Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 21

message: I've replaced the majority viewpoint deleted from the intro on 13 November by Djewett , and  I've shortened it a bit. FeloniousMonk 02:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work!  I like this shortened version much better.  The previous version, with the paragraph explaining the scientific method, seemed out of place to me.  The specific critisms belonged (and were also found) other places in the article.  This version is short and sweet, giving just a short summary of the minority and majority view, and I don't think anyone on either side of the issue would claim it is POV.  -Paralle or Together? 04:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. It's an improvement, and neatly balanced at exactly two sentences for each side. FeloniousMonk 05:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Very good ant 00:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I concur with ant.  The introduction fairly and accurately represents the intelligent design viewpoint while maintaining NPOV.  Wade A. Tisthammer 01:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

text: P.S. by "intro" I was referring to "Intelligent Design in summary", I forgot about the section preceding this.  Wade A. Tisthammer 15:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: Blinded By Science: How ‘Balanced’ Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality - Chris Mooney, Columbia Journalism Review. A valuable warning to Wikipedians about how attempts to balance the coverage can lead to biased, inaccurate and misleading reporting. FeloniousMonk 05:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that Mooney has recently gained visibility as a strident critic of ID, and is currently promoting a book with major sections devoted to rehashing the standard objections. It would seem that concern for giving balanced time to minority scientific viewpoints coincides with strongly held personal objections to ID, at least in the case of Mooney and Felonius. SanchoPanza 03:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So...what's your point here?  Other than the ad hominem attack on Mooney and FM, that is.  Guettarda 03:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think SanchoPanza's point may have been that the writer of this article himself seems a bit too biased to accurately remark on "balanced" coverage.  Wade A. Tisthammer 18:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

text: University of Kansas strikes back:
See the following article --
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/11/22/intelligent.design.course.ap/index.html
Jim62sch 09:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevant reading

message: As I recall, there was something in ID about the "well-formedness" of biological structures, e.g., how the eye is so well designed to do exactly what it does. That point is refuted by pointing out all the awukward designs that result in suboptimal performance. The best examples is perhaps standing humans. Because we stand, we get low back pain, varicose veins, and hemorrhoids. Not such an intelligent design! Anyway, if that is a part of ID, then perhaps it ought to be in the article. Would anyone more knowledgeable than I care to give it a shot? -- Squidley, who forgot to sign in.
Is the eye the way it is so it can do what it does, or can it do what it does because of the way it is?
Jim62sch 22:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Soundness of the design?

message: For some nice writing, interested parties should take a look at Charles Krauthammer's column on ID. Some of which I'd disagree with, but I loved "Intelligent design ... is a self-enclosed, tautological "theory" ... that admits that evolution and natural selection explain such things as the development of drug resistance in bacteria and other such evolutionary changes within species but also says that every once in a while God steps into this world of constant and accumulating change and says, "I think I'll make me a lemur today." ". - Nunh-huh 02:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: of interest

message: KU has created a new class titled "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies." I just like the fact that they call ID a mythology. FuelWagon 16:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Kansas University

message: Here's another go at steering through the baggage.
: Intelligent design is a US-based revival of older pre-evolutionary philosophical concepts, mainly associated with the reorganisation of the creationist movement in the aftermath of the United States Supreme Court's rejection of statutes requiring equal time to be given to creationism and evolution in the public school system. It is part of what has been dubbed the "Wedge" strategy.
The wording is close, but not quite right.  I'd like the sentences shorter, but the "equal time" stuff makes it difficult.  It doesn't go into detail on the idea, because it occurs to me that we can make the words do the work.  Intelligent design--this intro says it's an idea promoted by creationists and consists of recycled pre-evolutionary concepts, so there's no need to spell it out.  I think this is a good direction to move in because it helps to answer Tom Haws' objections by explaining precisely why ID is so popular with US creationists. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop inserting your intro into the article, especially since you admit it is not complete. A few points: you use a lot of complex terms in single sentences, such as "older pre-evolutionary philosophical concepts". some of these terms, and the correlations between them in this context, should be explained. Yes, that will add bulk to your intro. Also, I suggest you add a reference to the teleology article, for people who are confused by the intro or title of the article. -- Ec5618 00:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno, it seems to be getting murkier not clearer. Still, transitional editing is like that sometimes. KillerChihuahua 00:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction III

message: Another serious problem with this article is the dreadful amount of weaseling going on.  We've got critics "pointing out" stuff while ID proponents have "putative" main purposes, we've got a bare statement that ID fails to satisfy some criteria, and many more instances where opinions are intruded into what should be a factual presentation.  This is appalling rubbish.  I'll try to address this by selecting acceptable rewordings that stick to the facts. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's putative because ID proponents often say ID is solely concerned with detecting design, not the designer, ID is not creationism/religious/etc, then they say "ID is part of God's general revelation..." "Not only does Intelligent Design rid us of this ideology (materialism), which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ" etc. Thus describing ID's main purpose as putative is being generous, considering the more accurate alternative term - misleading. The other areas you hint at should be supported by cites except in cases of commonly recognized fact. It was through this manner that we created one of WP's most well-supported articles. FeloniousMonk 08:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur w/FM per reason, do you have a way to word it which is less "weasely" but still covers this? Its not very helpful to say "this is a weasel-word" if you don't suggest a replacement, or at least ask for people to brainstorm and toss out ideas. KillerChihuahua 12:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

text: We have lots of reason to say that is not their actual purpose, including their own words. It is their stated purpose elsewhere that the real purpose is to open the door to putting God back in the classroom - not a precise quote mind you! So saying "this is their main purpose" without a modifier is inaccurate. What would you suggest that covers both their stated "mission statement" and their statements elsewhere that there is another purpose? Keeping in mind that what they have done is not scientific investigation at all, but rather speculation and a lot of essays and books to support their speculation. KillerChihuahua 14:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The existence of possible ulterior motives for the ID movement in general is well-documented in other sections, and will be made clear to any careful reader of the article. But the "purpose" in question here applies specifically to Design Inferences themselves, the conclusion that a Design Inference aims to establish. "Putative" lends an uneccesary argumentative tone, and conveys no helpful information to the reader. It only puts a question mark in their mind, without providing justification for the question mark. If you're not going to follow up and demonstrate what the purpose of the logic of a Design Inference really is, (as opposed to its "putative" purpose) then you've left the reader unsatisfied and confused, and possibly distrustful of the article's POV. SanchoPanza 20:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If I agreed with you, which I don't, it would be easy enough to follow up and demonstrate that ID proponents view the design inference as merely a useful adjunct for advancing a social and religious agenda they are pursuing. Very easy in fact; there are direct quotes that say exactly that. If "putative" puts a question mark in the reader's mind, it's well justified. FeloniousMonk 21:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The existence of the cultural agenda should not be used as a carte blanche justification for giving a generalized suscpicious tone to the whole article. It is simple enough to demonstrate both the existence of the Discovery Institute's cultural and religious goals and the goals of Intelligent Design proper, to distinguish between the two and also show objectively how they are related. Some parts of this article do that well enough, but the carefree use of "putative" here does not. It's like saying "The putative purpose of William Dembski's dissertation was to show that certain types of detachable patterns could be used to demonstrate the existence of intelligence, but he really just wants to convert lots of people to Jesus." It is simply true that William Dembski wants to convert people to Jesus, and he also believes that certain types of patterns demonstrate intelligence. There is no contradiction between the two, and this does not make either of his goals "putative." SanchoPanza 21:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If there were any of what they say their aim is, happening, then "putative" might be a little strong. But there is no scientific investigation - so "putative" is exactly accurate. Let me try an analogy - I say, over and over, that all I want is to clean my room. But all I ever do is run around and party. So my "putative" goal is cleaning my room - but the evidence is clear that I am not doing anything towards cleaning my room. Now, Behe is currently saying he has plans for an actual scientific experiment for proofs of some kind, and if and when that ever happens we can revisit this. Until then, yes indeedy there should be a question mark. KillerChihuahua 22:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree with removing the word "putative" as unnecessary qualifier. Make the point that they are disingenuous more explicitly elsewhere. --JPotter 05:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Weaseling

message: This section: 
: John Wilkins and Wesley Elsberry point out that Dembski's "explanatory filter" works in an eliminative fashion, by eliminating as explanations first regularity, then chance, finally defaulting to design. They show that this procedure is flawed as a model for scientific inference because it is prone to making false conclusions of design (because of the asymmetric way that it treats the different possible explanations.
Now I know John and Wesley quite well, as regulars on talk.origins and both very good chaps.  Use of this example is reasonable (there's an unedited copy of the article here).  However the language of our description is wrong.  John and Wesley characterize the explanatory filter as eliminative, they argue that it's flawed.  To say that they point out and show things that depend on chains of inference, interpretation and framing is not appropriate.  It admits, for instance, of no possibility that John and Wesley mischaracterized Dembski, selectively quoted him, or misinterpreted him. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a fair point criticism, and I have revised the language accordingly. Please take a look at it. Bill Jefferys 14:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pointing out

message: I have nominated Unguided evolution for deletion. Please add comments. Thanks Joshuaschroeder 05:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD of Unguided evolution

message: I think this article uses the word claim in the wrong context. It said that proponents of ID claim that they look for signs of intelligence...I changed that to ID proponents say they look for signs, although we could say that they "look for signs" without saying they claim or say they look for them (whether they find them is a different issue). The article also says:
:"The term intelligent design came up in 1988 at a conference in Tacoma, Wash., called Sources of Information Content in DNA," claims Stephen C. Meyer..."
What is the meaning of the word "claim". Does the author of that sentence seriously think that it is possible that Stephen C. Meyer is lying or misremembering, that the term maybe did not "come up" at the conference after all, and Mr. Meyer may be delusional. Even if he is, applying the word "claim" to what appears to be a direct quote seems to be an attempt at reducing the credibility of the quote. The person writing seems to have a serious POV problem. --ChadThomson 07:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They seek and then claim to find. — Dunc|☺ 12:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Perhaps a more neutral way of saying it would be: According to Stephen C. Meyer, "The term intelligent design came up....  This attributes the quote to him, and erases whatever POV is attached the word claim.  It simply states what he says without making a judgment about whether he is correctly remembering or not.  -Parallel or Together? 02:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in favor of that wording. KillerChihuahua 02:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed the sentence to read "The term intelligent design came up in 1988 at a conference in Tacoma, Wash., called Sources of Information Content in DNA," according to Stephen C. Meyer...  -Parallel or Together? 02:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oooh, not so sure about "came up" - what about "According to Stephen C. Meyer, the term intelligent design was used in 1988 at a conference in Tacoma, Wash., called Sources of Information Content in DNA," ... Sorry I didn't think about that before. KillerChihuahua 02:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems right to me. Bill Jefferys 03:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Isn't this a direct quote of Meyer?  That was my understanding.  If so, you probably shouldn't change any words in the quote itself, even if you take it out of quotations.  If it isn't a direct quote, then change it if you like. -Parallel or Together ? 04:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it all boils down to the fact that it seems to be a direct quote and yet (at some point) used the word POV-loaded word claim. Would someone with more time have a look in the history please, and see who added this apparent quote, ask them for some sort of reference, and add "According to Stephen C. Meyer" to the beginning of the sentence as suggested by PorT. Do people agree this is a good solution? --ChadThomson 05:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The passage in question is a direct quote from Stephen C. Meyer.  Check out this New York Times piece by William Safire, published on August 21, 2005.  The quote is in the third paragraph.  I've already changed the wording to "The term intelligent design came up in 1988 at a conference in Tacoma, Wash., called Sources of Information Content in DNA," according to Stephen C. Meyer....  I will add a citation for it as well (and I'll try and keep the references at the end correct, for FM).  -Parallel or Together ? 07:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent, I have no problem if it was his phrasing. Thanks for checking. KillerChihuahua 19:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Claim-mongery