Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 10

message: The Intelligent Design movement, which began in the mid-1990s, is closely associated with an organization that counts most of the leading ID advocates among its fellows or officers: the Center for Science and Culture, a subsidiary of the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in Seattle, Washington. Claimed by its proponents to expose the limitations of scientific orthodoxy and of the secular philosophy of Scientific naturalism, the ID movement has attracted considerable press attention and pockets of public support, especially among conservative Christians in the US.  These supporters embrace ID as an alternative to the Darwinian theory of evolution (athough ID in and of itself does not oppose evolution), and many advocate that ID should be offered alongside the standard scientific models in public school curricula. 
:This paragraph seems pretty good. I think it is critical to bring up the Center for Science and Culture early in the article: "ID" did not emerge from within science, it is an outgrowth of ideological movement, and that should be indicated right away.  This paragraph at least begins that process.  I think it may be more accurate to replace "Scientific naturalism" (which links to "Methodological naturalism") with "Naturalism," a broader philosophy that extends beyond the practice of science. ~~
:The first two sentences don't read smoothly.  Is the Discovery Institute ref needed at this point?  It's explored ad nauseum later in the article.  And the previous user has a point.  Thus: "The Intelligent Design movement, which began in the mid-1990s, is closely associated with the Center for Science and Culture, an organization that counts most of the leading ID advocates among its fellows or officers.  The movement claims ID exposes the limitations of scientific orthodoxy, and of the secular philosophy of Naturalism.  The ID movement has attracted considerable press attention and pockets of public support, especially among conservative Christians in the US."--ghost 03:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think ghost's edit improves those sentences.  BTfromLA 04:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraph 2

message: ID arguments are cast in entirely secular terms, without appeals to religious authority nor any explicit claim about the identity of the "Intelligent Designer(s)." Thus, ID advocates distinguish ID from overtly religious creationism. Critics maintain that the attempt to cast ID as purely secular is disingenuous, since many leading ID advocates believe that the designer is the God of the Bible, and they promote ID as a form of religious apologetics. Some characterize ID as a rehash of claims that have been thoroughly refuted in the past, such as William Paley's 19th century argument for the existence of God, known as the "argument from design." Critics have thus labeled ID "stealth creationism," a veiled attempt to reintroduce religious ideas into the scientific realm and the public schools. ID advocates, in turn, accuse their critics of refusing to honestly consider evidence that threatens the scientific community's dogmatically held assumptions. Thus, the subject of Intelligent Design is deeply embedded in political controversies, with charges of bias and bad faith being made on all sides.
:This paragraph has some critical material, though I think the order is garbled.  It might actually make sense to merge some of first sentences with paragraph 2, since that talks about the movement and its strategies.  The sentence about Paley can be cut (and included in the body text). I think the part after "Critics have thus..." is a pretty solid finish for the intro. BTfromLA 20:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: stealth creationism criticism is already presented in paragraph 3, so that part is redundant. The accusation that science holds dogmatic assumptions could go into paragraph 1 or 2 (if it isn't already there), since it represents the point of view of ID supporters. FuelWagon 15:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fuelwagon, please don't make large unilateral changes (such as cutting one of these paragraphs entirely, which you did) while this discussion is active, particularly when there is no hint of a consensus (or any support whatever) for your desired changes. BTfromLA 16:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, let me get this straight. You can make large unilateral changes by inserting an entire paragraph into the intro, with the comment that you "dont endorse" your own changes, but once you put it in there, I have to get concensus before I can change anything??? This is total crap. Paragraph 5 is REDUNDANT. It talks about "stealth creationism" (which is handled in paragraph 3) and it presents the ID pov that empirical science is "dogmatic" (which belongs in paragraph 1 or 2). I can only guess that you're fluffing the intro up in order to argue that something you don't like will have to be taken out. FuelWagon 02:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fuelwagon: I have no hidden agenda--my preferences are stated above. I thought my motive for the edit you complain about was clear to all; hoping to bypass more frustrating reversion wars, I restored all of the sentences that any currently active editor seemed to be in favor of--including parts I think should go--so that we could most fruitfully edit the intro as a group.  Rikurzhen took the step of isolating the various paragraphs for comment here, which I think was a good idea. Every editor but you seems civil and interested in jointly arriving at an improved, mutually agreeable version of the intro. We actually seem to be making progress. Why you want to subvert this process with vandalism and childish accusations is beyond me.  BTfromLA 03:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: BT: I'll back Fuel on this one.  What he lacks in people skills, he makes for as an editor.  That's why I asked him to come to this article.  There was NO request to freeze changes to the intro until you unilaterally enforced one.  And you've reverted what I consider to be mostly good work, without mirroring it here.  I imagine Fuel doesn't see the point in doing work twice, where you want to build concensus.  You're both right.  Go to your corners and let's move on to round two. *ding ding*--ghost 04:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree.  This paragraph is redundant (and possibly contibutes to a POV tone) when viewed against the rest of the intro and the body of the article.--ghost 05:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraph 5

message: Just to be transparent about personal motivations, I request that everyone indicate where they stand on the issue of ID personally. I know some will want to claim they are in a different category than for or against, but for the sake of this poll, pretend you're not. FuelWagon 22:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In spite of FW's proviso, and also in spite of the anti-Wiki nature of this request, I am in a different category than for or against. I think that most IDers are anti-intellectual, politically-motivated creationists. But I also think that they should get a fair shake in this article. I am agnostic regarding whether the universe exhibits design — it is a matter of interpretation. I basically agree with Robert Wright's book Nonzero, so most of you self-described skeptical types can regard me as a crazy mystical nut.  --goethean ॐ  22:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Dembski's work in particular intrigues me.  For all the analogies, I am well aware that ID is nowhere close to proving that life was intelligently designed.  But I like the idea of studying signs of intelligence (organically or inorganically), even if their work amounts to a big bag of nothing.  In revising this article, I will never say that ID has proven anything, but I will justify what they are "researching" and try my best to make clear how they define themselves and their work. David Bergan 22:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: FuelWagon 22:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: If you can't tell based on edits, what's the point of this exercise? It's only insulting. Graft 22:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's OK Graft, I know you're special. FuelWagon 23:02, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Why on earth should one's arguments be judged on with the person's beliefs in mind? Either the arguments are good or they aren't: they stand on their own merit. This exercise can't possibly achieve any purpose than laying the groundwork for ad hominem attacks, and, as goethean says, is anti-wiki, and, as Graft says, insulting. — Asbestos | Talk 23:24, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen.  This is a totally inappropriate and counter-productive demand. BTfromLA 04:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Transparency

message: *Yes. see Analogy: "Analogies are often used to explain new or complex concepts by showing the similarities between them and familiar concepts." Many here seem to think that analogies are intrinsically argumentative or that they are only used to sway people. This is not true. Rather, they are an effective linguistic tool to explain an unfamiliar concept. I see no Wikipedia policy that would forbid the use of explanatory analogies; they are just another tool in the editors bag. --Rikurzhen 01:39, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
*yes. Analogy good. mumbo jumbo bad. FuelWagon 03:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 1: Is the use of an analogy anywhere in an article appropriate? 

message: *Yes. The purpose of the intro is give a summary of the article so that a person could get a overview understanding of the subject without reading further. They should be aimed to say something to even the younger readers. This is a technical topic, the details of which are unfamaliar to most people, espeically younger students. Merely describing the debate in technical terms doesn't suffice for them. Thus, analogies help bridge the gap between the terms and their meaning. --Rikurzhen 01:39, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
*Yes. The intro, of all places, should put the debate into simpler terms by using examples, analogies, or whatever. The nitty-gritty can be dealt with in the article body. FuelWagon 03:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 2: Is the use of an analogy in the introduction apppropriate? 

message: Well, things were relatively calm over the weekend.  Good!  The intro is not everything to everyone, but it's much better.  We've got a lot of other work to do.  Any suggestions on what to tackle next?  My inclanation is to trim as much redundancy as we can.  Let's engage the readers, not bore them.--ghost 14:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good morning.  Quiet on the talk page, but they sure added stuff to the article over the weekend.  I just tweaked paragraph 1 - mostly clarified the definition of ID and added the Mount Rushmore example, since there seemed to be no disagreement to its inclusion. David Bergan 15:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Hmmm. Reviewing your revision of the Mt. Rushmore quote.  I didn't think 1 sentence sounded dumb at all, and followed format with other breakout quotes later in the article.  Let's trim all but the first two sentences, as the rest are redundant vs the preceding paragraph.  Also, can we trim 'Mount' to 'Mt.'?  I'm in a mood to hack this article till it's as clean and tight as possible.--ghost 18:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your efforts, ghost.  We have a difference in writing styles that is tough for me to overcome... I prefer things to be elaborated to the point where there is no possibility for misunderstanding.  You seem to prefer things as consise as possible even if there is potentially some clarity lost.  As such, I like the full Dembski quote.  Even though there is some redundancy, it shows that design theorists are not content with mere intuitions.  And for me (again, personal writing style) whenever a quote is broken out of a paragraph, I think it should be at least three or four sentences.  One or two sentence quotes usually stay in the paragraph.  Breaking something out of a paragraph to me signifies, "Here is a concept that is worthy of letting the main dude explain it himself, and explain himself completely."  Again, that's just what I'm used to and why I get a funny feeling reading paragraph 1 + quote after 3 days of editing.  I think, "Well, the concept is there but that's not how I would have said it."  But I guess that's the nature of wikipedia, and I'll just have to get used to it.  The two-sentence quote is fine as far as substance.  David Bergan 15:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah.  To me the power of Hypertext is that you don't have too, and shouldn't, include the whole text of something.  Just give the reader a taste and a link.  Get their interest and let them explore.  And this fits well with encyclopedias.  I think Og Mandino attributed Jesus as saying, "...You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink, unless you salt their food."--The Greatest Salesperson in the World (1974).--ghost 16:12, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Congrats on a quiet weekend

message: Ok, my eyes are starting to bleed...  There was a tremendous amount of redundancy thru the body.  Also, some of the run-on sentences would've made your high-school English teachers cry. I hope you like the result; it doesn't stear too far from the original.  The good news is that we're down to 12 pages, plus ToC and references.--ghost 04:46, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ghost's copy-edit

message: ID proponents claim seeking the identity of intelligence, such as God, is not what ID is about. Dbergan citing pg. 64 of Dembski's The Design Revolution in support of this got me thinking about the public statements of ID proponents and how they relate and align to their self-published statements and claims, and how they all relate to the 'critics' who insist ID proponents are pushing a veiled theistic agenda. 
Since Dbergan cited Dembski's The Design Revolution , I looked to it see how Dembski answers the quandary:
:"As a Christian I hold that the Christian God is the ultimate source of design behind the universe (though that leaves open that God works through secondary causes, including derived intelligences). But there’s no way for design inferences from physics or biology to reach that conclusion. Such inferences are compatible with Christian belief but do not entail it. Far from being coy or deceitful, when design theorists do not bring up God, it is because they are staying within the proper scope of their theory. Intelligent design is not creationism and it is not naturalism. Nor is it a compromise or synthesis of these positions. It simply follows the empirical evidence of design wherever it leads. Intelligent design is a third way." pg. 14
Yet Dembski's other published public statements belie that claim:
:"Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology, which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ. Indeed, once materialism is no longer an option, Christianity again becomes an option. True, there are then also other options. But Christianity is more than able to hold its own once it is seen as a live option. The problem with materialism is that it rules out Christianity so completely that it is not even a live option. Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration." --Dembski "Intelligent Design's Contribution to the Debate Over Evolution", Designinference.com website, February 2005
:"I think at a fundamental level, in terms of what drives me in this is that I think God’s glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world, the origin of biological complexity and diversity. When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God’s glory is getting robbed." He continued, "And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he’s done - and he’s not getting it." --Dembski The design revolution?
:"Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God." --Dembski, Church & State Magazine, July/August 2000 issue.
:"The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from coming to the knowledge of Christ," Dembski said. "And if there’s anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ [and] the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.... It’s important that we understand the world. God has created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world." --Dembski, Church and State Magazine, May 2002 issue
Dembski's actual leanings/motivations are clear. Phillip Johnson's public statements are equally unequivocal and damning of the claim that seeking the identity of intelligence is not what ID is about. They expressly state that ID, being putatively non-theistic, will open the door for Christian belief. This fact justifies including adding some additional content about exactly what 'bush' (Christian God) ID proponents are beating around. FeloniousMonk 20:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And their arguments are no different than I'd expect to hear from a criminal-defense lawyer.  They look to establish reasonable doubt in the minds of the community.  Which might work in a courtroom, but not in science.  But, their underlying motivations border on irrelevant.  This article is about Intelligent Design.  Not Dembski, Johnson or anyone else.  Perhaps these items belong in a seperate article(s) about the movement or it's authors.  As someone else (FuelWagon) told me awhile back, "(present the reader with brief facts)...and let them decide for themselves that it's crap."  Such eloquence...--ghost 22:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The actual quotes probably don't warrant inclusion here, but they are relevant and useful to us in contrasting the Discovery Institute's policy for public consumption against the veiled theistic policy the critics of the movement allege exists, which is what I was getting at. You raise an interesting point: What would ID and the ID movement look like without Johnson, Meyer, Dembski, etc.? Considering that the movement is largely due to their efforts, it's difficult to separate one from the other. FeloniousMonk 22:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Identity of the intelligence: The text and the subtext

message: The first "official" critic of ID to use the pyramid argument was Michael Murray in his paper: "Natural Providence (or Design Trouble)." subsequently published in Faith and PhilosophyFuelWagon 15:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "The friend of IDT may, at this point, object as follows: Surely this is false. For if that were so, it would mean that we could not decide whether or not the pyramids in the jungle are caused by law or intervention."
Michael has proposed the notion of "deck stacking" (which he describes to be "god created the universe and then hasn't touched it since") is a valid alternative to any argument for intelligent design and interference. That any time ID proponents find evidence for intervention, it could just as easily be explained by "deck stacking", and that "deck stacking" simply means that God made the rules of the universe constant, but he just "stacked" them so that crazy stuff like "life" would evolve. The idea of intervention is like the idea that aliens intervened to help humans build the pyramids. Then he presents a possible ID counterargument that the pyramids WERE designed, designed by humans, not aliens. Michael basically counters this by saying they've missed the point. FuelWagon 15:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: You're correct.  Should this be discussed in a subsection of 'Theological Debate'?  I'm thinking 'Predetermination vs. Interactive Design'.  Thoughts?--ghost 15:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure where it goes, but Michael's basic "deck stacking" argument uses a poker analogy. Poker has rules that remain fixed throughout the game, which represents science's view of the rules for the universe remaining fixed and unchanging. His argument is that with fixed rules and a randomly shuffled deck of cards, you would find over a long time that pretty much all the players would win about the same amount, given comparable skill. However, if one player kept winning with 4 aces in his hand, but the rules remained fixed, it could be possible that the player stacked the deck, rather than randomly shuffling them, so that he always ended up with 4 aces. Michael's argument is that ANY situation where ID proponents argue intervention by a designer, it could be just as likely that the designer STACKED the deck at the beginning so that the statistical anomoly would occur. Life could evolve because someone intervened from time to time or because someone stacked the deck at the beginning of time. He argues that it is impossible to determine which option it would be, therefore, science would assume that the deck was stacked and that the rules of the universe are unchanging, because science already assumes the rules are unchanging. that's my take on his argument, anyways. FuelWagon 18:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Aliens built the pyramids

message: The subject of article splits was briefly covered in Archive 8. I'd like to move the bulk of the ID as a movement section, and CSC section, to its own page.  The section(s) add value and provides a backdrop as to the political scene, but currently add over 3pgs of dense text plus references.  We need to trim that article and this seems like a good place to start.  Suggestions?  Comments?--ghost 15:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In principle and in practice concision does not trump completeness. I'm relucant to endorse spinning off content to sub-articles, but if we were to do it, it would need to be done carefully. A thorough but brief summary of ID as a movement would need to remain in the article were the bulk of the content moved to its own article. The CSC section is a tougher one - the Discovery Institute and its CSC are central to understanding ID both as a movement and as set of beliefs; both the ID movement and the ID concept are largely products of the DI/CSC. That's why I'm reluctant to move too much to separate articles; obfuscating the link between its advocacy for ID and ID as a concept has been a very active action item on the DI's agenda. I'm reluctant to help them further that effort. FeloniousMonk 18:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To get a better idea of what I propose, compare the Terri Schiavo article with it's sub-article Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case.  There are definite drawbacks.  But the article is pushing max size as is.  We should find a way to convey this more precisely, or move it.--ghost 19:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree with ghost that splitting ID and ID movement would be an excellent move for the page.  Ungtss 22:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm a bit reluctant to split the article. My concern would be that this article presents ID as a purely non-political idea, and completely ignores the fact that it's mostly an attempt to teach creationism in schools. perhaps this article could list a sentence for every major school battle that has occurred, and then link to either one article per battle, or one article for all the battles. It felt like a lot of the article is currently regergitating over the different arguments for ID, which I'm starting to find quite annoying. I think they could be easily cut down. not much time to talk right now. FuelWagon 04:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: the core conflict on this issue for the last months has been this: those who think ID is merely an attempt at religious brainwashing want the ideas of ID removed and the article to be composed entirely of descriptions of this massive religious conspiracy.  those who see ID as an idea in and of itself, however, think that this article should focus on describing the concepts itself in detail, because conspiracy theories are mere speculative ad hominem, and that the page's criticism of ID should focus on the merits of ID itself, rather than the christocratic motives which critics of ID ascribe to them.  i think if we split the article, we can serve both sets of needs.  this page has suffered under the impulse to "cut out the ideas of ID" which mr. fuelwagon finds "annoying" for months:(.  Ungtss 14:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's one opinion; an opinion offering the same line being promulgated by the Discovery Institute. Separating ID from its origin, the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture, does the reader a disservice since ID is less an actual scientific concept and more a social and political agenda. Laying out the dots out for the reader to connect is necessary for a complete, thorough article and is not rhetorical hyperbole or "mere speculative ad hominem" as you, and no doubt the Discovery Institute as well, would have us believe. This same argument was made at Talk:Teach the Controversy in April and was roundly shown to be specious by citing the very actions and statements of the Discovery Institute and its fellows. That the Discovery Institute and its members view and employ ID as the thin edge of the wedge to further a Christian political and social agenda is not even a legitimate question: "Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology (materialism), which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ. Indeed, once materialism is no longer an option, Christianity again becomes an option." as Dembski said . Their theistic agenda is a matter of public record. There is no shortage of Discovery Institute public and private statements and those made its fellows and directors that belie the notion that it is just pursuing an agenda whose only goal is to challenge the science establishment "to empirically detect whether there is 'apparent design' in nature." That the Discovery Institute as a matter of policy obfuscates its agenda while promoting ID as a necessary part of that agenda is something that the reader's attention needs to be drawn to, not kept from. FeloniousMonk 18:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I'm sure the article could be shortened, and, in general, I'm not against article spin-offs, but in this case the politics behind ID are at least as important as the theory/movement itself. — Asbestos | Talk 18:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this article is very good, but also very large. It could use an article split, or at the very least reorganization. ID as a social movement and ID as an idea are diffrent: Personally, I suscribe to ID philisophically, but I am not part of the movement, and am in fact vocally against it being taught in schools. People will want to see criticisms of ID in itself and analysis of ID movment seperate, because they are NOT the same. If going for organization, this thing needs to be trimmed. I keep forgetting to sign!--Tznkai 19:25, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree, tznkai.  the article's conflation of the ideas with the movement does a disservice to both.  i, like you and many others, ascribe to the ideas, but have no links to the "movement."  information about some of the more vocal ID spokespeople, while extremely important toward the goal of burying the ideas in specious ad hominem insinuations, is irrelevent as to the merit of the ideas themselves. and in the end, it is the merits of the ideas themselves that are of interest to most rational people who do not reject ideas simply by virtue of their origin, but rather on their own merits.  splitting the articles would allow both interests to be better served.  Ungtss 19:33, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: FM, you have made the same massive non-sequitur above no less than a dozen times and have ignored my every effort to explain your error.  however, for the record, the political and social agenda of a limited number of the proponents of an idea is absolutely irrelevent to the merits of the idea itself.  that is why we need two articles.  so in one, people can say, "hmm ... i wonder if ID makes any sense?"  and in the other can say, "hmm ... i wonder what the political goals of Dembski and Johnson are?"  the failure to separate ideas from political agenda or message from messanger is symptomatic of fundamentalism of all types, i'm afraid.  it's analogous to an article about evolution emphasizing the fact that 92% of scientists are atheists.  the response of any rational person to such a fact is, "well ... that's interesting ... but what does that have to do with evolution?"  the response of the fundamentalist, however, is, "oh my goodness!  this ideas is being promoted by atheists!  it MUST be evil!"  Ungtss 19:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "the political and social agenda of a limited number of the proponents of an idea" Did I read that correctly? LIMITED??? Wow, that's an interesting spin on reality. The thing of it is that the agenda of the people behind intelligent design is extremely important. And the fact is that the Discovery Institute is nothing more than a cover for a bunch of christians who want to teach creationism in school (official, school/teacher-enforced prayer would likely be next, so we can all pray to the intelligent designer, whomever he may be...). ID IS BEING PUSHED BY THE DISCOVERY INSTITUTE AND THEY WOULD LOVE NOTHING MORE THAN FOR AMERICA TO PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN. Yeah. Right. And it would be a disservice to pull the curtain back. Show the idea, leave the politics for a separate article. Sure. That's great. FuelWagon 17:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text:  I'd like to note that if splitting the article, the links between the two should be kept. ID did not in fact srping up without the social movement, but it did not spawn it by itself either. The two are linked, and this should be pointed out, of course. But they are not the same thing at all Also. Anyone know how to clean up this talk page? Its freaking huge--Tznkai 20:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  archived through this month.  also agree with your last.  naturally the two would be linked together.  but one should not be used to prevent objective consideration of the other.  Ungtss 21:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: ghost, I think the connection between ID and the Discover Institute needs to remain in the main article. It could be possible to split off some of the specific battles that the Discovery Institute has waged to get intelligent design into schools, but each battle ought to be mentioned in this article, at least a single sentence per school board battle or something, just to put the scope of the fight into context. Then the other articles can give all teh specifics of each individual fight, which school board, what city, what year, who was there, what was said, whether the board approved, whether voters voted people out of office, stuff like that. This article could be greatly reduced in length simply by NOT making it a soapbox for ID proponents to make every single one of their arguments in favor of ID, but rather to present the basic arguments, the criticism of each, and a link for readers to investigate further. FuelWagon 18:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think thats still a little to long. A sentance such as "the Discovery Institute, widley considered the primary proponent of ID, has been pushing hard in various school board battles, starting with .... and most recently ..... See list of discovery instintute battles. ETC. Ultimatly, while this may serve the discovery intitutes intrests, its also serving our intrests as wikipeidans more. Our dedication is to neutrality, not to thwarting the DI (which I'd love to do myself, believe me. Thats part of the constraint of the NPOV.  The conncetion must be there, yes. The fact that there are plenty of people using ID as a wedge to screw up the US public school system even more than it already is, yes, thats important. The article as it stands is heavly weighted against ID, because it has a lengthy logical test of the ID arguments, which are from a scientific point of view, incredibly flawed. This is not a major problem of bias, but of length. We can trim it all down to its basic elements for the sake of brevity while still remaining accurate.--Tznkai 18:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've got a first draft of the Intelligent design movement article done enough to present to you folks.  Please breeze through it.  It still needs references, etc. and needs the second 1/2 re-wikified.  I agree that references to the key issues should remain in the main article.  I'd like to see them trimmed down from a couple of paragraphs, to a couple of sentences + links.  Also, could everyone concerned Watchlist the Intelligent design movement so that we make sure we're all on the same page.  I want this improving the content, not creating hard feelings.--ghost 18:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ghost, I took a look at it. Looks pretty good. Do we really need to put wedge strategy in its own article though? It would seem that it could fit easily into the ID movement article. My watchlist is gonna keep growing if this keeps up. FuelWagon 19:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent work ghost. FuelWagon, I get the feeling that the wedge strategy and teach the contraversy articles will grow rapidly to the point where we can't fit it into the article. Maybe we can drag a few more wikipeidans into the debate and see what they think--Tznkai 20:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, folks.  BTW, those subarticles existed prior to this split, which was part of my reasoning for the split in the first place.  I think FeloniusMonk has been working on this as well, and he's been on topic for longer than we have.  Ask him.--ghost 20:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article splits: ID as a movement

message: These look as if they need to be unified and trimmed.  In particular the bullets in ID Debate are redundant, although there's some good links there.  I suggest we yank the bullets, roll the ...arguments sections up to ID Debate, and copy/edit from there.  Comments?--ghost 18:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ID Debate & Arguments sections

message: Can someone suggest a place to use this new site? External links? In-line? --Rikurzhen 01:21, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Some of these links are solid, but I think you want to break them out, rather than giving the reader a link to links.--ghost 18:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  anti-ID, pro-evolution National Academies website 

message: *Not all religions view the Universe as the artifact of an outside creator. Eastern religions variously see the Universe as a manifestation of the creator, as a dream of the creator, or as the indivisible mind and body of the creator. Non-theistic and Transcendentalist philosophies consider the primary substance of the Universe to be pure awareness, and therefore consider all material to be inherently insubstantial. All such religions more or less hold that the laws of nature are themselves a manifestation of divinity, and many in fact propose that just as living things evolve, so also do the implicate laws of the universe themselves evolve. In any case, it is only dualistic theologies based on overtly literal interpretations of scripture that have any interest in promulgating theories such as intelligent design, precisely because evolutionary theory threatens their dogmatism.
"Eastern" religions is a widely misused term that paints a lot of religions with a lot of sects with a very wide brush. "In any case, it is only dualistic theologies based on overtly literal interpretations of scripture that have any interest in promulgating theories such as intelligent design, precisely because evolutionary theory threatens their dogmatism." Is VERY POV. I'd like to see this sort of statement be backed up by philosophers, theologians and or gallup polls--Tznkai
:I understand your concerns, although I like the section's message that not all faiths are threatened by, or seek to discredit Naturalism.  I'll got to work on this today.  BTW, you can add a signature by using 4 ~s, or using the signature button (2nd from the right at the top of the edit window).--ghost 12:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section