Talk:Intelligent design/Raspor's and adlac's objections

message: Critics can write all they want about ID in this article as long as they preface it with an indication that it is a critic's perspective and not the proponent's perspective.  However, in the main article section that purports to accurately represent the view there is a different standard for the content...  I assume that all agree on this point (this is the 3rd time I have referenced it, so far without response), but I would like to make sure we are at the same table here.  Will all of you affirm this policy?  Once we can all agree on this we can move forward:
Wikipedia's NPOV policy states,
To write from a neutral point of view...it generally suffices to presentA competing views in a way that is more or less acceptableB to their adherentsC.
This policy as applied to the ID article:
In the section presentingA ID, only ID adherentsC are fit to judge the presentation'sA acceptabilityB. 
adlac 03:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it.  Only Democrats can write about Democrats.  Republicans about Republicans.  Oh wait a minute, only physicians can write about medical issues.  And only computer engineers can write about computers.  Dog owners can only write about the breed of dog they own.  I wonder that I, as a Jew, can only write about the holocaust.  Well, since I'm alive and an SS officer probably burned my uncle's personal belongings which means I cannot prove that he was actually killed by that officer, I might be excluded from writing about the holocaust.  If my sarcasm isn't completely off-base, your form of censorship has no place on Wikipedia.  However, you can go to the Creation Wiki [] where you can join your fellow Creationists--we promise not to edit your comments therein. Orangemarlin 04:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Note that the NPOV policy statement is a sufficient condition, not a necessary one; thus the "generally suffices" terminology.  However, your conclusion incorrectly restates the policy as necessary. -- Cat Whisperer 04:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've been trying to decipher coded messages a while here on the talk page recently.  I think many people might be a little tired.  Rather than we try and guess and respond to whatever conclusion you're wanting us to come to based on the limited evidence and the unclear "question" (I assume you are asking a question) you have presented, how about just saying what's on your mind in human terms and we can go from there?  Something like "I think X and here's why...What do you folks think about it?" would be a great way to start.  Mr Christopher 04:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The current definition is word for word the Discovery Institute's definition of ID. JPotter 05:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No, you're objections and reasoning here are wholly one-sided, rendering your claim that the article violates NPOV is baseless. FeloniousMonk 18:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a BpresCentA for me? It must be a belated Xmas present I guess. Oh and I guess only scientists should be able to write about science? So since intelligent design purports to be a science, but isn't then can I exclude intelligent design supporters from editing the intelligent design article? And us scientists will be glad to write it for them. Thanks. Sounds like a great idea.--Filll 05:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only ID adherents fit to judge acceptability of this presentation of ID. 

message: Regarding the change by  from "assert" to "believe" - assert is more accurate than believe, since it's impossible to determine what people actually believe.  That someone asserts something is verifiable, what they believe is not.  When a moderately intelligent person with training in science says 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", it's rather far-fetched to think that they actually believe something which is so demonstrably false.  They might believe that it's a good thing to assert this, since it achieves some greater goal, but it's difficult to see how they would believe that.  Replacing "assert" with "believe" reduces the verifiability and factual accuracy of the statement (and is thus a bad thing).  Guettarda 07:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hold on a second there, Raspor.  The reason I "let Felonious get away with it" was that he could point to policy which supports his position in a convincing way.  As I told you repeatedly, you need to read policy.  All Wikipedia editors must abide by policy and, frankly, if that is too onerous for you then, yes, you quitting is a good idea.-Psychohistorian 13:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If you are not an editor, raspor, then what are you? -- Ec5618 13:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Raspor, "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies" is not a matter of interpretation.  It is spelled out very clearly.  The notable controversies with ID need to be described in the introduction.  One of the big notable controversies is that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community does not consider ID as science.  I am still showing good faith, but I must insist that you abide by policy.  If you intend to abide by policy, then stay.  The article can use editors on "the other side" to provide balance.  If you intend to not abide by policy, then stop saying that you are going to leave and leave already.-Psychohistorian 14:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Raspor, I called you "abrasive" and told you why I thought you were abrasive.  FM called you a "disruptive editor".  Its up to him to tell you why.  But I'm tired of having the discussion page be hijacked.  You two need to work that out in your user pages.  The discussion page here needs to focus on writing a better article, not on editors.-Psychohistorian 14:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I am unwilling (that's unwilling, not unable) to get into a personal dispute between two other editors.  Because it is a personal dispute, you two need to discuss it in your user pages.  Now, I will be ignoring any further comments from you here in this discussion page unless you intend to abide by policy (which includes restricting this discussion page's focus to "how to write a better article").-Psychohistorian 14:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, good, now you are focusing on the article.  It states in the first paragraph, "Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, assert 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." and only in the second paragraph does it discuss the fact that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community considers it to not be science.  Personally, I feel that that's biased towards the DI.  Others disagree.  In any event, your question, "although most scientists believe it is unscientific there is a small amount who feel it has merit and the public in general accepts it" is mute because it effectively does do exactly that.  As for your question, "did it say' although many people think ID is a creation of the DI others believe that it is a viable concept that has been around a long time and is independent of the DI'" doesn't even make sense - it conflates several different points into some kind of muddled mess (those points are 1.) "did the DI create ID?" the article doesn't say anything about that 2.) "are all the leading proponents of ID affiliated with the DI" - there are sources provided which say "yes", you've been repeatedly asked to provide sources to the contrary and have failed to do so and 3.)"Has ID been around for a long time?" - the article discusses the history of the concept and the term).-Psychohistorian 14:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As I already told you, neutrality does not take a back seat to verifiability.  In other words, if you don't think its balanced, find a reliable source to provide a balancing perspective.  As for examples of proponents who are not members of the DI, the only example I remember you presenting as a "leading proponent who is not a member of the DI" is someone who, in fact, is quite hostile towards ID.  "I agree with you there" - I am tired of you misrepresenting my position to garner support for your "innocent victim" routine.  I told you that I'm staying out of that dispute.-Psychohistorian 14:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Believe/Assert 

message: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2524442,00.html
""
Lord Adonis, an education minister, is to issue guidelines within two months for the teaching of “intelligent design” (ID), a theory being promoted by the religious right in America. 
 
Until now the government has not approved the teaching of the controversial theory, which contradicts Darwinian evolutionary theory, the basis of modern biology. 
Adonis said in a parliamentary answer: “Intelligent design can be explored in religious education as part of developing an understanding of different beliefs.” 
He announced that the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) is to hold discussions with the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, the assessment regulator, and said local advisory councils would decide whether particular schools should teach the theory. 
""
OK now tell me why Adonis is not a leading proponent of ID
raspor 17:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting.  So, you are arguing that someone can be a proponent of ID even when they say that it should be in religiuos education and do not assert that it is scientific?-Psychohistorian 17:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: See Andrew Adonis. AvB ÷ talk 17:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Better yet read the archives!  We've already discussed this issue to death.  Guettarda 17:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Neither Andrew Adonis nor Dr. Buggs are leading ID proponents. For what constitutes a leading ID proponent Guettarda is right, please see the many previous discussions in the archives. FeloniousMonk 17:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ID Proponent 

message: :::People editing this article would do well to recognize intelligent design is pseudoscience by mainstream science.  That is not a point to argue, it's a point to stress.  We're not talking about comparing democrats and republicans.  We're talking about pseudoscience.  With that in mind a wise contributor here would make themselves very familiar with WP:NPOVFAQ#Giving_.22equal_validity.22 and WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience.  Mr Christopher 18:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly how does is this discussion going to improve the article? These pages are provided for discussions on specific improvements to the articles, not for debating the relative merits of ID; this sort of activity is why these are now taking place on a subpage. Please read and abide by WP:TALK and WP:NOT. FeloniousMonk 00:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience 

message: Since at least the 27th Raspor has been repeatedly raising the same set of objections here, all of which have been previously dealt with in the past and all of which favor an implicitly pro-ID viewpoint to the exclusion of the majority's viewpoint. 
As pointed out by a number of long term contributors above his objections and proposals fly in the face of both our core policy, WP:NPOV, and substantial credible evidence which stands in contrary to his claims and interpretation of events. Raspor continues raising the same objections and proposals in pursuit of certain points for an extended time despite opposition from almost all credible long term editors. He has refused to abide by Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, failing to cite sources, citing unencyclopedic sources, misrepresenting reliable sources, and insisting on evidence that is strictly partisan and original research. Lastly he has resisted requests for moderation and continues to argue in pursuit of the same certain points despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and administrators. 
Considering his participation here has been marked by all three points defining disruptive editors listed at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, tendentious, fails to acknowledge policy, and rejects community input, in the interest of freeing up the talk page for other discussions I'm asking Raspor to moderate his participation here and not continue to dominate this page with endless and fruitless objections. His talk page is a more appropriate venue for the laundry list of personal gripes unacquainted with policy that we have seen. 
I move that any additional incessant and fruitless discussions that become disruptive be userfied or moved to a subpage here in order to allow other, more fruitful discussions to take place. FeloniousMonk 03:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in full agreement Mr Christopher 16:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dealing with Raspor's continued objections 

message: Per comments above the ongoing fruitless discussions have been moved to this subpage: Talk:Intelligent design/Raspor's and adlac's objections. This was done in order to clear the way for more productive discussion here. Any further discussions on these lines need to be made there; those left here will be moved to the subpage moving forward. FeloniousMonk 17:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. The only people that were being stifled were those that tried to discuss anything other than your objections and proposals. Take a look at the sections above. There you will see that over the period of four days you started at least 5 long sections (not to mention the one I moved and the discussions on other topics that you hijacked) that only resulted in a number of regular, established contributors (prior to me) explaining how WP policy and guideline have shaped the article's content. All of which you've rejected or ignored as evidenced in your continuing objections. In so doing you've wasted a lot of the time, effort and patience of the established contributors here and met all three requirements defining disruptive editors listed at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing: tendentious, fails to acknowledge policy, and rejects community input. And this is just on the talk page; the only thing that has prevented this from spreading to the article is that it is protected. So, in fact you're not stifled, discussion can continue on the subpage, Talk:Intelligent design/Raspor's and adlac's objections, and other more productive discussions will be free to take place here. And keep in mind your identical activity at Talk:Evoltion is no more acceptable than it is here. FeloniousMonk 18:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Disruptive behavior is not only limited to actions when editing articles, but can include actions on talk pages as well. I should know, I helped write that guideline. FeloniousMonk 18:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Continuing discussions moved

message: To here: Talk:Intelligent_design/Raspor%27s_and_adlac%27s_objections#FeloniousMonk.2C_why_did_you_answer_my_post_then_clear_it_without_charging_me_with_any_breaking_of_debate_decorum.3F FeloniousMonk 00:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another section moved to subpage

message: In the secular world, the beginning of wisdom is the phrase "I don't know."  Nobody knows how we got here.  The constant references to ID being "unscientific" in this article are bizarre, at the very least.  In order for a thing to be scientific, it must have two characteristics:  it must be observable, and it must be repeatable in an experimental setting.  Nothing else is "scientific."  So, while ID fails in this regard, so does evolution.  Indeed, when anyone points out that evolution is not observable, the usual response is to simply throw a few more million years into the equation, making it ever more unobservable.
Secondly, Michael Crichton has writeen a series of speeches (available at his web site) starkly illustrating the silliness of predicating science on an ethos-based argument.  In other words, the early assertions in the article concerning the beliefs of a "majority" of scientists is patently absurd. For example, a majority of people didn't agree with the polemic version of the solar system, but that did not make it invalid.  The invocation of a majority opinion argument dramatically shows both the intellectual vacuousness of the evolution crowd, as well as their desperation.
If there is a sincere desire to improve the article, remove all references to who, and how many, approve or disapprove of the concept, and roll it out for what it is.  If you insist on tagging it as "unscientific," then have the intellectual honesty to say the same for evolution, for that is the truth.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.215.86 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 31 December 2006
:Doing so would violate our core policy, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, which describes the "the neutral point of view" as "a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires 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. ... Debates are described, represented, and characterized, ... Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate."  FeloniousMonk 04:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Take it to the judge. .. dave souza, talk 22:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They already have: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. They lost. FeloniousMonk 04:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It cannot.  You need a supernatural being at the basis of ID, and you cannot prove his existence.  Your sarcasm, persistence and rudeness are not going far in making your points. Orangemarlin 23:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, I have to ask you: How do your comments here relate to improving the article? You seem to be using this page to discuss the relative merits of ID, not improving the article. If you want to discuss ID, please go to one of the many online fora dedicated to that. Please read WP:NOT and WP:TALK. FeloniousMonk 03:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: varthold, 31 December 2006

message: I wonder how many times these discussions have been repeated.  I've looked through the Talk:evolution archives and the same discussions were repeated 20 or 30 times with the same resolution.  Honestly, the repetitiveness here is the exact same and it comes down to one point.  Evolution as a fact is science, verifiable and repeatable.  ID is based on religious faith that is accepted by few people who are very passionate.  Religious faith cannot be proven, so therefore is POV, pseudoscience and religion.  To repeat the argument 400 times, subtly changing the words, is not going to change anyone's mind.  Wikipedia does not espouse any religion, just encyclopedic fact that is verifiable.  Orangemarlin 23:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reduntant repetitiveness 

message: What the discovery institute has done, with an infusion of money, is revive William Paley's arguments from 2 centuries ago with slightly more modern language. These arguments can be even more solidly rejected now than they were 200 years ago. Science's accomplishments are far greater than they were 200 years ago, and the definition of science is more precise, at least among scientists. The public still has very little understanding of what science is, so the expenditure of large sums of money by the DI and the publicity with having a high profile court case or two has confused the issue. In the public's mind, DI might as well have won the Dover court case. Most of them probably do not know that DI lost in court, they only know they have heard of ID now. Most of the public do not know what science is; just look at how many believe in alien abduction and telekinesis and ghosts and various conspiracy theories (JFK, 9/11) or whatever. So in some ways, the stink DI has made has served the purpose intended; it has given this issue a very high profile in the public's mind. This, coupled with an almost complete lack of understanding of what evolution is in the public's mind, has created a dangerous situation. After all, what politician or decision make could object to the very reasonable sounding "Teach both sides and let people decide for themselves" or "Teach the controversy", or "Mainstream science is unfairly supressing us". It would take very little for the fundamentalists to gain the upper hand on some future supreme court, or in some future congress. Just look at the anti-Michael J. Fox advertisements in the last congressional election. I suspect these ads would have been far more successful if Rush Limbaugh had not stuck his foot in his mouth and made such ludicrous statements. --Filll 13:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Insults will not get you very far here. You adopt most of the standard creationist tactics. You want to debate, but you will not answer any question you do not like. YOu just dodge and weave, and bring up the same old tired issues over and over, blindly and brainlessly. You could be a bot, by all appearances. It gets tiresome after a while, you know?--Filll 17:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Who are you?  You didn't sign your posts.  Orangemarlin 17:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Glad to see that you fully accept that ID is creationism rebranded as science. As the article shows. However your biases clearly have nothing helpful to contribute to this article, so kindly desist from trolling. .. dave souza, talk 17:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: raspor's problem is using a definition that differs from that used by the rest of the world. Like other IDers, the aim is to redefine logic. Wikipedia is not here to give undue weight to such odd perceptions. .. dave souza, talk 17:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You have it the wrong way round.  ID is creationism, but creationism is more than ID.  As creationist ideas go, it is neither intellectually stimulating nor artistically beautiful.  It's a narrow argument which is, according to Johnson, based on a lack of faith and imagination (since he said that he could not believe in God if the Bible weren't literally true, hence his need to make God conform to Johnson's need for "proof").  Equating belief in intelligent design with belief in God is an insult to most believers.  Guettarda 22:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My view

message: As successful as the Discovery Institute's strategy was with the public, it is really caught in a difficult position legally and scientifically etc. To raise money and get support from churches, they must someplace make a connection to God or the divine or theology. If they do not, they will not get any money. However, they have to keep this agenda "secret" to have any chance in the US court system, or in the scientific establishment. Of course, this means that a huge volume of fairly extremist religious types will be exposed to the secret real motivation behind their books, lobbying, strategies, research, etc. And some will proudly brag about it, as religious people like to do, to the filthy heathens and infidels. For example, take a look at this story about the Biologic institute: 
--Filll 14:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Strategy

message: I am new and feel treated unfairly. It seems to me that many here the article is the way we want it and we are not going to change it. Any arguement one brings up they retort with 'we have been over that 100 times and you are wrong' I see little good faith in a lot of editors. It seems fixed. 
I have tried to present my case and been told that I am a troll, stupid, ignorant, rude, etc. Most attempts to state a POV that is slightly pro-ID is attacked unreasonably. My comments are moved.
The some of the anti-IDers will not listen to reason. Presenting logic and data to them is futile.
But I still the minority view should be represented. It is useless talking to most anti-IDers because the have closed their minds to new ideas.
I would like to invite any pro-IDers to work with me and make this a fair article. Is there anywhere to go for help against bullies here. Those who want to suppress alternate views.
raspor 17:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Insults will not get you very far here. You adopt most of the standard creationist tactics. You want to debate, but you will not answer any question you do not like. YOu just dodge and weave, and bring up the same old tired issues over and over, blindly and brainlessly. You could be a bot, by all appearances. It gets tiresome after a while, you know?--Filll 17:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Who are you?  You didn't sign your posts.  Orangemarlin 17:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unfairness Here

message: Felony has state in the article that 10% surveyed believe in ID. Yet he says that belief that God created life is ID. He biasedly forgot to add that 64% belive humans were creaed by God.
And the title of the article is 2/3 of US believe humans were created by God. If you ought there do not think that is bias you need a course in logic
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Raspor (talk • contribs) 17:17, 1 January 2007
:Glad to see that you fully accept that ID is creationism rebranded as science. As the article shows. However your biases clearly have nothing helpful to contribute to this article, so kindly desist from trolling. .. dave souza, talk 17:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: raspor's problem is using a definition that differs from that used by the rest of the world. Like other IDers, the aim is to redefine logic. Wikipedia is not here to give undue weight to such odd perceptions. .. dave souza, talk 17:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You have it the wrong way round.  ID is creationism, but creationism is more than ID.  As creationist ideas go, it is neither intellectually stimulating nor artistically beautiful.  It's a narrow argument which is, according to Johnson, based on a lack of faith and imagination (since he said that he could not believe in God if the Bible weren't literally true, hence his need to make God conform to Johnson's need for "proof").  Equating belief in intelligent design with belief in God is an insult to most believers.  Guettarda 22:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What bias and misrepresentation 

message: Evolution = atheism
Evolution= religion
ID=science
Creationism=science
evolution=Big Bang+cosmochemistry+Hertzsprung-Russell Stellar theory+abiogenesis+biological evolution+speciation
scientists=atheists
ID>creationism
Christians=biblical literalists
Catholics != Christians
scientists!= Christians
Religion=Christianity
Religious Creation accounts=Genesis
And so on and so forth.--Filll 18:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you posting this on here? You're not proving anything, it's only your own opinions; and we both know it's not for the sake of the article itself, only to offend or provoke someone. Please keep this kind of nonsense away from Wikipedia. --Wikiwøw 20:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intelligent Design Mathematics

message: adlac, 
email me. would like to talk to you. the darwinists here are not following wiki guidelines and are not posting in good faith. continually attempted to inform closed minds will not work. 
raspor 18:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you'll have noted, policies particularly relevant to changes to this article are linked from a box at the top of this page. The actual stated beliefs of ID's adherents have to be properly shown by verifiable evidence without giving undue weight to minority or non-notable positions. What you call "the proper representation of our views as defined by us the actual view holders" sounds awfully like original research which you'll appreciate is against policy. ,,, dave souza, talk 20:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dave, on the Encyclopedia page on ID you can't believe that giving "undo weight" to ID applies do you?  That rule is clearly talking about general topics such as "Life Origins" where the competing theories should be given weight according to their current prominence.  Are you saying we should minimise an explanation of ID on its own page because it is a minority view?  Next, "Verifiable evidence" is talking about sourcing edits not about scientific verification!!!  Hello, how are you going to get scientific verification of every view represented on Wikipedia.  Most views that you or anyone else holds are not based on scientific laboratory findings.  Enough of these red herrings.Adlac 18:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Undue weight might not be the most relevant piece of policy, but it is relevant. Verifiability means we cannot state what people believe without a source. Please don't dismiss policy. -- Ec5618 18:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: These word games are pointless, stupid and boring. Read the articles please and dont keep posting nonsense.--Filll 20:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: God is not part of evolution. Period. Do you get it? God might have created the rules by which evolution operates (theistic evolution) or the laws by which the universe operates (scientific law) or have created the first life form on earth (abiogenesis). Evolution is silent about ALL of that. However, any theory that includes God is not science, by definition.--Filll 21:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  closed minds 

message: The justification for the recent vandalism concerned Felonious Monk's addition on a Harris poll.  First of all Harris is considered a reliable and credible source.  Second, the Harris article cited stated At the same time, approximately one-fifth (22%) of adults believe "human beings evolved from earlier species" (evolution) and 10 percent subscribe to the theory that "human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them" (intelligent design).  Felonious Monk's entry reads "According to a 2005 Harris poll 10 percent of adults in the United States subscribe to intelligent design".  The justification put forth by raspor include:
* this addition takes a study and cherry picks stats that support a personal point of view without giving an accurate picture of what the whole study is saying
* the source was not correctly cited. it cherry picked biased info
* cite was biased quoted
* the source was not correctly cited. it cherry picked biased info
Felonious Monk's edit seems completely within policy and he quoted the portion relevant to the article on intelligent design.  In view of this I find raspor's reverts baseless.  Mr Christopher 21:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Raspor, you should read each of these links carefully before making your false accusations:  WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL, WP:LAWYER, and WP:CHILLOUT.  Orangemarlin 22:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: false accusations

message: 'Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[4][5][6][7][8][9] assert 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.[10]'
I read the citation and nowhere did it say that the leading proponents of DI assert ID is on equal footing or superior to evolution.
'Although the concept has substantially influenced public opinion in the United States, it has little support in other parts of the world.[22]"
And i read the above citation and saw no mention of that assertion
lets discuss. i want to make these sentences more accurate
raspor 22:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing to discuss.  Not only is this well known, it has been found in court that the Discover Institute attempted to put religion on an equal footing with evolution.  Read the case in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Board of Education Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial documents Orangemarlin 22:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A further citation is needed: I've amended the article accordingly. .. dave souza, talk 23:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies and misrepresentaions 

message: I'm not sure that throwing polling data back and forth between the Evolution side and the Creation myth side does any good.  Facts aren't proven by polls, they just show how uneducated and silly people can be.  I forgot the exact numbers, but a substantial number of Americans believe they've been abducted by aliens.  So, in the UFO article (and I'm going to check if that's considered pseudoscience, because if I'm going to stand on principle with Noah's Ark and ID, I'm going to do the same with Divining Rods and UFO's), does it qualify as NPOV information to state that in some Gallup Poll or something, 60% of Americans believe in Aliens? That just shows that 60% of Americans need to have their heads examined by a qualified psychotherapist.  I don't care how many people believe in ID, it is pseudoscience, it is myth, and it is religion, but it is not factual and it is not science.  If Raspor or whatever Mr. 3RR added to the revert war, I don't think Polling data belongs in an encylopedic article.  Unless you're going to state how gullible some number of people are to mythology.  I might buy that.  Orangemarlin 04:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting 4 out of 5 dentists don't recommend Trident to their patients who chew gum?  Seriously, I'm kind of ambivalent on the subject yet I can see how it could get nutty  The Harris poll numbers that Felonious Monk added don't move me one way or another but he must have felt they were relevant.  I'd like to hear his comments for including them. Mr Christopher 15:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your assessment of polling data.  What bothers me is when the Creationists come out and say, "see X% of Americans believe in little green men were responsible for Noah's Ark and the Loch Ness Monster and also believe in Intelligent Design" (please note my sarcasm), put it in these articles as their source that their ideas merit adding to an article, I am concerned.  I don't think that facts are subject to polls--that's the arena of weasel politicians, not an encyclopedia.  If you think of an encyclopedia as being something that is supposed to last a lifetime, what is next year's poll going to say?  Besides all that, it's obvious what people really believe--didn't Santorum and the ID gang in Pennsylvania (including the Dover Board of Education) get tossed out of office?  More than that, I'd rather see a worldwide poll of Creationism--I doubt that 1% of the world thinks these people know what they're talking about, but in the end, it doesn't matter.  Facts and science don't require polls.  That's my humble (well, maybe not so humble) opinion.  Orangemarlin 17:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: <edit conflict> Indicating the number of a subject's believers/etc is explicitly mentioned in the NPOV policy (as argued by FM, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Npov#The_neutral_point_of_view). I too would prefer more objective measurements, but I guess in matters of belief polls, however evil they may be, are often all we have. AvB ÷ talk 16:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember one thing: truth is not driven by consensus.  That no one in 1320 AD believed that the earth went round the sun did not make the simple fact that it did so any less true.  Likewise, that over 90% of the population of the US believe in a deity or deities does not make the existence of a deity true. •Jim62sch• 18:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lies, damned lies and statistics (or polls) 

message: when the corporations made it clear that they would pull out of the state if the state passed the law. I think it was someplace in the midwest in the last couple of years. I wanted to write something about it in my other article.--Filll 21:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kansas http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/08/AR2005110801211.html Orangemarlin 22:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  which state was it that was considering ID or creation science and backed down 

message: what a bob job —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raspor (talk • contribs) 01:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fill, Felon moved my response to my page 

message: Since at least the 27th Raspor has been repeatedly raising the same set of objections here, all of which have been previously dealt with in the past and all of which favor an implicitly pro-ID viewpoint to the exclusion of the majority's viewpoint. 
As pointed out by a number of long term contributors above his objections and proposals fly in the face of both our core policy, WP:NPOV, and substantial credible evidence which stands in contrary to his claims and interpretation of events. Raspor continues raising the same objections and proposals in pursuit of certain points for an extended time despite opposition from almost all credible long term editors. He has refused to abide by Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, failing to cite sources, citing unencyclopedic sources, misrepresenting reliable sources, and insisting on evidence that is strictly partisan and original research. Lastly he has resisted requests for moderation and continues to argue in pursuit of the same certain points despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and administrators. 
Considering his participation here has been marked by all three points defining disruptive editors listed at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, tendentious, fails to acknowledge policy, and rejects community input, in the interest of freeing up the talk page for other discussions I'm asking Raspor to moderate his participation here and not continue to dominate this page with endless and fruitless objections. His talk page is a more appropriate venue for the laundry list of personal gripes unacquainted with policy that we have seen. 
I move that any additional incessant and fruitless discussions that become disruptive be userfied or moved to a subpage here in order to allow other, more fruitful discussions to take place. FeloniousMonk 03:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in full agreement Mr Christopher 16:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dealing with Raspor's continued objections 

message: Per comments above the ongoing fruitless discussions have been moved to this subpage: Talk:Intelligent design/Raspor's and adlac's objections. This was done in order to clear the way for more productive discussion here. Any further discussions on these lines need to be made there; those left here will be moved to the subpage moving forward. FeloniousMonk 17:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. The only people that were being stifled were those that tried to discuss anything other than your objections and proposals. Take a look at the sections above. There you will see that over the period of four days you started at least 5 long sections (not to mention the one I moved and the discussions on other topics that you hijacked) that only resulted in a number of regular, established contributors (prior to me) explaining how WP policy and guideline have shaped the article's content. All of which you've rejected or ignored as evidenced in your continuing objections. In so doing you've wasted a lot of the time, effort and patience of the established contributors here and met all three requirements defining disruptive editors listed at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing: tendentious, fails to acknowledge policy, and rejects community input. And this is just on the talk page; the only thing that has prevented this from spreading to the article is that it is protected. So, in fact you're not stifled, discussion can continue on the subpage, Talk:Intelligent design/Raspor's and adlac's objections, and other more productive discussions will be free to take place here. And keep in mind your identical activity at Talk:Evoltion is no more acceptable than it is here. FeloniousMonk 18:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Disruptive behavior is not only limited to actions when editing articles, but can include actions on talk pages as well. I should know, I helped write that guideline. FeloniousMonk 18:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Continuing discussions moved

message: To here: Talk:Intelligent_design/Raspor%27s_and_adlac%27s_objections#FeloniousMonk.2C_why_did_you_answer_my_post_then_clear_it_without_charging_me_with_any_breaking_of_debate_decorum.3F FeloniousMonk 00:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another section moved to subpage

message: "All life is a result of such speciation events and thus all organisms are related by common descent from a single ancestor"
show me how the above has been test and shown to be true.
raspor 22:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It cannot.  You need a supernatural being at the basis of ID, and you cannot prove his existence.  Your sarcasm, persistence and rudeness are not going far in making your points. Orangemarlin 23:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, I have to ask you: How do your comments here relate to improving the article? You seem to be using this page to discuss the relative merits of ID, not improving the article. If you want to discuss ID, please go to one of the many online fora dedicated to that. Please read WP:NOT and WP:TALK. FeloniousMonk 03:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Insults will not get you very far here. You adopt most of the standard creationist tactics. You want to debate, but you will not answer any question you do not like. YOu just dodge and weave, and bring up the same old tired issues over and over, blindly and brainlessly. You could be a bot, by all appearances. It gets tiresome after a while, you know?--Filll 17:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Who are you?  You didn't sign your posts.  Orangemarlin 17:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Glad to see that you fully accept that ID is creationism rebranded as science. As the article shows. However your biases clearly have nothing helpful to contribute to this article, so kindly desist from trolling. .. dave souza, talk 17:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: raspor's problem is using a definition that differs from that used by the rest of the world. Like other IDers, the aim is to redefine logic. Wikipedia is not here to give undue weight to such odd perceptions. .. dave souza, talk 17:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You have it the wrong way round.  ID is creationism, but creationism is more than ID.  As creationist ideas go, it is neither intellectually stimulating nor artistically beautiful.  It's a narrow argument which is, according to Johnson, based on a lack of faith and imagination (since he said that he could not believe in God if the Bible weren't literally true, hence his need to make God conform to Johnson's need for "proof").  Equating belief in intelligent design with belief in God is an insult to most believers.  Guettarda 22:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: varthold, 31 December 2006

message: I am new and feel treated unfairly. It seems to me that many here the article is the way we want it and we are not going to change it. Any arguement one brings up they retort with 'we have been over that 100 times and you are wrong' I see little good faith in a lot of editors. It seems fixed. 
I have tried to present my case and been told that I am a troll, stupid, ignorant, rude, etc. Most attempts to state a POV that is slightly pro-ID is attacked unreasonably. My comments are moved.
The some of the anti-IDers will not listen to reason. Presenting logic and data to them is futile.
But I still the minority view should be represented. It is useless talking to most anti-IDers because the have closed their minds to new ideas.
I would like to invite any pro-IDers to work with me and make this a fair article. Is there anywhere to go for help against bullies here. Those who want to suppress alternate views.
raspor 17:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Insults will not get you very far here. You adopt most of the standard creationist tactics. You want to debate, but you will not answer any question you do not like. YOu just dodge and weave, and bring up the same old tired issues over and over, blindly and brainlessly. You could be a bot, by all appearances. It gets tiresome after a while, you know?--Filll 17:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Who are you?  You didn't sign your posts.  Orangemarlin 17:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unfairness Here

message: Felony has state in the article that 10% surveyed believe in ID. Yet he says that belief that God created life is ID. He biasedly forgot to add that 64% belive humans were creaed by God.
And the title of the article is 2/3 of US believe humans were created by God. If you ought there do not think that is bias you need a course in logic
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Raspor (talk • contribs) 17:17, 1 January 2007
:Glad to see that you fully accept that ID is creationism rebranded as science. As the article shows. However your biases clearly have nothing helpful to contribute to this article, so kindly desist from trolling. .. dave souza, talk 17:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: raspor's problem is using a definition that differs from that used by the rest of the world. Like other IDers, the aim is to redefine logic. Wikipedia is not here to give undue weight to such odd perceptions. .. dave souza, talk 17:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You have it the wrong way round.  ID is creationism, but creationism is more than ID.  As creationist ideas go, it is neither intellectually stimulating nor artistically beautiful.  It's a narrow argument which is, according to Johnson, based on a lack of faith and imagination (since he said that he could not believe in God if the Bible weren't literally true, hence his need to make God conform to Johnson's need for "proof").  Equating belief in intelligent design with belief in God is an insult to most believers.  Guettarda 22:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What bias and misrepresentation 

message: adlac, 
email me. would like to talk to you. the darwinists here are not following wiki guidelines and are not posting in good faith. continually attempted to inform closed minds will not work. 
raspor 18:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you'll have noted, policies particularly relevant to changes to this article are linked from a box at the top of this page. The actual stated beliefs of ID's adherents have to be properly shown by verifiable evidence without giving undue weight to minority or non-notable positions. What you call "the proper representation of our views as defined by us the actual view holders" sounds awfully like original research which you'll appreciate is against policy. ,,, dave souza, talk 20:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dave, on the Encyclopedia page on ID you can't believe that giving "undo weight" to ID applies do you?  That rule is clearly talking about general topics such as "Life Origins" where the competing theories should be given weight according to their current prominence.  Are you saying we should minimise an explanation of ID on its own page because it is a minority view?  Next, "Verifiable evidence" is talking about sourcing edits not about scientific verification!!!  Hello, how are you going to get scientific verification of every view represented on Wikipedia.  Most views that you or anyone else holds are not based on scientific laboratory findings.  Enough of these red herrings.Adlac 18:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Undue weight might not be the most relevant piece of policy, but it is relevant. Verifiability means we cannot state what people believe without a source. Please don't dismiss policy. -- Ec5618 18:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: These word games are pointless, stupid and boring. Read the articles please and dont keep posting nonsense.--Filll 20:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: God is not part of evolution. Period. Do you get it? God might have created the rules by which evolution operates (theistic evolution) or the laws by which the universe operates (scientific law) or have created the first life form on earth (abiogenesis). Evolution is silent about ALL of that. However, any theory that includes God is not science, by definition.--Filll 21:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  closed minds 

message: The justification for the recent vandalism concerned Felonious Monk's addition on a Harris poll.  First of all Harris is considered a reliable and credible source.  Second, the Harris article cited stated At the same time, approximately one-fifth (22%) of adults believe "human beings evolved from earlier species" (evolution) and 10 percent subscribe to the theory that "human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them" (intelligent design).  Felonious Monk's entry reads "According to a 2005 Harris poll 10 percent of adults in the United States subscribe to intelligent design".  The justification put forth by raspor include:
* this addition takes a study and cherry picks stats that support a personal point of view without giving an accurate picture of what the whole study is saying
* the source was not correctly cited. it cherry picked biased info
* cite was biased quoted
* the source was not correctly cited. it cherry picked biased info
Felonious Monk's edit seems completely within policy and he quoted the portion relevant to the article on intelligent design.  In view of this I find raspor's reverts baseless.  Mr Christopher 21:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Raspor, you should read each of these links carefully before making your false accusations:  WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL, WP:LAWYER, and WP:CHILLOUT.  Orangemarlin 22:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: false accusations

message: 'Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[4][5][6][7][8][9] assert 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.[10]'
I read the citation and nowhere did it say that the leading proponents of DI assert ID is on equal footing or superior to evolution.
'Although the concept has substantially influenced public opinion in the United States, it has little support in other parts of the world.[22]"
And i read the above citation and saw no mention of that assertion
lets discuss. i want to make these sentences more accurate
raspor 22:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing to discuss.  Not only is this well known, it has been found in court that the Discover Institute attempted to put religion on an equal footing with evolution.  Read the case in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Board of Education Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial documents Orangemarlin 22:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A further citation is needed: I've amended the article accordingly. .. dave souza, talk 23:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies and misrepresentaions 

message: yes and according to MR you should just go home and go to sleep and let him and the mob run this part of town
raspor 00:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please Raspor, try reading WP:CIVIL.  There is no mob here.  Orangemarlin 00:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed.  This has been the most fruitful discussion to date.  No secret though that I am an army of one here.  But the discussion has been pleasantly civil.Adlac 02:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV = "it suffices to present views in a way that is acceptable to their adherents" 

message: Raspor claims that the Encyclopedia britannica article on ID is unbiased:
===From Raspor's talk page===
just read their def of 'intelligent design' very balanced, fair, informative.
not just a bashing of the idea by people who are against it
wiki in this case is a failure
i hope people will realize wiki is not a real encyclopedia. there should be a disclaimer somewhere
i thought it was serious for along time. people use this as a source.
compare brits to wiki's on ID
what a joke wikis is
should warn people that its just a bunch what seems to me to be college student with time on their hands spouting off.
nothing can be taken seriously here
:Is there some point to this?  Is there some suggestion here as to how to improve the article? This comment looks like a candidate for speedy archiving in the page history.  Guettarda 15:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are proposing changes here?  What changes are you proposing in this section?  Guettarda 21:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raspor claims this is unbiased 

message: just read their def of 'intelligent design' very balanced, fair, informative.
not just a bashing of the idea by people who are against it
wiki in this case is a failure
i hope people will realize wiki is not a real encyclopedia. there should be a disclaimer somewhere
i thought it was serious for along time. people use this as a source.
compare brits to wiki's on ID
what a joke wikis is
should warn people that its just a bunch what seems to me to be college student with time on their hands spouting off.
nothing can be taken seriously here
:Is there some point to this?  Is there some suggestion here as to how to improve the article? This comment looks like a candidate for speedy archiving in the page history.  Guettarda 15:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are proposing changes here?  What changes are you proposing in this section?  Guettarda 21:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: From Raspor's talk page

message: I do not get it raspor. Did he say it or not? There are several sources.--Filll 01:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How is removing Meyer's comments or presentation supposed to make it better?

message: "This article deals with the concept of intelligent design as propounded by the Discovery Institute, nothing more."
i thought the aricle was about the concept 'intelligent design' not a specific flavor of it
see you have inexorably linked ID with DI for your agenda. the concpect existed before DI and be around after DI
this is the bias: you want so, so badly to link the two
raspor 12:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, see crass and evolution, both of which are examples of articles with less than comprehensive names. We could call it 'evolution in biology' and 'crass (punk band)', but why should we overcomplicate the title when the article makes its scope clear. -- Ec5618 13:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  then change the name of the article 

message: Its leading proponents are all affiliated with the Discovery Institute.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]
to
At this time its leading proponents are all affiliated with the Discovery Institute.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]
:Bad idea - in the existing statement, the word "are" is present tense, so "at this time" is implied.  Adding "at this time" implies that this will change.  "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball".  Guettarda 15:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed change 

message: i saw your comment but have a hardtime getting to the exact spot to edit
anyhow
i think and you realize that consensus editing of whatever has inherent problems. if the minority view is suppresse there will be problems
ok if teleology is a synonmys for ID that state that at the beginning of the article.
and again 'intelligent design' is simply a better term that 'teleology'
really if you anti-IDers cannot ever compromise to the minority that this article is a bob job
raspor
: OK here is what I propose. One might consider a notice and link at the start. One or two other editors above did that in their suggested rewrite of the lead. It could also do be done with an italic notice above the lead sentence, something like See also teleology or For historical discussion of this principle, see teleology or something like that. Now I would make a list of phrases like that to place above the lead sentence, or maybe at the bottom of the lead, and then put them here to let people discuss them. And if you find something that people object to strenuously, I would forget those. If you find some that people dont mind, try it and see if it gets reverted. Then discuss it and the reason for reversion. And try again. You could also look at the archives  or above to see how the other person suggested teleology be put in the lead.--Filll 13:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're trying to say. Adam Cuerden talk 14:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Here - what are you talking about?  Guettarda 15:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Help us to understand, what exactly is your point? Mr Christopher 15:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fill can you help me 

message: :::No, it is not agreed. Psychohistorian and Avb appear to have agreed that the sources do not support the words in the article. I strongly disagree, as do other editors, and maintain that they are both supportive of the statement and very informative to the previously uninformed reader. And, the editors here have been over this multiple times. I trust it will not be necessary to discuss this entire issue again from the very beginning; but if it is, I'll be willing to participate. ... 16:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  interesting comment on reality:::: 

message: Just wondering...... dave souza, talk 18:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, if raspor is truly as ignorant as he comes across as, then technically he is not a troll. If, however, raspor is not ignorant, as he claims, then he is a troll. He is either ignorant or a troll. Assuming the first, I have tried to get him to read up on some topics, such as the scientific method and teleology. It seems he has not, which suggests that his ignorance is willful. -- Ec5618 19:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Does [[Wikipedia:What is a troll]] describe the behaviour demonstrated above?

message: I don't have time to count them but it appears the overwhelming majority of new headers on the talk page have been created by raspor after he was advised to knock it off.  None of his posts here have anything to do with improving the article, they are all mainly insults and proclomations that the article is biased and we don't understand what ID really is.  Previously his comments were being moved to a different sub area.  What do we need to do to start moving all his comments there again? In a period of less than a week he has completely highjacked this talk page and continues to ignore all calls for restraint and civility.  He thumbs his nose at policy, he thumbs his nose at fellow editors (and mocks their names), he thumbs his nose at adminsitrative action that has been taken as a result of his behaviour here.  This is beyond ridiculous at this point.  Mr Christopher 18:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: raspor's distraction

message: That you believe that life was designed and that it is detectable in nature using science. JPotter 18:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  potter has a point 

message: 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." What seperates 'intelligent design from teleology is that the intelligent cause is detectable in nature using science.
this would solve a big problem. for instance newton believed that God created live etc but i do not believe he based it on science. i believe faith
he did believe 'certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause'
but he did not believe it could be scientifically proven. IDers now at least believe it can bre proven. this is the big difference and should be made clear in the first paragraph
raspor 19:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not half bad. Let's see what others have to say. -- Ec5618 19:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. It is accurate and while the point is made in the body of the article, it may be appropriate to highlight it in the lead. JPotter 19:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think that it belongs in the lead - most people don't know what teleology is, so adding this to the lead does little except insulate us against the complaints of the uninformed.  Guettarda 21:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: ID has never been stated in a way that it can be separated from "genesis God [belief]".  ID has never been expressed clearly enough that it can be "separated" from anything.  ID is compatible with both YEC and 95% of evolutionary biology - it all depends on who is speaking to what audience at what point in time.  Guettarda 21:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed change to start paragraph 

message: -    
- 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." What seperates 'intelligent design from teleology is that the intelligent cause is detectable in nature using science.   
-    
-    
- this would solve a big problem. for instance newton believed that God created live etc but i do not believe he based it on science. i believe faith
he did believe 'certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause'  + - this would solve a big problem. for instance newton believed that God created live etc but i do not believe he based it on science. i believe faith  
-    
- but he did not believe it could be scientifically proven. IDers now at least believe it can bre proven. this is the big difference and should be made clear in the first paragraph 
raspor 19:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed change to start paragraph  

message: 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 and that the concept can be proven by science." 
raspor 20:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still prefer the original proposed change. -- Ec5618 20:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This is totally unacceptable: "and that the concept can be proven by science".  To begin with, what do you mean "by science"?  That's too vague - do you mean the scientific method, the scientific community, or simply the collection of "facts" that are commonly called "science"?  Far more importantly, science cannot prove, only disprove.  Ok, maybe it is fitting - the scientific method requires testability and does not "prove", so it's appropriate that an untestable hypothesis should seek "proof".  Guettarda 21:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  another proposed change 

message: raspor 20:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikiwow what gives you the right and authority to move my proposed changes to this article 

message: In the past half-hour alone, raspor has made approximately half a dozen edits to Talk:Intelligent Design, all of them disruptive in nature. Again, this is only in the past half-hour. What exactly does it take for a ban, at least a temporary one until he/she learns how to conduct themselves, to be put in place? I feel this user's disruptions have gone on long enough. --Wikiwøw 20:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh.  This is tiresome!  (Not you, Raspor of course.)Orangemarlin 20:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, you could be banned for your behaviour. Please, take it slowly, and confine yourself to this page for the time being. -- Ec5618 20:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ignoring community input is a mark of the sort of disruptive editors that usually end up getting banned, yes. FeloniousMonk 22:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't this warrant a ban? 

message: "there was a plethora of intermediary whale fossils."
no this is one of the things that bothers me about the ID, evolution articles.
now this statement. to the best of my knowledge there is NOT a plethora of fossils unearthed that show the various proposed creatures between land animals and whales.
please directly me to a source that tells us about the 'plethora' 
i could be wrong. but show me please. i have never seen evidence of this
it seems like a lie to me
raspor 12:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whale lineage isn't discussed in the ID article so I'm not sure why you are bringing this up here. Nor can I find where you are quoting when discussing this plethora (I can't find the phrase "there was a plethora of intermediary whale fossils" anywhere on the English Wikipedia) However, obvious pointers for where you could learn more would include  and  or almost any cetacean biology textbook. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not about debate and discussion of issues but discussion of how to improve articles. JoshuaZ 16:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  plethora of intermediary whale fossils 

message: I see nowhere in any of the articles where the ID side is explained. Certainly if this is a controversy both sides of it should be discussed at least briefly
Again show me
raspor 12:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have particular sourced material you think should be added that explains the ID side? JoshuaZ 16:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Before you write anything on the subject, you might want to read . -- Ec5618 16:55, 4 January 2007 
(UTC)
i am fairly familiar with all of that. what is your point?
raspor 16:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That such a shoddy, dishonest, and thoroughly discredited source is probably the last thing one would want to use in writing an article.  Guettarda 20:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where can IDs side be explained 

message: ec.  i really feel that referring to my posts as 'incoherent' is a personal attack. others are agreeing with my ideas. i really would like to know why you have the right to move my good faith comments out of the ID talk page?? raspor 22:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  personal attack are unnecesary and against wiki policy. why do you feel you have the right to move my comments?? 

message: to replace the word 'argument' and others have agreed with me. but anyone who agrees with this change their comments are immediately moved off this page. is that wiki policy?? raspor 22:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  i have proposed a change to the wording of the article 

message: Please take a look at Talk:Intelligent design/LEAD. Comments?--Filll 22:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  i like it better. never thougth 'argument' was right. would prefer concept as in creationism. dont understand why creationism is a concept and ID is not even a concept. isnt the pink unicorn or the spaghetti monster a concept??  raspor 22:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Filll, Is there a reason we are not clearly saying it is an argument/concept/proposal put forth by the Di and their affiliates?  Is there a policy that forbids specifying who is making the claim?  Mr Christopher 22:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead suggestion