Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 22

message: Okay, i can't answer all your objections, haven't got the time. First of all, Nomen is misrepresenting the facts when he says that "IDists (or creation science adherents)...[misquote] Charles Darwin as having stated that even he found [the eye] incredible." First of all, what does even he mean. Perhaps it should be even He? ;-). Fact is, Darwin did find the eye incredible, but he had faith in his theory, and therefore he basically said that "the eye did evolve through small steps and I won't have it otherwise". Also, you're implying that science is intrinsically oxymoronic by these two assertions: 1. Any thing that cannot be falsified is not science 2. Science "will always look for a naturalistic answer". What if there is no naturalistic answer for some things? Is the answere "Well, that's impossible because it's not scientific."? If so, the very basis of science—that all answers can be found naturalistically—is unfalsifiable, which makes science qualify as a fallacy (if we believe what you say) and the faith put in science is very much like religious faith. And just a note, your quote about lunatics is really quite irrelevant and no one will say, "you know what, I am a lunatic, so you have a point there." It's just argument language that goes nowhere.
Dave, good point. But please, provide me with a reference of an ID-ist using the term "ID movement" originally (i.e. not as a rebuttal of an attack on ID).
Finally, Jim, did the avian flu virus mutate into some new HIV virus? It's actually still the flu and may be a distant "descendant" of a flu that effected pterosaurs, but we certainly can't say with a hint of certainty that it evolved from a herpes-like virus, or from something like smallpox. And moreover, viruses are considered by many (if not most) to not be organisms, and they certainly aren't as complex as, say, echo-location in bats and whales. Not that I'm saying avian flu necessarily didn't evolve from a completely different virus or from some proteins and nucleotides misplaced by a bacteria, I can't say that necessarily, because there's no way for anyone to falsify that. --chad 05:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your post, Jim. You have dodged the point of what I said and fact remains fact "the idea that all answers about nature can be found in nature" is unfalsifiable in its very nature. If you study its falsifiability (or lack thereof) using "science", you are not allowed to seek supernatural answers because "science" says "answers about nature can only be found in nature". So you say "the idea" is falsifiable and then turn right around and say "we do eventually find all the answers about nature in nature", a statement which is clearly unfalsifiable and rather unfair. And as far as biology being uncomprehendible, anyone with a basic knowledge of genetics can get the points that darwinists and ID-ists are making. And anyone with a brain can understand the fallacy of defining science so as to cater to a biased POV (redundancy intended). And if someone doesn't feel glee over evidence "supporting" darwinism, it's because they've already decided it's true and so it's no surprise that evidence supports it; like a young man who's so convinced all women are in love with him: he's not particularly surprised or gleeful when a girl does like him, and he ignores it when one doesn't. --chad 05:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is Wiki Violating its own POV rule, cont.

message: From the article, in the "Religion and leading Intelligent Design proponents" section: "Though not all Intelligent Design proponents are motivated by religious fervor,...".
I seriously doubt there's a prominent proponent of this theory that isn't religiously motivated... please either remove this assertion or add an example. Jules.LT 19:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The tricky part is proving a positive i.e. that all are religiously motivated. Certainly most are. The problem comes when some of them keep their cards close to their chest and pretend that it's not important. — Dunc|☺ 19:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the burden is on the other side, since all known ID proponents are avowed theists, and the ID movement, when speaking to its natural constituency, freely admits to religious motivation. Alienus 19:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In Frederick Pohl's Heechee Saga he postulates a race of aliens so advanced they are moving to collapse the universe and tune the natural laws and create a new, improved one.  ID proponents may very well exist who subscribe to intelligent design without having a supernatural deity in mind. Endomion 21:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't address the question: the possibility that a designer might be an alien does not have anything to do with id proponents, their beliefs and motivations. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah - raelian intelligent design -- the problem is though none of those is a member of the ID movement (who rather hypocritically consider them absurd) so that's really something else entirely (the IDists don't take seriously their suggestion that it could be space aliens or time travellers or multiple gods) — Dunc|☺ 22:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But the Raelians are still religious, theirs is still religious ID.  Guettarda 22:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If believing in the possibility of extraterrestrial civilizations is a religion, someone better get the courts to stop government funding of SETI research on church-state separation grounds.  Endomion 03:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The beliefs of the Raelians goes a little beyond believing there may be some vague form of alien intelligence in the universe. The Raelians attribute our existence to specific aliens. -- Ec5618 07:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: See Raëlism.  They are a religious (or "quasi-religous") group, and they base their beliefs on specific revelation.  Since they provide specific mechanisms they are a little more scientific than traditional ID (I could see some of their ideas as being testable/falsifiable), but they are still clearly a religious group.  Guettarda 16:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: What does Frederick Pohl's Heechee Saga have to do with anything?  Isn't ID out there enough without getting into bad science fiction?  Besides, by putting aliens into the loop, one just moves the search for this mysterious designer back a step (I think I noted that somewhere else).
Also, I agree with Alienus regarding the burden of proof.
Jim62sch 23:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: "Guilty" until proven innocent eh? Obviously you think the concept is entirely a political ploy and don't care one whit about the content. Good luck with that.--Ben 23:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: And you know what Behe "honestly believes" how?  If he "honestly believed" in ID, why has he done no research in that field?  Guettarda 06:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "not all proponents are religious" needs an example 

message: See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Biological_evolution_(disambiguation) KillerChihuahua?!? 21:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd think that after the first two or three... FeloniousMonk 21:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  or 11 or 12...
Jim62sch 01:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Creationist POV fork, take 4? 5?

message: headsup boys - this is the 7th or 8th from the same contributor... — Dunc|☺ 15:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so we're clear, the article doesn't contain a single source, reference or link. In fact, prior to becoming AfD it contained the  boiler, with good cause. -- Ec5618 19:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another POV fork ([[Intelligent Design and Creationism]]) 

message: Even sourced pro-ID edits are immediately reverted.  This isn't worth my time.  Endomion 20:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect you're right.  It really has been getting ridiculous.  I mean for crying out loud, this Wikipedia is supposed to be about ID!  The majority view should be represented, but so should the minority view.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To which souced pro-ID edit do you refer?  -Parallel or Together ? 23:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a number of areas that have room for improvement.   For instance, the ID claim is that the fine-tuned physical constants are necessary for any kind of physical life (e.g. if the proton to electron mass ratio would be different, there would not even exist sufficient chemical bonding)--not just life as we know it. Yet the entry ignores this position and puts forth the objection "a different sort of life might exist in its place." Even if the ID position is wrong here, it should at least be accurately represented.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 02:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't really answer my question.  I was just confused as to what sourced pro-ID edits Endomion referred.  I wasn't making a judgment on any edits, and I have no problem with you wanting ID accurately represented here.  Any NPOV article would have to accurately present its topic, even if that topic is blatant pseudoscience.  I support the scientific community in their view on ID, and FM, KC, Jim, etc. often exhibit opinions close to my own, but I agree that we must be accurate in our presentation of ID's views -- or as accurate as possible given the constant redefintions and lack of consensus within the ID movement.  There is no need to misrepresent ID, as long as the explanations for why it isn't valid science are also not misrepresented.  On this basic level, Wade, I agree with you.  However, you do love to play the "orginial research" card, and I hope you can see the overuse is driving everyone further from consensus.  -Parallel or Together ? 04:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read my objections, I hope you can understand why I play the "original research" card as often as I do.  I suspect argument X to be original research.  I request a citation of a leading ID opponent who uses argument X to show that it is not original research.  My request is (rather repeatedly) denied.  Several rewordings later and still no granting of my request regarding the citation.  Maybe I should just give up.  In the grand scheme of things, how important is an internet encyclopedia policy anyway?  --Wade A. Tisthammer 04:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your requests aren't repeatedly denied.  Cites are given and you disagree with them.  I know that you have your reasons for rejecting these citations, often claiming that they aren't precise enough, don't use the correct wording, etc.  Please don't fall into this trap of misrepresentation yourself by claiming your requests are denied.  This talk page grows at a considerable enough rate, mostly attempts to answer your critisms followed by new critisms by you followed by attempts to answer... I think you see the pattern.  Again, I don't disagree about the need for cites, but just suggest your incessant harping of "no original research" isn't helping the problem.  Instead, say what you would replace it with, give alternate citations and rewrite the sections (posting them on the talk page first for consensus), and apply the same kind of hawkishness to everything that might be OR rather than just the things you would like struck from the article due to your own POV.  ID the movement and ID as a pseudoscience are both encyclopedic, but they must be treated as exactly that... a movement and a pseudoscience.  To that extent, I will repeat that I do feel that we must be accurate about ID.  Again, this means presenting accurate statements about what ID proponents argue while at the same time marking them as unfounded pseudoscience.  Don't give up, though.  There are ways in which the article can improve, and I think that you have at least made everyone more aware of the need to cite new additions to the article.  Even if not everyone agrees with your specific arguments, there is now a strong motivation to include good cites from the start when adding (or subtracting) new material -- no one wants to have to go through this nonsense every time.  -Parallel or Together ? 05:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will zero pro-ID representation on the ID page be sufficient?