Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 32

message: #Before commenting on any part of the article, please make sure it is not clearly a direct quote.  Quotes are indicated by quotation marks and a footnote.  We cannot, no matter how much the language or the meaning of the quote might rile someone, change the quote.
Agreed. The word theory in the use of everyday language is on par and associated with the discussions about god and the world and each one`s personal interpretation of some spiritual texts or meanings. Hardly anyone outside the scientific community and apparently some scientists, as one can clearly see for instance in I-Designers, don`t know the current concensus on what is concisdered a scientific theory either. However i must point out that i don`t feel to good about the use of the word concept either. Usually a scientific concept is associated with application that is often even exceeding the theoretical stage. That`s my take on it however.Slicky 09:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotations marks and footnotes

message: I put this up to discuss reverts, deletions etc:
Introduction:
"Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[2] say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.[3]" - that is redundant and not qualitative in any way. The sentence already states that all are affiliated with the Discovery instiute and then quotes the self declared and self portrayed ideas and assements?!! That is just stupid, regardless of whoever contributed that and this someones ideals. This has no place not even in the article, because it doesn`t make any qualitative contribution to the article. SCIENCE IS ABOUT PEER REVIEW  and not self declared nobel laureates. May i invite you all to read about crack pot theories: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.htmlSlicky 17:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look up redundant in the dictionary, and then splain to me how the quoted section bears any semblence of similarity to redundancy.  Additionally, the section is in the same basic format as any standard intro to any article in which one seeks to note who the proponent of an idea is and what the idea is.  For example, "Homer Cretin, the leading proponent of the law of reciprocal stupidity, has noted that his theory best explains how conversations on certain subjects tend to display infinite regression driven by the input of the LCD". •Jim62sch• 12:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well yeah that`s just as stupid. When i came to WP than mostly because i expect to get a general worldwide concensus of a topic of outspoken critics and advocates who have hallmarked their way into the history books through remarkable endavour. But that of course excludes the self nobel price nomination remarks of the theoreticaians themselves. Of course if you are keen on getting spoonfed such notions then be it as it may, i doubt that the majority of the people who come to this platform feel the same about that as you do. If you still don`t understand what i mean: I am a person who want`s to make up his own mind about what is and what isn`t the best as this is just too often relative, especially when the topic itself cannot be defined in absolutes and/or (math.) uniqueness. The only way i can make sense out of this is that we have two entirely different perspectives, mine is purely scientific one.Slicky 09:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, you never answered the redundancy question, second, how is anyone being spoonfed, third you missed my point entirely, fourth there's a very real lack of coherency in what you wrote, so you might want to try it again.  Finally, this, "...two entirely different perspectives, mine is purely scientific one", is simply absurd and really requires amplification and a reference to supporting examples. •Jim62sch• 11:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletions and Sections

message: It's not what you think, but it is Yet Another Complaint About The Summary.  
Here's the blurb "Its leading proponents".  the bolded word bothers me.  How can we objectively determine who the leading proponents are? i kan reed 18:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the amount of publications on a specific subject (be it book, interview, paper).  Bahe has published many books arguing for irreducible complexity, has had many debates, defended it in the Dover trial, etc etc.  Same thing with other general ID concepts.  Bahe, Dembski, Johnson have all published the most books arguing for the validity of ID (on different subjects).  The have been the most vocal on the subject.  In addition, all three were planned to be expert witnesses for the defense during the Dover trial, but Dembski and Johnson dropped out.  ID is a pretty small movement being led from primarily one location (DI) and it's faily easy to pinpoint leading proponents.  Just go to the Discovery Institute website and check the fellow list for the Center of Science and Culture.--Roland Deschain 19:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The DI-affiliated proposed experts in KvD were William Dembski ($200/hr.), Michael Behe ($100/hr.), Scott Minnich ($100/hr.), John Angus Campbell ($100/hr.), and Stephen C. Meyer as a rebuttal expert. Only Behe and Minnich actually gave testimony at trial; all the others were withdrawn. Phillip Johnson was never listed as an expert or rebuttal expert in the case. --Wesley R. Elsberry 21:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: As discussed here /Archive26, here /Archive27#Support_among_scientists, and here /Archive29#Are_all_leading_ID_proponents_affiliated_with_Discovery_Institute? previously, the criteria for "leading proponents" are those who have written the most prominent intellgent design books, quoted most often by the press as significant ID players, called as expert witnesses in ID-related litigation, and listed by observers of ID as leaders of the movement. The most significant proponents are widely accepted to be Behe, Dembski, Johnson, Meyer, Wells, Pearcey, and maybe Berlinski, Gonzalez, Witt and Thaxton. It just so happens all are staff or fellows of the Discovery Insitute. FeloniousMonk 19:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been talked, researched, talked again, researched again, over and over.  Each time we go over the research, somewhat amazingly, it turns out to be like a cell.  There's a cell wall (DI affiliation) and the cytoplasm and nucleus within.  All of the leading proponents continue to be in the cytoplasm or nucleus. In one very extended talk-page discussion, an offer was made to cite three leading proponents outside the cell, then two, then finally one.  Best offers were George W. Bush, and others that plainly are not leading proponents, but outside commentators. I suppose we can now add Ann Coulter to the list of visible commentators, but she had to go into the cell to get her info. It's amazing stuff going on here; and the WP article fairly and accurately represents what's going on. ... Kenosis 19:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not denying any of that.  My only concern is that the word "leading" conveys an opinion.  I mean you can say "most published books" but that's POV too, because what's the over/under limit there? 100000? 1000? 10? i kan reed 19:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are talking about absolutes, which is kind of useless.  There is no predifined value at which point one becomes a leading proponent (x # of interviews, y # of books, z # of movies, etc etc).  Rather, it's relative.  Bahe, relative to all other people on this world, has published more (books, interviews, debates, movies, court cases) argueing for irreducible complexity.  Same thing with Dembski and his research.  A similar situation with the other leading proponents of ID.  Notice that this defenition is not based on opinion.  It can easily be shown that Bahe indeed has the most publications for IC, Dembski has the most publications for his work, and the Discovery Institue has the most publications argueing for ID.--Roland Deschain 22:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd thought it was more a question of leaders and followers. For example, the Muslim creationist chappie I referred to a while back was calling on other Muslims to support ID as presented by the DI, not presenting his own "scientific" ID. ..dave souza, talk 22:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: As I posted below this is circular reasoning. You are defining leading proponents of intelligent design by saying anyone who is a member of the Discovery Institute. There are many proponents of intelligent design who are not associated with the Discovery Institute. Just because 3 examples were asked for and no one bothered to look (Including apparantly Kenosis) or he would have discovered that Dennis Wagner is a leading proponent of Intelligent Design, Jed Macosko is also a leading proponent of Intelligent Design and so is Tom Magnuson. But all these examples are only scientists who are leading proponents of Intelligent Design, or philosophers. And there are many more than that. But there are also politicians who are leading proponents of Intelligent Design, like Santorum, who do not belong to the Discovery Institute. Therefore, unless we must insist on circular argument in order to make our point, the statement that all leading proponents of intelligent design are affiliated with the Design Institute is a false one. What do we do? Delete false statements, or leave them be?Bagginator 04:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV issue

message: Can we get a consensus about whether Raelism should be mentioned in the see also section? We regularly get anons adding it. JoshuaZ 19:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Raelism is a specific form of panspermia. The zoo hypothesis might be more general in regards to this. ID, however, uses the alien spawning argument mostly as a smokescreen. Dembski only mentions the possibility when people challenge him that he is necessarily theistic, and when he does this it seems to be out of the side of his mouth. --ScienceApologist 19:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but the ideas are certainly related, and the Raelians have explicitly supported ID themselves. JoshuaZ 19:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Editorially, the Raelians are not generally considered to be one of the major proponents of ID. They don't engage in the ID rhetoric and instead latch on to publicity stunts in order to further their agenda. Opportunists like the Raelians, in my opinion, don't deserve to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. To put it another way, if the Raelians started supporting homeopathy, would it be justified to include their advocacy on that page? --ScienceApologist 21:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have an article entitled Smurf Communism. By contrast to something that stupid, just about everything that you could possibly dream of inserting into a wiki is justified--205.188.116.134 22:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To make the comparison complete, you don't see Smurf Communism appearing on the Communism page because it's roughly a violation of undue weight. Obviously, however, on the Smurf communism page, mentioning communism itself is not a violation of undue weight. The same principle applies here. There is a one-way street principle to massive encyclopedia projects where even though we can write an article on obscure topics, undue weight lets us exclude the obscure references from the larger, general articles. This is a principle with which some people here at Wikipedia disagree, but it is part of excellent editing and prevents soapboxing and POV-pushing very well. --ScienceApologist 18:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raelism 

message: The article says:
:Furthermore, intelligent design is neither observable nor repeatable, which critics argue violates the scientific requirement of falsifiability. Indeed, intelligent design proponent Michael Behe concedes "You can't prove intelligent design by experiment."
Shouldn't this be disprove? AFAIK you can only disprove (or confirm) a theory, not prove one, so this would be true for all theories, and not related to falsifiability. Coffee2theorems 21:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A technical point worth noting, and thanks for noting it, C2t.   A question here is, how far down the road of technical analysis of scientific method do the editors want to get in this article?  I don't know the answer to that.  Perhaps the many longstanding editors here have thoughts about this?... Kenosis 22:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a direct quote so it doesn't much matter.  Please write to Behe -- I'm being serious, write to the grand master and let him know his statement is scientifically bogus.  •Jim62sch• 21:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quotation from Behe isn't scientifically bogus; it's a factual statement that applies to any theory, not just ID. Personally, I don't think the quotation adds any value to the paragraph and it should be removed. It doesn't support the prior sentence, and it says nothing meaningful on its own. -Amatulic 19:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you missed the nuance. •Jim62sch• 23:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I did, then that's further reason to delete the quotation. An encyclopedia article shouldn't contain nuances, vague hints of irony, double meanings, deliberate ambiguity, etc. If the nuance was lost on me, it will be lost on others, so why bother including it? -Amatulic 16:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a direct quote of Behe, a leading ID proponent. If he gets it wrong or is being nuanced, you'd have to take it up with Behe. FeloniousMonk 18:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you missed my point. An encyclopedia article should be clear to the reader. If a statement is nuanced, that nuance should be explained, otherwise it's useless. I daresay most folks wouldn't recognize the flaw in Behe's statement the way it's presented. That quotation by Behe is a non-sequitur in its current place, following a sentence it doesn't support. Even taken on its own, it adds no value to the article. And it would be hard to explain the nuance without coming across as anti-Behe POV. If nobody can offer a compelling reason to keep it, I'll remove it. -Amatulic 04:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Enough time has passed since I said I'd remove the quotation, but I have decided not to delete it. Instead, I added a few words in front of it to put it into more sensible context. -Amatulic 17:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proving a theory? 

message: Ok, I see to have screwed up the citation tags...what the heck just happened?  Guettarda 19:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rv'd back as far as Pico's version and the refs are still duplicated. I'm guessing it's a bug in either the backend or frontend servers. Let's continue to use Pico's version as the baseline since the refs seemed to be fine then (I think...) FeloniousMonk 19:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's happening on other articles too and so it's probably a more general fault. --Ian Pitchford 20:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it happened on an article I edited today as well. •Jim62sch• 23:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was it resolved? FeloniousMonk 23:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs 

message: First of all, I will ask you to note my entry under "Teleological argument" discussion entitled Non-theistic teleological argument.  That says a lot of what I would like to get at here.  
Almost all of the anti-ID comments seem to either show how possible evolution is, or state the obvious that science does not cover the supernatural.  Both of these are not fair to the ID movement.
Intelligent Design does not come against natural selection or random mutations in the sense of saying that such things do not occur or are not mainly responsible for the diversity of the species.  Intelligent design does say that some observable evidence can be better explained if we think that it came into being to serve a certain purpose, rather than merely being the result of prior causes.  Many anti-evolution arguments have nothing to do really with intelligent design, and many pro-evolution arguments fit in perfectly fine with the idea that anatomy (structure) and physiology (function) are related.
When one says that undirected natural causes do not seem to explain certain phenomena, it is a false dichotomy to say that only directed supernatural causes remain.  We are overlooking the idea of directed natural causes.  Two sources I will cite are the articles "The Trilobite:Enigma of Complexity, A Case for Intelligent Design" and "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense".  The first article is by Drs. Arthur V. Chadwick and Robert F. DeHaan, and ends by talking about two approaches to intelligent design, the first of which places ID "squarely in the natural order", and which renders moot all counterarguments to ID which are based on ID implying the supernatural.  Once we view ID as something under the umbrella of natural science (instead of supernatural), the whole debate changes radically.  Their article is found in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Dec. 2000, 233-241, and can also be found through a quick Google search.  The second article is found in Scientific American, July 2002, by John Rennie.  It can also be found through a quick Google search.  Near the end of the article, Rennie writes, "It is wrong to insinuate that the field of explanations consists only of random processes or designing intelligences.  ... simple, undirected processes can yield extraordinarily complex patterns.  Some of the complexity seen in organisms may therefore emerge through natural phenomena that we as yet barely understand.  But that is far different from saying that the complexity could not have arisen naturally."  Although Rennie says "undirected processes", there is plenty of room for such things to be natural directed processes, or for some phenomena in biology to be designed to accomplish some naturalistic end purpose such as survival or reproduction.  
It is an intelligent design hypothesis to state that the same mutation which is triggered by a pesticide in a mosquito, also causes the mosquito to become more resistant to that pesticide.  This is so because the mutation could be easily thought of as designed to help the mosquito withstand the pesticide, and it is not simply a random mutation which could happen at any time in a billion-year history; it is a mutation which happens at a particular point in the genetic code, and at a particular time which is precisely after the pesticide is introduced, and which has not only happened one time in one mosquito but to several lines of mosquitoes exposed to the pesticide.  To see a link where the environment causes a biological change which specifically helps the organism or species to survive in that environment is to see that there is a reason for the change to take place, as opposed to indifferent, meaningless changes which the environment only has an effect on after the fact.
These lines of thinking are outside of the mainstream ID proponents usual kinds of arguments, but they have all said that ID is like a "big tent" where theists and atheists can all come together.  I am talking about examples of non-theistic ID which keep ID in the natural order instead of supernatural speculations and implications.  You will hear more of this in the future, and Wikipedia should give a fair treatment to naturalistic ID inside of the article.  It's not all about deities and aliens; there could be teleological reasons for biological changes within the natural order, just as we accept teleological reasons for human psychology and still call it a naturalistic, non-religious science.  (i.e. - We believe that humans do things to accomplish an end result, and not merely based on a philosophy of determinism where we are driven by our genes to make any and every decision.)  To think that things happen in nature for a reason - and I mean reasons such as to aid in survival - is a legitimate part of scientific inquiry not limited to theology and philosophy.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.19.245.163 (talk • contribs) 
#I don't see how you connect the Rennie quote with ID.  In fact, it's a rejection of ID.  "Some of the complexity seen in organisms may therefore emerge through natural phenomena that we as yet barely understand. But that is far different from saying that the complexity could not have arisen naturally." - this statement fits comfortably within the norm of evolutionary biology.
#What specific changes to the article are you proposing?  And what specific sources support these proposed changes?  Thanks.  Guettarda 03:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atheistic ID 

message: I removed Ed's new section. While it may be worth considering adding such a section, his source was a LTE from an Iowa newspaper by a person who apparently has no expertise of ID.  I hope I am missing something, because it looks to me like Ed is just inserting random nonsense into the article.  Guettarda 17:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A letter to the editor of the The Ames Tribune by Virginia Allen is hardly a promising start for not being nonsense. FeloniousMonk 18:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ed's addition 

message: I removed the template Ed added to the talk page for the reason cited in the edit summary, and because we already make that point at the begining of the page. •Jim62sch• 21:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The other one, the talkheader template, was also already covered by the Read Me section above. FeloniousMonk 22:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ed's second edition

message: Overview continues: "This stands in opposition to conventional biological science, which relies on experimentation to explain the natural world through observed physical processes such as mutation and natural selection." 	 
This is a false dichotomy, hiding the key difference of the assumption of exclusively natural causation. Empirical evidence is not solely accessible to conventional science and not ID. 	 
Propose the following to correct these errors: 	 
* By contrast, conventional biological science, relies exclusively on natural explanations through processes such as mutation and natural selection. Both ID and Evolution seek to fit empirical data to model origins of biotic systems.DLH 02:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, this obscures the fact that there is no experimental science in ID, and there is no possibility of having experimental science or hypothesis testing in a system which fails to exclude the supernatural.  Since "a miracle happened" is always an option in ID, and since there is no way to exclude the possibility, there is no way to have experimental science in ID.  Guettarda 02:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole point of ID is to dump that reliance, and allow supernatural explanations. ...dave souza, talk 08:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I cannot believe this has become the objection du jour.  I'm sure this is in the archives somewhere.  I mean, testablility and experimentation is (arguably) the core part of the scientific method.  Supernatural => not observable => not testable => not scientific.  Claiming supernatural-science is science is like claiming fake-flowers are flowers. Tez 09:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Dave souza and Tez - "Supernatural => non observal" is false characterization. Supernatural can be observable. e.g. numerous historical examples recorded in the Bible. "Supernatural => non testable" is equally false. See numerous experiments evaluating the effectiveness of prayer. The issue of abiogenesis and macroevolution is equally untestable. The issue is NOT whether you or other critics agree with those positions. The issue is to fairly present the position that ID takes. The current statement is demonstrably false and thus justifies deletion under Wiki policy. I am proposing a correction to that. Please address the correction, not your red herrings. DLH 20:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The supernatural is also observable in "It", "Pet Sematary" and "The Stand" -- your point? •Jim62sch• 23:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  DLH, what exactly differentiates an observable "natural" phenomenom versus a "supernatural" one, and how can one tell the difference between something supernatural and something currently unexplainable? --Sylguy69 20:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sylguy69 ID uses "intelligent causation" or "intelligent design" whether the cause be recent, historic, or in biotic or abiotic origins, not "supernatural". The inferred capabilites of the intelligent cause are sufficient to achieve the inferred task, but ID cannot infer beyond that.DLH 20:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Sylguy69 - See Irreducible complexity and the Universal probability bound for probabilistic basis that is not just "unexplainable" but "could not happen" within credible probability. Again I do not see any objections to the proposed language describing ID, only objections to ID itself.DLH 20:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I have a question for both Guettarda and Souza.  If you design something, and you are using the physical laws of the universe to then construct it are you engaging in something that is not observable?--ArrrghBob 16:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strawman. •Jim62sch• 23:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  I think you are conflating theistic evolution with ID.JPotter 17:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No the article is the one doing the conflating.  If that were rectified, you would get a lot fewer requests for changes on this article.--ArrrghBob 19:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what you are asking Bob.  What you do mean by "observable"?  I assume you aren't asking whether the thing you made is observable (that's a simple "detection" question).  Are you asking if your action (in construction) would be observable in the final product?  I assume this somehow relates to this conversation, but I'm really not sure what you are asking.  Guettarda 17:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please disregard my mention of you in my message above.  I meant to direct the question to Tez.  But since you ask, both the final product and the action, if it were viewed at the time of the action, would be observable.  I'm just pointing out that if there were a designer and that designer were using the physical laws of the universe rather than "miracles", the designer's actions and products would be observable.--ArrrghBob 19:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes indeed, ArrrghBob ... except where they're not observable (or at least not yet observable). This is among the classic conceptual problems of every era, for sure. ... Kenosis 20:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Are you asking whether the construction, or whether the design would be directly or indirectly observable?  Like Guettarda, I'm not quite sure what sort of answer you're expecting.  I fear that I will be criticised for indulging in discussion not directly related to improving the article (yes, I do this too often -- I have little self-control), but essentially, my idea of 'observable' is simply the proper application of an operational definition. What you observe (in science) is pretty much equivalent to how you observe it. Does that clear things up? Tez 13:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am using the exact same definition of "observable", so what do you think? Would the products and actions be observable?--ArrrghBob 19:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Red herring. ID examines what CAN be done within the known laws of the universe over all time and by contrast, what cannot be done. ID seeks to identify distinguishable intelligent causation from observable evidence, not what is "indistinguishable from chance". So far I see not objections to nor improvements to the proposed language.DLH 20:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Answer to Bob's red herring. Your proposal mischaracterises both ID and evolution. The latter doesn't "model origins of biotic systems", it explains development processes through testable theories. ID doesn't seek "to identify distinguishable intelligent causation from observable evidence", it seeks to claim that an unexplained phenomenon must be inexplicable, and so is "evidence" of a Higher Designer. And under oath fails to posit any attempts to "identify distinguishable intelligent causation" other than saying that it looks designed. Research, what research? ...dave souza, talk 21:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Neo-darwinism apparently cannot test abiogenesis within in the known age of the universe, and has not experimentally demonstrated macroevolution, despite tens of thousands of generation of flies. Thus it relies on models such as population models. ID similarly takes those models to demonstrate probabilities smaller than the Universal probability bound. It is developing intelligent causation based theories far more than just "looks" designed. 
To clarify your objection, expand the statement to: 
*  Both ID and Evolution seek to fit empirical data to model origins and development of biotic systems.DLH 03:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I have not heard any objections to: 
* By contrast, conventional biological science, relies exclusively on natural explanations through processes such as mutation and natural selection.DLH 03:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: DLH, your failure to hear objections does not mean that your attempt to change this sentence is agreed or accepted. As pointed out above, the existing paragraph as a whole does not need alteration. Your claim of a "false dichotomy" is incorrect as has been stated earlier in this section of discussion, and the key difference of science looking for natural causation is already covered in the linked word natural in the first sentence, though the distinction could be emphasised by noting ID's preference for the supernatural. Empirical evidence is accessible to ID as well as "conventional science", but ID features no scientific research or testing, and is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications. Scientific experimentation involves more than rhetoric. ....19:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Natural" in the existing sentence only refers to the natural world. It does not address the foundational issues of: "relies exclusively on natural explanations". This comment is thus irrelevant.DLH 01:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The information in biotic systems far exceeds that in existing laws of nature and thus cannot be explained by them under any existing naturalistic explanations. Thus ID formulates hypotheses without those restrictions to test if they will  better fit and predict empirical data. DLH 01:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The comment on "scientific research ortesting . .. .rhetoric" is an assertion contrary to ID, that again does not does not address the proposed revision. DLH 01:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Shame your sentence is a) OR, and b) wrong.  Oh well.  •Jim62sch• 20:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I see no ojection to the two sentences representing the respective positions of ID and conventional biological science. On reflection, prpose to add Physical cosmology before abiogenesis, to represent the abiotic side of natural science for symmetry.DLH 03:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Natural causation

message: While this was an interesting conversation it had nothing to do with the ID article.  I've archived it. •Jim62sch• 12:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crank magnet articles Archived

message: The quote cited for "all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute" says "almost all of them are"--check the quote. You have to be carefull with universal qualifiers, the person cited was, and so should wikipedia. Brentt 04:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've been over this again and again and again, and indeed I was in Brentt's shoes when I first began researching this subject (as some of the more experienced editors will no doubt recall with a smirk). Offers were made more than once on the talk page, in the context of excessively lengthy inquiry (now viewable in the archived talk links), to cite just one leading proponent who wasn't affiliated with the Discovery Institute.  Notta one. Best offer was George W. Bush, to which we can now add Ann Coulter.  Turns out the notable ones (to date at least) are all with the DI. Moreoever, Brentt's assertion is incorrect.  The verbatim quote in the citation is "All of the leaders are" [italics mine]. ... Kenosis 04:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The question that interests me more is, do ID proponents all start as DI affiliates/members, or were some of them at one time solo and then joined the organization as a form of mutual support and alliance?  Ie., does the DI necessarily create or train all ID advocates, or does it merely attract their allegiance?  Kasreyn 04:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah right. ... Kenosis 04:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To which?  I'm asking seriously here, I'm not trying to make a joke or sarcastic comment, honest!  (I suppose the disclaimer is needed - I do have a habit of it...)  I really don't know the answer to my question.  Kasreyn 05:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kasreyn, I don't know the answer to this question either. I don't know if it's a chicken before the egg problem, a cart before the horse problem, or a "which came first?" problem. ... Kenosis 06:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And in all honesty, it really doesn't matter unless one is doing a sociological or psyhological paper on the ID movement. •Jim62sch• 12:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It's actually pretty clear from Discovery Institute that it was founded in 1990, a year after ID was published in Pandas, and provided a source of funding which all leading proponents have been glad to sign up for. ..dave souza, talk 13:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Traffic the other way is interesting as well: historian of evolution Ed Larson (who debated Dembski on The Daily Show) was a DI fellow until they started getting into ID.--ragesoss 18:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The only caveat I would raise here is that the Concepts classifies theistic versions of fine-tuning under ID. But obviously some major proponents of theistic fine-tuning are not affiliated with the Discovery Institute - Richard Swinburne and John Polkinghorne for example. The solution here might be to edit the "Fined-tuned universe" section of this article to say that ID proponents have relied on and developed fine-tuning arguments, but not that theistic fine-tuning is ID in the Discovery Institute (tm) sense.--CJGB (Chris) 20:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All the more reason to change "all" to "most". It is more accurate.DLH 02:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: A link to the strong anthropic principle is included, in fact the sentence reads, "Intelligent design proponents also raise occasional arguments outside biology, most notably an argument based on the anthropic principle that the universe is "fine-tuned",..." and further on, "Critics of both intelligent design and the strong form of the anthropic principle argue that they are essentially a tautology; ...".  This pretty well covers the issue. •Jim62sch• 12:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: see above. ..dave souza, talk 19:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Endorse the recommendation.DLH 02:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ALMOST all

message: The following statement lacks support:
"Scientists almost unanimously have responded that this argument cannot be tested and is not scientifically productive." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert O'Brien (talk • contribs) 06:35, 8 September 2006
:You might want to search for some over at the anthropic principle article.  That goes into this at length, but I'm not expert enough (to say the least!) to pick out the best source.  Cheers, --Plumbago 08:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that would be a fine place to start.  Also related would be Steady state theory and how it is a factor in the Tired light theory, then check out this to see how the tired light concept is used (misused?) by IDists and Creationists (especially YECs). •Jim62sch• 13:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fine-tuned universe 

message: What would it take to get this article to Featured Article?  Regards, Ben Aveling 07:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Jim. I disagree with the majority of the changes listed in number 5. The legal status of ID being included in the intro was the subject of much debate, and there's broad consensus that it is necessary for a complete and accurate intro. In fact, I disagree with most of this list; much of it seems subjective. For example, the notes and references section; experience has taught us that citing credible sources is the only thing that has settled partisan objections. At least 2/3rds of the sources present are the result of direct challenges to article content. So unless we want to go back to the endless objections of 1 year ago here,  removing sources from the aritcle is not acceptable. Let's just review the article against featured article criteria. Let's discuss this on a subpage, so we leave this page open for other issues. I've set it up here: /FA_attempt_discussion_2006 FeloniousMonk 22:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK.  It's your article.  Ben Aveling 01:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I seem to recall a group of editors resigning to never being able to get this article to Featured Article status, because of the inevitable number of opposing voices that will pop up. -- Ec5618 08:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A great deal of toil, I imagine. It garnered a great deal of scepticism last go around. Gabrielthursday 08:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention the fact that the article is currently under siege by a partisan group that has issued a call for astroturfers.  I share the desire to get the article featured, but I don't see how it could ever be done unless it were sprotected for a ridiculously long time and every change hashed out completely on the talk page.  Kasreyn 10:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article as it stands now is substantively different from what it was last go-around.  It is much better written, in conformance with all provisions of NPOV and as concise as is possible given the subject material.  However, given the point raised by Kasreyn above, and to an extent, the "essence" of the points raised by Lacatosias below, any attempt at FA status will likely be hotly contested by ID supporters, and, if my experience with articles of this type is an accurate reflection of reality, a "get out the vote" campaign in opposition to such status.  That this possibility exists is a sad indictment of the society in which we live and the type of alternate society Wiki has tried to develop. Facts are all too easily subsumed by the vox populus and the vox regium.  •Jim62sch• 13:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a very serious challenge, folks. We all know (all of us, that is, who are not fundies) that we're not just talking about the Discovery Institute really. President Bush and perhaps the majority of the Republican party and many Democrats have endorsed this crap. I'm actually terrified by the prospect of the kind of thing that could happen to pages like this (and other politicized scientific matters) in a "popular" encyclopedia open to everyone like Wikipedia. This is the reason I though it important to mention that the limitation of this theological/political phenomenon to the United States cannot be overemphasized. These wealthy conservatives in the States are well-known for  their unbelievable capacities to organize and finance disinformation campaigns on a massive scale. They got GW Bush elected, after all, on a "social issues" agenda of intolerance and hatred. Don't think they will give up on Wikipedia easily. Good luck.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The type of soapbox advocacy directly above is really inappropriate. Gabrielthursday 11:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, even if it is primarily true, it doesn't belong here.  However, the fact that DI has declared war on Wiki, this series of articles in particular, is an important and appropriate fact to raise, as is the reminder of the need for vigilence. •Jim62sch• 12:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In a way all of the above makes me want to try and get this article recommended and if it is rejected we can improve it and try again later. The POV pushers can’t stop a good article from getting recommended forever, we should try altough would should give it a little bit of time until the DI's attempts to push there POV here has worn off.Goatan 10:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure this is the place to post this.  While the first sentence is a quote from the creators of intelligent design, it seems to me their explanation could be better stated.
* Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection". could be better stated (by them) to become:
* Intelligent design (ID) is the idea; "the existence of certain features of the universe and of living things are better explained by an intelligent cause than by undirected random events". Terryeo 11:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We use the DI's definition for a number of reasons, primarily because they're the hub of the ID movement. The DI has used this definition for many years now, no doubt there are improvements they could make. One would think that God could have come up with a better argument for his existence. FeloniousMonk 03:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that God could have come up with a cleaner and more artistic ending for the Watchmaker analogy page than you did, my friend.  Great continuity!  Great graphics!  Nice job!  --Rednblu 03:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article 

message: This is a Capstone article - it serves as an introduction to the series on Intelligent design.
It should provide a summary of the topic, without going into great detail on any particular aspect of the topic which is covered in the foundation articles.
Summary of problems.  Please add, amend and strikeout as you see fit.
# Politics 
#* some voters will be motivated by personal bias
# Issues with the article
#* must be visibly fair to both parties
# Length
#* The whole article is long - especialy the Notes and References section
# Readability
#* Sections 1 through 3 are (IMHO) good, but Section 4 (Controversy) is a hard slog.
# Structure
#* The last paragraph of the introduction is quite detailed - it should perhaps be moved into section 4
#* Sections 1.1 and 1.2 are about the history of ID, but they show up in the contents as being part of the overview
#* The 2nd part of Section 1.2 (Origins of the term) isn't about the origins of the term, but about the designer.  In fact, it partially duplicates what's in the section about the designer, and should be merged into that section.
#* The Section titled "Religion and leading proponents" isn't really about the leading proponents, it's mainly about who the designer is
#* The Section "improbably versus impossible events" probably should be trimmed and moved into the section about specified complexity
#* There isn't any sort of conclusion to the article, it just muddles to an end.
#* The "Notes and references" section is 6 pages long.  I would suggest merging half the notes into the main body and deleting the other half, leaving the References
# Coverage
#* The series on Intelligent design (according to the box) includes the concept Theistic realism, which this article doesn't have a section on.
#* The series on Intelligent design (according to the box) includes Santorum Amendment, which this article doesn't have a section on.
#* The main article on the designer is called Intelligent Designer, while this article has a section on 'the designer or designers'
# Annoying things
#* Philip Johnson is noted as being the father of ID at least twice  removed the 2nd such mention. Ben Aveling 08:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed TO DO 

message: I support the proposal to change the box order to common sense ID first, then creationism second.DLH 03:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Box Order - ID then Creationism

message: Ben, back the truck up.  No one agreed to any of this, which would be a prerequisite for actions this sweeping.  In addition, you have made changes that are clearly going against consensus.  I'm requesting that you hold up until everyone has a chance to weigh in.  I realise that your intentions are good, but you should go through the archives (painful though that is) to see why a number of these ideas were shot down in the past. •Jim62sch• 09:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Jim. I disagree with the majority of the changes listed in number 5. The legal status of ID being included in the intro was the subject of much debate, and there's broad consensus that it is necessary for a complete and accurate intro. In fact, I disagree with most of this list; much of it seems subjective. For example, the notes and references section; experience has taught us that citing credible sources is the only thing that has settled partisan objections. At least 2/3rds of the sources present are the result of direct challenges to article content. So unless we want to go back to the endless objections of 1 year ago here,  removing sources from the aritcle is not acceptable. Let's just review the article against featured article criteria. Let's discuss this on a subpage, so we leave this page open for other issues. I've set it up here: /FA_attempt_discussion_2006 FeloniousMonk 22:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK.  It's your article.  Ben Aveling 01:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: back the truck up

message: Should we have a section on theistic realism?  Should we mention Santorum?  Regards, Ben Aveling 08:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theistic realism 

message: :I seem to recall a group of editors resigning to never being able to get this article to Featured Article status, because of the inevitable number of opposing voices that will pop up. -- Ec5618 08:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A great deal of toil, I imagine. It garnered a great deal of scepticism last go around. Gabrielthursday 08:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention the fact that the article is currently under siege by a partisan group that has issued a call for astroturfers.  I share the desire to get the article featured, but I don't see how it could ever be done unless it were sprotected for a ridiculously long time and every change hashed out completely on the talk page.  Kasreyn 10:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article as it stands now is substantively different from what it was last go-around.  It is much better written, in conformance with all provisions of NPOV and as concise as is possible given the subject material.  However, given the point raised by Kasreyn above, and to an extent, the "essence" of the points raised by Lacatosias below, any attempt at FA status will likely be hotly contested by ID supporters, and, if my experience with articles of this type is an accurate reflection of reality, a "get out the vote" campaign in opposition to such status.  That this possibility exists is a sad indictment of the society in which we live and the type of alternate society Wiki has tried to develop. Facts are all too easily subsumed by the vox populus and the vox regium.  •Jim62sch• 13:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a very serious challenge, folks. We all know (all of us, that is, who are not fundies) that we're not just talking about the Discovery Institute really. President Bush and perhaps the majority of the Republican party and many Democrats have endorsed this crap. I'm actually terrified by the prospect of the kind of thing that could happen to pages like this (and other politicized scientific matters) in a "popular" encyclopedia open to everyone like Wikipedia. This is the reason I though it important to mention that the limitation of this theological/political phenomenon to the United States cannot be overemphasized. These wealthy conservatives in the States are well-known for  their unbelievable capacities to organize and finance disinformation campaigns on a massive scale. They got GW Bush elected, after all, on a "social issues" agenda of intolerance and hatred. Don't think they will give up on Wikipedia easily. Good luck.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The type of soapbox advocacy directly above is really inappropriate. Gabrielthursday 11:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, even if it is primarily true, it doesn't belong here.  However, the fact that DI has declared war on Wiki, this series of articles in particular, is an important and appropriate fact to raise, as is the reminder of the need for vigilence. •Jim62sch• 12:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In a way all of the above makes me want to try and get this article recommended and if it is rejected we can improve it and try again later. The POV pushers can’t stop a good article from getting recommended forever, we should try altough would should give it a little bit of time until the DI's attempts to push there POV here has worn off.Goatan 10:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politics 

message: The article is already very close to FA standards as it is. The problem is that there is a significant minority of pro-ID editors who will come out the woodwork to scuttle any candidacy by making bad faith objections, as seen last time. 
WP:NPOV requires that on topics "where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant published points of view are presented" and "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." Looking over past objections vs. the editing history of the article at that time, Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Intelligent_design, what is seen is several editors who had attempted to turn this article into a one-sided article representing the single viewpoint of ID promoters, and a number of editors who never participated, all objecting because the article presents both sides of the topic. This illustrates how those not dedicated to NPOV but to a particular POV will always try to derail any FA status for this article. I'm afraid until a method is adopted to properly weigh and deal with bad faith or just clueless objections, hot button topics like ID will always be vulnerable to partisan activism. FeloniousMonk 13:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure this is the place to post this.  While the first sentence is a quote from the creators of intelligent design, it seems to me their explanation could be better stated.
* Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection". could be better stated (by them) to become:
* Intelligent design (ID) is the idea; "the existence of certain features of the universe and of living things are better explained by an intelligent cause than by undirected random events". Terryeo 11:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We use the DI's definition for a number of reasons, primarily because they're the hub of the ID movement. The DI has used this definition for many years now, no doubt there are improvements they could make. One would think that God could have come up with a better argument for his existence. FeloniousMonk 03:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that God could have come up with a cleaner and more artistic ending for the Watchmaker analogy page than you did, my friend.  Great continuity!  Great graphics!  Nice job!  --Rednblu 03:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perceptions of fairness 

message: There is a typo in the text: "theorises" should be "theories"
I am not a member so will a member please fix this if you have the opportunity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.127.234.210 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 13 September 2006
(Section "Irreducible complexity") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.2.129 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 14 September 2006
:Translation: Administrator(s), can you please unprotect this article so as to just change the misspelling of "theories" in the section on "Irreducible complexity" (which was introduced here)? ... Kenosis 05:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear anon, you're grammatically incorrect: "theorises" is correct in the context. However it may be possible to rephrase the sentence to avoid this confusion. How about Furthermore, they contend that in the modern evolutionary synthesis some systems are seen as developing by,,,, Comment? ...dave souza, talk 06:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, as Ken points out, probably better to restore Furthermore, they argue that evolution often proceeds by.... <blush> ...dave souza, talk 06:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored it to the longstanding version, which has served to reasonably explain the point for at least the past eight months or more.  The theorists are not contending that the theory argues this, because we already know that the [modern] theory contends this, but rather, they argue that evolution often proceeds by....  If the statement is to be that "modern evolutionary synthesis holds that evolution often proceeds by...", then that's another reasonable way of expressing it, and there's no need to use language that essentially says "they argue that the theory theorizes this...". ... Kenosis 16:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo in the text 

message: Does this article need to be fully protected at the moment?  Might semi-protect be enough?  Regards, Ben Aveling 09:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeesh, please do not remove full protect from this article. The last thing we need is a wave of vandalism followed by a flame war over something so stupid. Dali 06:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: The DI "fellow" Paul Nelson is answering questions from Dagbladet readers this friday, at . Might be a good source of quotes. Perhaps editors of this page might be interested in asking some pointed questions?
English should be fine. --Nnp 11:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A word of caution while the questions will then be in what may constitute a reliably source asking him specific questions with the intention of including them in the article is pretty close to reporting and/or OR and may also raise WP:AUTO concerns. We need to be careful here. JoshuaZ 13:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's done. The answers weren't too interesting, just more of the same old stuff. --Nnp 13:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, yeah not for example that his claimed method of falsifying ID isn't really a falisification of ID but a falsification of abiogenesis and given the phrasing it isn't at all clear what he would accept as sufficient evidence in that regard otherwise. Someone really should have followed up with something to the affect that "then is ID claiming that abiogenesis was a specifically intelligently guided event and that abiogenesis is not possible without intervention"? It is interesting that this claim is almost identical in form to a claim that in the Dover decision Jones hammered Behe for trying to make. JoshuaZ 14:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paul Nelson

message: The following section had been added: it cites no sources and seems well off topic:
:There is a further recourse in intelligent design theory with has no dependency on supernatural or the religious argumentation. It is a view that a small population of physicists (especially astrophysicists) share that the Grand Unified Theory of the natural world (simply, a comprehensive equation from which all causal events derive) is the ultimate plan for the universe. Despite a limited following in the public, scholarly debate has legitimized this concept. In this system of thought, serious philosophical problems such as free will and moral agency are called into question (the theory seems to support a materialistic determinism along the lines of Spinoza), but the upshot is that it can coexist with evolution. If an ultimate complex equation ruled the universe (it may exist despite our lack of sophistication to discover it), evolution would be a direct result of that equation. This argument presupposes that the question is not actually whether evolution happens or not--it is plainly clear from evidence that it does--but seeks to find an explanation for evolution, whether it is pure coincidence as mainstream science would have it, or whether there is a form of design discoverable in a Grand Unified Theory of the universe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.202.207 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 24 September 2006
So, kind soul that I am, I've moved it here. ...dave souza, talk 10:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While this is a somewhat interesting topic for speculation, especially on a nice Fall sunday morning, it has nothing to do with the topic of this article.  If this were left in the article, I'd have needed to add references to David Hume's committee of intelligent designers (Consensus theory of design, anyone?), along with noogenesis and the Theory of Immanent Design (design as you go), and other competing ideas. ;-) ... Kenosis 13:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep.  Besides, the writer mistated GUT anyway.  The purpose of any grand unified theory is to successfully marry the four forces, electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force, and gravity.  What exactly that has to do with ID is beyond me. •Jim62sch• 15:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, just add a fifth (the designer, committee of designers, or noogenetic consciousness), who, shall we say, "shoots the gaps" between the other four. FSM anyone? ... Kenosis 19:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, I see...perhaps it's the Glue of the Gaps.  BTW, I love spaghetti, and have always felt a special bond with polpette in una salsa di pomodori ed aglio col basilico. Molto squisito, mio amico, molto squisito! •Jim62sch• 21:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: So, if I understand correctly, ID papers aren't published in mainstream journals because of the evolutionist conspiracy to suppress the truth, is that right?--Ramdrake 14:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are intelligent ID arguments out there, it'd be nice if ID proponents would start using them.  If I here one more argument along the lines of, "this building exists, so it must have had a creator and, so, ID is true", I just might set someone on fire.-Psychohistorian 14:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Relax, Ph, I'm sure they're still designing them. ;) •Jim62sch• 19:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the intelligence of their designs is somewhat debatable. --ScienceApologist 19:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Or nonexistant.  •Jim62sch• 10:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intelligent Design and Physics

message: Sorry I don't have time to learn the proper forms & syntax for doing this.
However, I think this article could be improved by rearranging things to take care of a problem, as I see it, that I think can be understood from this comment that I just posted to somebody else's blog:
quoting myself"
"... I appreciated the contribution made by Larry's insistence on his basic logical argument. I was surprised, then, by what I found in his post supporting Luskin.
Here is his lead example of bias 
For example, the article says of ID, "Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute . . . . ."(emphasis added) The corresponding NPOV ["Neutral Point of View"] statement would be, "many of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute" -- for example, Ann Coulter and Cardinal Christophe Schonborn are leading ID proponents but are not affiliated with the Discovery Institute.
 
We can all agree that an encyclopedia article must be factually accurate. So beyond straight matters of fact, how does "neutrality" or "point of view" enter into this? Are there "leading proponents" of the ID movement who are not affiliated with DI? I guess that depends on who is considered to be a "leading proponent" of the movement.
I would sympathize with any ID enthusiast who'd complain that it would be a vicious, ugly slur against the movement if its critics were describing Ann Coulter as one of the movement's "leading proponents." But it is not the Wikipedia article that makes this characterization; it is Larry himself.
And as for Cardinal Schonborn, he is absolutely not a proponent--leading or otherwise--of the ID movement. The Wikipedia article could be improved by clarifying that this applies to the ID Movement, not to the broad concept as defined at the top of the article. (There is a separate part of the article on the movement itself). Perhaps most people who believe in Divine Creation would endorse the broad definition offered for the concept given for "ID," although they would not accept claims made by the ID Movement about how ID relates to science, and the consequences that they claim to be entailed by that. " (end of quoting myself)
I wanted to share this even though I don't have the time now to learn the proper way of doing this. If somebody would want to raise this more succinctly and in proper form, please feel free to replace everything I've put here with a better statement of the issue.
I do think the article could be improved, without loss, by taking care of this; but since I'm new I don't want to do the edit myself, but see if others agree & make the change.—Preceding unsigned comment added by James A Whitson (talk • contribs) 
:This is a logical fallacy known as circular argument. If they aren't a member of the Discover Institute then they must not be a leading proponent of Intelligent Design. Ann Coulter, like her or hate her, is a leading proponent of Intelligent Design and is not a member of the Discovery Institute. But as long as we continue in this circular argument that in order to be a leading proponent of Intelligent Design one must be a member of the Discovery Institute then of course it will remain true that all leading proponents are members. For example [Dennis Wagner] is not a fellow at the [Discovery Institute] and it took me all of 30 seconds to find that name. I'm sure there are 100's more. So there is only the circular argument that remains. Well, Dennis Wagner must not be a leading proponent of Intelligent Design because he isn't a member of the Discovery Institute.Bagginator 04:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ann Coulter is a "leading proponent"?  Other than shilling for ID in her lastest "bash-the-lefties" book, what has she done to promote ID on a large scale?  The term "leading" does not refer to a person's popularity with the hoi polloi, but rather with his/her participation in spreading ID.  •Jim62sch• 10:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look for Wagner here, note the affiliation, the association, etc. Seems to me if ya wanna play in the bigs, ya gotta suck up to DI folks.  •Jim62sch• 15:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is interesting that the WP article is being termed circular argument, while the concept of specified complexity, the anthropic principle, fine-tuned universe probability arguments and other aspects of ID in fact are circular arguments.  The intro to the WP article on intelligent design is merely stating the fact of the matter about ID and its proponents, not making an argument that requires non-circular form. The DI is what it is, the proponents are who they are, and the leading ones are all affiliated with the DI, and the definition of ID, as agreed among pro-ID, anti-ID and neutral parties in earlier discussion among WP users, is that of the DI.  So it's irrelevant whether it appears circular, because it's not an argument by WP editors, but rather a summary description based upon well-verified facts. . ... Kenosis 23:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: conflation of ID Concept and ID Movement (& its arguments)

message: Why is it important to stress that all (or almost all, or most) leading ID proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute? What are the implications of such an affiliation?
If someone is making an argument that because of this affiliation, a conclusion follows THEN we should spell out the conclusion. Perhaps it is the argument that:
#The Discovery Institute has a pro-Creationist bias, because of an evangelistic purpose: it wants people to believe in God and live a religious life.
#All leading ID proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute.
#THEREFORE, ID itself has a pro-Creationist bias, because of an evangelistic purpose.
I note that this conclusion is held by nearly all the 'contributors' who are resisting Bagginator's proposed changes. It seems that this faction all want Wikipedia to endorse a POV. However, Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral on controversial matters. 
So it would be better for us to dig a little further and provide sources pertaining to advocacy of viewpoints such as (1) that ID itself has a pro-Creationist bias and (2) that ID has an evangelistic purpose. 
I daresay the dispute over whether #1 and/or #2 is true, lies at the heart of the controversy over Intelligent Design. --Uncle Ed 16:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is important to attribute special relativity to Albert Einstein? Why is important to attribute Newton's laws of motion to Sir Isaac Newton? Because they are the one's who brought the concept to the fore. Please don't start up with the tendentious objections again here Ed. FeloniousMonk 17:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not talking about to whom the original attribution belongs to; we're talking about the current leading proponents. Your examples are not relevant. Simões (talk/contribs) 18:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Intelligent design as is found in the national debate is wholly attributable to the Discovery Institute. Period. Just as special relativity is to Albert Einstein and Newton's laws of motion are to Isaac Newton. FeloniousMonk 18:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please read the discussion of that past couple days. It has been pointed out repeatedly that this is not just a national debate. Simões (talk/contribs) 18:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The international ID movement is the poor step-child of the US ID movement, and is also driven largely by the Discovery Institute as well, which has made efforts to expand the topic to AU and EU and setup affiliates. Ten minutes spent reading the press releases on the Discovery Institute website will make that clear. FeloniousMonk 18:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you have citations, this is just your personal assessment. If the DI really does dominate the international movement, you should be able to easily establish as much. However, the non-US names I've listed above are not affiliated with the DI. Simões (talk/contribs) 19:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  As I understand, this article is about Intelligent Design as a brand name associated with the Discovery Institute. The philosophical concept intelligent design is covered elsewhere, e.g. "teleological argument", so this one is about the views of the ID movement in the US. I think that's perfectly fine. The only problem is that the first sentence defines ID as something very vague, even compatible with Theistic Evolution, but I believe the ID movement's refusal to accept Theistic Evolution was a major point against them in the court case. --Vesal 19:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Intelligent design is not a brand name; it has no trademark associated with it. Additionally, the title not the "ID movement in the US;" it is not even about the intelligent design movement (as you can see, that has its own article. It's about intelligent design, the large umbrella term (see the given cited definition) that includes theistic evolution, young- and old-earth creationism, and whatever other popular myths (I use this in the descriptive sense, not the pejorative) are out there. Simões (talk/contribs) 19:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, take "brand name" a bit more figuratively... I mean what makes the term Intelligent Design notable? But, I shouldn't have been telling you guys what to do, but I can tell you my impression from reading this article: it is 100% about the Discovery Institute's view. --Vesal 19:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Your syllogism is invalid. The dispute over whether #1 or #2 are true has nothing to do with the controversy. The controversy comes purely from an organization and propponents attempting to pass off something as science when it's not, and using fallacious bifurcation arguments to make their case. Science has nothing to do with creationism, evangelism, or gods. As to your question why it's important to stress that leading proponents of ID are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, well obviously it's because the Discovery Institute has made itself the focal point for Intelligent Design. So why shouldn't the article mention the fact that leading proponents of ID are associated with the one organization that's really pushing ID? -Amatulic 19:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For example like Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter who wrote: "A teacher in Kansas, where war over Darwin in the schools is still raging, calls the theory of intelligent design 'creationism in a cheap tuxedo.' Great line, but unfair to the elegant tailoring of the Discovery Institute, the Seattle-based think tank that has almost single-handedly put intelligent design on the map." Monkey See, Monkey Do. FeloniousMonk 19:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attributing POV to advocates 

message: Since those with a pro-ID slant have resurrected the issue again that there may be leading ID proponents who are not affiliated with the Discovery Institute, I'll issue my same challenge one more time: Name one leading ID proponent one whose work is widely recognized and who is not affiliated with the Discovery Institute. Just one. FeloniousMonk 18:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, why don't you make life easier for yourself, and define this article to be about the views of the ID movement. The point is that other people who believe in the concept of intelligent design do not use the label intelligent design and, I would say it is perfectly okay, to focus on the discovery insitute here... you could make the disambiguation link say something like "This article is about intelligent design as defined by the Discovery Institute, for other uses see Intelligent design (disambiguation)" --Vesal 19:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Other people who believe in the concept of intelligent design do not use the label intelligent design." Say what? Who, for example? Everyone I know personally who advocates Intelligent Design uses that label. Some even use it interchangeably with creationism. -Amatulic 19:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well of course other people also use the words intelligent design, but usually they are referring to the philosophical concept. I'm living in Europe and the first association I have to the phrase Intelligent Design is Kansas! That's notability, so I believe it is fine for an article on intelligent design to focus on the most notable case and let Argument from Design hold the umbrella. --Vesal 19:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That would create a POV fork since there is not a different  intelligent design that's being promoted by a different intelligent design movement. That's not to say that ID proponents don't redefine some minor elements of their arguments on an ad hoc basis, but it's still the same argument made by the same people. FeloniousMonk 19:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, yes, ok... but there is still the confusion between the intelligentdesign as almost synonymous with philosophical arguments from design,and the intelligent design of the DI, which is pseudo-science. --Vesal 19:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but you're wrong and, at the same time, are revealing your own POV problems. I am an atheist, a materialist, accept evolutionary theory and the standard accounts of evolutionary history, and believe ID is not a science. I also happen to think that the DI is not, in the strictest sense possible, the sole source of leading advocates for intelligent design. Check your own pathological biases before throwing accusations like this again. And, "one more time," read the previous two days' discussion. All of your concerns expressed today thus far have already been addressed. Simões (talk/contribs) 19:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, where would that be? Again, all you have to do is name a single leading ID proponent whose pro-ID work is widely recognized and who is not affiliated with the Discovery Institute. FeloniousMonk 20:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One more time... 

message: The article starts with a very bad definition: Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." I take definition very seriously, so for me the next sentence reads "The leading proponents of the view that certain features of the universe are best explained by an intelligent cause are all affiliated with the Discovery Institute". That is clearly false! Many honest creationists also believe design to be the best explanation, but they admit it is an irrational, faith-based explanation, or that science has not yet uncovered the evidence, whatever. No scientist has a problem with that...  So am I just annoying you guys with "pro-ID propaganda" or do you think I might have point, because I actually came here to help and for the record, I'm very anti-ID. --Vesal 21:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You definitely have a point, but I think this is more of an issue where creationism overlaps with ID rather than a true contradiction as you seem to argue. The honest, non-neo-creationists dispute, in particular, the ID attempt to be explicitly neutral (purposefully not include in the definition) toward the suggestion that the "intelligent cause" is in fact "God". Inasmuch as a concept is accepted that the features are explained by an intelligent cause, that's "intelligent design". It's a level of specificity removed from creationism on purpose so as to attempt to get around linguistic dismissal of supernatural teleology as being unfalsifiable. By avoiding words that are commonly known to be associated wtih "supernatural", intelligent design proponents obfuscate and confuse the issue that they are, in fact, talking about supernatural events when they cite their euphemistic "intelligent cause". So the short answer is, this isn't really a contradiction if you are very pedantic with your reading. However, causal reading leads to all kinds of equivocation, as I illustrated in the above section. --ScienceApologist 21:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: This is the definition used by all the leading ID proponents, Behe, Dembski, Johnson, Meyer, Wells, yes, who happen to be Fellows of Staff of the Discovery Institute. Coming up with our own definition would violate WP:NOR, and using one from a group or individual who is not prominent would violate WP:NPOV#Undue weight. FeloniousMonk 21:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thus far, the only concise way the editors have found for accurately representing the role of the DI in the packaging and dissemination of ID is exactly as the article is currently written.  Perhaps something like the following in the second sentence of the intro? "Intelligent design was formulated and disseminated by members and affiliates of the Discovery Institute." might seem more accurate and less weasel-worded at first glance.  But upon closer analysis, the intro is already accurate:  First the Discovery Institute's definition is used as the basis for introducing the concept, with a citation.  The DI and affiliates are the ones that packaged and disseminated this modern formulation of the teleological argument to the public, so they are the authoritative source for this brief definition, and that's verified through almost an endless number of sources, one of which is cited in that particular footnote.  The second sentence then proceeds to build on the first.  Given that the definition is that of the DI, this sentence proceeds to say, verifiably and accurately, that "Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[2] say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.[3]"  I suspect this is as good as it gets and as accurate as it gets for a subject as complex as this one is.  The article then proceeds to explain it, quite informatively in my opinion. ... Kenosis 22:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, I stress that I'm very happy with this article, would really like it to be featured article, so yes, I do realize the current wording is the result of a lot of hard work and compromize, but still the pro-ID people are not happy, and I doubt they ever will be. But, I'm starting to see there really is no obviously better way, you can't really cite a critic claiming "ID is a pseudo-science..." :) --Vesal 22:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Our experience here has shown that they will not be happy with any article that does not present ID as more plausible or accepted as it really is, or that presents viewpoints unflattering to ID, something that is necessary per policy. WP:NPOV says clearly that "where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. ... Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular ... Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views."  The Discovery Institute, being the most largest source of ID books, articles, and the primary source of ID promotion, is going to always be the center piece of any ID article to which the  NPOV policy is applied. FeloniousMonk 23:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maybe this is the real problem, then ... 

message: Replace the vague (and perhaps also weasel) word "leading" with "internationally prominent." This will exclude those who are more identified as leading the ID charge in certain nations or regions (and, as ScienceApologist pointed out, also arguably "leading proponents"). Behe, Johnson, and Dembski are all internationally well-published and affiliated with the Institute. It is less vague to describe them, in particular, as "internationally prominent" than "leading." And if anyone considers the two to be synonymous, then they shouldn't have a problem with a swap. Simões (talk/contribs) 23:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Internationally prominent" is less weasely than "leading"? I don't think so. There are only a handful of leading ID proponents: Behe; author of Darwin's Black Box, Dembski, author of The Design Inference, The Design of Life, The Design Revolution, Mere Creation, Signs of Intelligence, Johnson; author of Darwin on Trial, Reason in the Balance, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, The Wedge of Truth, The Right Questions, Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?, Meyer; who co-authored/edited Darwinism, Design, and Public Education, and Science and Evidence of Design in the Universe, Wells; author of Icons of Evolution, and a few others.  All  are Discovery Institute staff or Fellows:   Specifically who are these alleged people "identified as leading the ID charge in certain nations or regions"? And what makes them notable? I'm very familiar with ID in AU and EU and there they cite the same ID proponents as we do here, those listed above. FeloniousMonk 23:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm inclined to ignore someone who believes all who disagree with him in this dispute are creationist POV warriors. Thoughts from anyone else? If in disagreement with this proposal, is there some other noun phrase that might address the concerns in this dispute?Simões (talk/contribs) 23:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FM is right. These are verifiably the leading proponents. The problem is that some readers don't know and won't explore what a "leading proponent actually is. --ScienceApologist 23:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To find out what a "leading proponent" is, they have to dig through the talk page archives and decide which half-consensus of a definition they want to go with. Thus my attempt to offer a less vague noun or noun phrase. Especially using the adjective "internationally" assists in making the term less vague. So what should be the noun itself? Active? Influential? Simões (talk/contribs) 00:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Leading proponent" is not a difficult concept to grasp. What constitutes one is a matter of common sense. Worth noting that it's generally only pro-ID editors who object to the idea and term. FeloniousMonk 00:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The source(Forrest's testimony) doesn't say anything about internally prominent, the proposed wording change would therefore be unsourced original research. JoshuaZ 01:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I'm not inclined to ignore editors who refuse to present evidence to support claims that run counter to ample existing evidence. Particularly since the primary promoter of ID has called for attacking this very article , and the unsupported claims being made are identical to those they make themselves. Luckily, we have policies for dealing with unsupported claims, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS. FeloniousMonk 00:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second compromise proposal (or brainstorm) 

message: Search on "John Umana"+intelligent+design -- 79 hits.  
Search on "Michael Behe"+intelligent+design -- 193,000 hits. 
You decide.  •Jim62sch• 00:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not crazy about Google stats, but they are a fair representive of notability. "Alvin Plantinga" + "intelligent design" seems almost impressive with 23,700 hits, that is, until you compare to "William Dembski" + "intelligent design" with 192,000 hits. Steve Fuller with 16,800, Andy McIntosh's 1,310 and Brendan Nelson's 735 hits are even less impressive. Contrast those numbers to Michael Behe's 204,000 hits, Johnson's  84,500 and Meyer's  50,900 and it becomes a little clearer. FeloniousMonk 01:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "George Bush" + "intelligent design" yields 463,000, trumping them all. If you're going to use google as a clear indicator, you might want to first make sure it works for your POV agenda. Simões (talk/contribs) 03:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In using Google to scope political figures, it can get even more ridiculous than that.  "Tony-Blair + intelligent-design" gets 1,170,000 hits (actually 710,000 if you use hyphens, and 370,000 if you use quotation marks).  I agree that sole reliance on Google is not a sensible way to decide notability.  When, however, someone only is getting 50-70 hits (depending on how "John Umana" "intelligent design" is entered), I think it's fair to say the fellow's not exactly a leading proponent.  Moreover, it gets interestinger and interestinger as time goes by and more folks will inevitably try to work the search-engine system in various kinds of attempts to achieve notability-- a trend that I think it's fair to say has already begun in many quarters.  As to John Umana, it would appear, based on this kind of result, to be a misuse of the term "leading proponent" by legaltimes.com ... Kenosis 04:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Attributable no doubt to all the recent Republican support of science and science institutions. When Bush publishes his ID book then we talk about putting him the intro. Until then he's only a believer, not a proponent. FeloniousMonk 00:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The publishing of a book is not necessary to be a proponent of an idea. Wikipedia is not interested in truth but in verifiability. Calling someone a "leading proponent" is an opinion that anyone can hold, no credentials needed. As long as that opinion comes from a reliable source it should be included in the article.Bagginator 01:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't call him a "leading" proponent, but I'd certainly call him a proponent.  Bush has not only stated his own private belief in ID, he has also gone so far as to say (paraphrasing from memory here) that many different ideas should be taught in schools, and this has been interpreted to mean advocacy for the teaching of ID in schools.  (It has to be interpreted, because Bush loves to dance around this question.)  I see little difference between an advocate and a proponent.  Bush has essentially said he is for the opening of science classrooms to the teaching of non-scientific material.  It seems quite clear to me that he is indeed an ID proponent/advocate, though certainly not a major one.  As in, I wouldn't put him in the intro, but he probably ought to be mentioned somewhere.  Cheers, Kasreyn 01:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: One possible way is calling a virtually unheard-of lawyer who happened to publish a book titled Creation: Towards a Theory of All Things (2005),  a "leading advocate" of intelligent design. ... Kenosis 02:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a difference of opinion, not a misuse.Bagginator 03:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh! You bet.  Legalitmes.com calls Umana a leading proponent of ID, and we get 70 hits on Google, virtually all of which are a result of legaltimes.com calling Umana a leading proponent and putting it on the web. And that's virtually all because of this story which is also cached here].  Now, what's wrong with this picture as it relates to WP:RS. ... Kenosis 03:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely understand (But do not agree with) your difference of opinion with Legaltimes.com. Your difference of opinion, however, does not have an effect on Legaltimes.com standing as a reliable source.WP:RS So, to answer your question, nothing at all.Bagginator 03:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Speaking for just myself, I might sign off on the language "It's leading proponents, virtually all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, say that intelligent design is a scientific theory ...", except that it would most assuredly be attacked as WP:Weasel, because, of course, in the introductory paragraph of the article on Intelligent design, it is necessary to be precise in our language on a subject which aims to include theological concepts as part of the public school science curricula in accordance with the promulgation of a "theistic methodology of science", especially in the United States (and perhaps elsewhere of course, though the US is where the controversy was/is primarily created and located). ... But I digress somewhat.  ... Kenosis 04:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Which is the Leading Proponent?

message: This discussion about "leading proponents" makes no sense.  We don't create knowledge, we report it.  Without an agreement as to what constitutes a "leading proponent", there's nowhere to go.  We have an authoritative source, which has not been challenged by any other authoritative sources.  If no one has challenged Forrest's definition statement, then we have no grounds change it.  What makes a leading proponent?  Would that be the top 10% of active proponents?  The top 5%?  The people who had written more than one book or 5 scholarly articles?  The people who were involved in a full time basis for >6 months, or a half-time basis for more than 2 years?  What sets a leading proponent apart from others?  If we want to have this discussion at all, we need to define the sample space.  If we don't have an agreed-upon definition (which, of course, is supported by external usage, as per the idea of NOR), then we can only rely on authoritative sources - academics who have devoted the professional career to studying ID and the people behind it (Forrest, Pennock, etc.) and people who can speak on behalf of the movement.  Maybe a journalist who did an in-depth article looking at this issue.  Beyond that, we can't go.  Wikipedia policy doesn't allow it.  Guettarda 17:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't call it tendentious argumentation just because we have a lack of consensus. Probably more accurate to refer to this as deadlocked disagreement.Bagginator 23:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A lack of consensus among who? Certainly not among the long term contributors to this article, who've made it a good article, widely cited as excellent by neutral sources. Any lack of consensus is purely contrived and transparent. FeloniousMonk 00:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Among Wikipedia editors there is a lack of consensus. On Wikipedia there is no ownership of articles.Bagginator 01:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page indicates otherwise. There is no lack of consensus among the regular participants at this article. And the last I've checked the changes were rv'd by a number of different, varied editors, not just one or two. The issue is that the passage you, Simoes and Ed Poor want to change has stood a very, very long time in the article because it is factually accurate and supported by easily verifiable facts. Contrast that to the changes you three have sought; despite numerous calls for proof no one has yet presented evidence of a leading ID proponent who is not affiliated with the Discovery Institute. Instead we've gotten semantic ploys to redefine "leading," "proponent," etc., and offerings that are neither notable nor actual proponents. That's why your changes have not found traction, not article ownership. FeloniousMonk 17:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've stated this before on other articles where there are nearly identical disputes, and three of the "regular participants" almost always seem to include among of them you, Jim62sch, and Guettarda. Between you immediately accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being pro-ID and Jim62sch repeatedly insinuating that Bagginator is an idiot (see below for an example), this is a dubious "consensus" if there ever was one. Simões (talk/contribs) 18:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait a second here.  Saying the words "dubious consensus" doesn't make it so.  Translation: "I disagree heartily with the consensus".  In the section above involving mainly Bagginator proposing new candidates for "leading proponents who aren't affiliated with the DI, we ended up narrowing it down to a small group of minor commentators, including several that turned out to be fictional.  The remaining question was whether the Australian Education Minister who proposed putting ID into the schools there can reasonably be classed as a "leading proponent".  In another section above, Simoes is asserting that Alvin Plantinga's fellowship with the ISCID is not an affiliation with the DI, despite that at least three of the core leaders/founders of the DI are the founder and executive director of the ISCID (William Dembski) and [Michael Behe]] and Jonathan Wells are fellows. So we have some absurd questions being asked by those questioning the consensus (thus some of the deterioration of discussion we've seen), and a few reasonable questions being asked too (thus the willingness to engage in fairly lengthy discussion).  That does not make the consensus dubious in the slightest. ... Kenosis 18:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your enlightened input.  We value your opinion.  Please feel free to share at any time. •Jim62sch• 02:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where this discussion is going, and where it can possibly go 

message: Dude, the following couple of sentences in the article are grounded in the same proof as the content you just deleted.  It makes me wonder if you even know what 'transcendental' and 'immanent' mean. -Psychohistorian 18:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which source is that? FeloniousMonk 19:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: "Dude"... I'm a DD. I do know what 'immanent' and 'transcendental' mean. I cannot, however, despite my doctorate, divine which "couple of sentences" followed. Please explain. --Storkk 00:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The same source which proves the statement, "Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to natural explanations for evolution. This stands in opposition to conventional biological science, which relies on experimentation to explain the natural world through observed physical processes such as mutation and natural selection." -Psychohistorian 00:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give us the number of the specific cite you are refering to? FeloniousMonk 00:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't figure out exactly what you are asking for.  Are you saying that the quote I just referenced, "Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to natural explanations for evolution. This stands in opposition to conventional biological science, which relies on experimentation to explain the natural world through observed physical processes such as mutation and natural selection", isn't sourced and needs to be removed?  Are you saying that you can't figure out the reference for that statement? -Psychohistorian 00:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you say that your edit, , is supported by a source that already exists in the article, and I'm asking which one. If you're saying that it's supported by subsequent sentences and not a cite, then which sentences? FeloniousMonk 00:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I'm pointing out that, if ID claims that a creator exists which is not purely in this world (and there are sources in the article which make plain that it makes this claim), then ID is a transcendental argument.  So, what's your poison?  Is ID transcendental or not? -Psychohistorian 10:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Does it matter?  Calling it transcendental is OR unless you can find a reliable source that has noted thesame.  You seem to be missing the point that ID is not "sold" as a philosophy, it's sold as science and must be dealt with as such.  In fact, if ID were a mere philosophy, instead of a rehashed concept dressed up in a cheap science tuxedo, it'd be a blip the size of a gnat on the national radar. •Jim62sch• 12:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is no more OR than pointing out that a source which states that a light source has a wavelength of 510nm means that the light is green.-Psychohistorian 18:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Transcendent