you want to advertise the fact?  :P  You'd probably rename your franchise...  Kasreyn 05:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing opening sentence