Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 31

message: These changes deal with the beginning of the third paragraph:
*21. Replace the period after "supernatural designer" with a comma, and begin what was originally the second sentence of the paragraph afterwards, with "seeking" replaced by "intelligent design seeks".
*22. Replace "evolution theory" with "evolutionary theory", to be more consistent with the terminology used elsewhere.
*23. At the start of this paragraph, remove the "in the late 20th century" qualifier from "Intelligent design in the late 20th century can be seen"; first, as of 2006, this applies to intelligent design both in the late 20th and early 21st century. Second, this qualifier has the unfortunate consequence of implying that the intelligent design movement is older than "the late 20th century", which is not true.
*24. In "As evolutionary theory has expanded to explain more phenomena,", replace "evolutionary theory" with "evolutionary biology". The theory has not "expanded" per se, it's been updated and revised. The field of evolutionary biology, on the other hand, can be argued to have "expanded" to deal with more and more types of phenomena.
-Silence 15:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, to all. (Great answer above regarding theistic evolution, BTW). •Jim62sch• 00:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes 21-24 (3)

message: These changes deal with the middle of the third paragraph:
*25. Change "the examples that are held up as evidence of design" to "the examples that are held up by design advocates as evidence of design" for clarification. Only IDers (and other design-asserting creationists) hold them up as "evidence of design".
*26. Change "changed. But" to "changed, but". No reason to end the sentence here.
*27. Change "complex systems imply a designer" to "complex systems—what intelligent design advocates would call "irreducibly complex systems"—imply a designer" for added informational value, and to avoid having to use the awkward, out-of-context "see also" link to irreducible complexity at the paragraph's end ("(see irreducible complexity)"), when it is less useful and informative.
*28. Remove "(optical system)" after "eye" as unnecessary.
-Silence 03:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK to all (well, of course removing (optical system) might lead someone to think of a potato's eye...   :)  •Jim62sch• 10:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes 25-28 (3)

message: The Introduction reads:
:A United States federal court recently ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach that intelligent design is an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Does that refer to Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District as laid out in the rest of the paragraph? If no, can you please be more specific? If yes, can you please make it clear from the beginning that both sentences refer to a single case? --Rtc 15:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point...I copyedited it...it should be better now. •Jim62sch• 23:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: This entire article reaks of bias from the atheist/secular humanist community. --(an unsigned comment from )
:If you'd like to cite some peer-reviewed scientific sources that counter this bias, that'd be great.  The content here has been carefully edited over several years to ensure it presents an objective treatment of ID.  If ID wants to be labelled as science, it has to stand up to scientific scrutiny.  What you label "reaks [sic] of bias" is the result of this scrutiny.  I'm going to remove your tag, please don't replace it unless you can come up with some reason for doing so.  Cheers, --Plumbago 13:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's likely because it presents both sides of the story as called for by WP:NPOV and you were expecting a ID-pov article. Do you have specific objections to discuss? FeloniousMonk 15:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV-check 

message: This section should be removed. It is completely irrelevant to the claims of the ID advocates. The appropriate example should rather be the probability of being dealt two bridge hands where one mirrors the other. (JohnCarter 10:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would that be being dealt the same bridge hand twice have anything to do with the probability of life arising? That's more like what the probability would be of the same type of life arising independently on two different worlds. -Silence 10:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: "ID advocates do not argue that OOL is a rare event, they argue that it can't be explained by chance..".  If I read ID (Dembski's) work correctly, then you can reject the chance hypothesis if a event drops below a certain probability.  Therefore, the first step in Dembski's filter is to see if the event can be explained via pure chance and random events (which necesserily brings in probability).  If it is below a certain probability then chance can be rejected and necessity can be assumed and tested.  Prnbability has a very strong presence in all of Dembski's work (as the first step in his filter) and is therefore a pertinent point of criticism.--Roland Deschain 14:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improbable versus impossible events 

message: * 
* 
The aforementioned articles are listed at AFD. Uncle G 15:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles listed at Articles for deletion 

message: I graciously ask that the article be delisted on grounds that it does not meet the criteria for a "good article" based on the following:
1.  It is factually inaccurate and nonverifiable.
2.  It is not well written.
Review my suggestions and lack of consideration they received for further explanation.
Thank you.  Coolasclyde 03:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Coolasclyde, in the relative cool of the night here (though rather hot for sleeping) may I point out that your problem seems to be your demand that the article should be objective? It appears to have escaped your notice that according to Wikipedia policy "There's no such thing as objectivity". And policy sets the rules here. That should be enough food for tonight. ..dave souza, talk 03:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No. Thank you. FeloniousMonk 04:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Vere, FM defensor veritatis est; sed notione veritate tua defensioni non licet bovi, ne iovi quidem. •Jim62sch• 10:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to Delist Intelligent Design 

message: I'm not sure if this fits within this article, so I'm putting this up here first.  Bahe's claim is very hard to test directly, as it requires knowledge of past protein-protein interactions.  However, a 2006 paper in Science (Volume:312, Page:97-101) uses evolutionary theory coupled with bioinformatics to physically reconstruct ancient proteins and test their interactions.  These experiments directly address the concept of irreducible complexity and show that slow gradual changes in pre-existing protein systems can generate more complex interactions.  Here is the abstract from the paper entitles Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation:
:According to Darwinian theory, complexity evolves by a stepwise process of elaboration and optimization under natural selection. Biological systems composed of tightly integrated parts seem to challenge this view, because it is not obvious how any element’s function can be selected for unless the partners with which it interacts are already present. Here we demonstrate how an integrated molecular system—the specific functional interaction between the steroid hormone aldosterone and its partner the mineralocorticoid receptor—evolved by a stepwise Darwinian process. Using ancestral gene resurrection, we show that, long before the hormone evolved, the receptor’s affinity for aldosterone was present as a structural by-product of its partnership with chemically similar, more ancient ligands. Introducing two amino acid changes into the ancestral sequence recapitulates the evolution of present-day receptor specificity. Our results indicate that tight interactions can evolve by molecular exploitation—recruitment of an older molecule, previously constrained for a different role, into a new functional complex.
I think this finding should be included in the Irreducible Complexity section.  For one, it addresses the fact that apparent irreducible protein-protein interactions can be explained by gradual amino acid changes, but, more importantly, it shows that scientific work is being done investigating the issues in evolution that Bahe has brought up. --Roland Deschain 04:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a few sentences as a summary with a cite to the article. The subarticle for IC is where it could go more into some depth. It's not as if there's much discussion of IC anymore. Behe's testimony in the Dover trial and the judge's ruling both heavily undermined any credibility IC had, read Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 4: whether ID is science, pgs 78 -82. FeloniousMonk 04:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the good tenured professor, don't know if you've read Eden and Evolution, but not everyone seems to have noticed Kitzmiller. ...dave souza, talk 04:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with that going in the article, I think it would be a nice little addition.  It can go at the end of the section stating something like, "In fact, in a paper published in Science magazine in 2006 (names of authors) showed that...  And then do the reference to the article as Science, 2006, Volume:312, Pages:97-101 •Jim62sch• 10:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experimental evidence concerning irreducible complexity 

message: I'm not an adherent to ID nor am I against it, but I thought that I would mention something that really struck me while begining to browse your article. The information regarding the court ruling does not belong in the intro. I know what it's like to work on a controversial topic, and I considered this article pov as soon as I saw that. In fact, I looked no further and went here to write this message. This is clearly put in by people who want to make a point against ID. It's too specific and should be moved to another place in the article that discusses these kinds of controversies. Overall, your intro could be more neutral, focusing more on facts regarding and surrounding the theory itself rather than what people think of it. These are just my thoughts, which you can take or leave. I won't likely be back to defend them. I apologize for disrupting your discussion. Mcconn 15:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The court ruling was major enough to be put in the intro. Prior to the ruling, major figures both for and against ID said that the court ruling would be a watershed moment or similar comments. William Dembski made multiple comments that predicted it would be a "Waterloo" for either evolution or intelligent design. See for example www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/371 . JoshuaZ 15:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Intros are summaries of the major points in articles, see Wikipedia:Summary_style#Lead_section and Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_great_article#Writing. FeloniousMonk 19:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Court ruling in intro?

message: Although not everyone agrees with this policy, here it is:
WP:NPOV#Fairness of tone:
*Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.
**Opposition to an idea should be stated in the same or following paragraph, as it makes the article flow much nicer.  To relegate all opposing views to the bottom will require a reader to go back up to the original idea to reread it.  This way a view is stated and then any valid opposition is also given.
*We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. Present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a reasonable idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such details.
**ID is plausible.  Nothing in the article says that it's not.  However, the arguments for the actual scientific validity of ID are flawed and the criticism is made accordingly.  
I can't guess why anyone would think this policy was irrelevant to the ID article. FM, what are your ideas on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 
:I've said this many times, but if you want the article to change, make specific examples for people to discuss.  This type of broad criticism isn't specific enough to inspire change.--Roland Deschain 21:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Give it a rest, Ed. As my edit summary said, the "Read This" section here already points to the NPOV policy and the relevant sections. You're simply trying to emphasize those portions of the policy that you'd like to use to wedge in your pov here. Your personal rant against consensus proves that point: Wikipedia:Marginalizing minority points of view FeloniousMonk 21:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt he'll give it a rest...ever try to get a preacher out of his pulpit? •Jim62sch• 07:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy reminder

message: Says Dembski's research assistant. See . JoshuaZ 02:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the quote:
--Roland Deschain 02:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And in other news, the creationists/IDers were dealt a setback in the Kansas primary. This should presumably be mentioned in this article or a related one. JoshuaZ 12:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another article please. ... Kenosis 13:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a short article on the election results --128.100.90.205 15:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It can go in Intelligent design movement. •Jim62sch• 18:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Or not.  I put it here Intelligent_design_in_politics •Jim62sch• 19:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teach the controversy and critical analysis are both ID  says Dembski's assistant 

message: I'm getting confused, what with all the accusations being hurled at me of 'bad faith' and 'dodging consensus' and 'disrupting', over the distinction between Intelligent Design and its "evil twin" Creation Science. Are their advocates who assert that the two are:
#one and the same?
#related by one being a stronger form of the other?
#distinct, but related in some way?
I call on those who know these topics better than I do to help me get this distinction into the article, or (if I'm blind as a bat) simply to point out what section it's already in. --Uncle Ed 17:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does the distinction need to made in the article? I don't see any glaring need for it... Are readers in danger of confusing the two? FeloniousMonk 18:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as history has repeatedly shown, whenever the church gets involved in trying to define or redefine "science", it always leads to problems.  Are these modern religious advocates trying to erase the need for faith and replace it with a science consonant with theistic convictions?  If so, where's the criterion of faith fit in once they've theoretically succeeded in that effort?  Then there's the issue of truth, but I don't even want to get started there.  Y'all have a nice day, OK? ... Kenosis 18:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Creation Science and ID

message: I am looking for information from experience WP editors on the problem of keeping good editors on Wiki.  See the page here User:Dbuckner/Expert rebellion
This is no more than a list of people who have left Wikipedia, or thinking of leaving, or generally cheesed off, for the reason (1) what I will unpolitely call 'cranks', i.e. people engaged in a persistent and determined campaign to portray their highly idiosyncratic (and dubious) personal opinion as well-established mainstream scientific or historical fact, or 'crank subculture' i.e. fairly sizeable subcultures which adhere strongly to various anti-scientific conspiracy theories (e.g. Free energy suppression) or anti-scientific political movements (e.g. Intelligent design) masquerading as "scholarship".  (2) the problem of edit creep, i.e. the tendency of piecemeal editing to make articles worse over time, rather than better. 
If you are in this category, leave a link to your user page there.  If you can, put something on your user page that indicates reason for discontent.  
There is a more general discussion of this issue on Lina Mishima's page.  User:LinaMishima/Experts Problem  Note I am not in agreement with her title as it is not in my view a problem about experts, but more of adherence to scholarly standards, ability to put polished and balanced articles together. But her idea is good.
I'm putting this message on this page for obvious reasons, although there doesn't seem to have been too much trouble here.  If you know of any real problem pages, let me know or, better still, copy this message to those pages.  Dbuckner 14:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a definitely problem... FeloniousMonk 17:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: What if one is upset at the above, but is not an expert?  Or, perhaps, is upset in more fields than the one in which one truly is expert?  Is a submission of education credentials required?  Kasreyn 01:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, original transcripts sent directly by the school(s).  Guettarda 01:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The definition given on Lina Mishima's page is "These people are subject experts or skilled writers who hold the potential to significantly improve and add to wikipedia's coverage of their subject." Attacks on their work can seem to them like attacks on their professional standing, so some find the usual hassle more trouble than it's worth. ..dave souza, talk 08:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crank magnet articles