Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 47

message: I think the logical progression in the lead paragraph to the "The Intelligent Designer" section could be clearer. I've broken the para up into its sentences:
*Intelligent design arguments are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid identifying the intelligent agent (or agents) they posit. (Fair enough as an opening statement) 
*Although they do not state that God is the designer, the designer is often implicitly hypothesized to have intervened in a way that only a god could intervene. (This sentence is adding a further dimension to the first, but the link could be clearer - maybe add a "Nevertheless" to the beginning. Also, "they do not state that God is the designer" is simply repeating the information already given in the first sentence and is therefore unnecessary. The sentence would probably read better as: "Nevertheless, the designer is  often implicitly hypothesized to have intervened in a way that only a god could intervene." Incidentally, I'm not sure about "implicitly hypothesized" - can one make a hypothesis by implication, or do you really mean "implied"?)
*Dembski, in The Design Inference, speculates that an alien culture could fulfill these requirements. (The sentence is trying to say that Demski tries out the idea that the Designer might be a non-supernatural agent, but ... well, but what? Does Demski reject the idea of a non-supernatural Designer? We're not told in this sentence and the possibility is left hanging). 
*The authoritative description of intelligent design,[84] however, explicitly states that the Universe displays features of having been designed. (This sentence is trying to answer the question raised by the preceding one, but it doesn't: the "authoritative description" states explicititly that the Universe was "designed": the crucial question remains unadressed, designed by whom, God or spacemen?) 
*Acknowledging the paradox, Dembski concludes that "no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life."[85] (This is the real answer to the question raised in the sentence before the sentence before: Demski speculates that the Designer might be non-supernatural, but concludes (we're not told why) that "no intelligent agent who is strictly physical" etc etc. So the paragraph will erad better if the preceding sentence is deleted and these ermaining sentences are combined, to read: "Dembski, in The Design Inference, speculates that an alien culture could fulfill these requirements, but concludes that "no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life."[85]")
*The leading proponents have made statements to their supporters that they believe the designer to be the Christian God, to the exclusion of all other religions.[46] (This would read better if it were joined to the preceding sentence: "Dembski, in The Design Inference, speculates that an alien culture could fulfill these requirements, but concludes that "no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life,"[85] and leading ID proponents have stated that they believe the designer to be the Christian God, to the exclusion of all other religions.[46]"
For consideration. PiCo 08:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Intelligent Designer (proposed edit) 

message: Why are certain editors reverting ALL edits that come along to the article? This smacks of WP:Own, which is not allowed. Wikipedia's strength is its changability, and edits should NOT be reverted merely because they occur. What is this, a protected page? You guys appear to be making it a de facto protected page through your heavy reversionism. 68.36.214.143 18:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good edits to the article don't get reverted. (Example: ) The problem is that the vast, vast majority of the edits to this article - including non-vandalisms - are detrimental. Raul654 18:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of arguments appear to be deemed as detrimental on account of being allegedly POV or by way of WP:IDONTLIKEIT (which appears to be what ConfuciusOrnis used when reverting some edits of mine, which I have reverted back). It would help to explain how allegedly POV edits are POV. And, yes, my edits (I was in anon mode earlier) to the links section were there because the topics of origin beliefs and origin of life were very germane to Intelligent Design as an argument.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 18:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not talking about an N dimensional manifold, or the age-area hypothesis. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is not our job to explain basic English words like teleological. Raul654 18:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Remember:  People are stupid Raul654 19:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you wikilink materiel?  —  Rickyrab | Talk 19:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's an inappropriate (unrelated) link. We put an HTML comment in the Yom Kippur War article immediately afterwards explaining that it "materiel" was correct, and not to change it. Which is exactly what was done here with teleological, and yet people still ignore the comment. More to the point, teleological already links to something, and yet people insist on changing it anyway. It beggars the imagination. Raul654 20:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ownership of Article

message: Before I leave this page, I would like to go over two simple examples of WP:WTA-related style issues that IMO would improve the article. 
* First, the edit I tried to make... It is only about avoiding the phrase "critics point out".  I mean if I could understand the scaffolding objection, and I really suck at biology, then surely all our readers will be able understand it. There is no need to use language that appeals to authority when the argument can speak for itself.
* There is another annoyance in the paragraph before. Behe's "alleged" examples. Obviously, if his arguments are flawed, then his examples can't really be of irreducibly complex entities. According to policy you can make this clear, but in the space where you let him speak, there is no harm in letting him finish his sentence. I would suggest, if you feel uncomfortable saying he presented examples of IC, to just write "examples of what he considered irreducible complexity" (modulo my bad English). Then in the next paragraph, you can clearly state that his examples are disputed, and so on...
There seems to be a certain fear that weakening the language, will weaken the argument. I don't think this is true. In my experience, good scholarly style under-promises and over-delivers, it is more pleasing to read when you don't feel pushed to accept this or that conclusion. That's all I really have to say on this, in retrospect, very minor issue! Best wishes, Merzul 13:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree.  Especially: "good scholarly style under-promises and over-delivers".  MisterSheik 18:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of saying Behe presented the following examples of irreducible complexity... I would suggest Behe presented the following as examples of irreducible complexity... which neither states that the examples are IC, nor does it get bogged down in words to avoid. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 21:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very elegant solution. I'm going to edit that one in. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 22:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what you consider a consensus?  Meh.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A complete lack of dissent? Yeah, seems like consensus among those who care enough to comment. So, do you have anything productive to add? --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 00:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Regarding the first of Merzul's points, the words "critics point out" were used towards being faithful to WP:NPOV. I do see Merzul's second point, in that "alleged" arguably carries a bit too much of a skeptical tone in the second paragraph of the section on irreducible complexity, because that paragraph is not dealing with the critics' view but is dealing with Behe's view. I wouldn't object to changing it to, say, "Behe's argued examples of..." or similar construction. ... Kenosis 01:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can see the wording I attempted to implement here if you're interested. I'm not perfectly satisfied with it, but I can't think of anything better off hand. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 21:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very simple style issues 

message: I agree with Kenosis: it should be "a 1987 United States Supreme Court ruling involving separation of church and state" not "the 1987 United States Supreme Court ruling involving separation of church and state" -- contra to Raul654's edit summary, we do not name this case until the next section, and it is highly likely that there was more than one "1987 United States Supreme Court ruling involving separation of church and state". Until it is named it is just one of many, so it is "a ruling" not "the ruling". HrafnTalkStalk 11:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that as it was, it should be "a" case. However, it's easier in some ways for the reader to be told the case name at the outset, so in the interim I've changed it accordingly. By the way, an anon edit added " In the 20 years since Intelligent Design was first formulated," no rigorous test that can identify...  By my reckoning it's 28 years, the source is actually 5 years old but still stands .. dave souza, talk 13:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was misreading the wikitext - I thought it was stating the name of the case (it should have). I agree with the sentence as it Dave has currently written it - explicitly identifying the case. Raul654 14:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I had assumed that the anon editor was dating from Edwards in 1987. 28 years would put its origin in 1979, which seems a tad early. HrafnTalkStalk 14:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definate article in first paragraph 

message: If we include Ben Stein as a noted theist, we must include Christopher Hitchens as a noted atheist, since he has published as least as many non-fiction books.--W8IMP 08:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The suggestion that Stein be included in this article has already been soundly dismissed. Also, this article is not Atheism, so your suggestion is completely irrelevant. HrafnTalkStalk 09:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christopher Hitchens 

message: Having had a look at the question of the Stenger references, I've not been able to find in the pdfs Is The Universe Fine-Tuned For Us? The Anthropic Principle (PDF files) support for the tautology argument:
His conclusions seem to be that "The fine-tuning argument and other recent intelligent design arguments are modern versions of God-of-the-gaps reasoning, where a God is deemed necessary whenever science has not fully explained some phenomenon.... The fine-tuning argument would tell us that the Sun radiates light so that we can see where we are going. In fact, the human eye evolved to be sensitive to light from the sun. The universe is not fine-tuned for humanity. Humanity is fine-tuned to the universe." and "theists make two contradictory arguments for life requiring a
creator..... In the fine-tuning argument, the universe is so congenial to life that the universe must have been created. But, if it is so congenial, then we should expect life to evolve by natural processes. In the second argument,... the universe is so uncongenial to life that life must have been created. In that case it is too unlikely for life to have evolved by natural processes and so must have been produced by an intelligent designer. But, then life could very easily have been an improbable accident." These points appear to me to be more worth summarising than the tautology argument, but perhaps someone can cite the supporting words I may have missed. .. dave souza, talk 15:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It sounds like not a claim of tautology but rather a claim of self-contradiction, which is quite the opposite. A tautology, in the sense used here, is an empty truth, or a piece of circular definition; what is being asserted here is that the ID advocates contradict themselves by asserting that design is shown both by the hospitability and inhospitability of the universe to life. --FOo 21:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's both a tautology and a pair of mutually contradictory arguments here. The tautology is of the type that if there's somebody living to argue that life is too improbable to exist by chance, then a posteri the probability of life existing is unity, no matter how low the probability of it coming into existence a priori. HrafnTalkStalk 01:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's an argument against the anthropic principle in general, not specifically its application to ID. --FOo 01:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fine tuning Stenger

message: Userfied -- "Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time." Originator of thread seems far more interested in sparking a general argument than in discussing and substantiating, specific problems in the article. HrafnTalkStalk 16:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it looks like a troll, if it sounds like a troll, if it whines like a troll, it must be a troll, and they should never ever ever be fed.  See Don't feed the trolls.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I see problems here: 

message: I looked at the first 10 references. Note that references 5 and 10 are multipart, so it actually adds up to 20.
They break down as such (If someone wants to tabulate this go ahead):
*DI related sources:  4 (20%) Refs 1, 2, 8, 9
**2 DI, an IDEA and a Meyer & Nelson
*Hostile sources:  3 (15%) Refs 4, 5, 10
**List of scientists opposing intelligent design, 2 Barbara Forrest sources
*Neutral sources: 13 (65%)
**Kitzmiller vs Dover (Court decision, impartial by nature) - 5 (25%), Refs 3, 7, 9, 10
**Newspapers (again *generally* impartial by nature) - 5 (25%), Refs 5, 9 and 10
**Scientific sources - one journal, and the AAAS, critical but not hostile - 2 (10%), Refs 5 & 6
**The ACLU - independent organisation for civil liberties - 1 - 5%, Ref 5
Now I'm counting as a "very anti-person", someone who spends a good part of their time chasing down IDists and creationists. Someone such as PZ Myers, Barbara Forrest, or Panda's Thumb weblog. If ID wishes to be included for scientific scrutiny, sources are not "biased" simply because they come from the scientific community. Further, if you want to claim conspiracies about the media and the court system You are in the wrong place. 
All in all 11 sources independent of each other. And the oevrwhelming majority are indpendent non-hostile sources. The second most represented source is the Di-itself (after the Kitzmiller decision). Again there is no bias other than reality.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And look at evolution page ... oh look, absolutely everybody agree with evolution theory! Just like in real world, NOT!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.104.99 (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim isn't that everybody accepts evolutionary theory. Just that almost everybody who is a reliable source accepts it. Ilkali (talk) 11:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: No such claim. Actually read evolution, particularly History and Social effects, "evolution is still a contentious concept." and "several denominations contain creationists who object to evolution, as it contradicts their literal interpretation of origin beliefs". Look it even talk smack of Darwin: "Darwin could not account for how traits were passed down from generation to generation". ZOMG.--ZayZayEM (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: As regrettable as the "bi-atch" comment is, I understand it completely. After a person has answered the same objection several hundred times, it gets very very tedious. And if these pages were not constantly patrolled, they would turn into religious tracts and recruiting tools for one particular religious sect or another. This is not what we want from an encyclopedia. If you want to write a religious tract, start a blog. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have been polite and courteous and have gotten abused and now you are condoning it. If this was really a place where opposing views were fairly considered this would not happen. This behaviour happens when a gang of bullies want to protect their turf. It's all yours. The article is embarrassing. It so obviously a soapbox. You are not getting away with anything. It reaks and smells of bias. Enjoy yourself. Hignit (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you have to review WP:UNDUE. Intelligent design purports to be a science. As such, we treat it as a science for evaluation purposes on WP. According to UNDUE and NPOV, we weight the pro ID and critical material roughly as the relevant fields of science do. By level of support for evolution, well in excess of 99% of the relevant scientists think intelligent design is nonsense. And therefore, about 99% of the material that WP includes should be critical of ID. By this measure, WP is actually not critical enough of ID.--Filll (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Can't stand the heat

message: A derivative of the phrase appears in the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1967) in the article on the Teleological argument for the existence of God : "Stated most succinctly, the argument runs: The world exhibits teleological order (design, adaptation). Therefore, it was produced by an intelligent designer." 
I do not like how it is written particularly, and when I look in the teleology article, I do not see the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy.--Filll 01:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I provided that quote, and can attest that is it as written in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on the "Teleological argument for the existence of God". The article on the teleological argument, although I provided much of the material around the same time in Spring, 2006, doesn't cite to the Encyclopedia of Philosophy.  Any idea that the quote was referring to the Wikipedia article on the teleological argument is a result of someone else having put a wikilink within the quotation. I'll go ahead and remove that wikilink now. ... Kenosis 01:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It would be good to put in a proper cite as well to this encyclopedia then, with ISBN number and publication information etc.--Filll 01:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TBH, I'm getting fatigued with the idea that WP:V ever meant dotting every "i" and crossing every "t" and adapting every old citation to a newly developed format. IMO, there are more productive things to do. But, since you mention it: Title = "Teleological Argument for the Existence of God" ; Publication = Encyclopedia of Philosophy ; Publisher = Macmillan Publishing Co, Inc & The Free Press, New York; Collier Macmillan Publishers, London ; Date = 1967 ; Author = William P. Alston ; ISBN = readily available online . ... Kenosis 01:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct: There are many, many more productive things to do. •Jim62sch• 19:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't mind that I'm anal retentive about citations and references?  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: They aren't THAT inflexible.  And they are very useful for articles that cite one reference over and over again.  Moreover, once a reference type is used in article, it's bad form to change it.  TBH, references in the articles you write are difficult to use.  I guess we can all be anal retentive or stubborn about different things.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not sure of this sentence 

message: Userfied to User talk:Massachew, as Massachew has not demonstrated any relevance for this article. HrafnTalkStalk 06:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this be included somewhere? 

message: I, and several other people, have removed a link from the Further reading to an article on Noetic cosmology, which was published in a conference proceedings in 2003. There are several issues: the linked article appears to be in violation of the article's copyright.  Furthermore it does not really discuss intelligent design per se, but is only tangentially related to it.  Finally, it presents a new view of the rules governing life, which may constitute a original research issue.  For myself, I don't think this belongs in the article.  I'm bringing it here since the link has been added several times.  Thoughts?  --TeaDrinker 06:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noetic cosmology link 

message: Given the length of our archivebox, should we change to Template:Archive box collapsible to save space? HrafnTalkStalk 07:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we have two archiveboxes (both collapsable). One for archives, and a seperate one for the "points already discussed"?--ZayZayEM (talk) 07:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My impression is that the heading of the box is fixed as "Archives", so having two boxes would be confusing. If you can find an equivalent box template with an editable header, I can't see any reason why we shouldn't split them. As it's been a couple of weeks since I made this suggestion, and as nobody has objected, I'm going to go forward with it. HrafnTalkStalk 07:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that Talk:Evolution had a customised/non-template one that seemed to fit out needs, so have adapted it. If somebody is a whizz at creating templates, it'd probably be worth creating a standard template to do it. HrafnTalkStalk 14:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice--ZayZayEM (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archivebox 

message: Does anyone plan on doing an entry/article on this transitional intelligent design fossil?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's covered in Of Pandas and People, and arguably a brief mention in this article is appropriate – it's certainly come to public notice! .. dave souza, talk 16:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With the NOVA episode bringing this phrase to public attention, do you think there might be enough material to merit an article for cdesign proponentsists? TechBear 17:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already mentioned in this article that the changes were made after Edwards v. Aguilard. No need for a new article, I would think. It actually was only an interesting added twist on what Barbara Forrest had already thoroughly documented, which was the mass change of terminology from "creation" to "design" with no corresponding change in meaning in the text. Perhaps it deserves brief mention in the article on Of Pandas and People. ... Kenosis 17:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, the phrase is mentioned  in , and certainly caught the attention of some viewers, as this entertaining blog by an assistant professor of religion notes: . I've added a couple of good NCSE references to this article together with a brief mention, and this is also good – . Looks promising, does anyone have access to the Nature review of the Nova programme? At the least a redirect to the Pandas article may be appropriate. .. dave souza, talk 18:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WTF does "proponentsists" mean?  Do we know who created this monstrous neologism?  If so, summon Thanatos. •Jim62sch• 23:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just cursious what was the former and latter in the above examples? And this blatant error was actually published? Massachew 21:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ROFL! •Jim62sch• 22:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: cdesign proponentsists

message: I wonder about this edit: . On the evolution article and the Introduction to evolution article and other science articles with introductory articles, the link is given as part of an italic text above the article. If it is relegated to the list of languages, will it be accessible?--Filll (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to simple version

message: Userfied to User talk:Hignit -- this has all been covered in the header section & 'Points that have already been discussed'. HrafnTalkStalk 15:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article seems biased continued