Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 49

message: One of Phillip Johnson's main objections to evolution (in "Darwin on Trial") is that it is not supported by the fossil record. Should a discussion of the fossil record be in the article? GusChiggins21 (talk) 07:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Johnson's record is cracked (he's from the era of 78s, so he'd get that). At most merits a brief reference to CC200 .. dave souza, talk 10:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This article is about Intelligent design, not objections to evolution (though there may be lack of clarity at times between the two). Is this an attempt to make a point?--ZayZayEM (talk) 10:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I just thought it was one of the main arguments used by the ID people. Is this an attempt to make a point? GusChiggins21 (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not an article about ID people or (all) their arguments. See intelligent design movement, Discovery Institute, and Discovery Institute campaigns.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This sounds like a POV issue. You are engaging in debate here. I was not engaging in debate, I was asking if an argument brought up by one of the leading proponents of ID belongs in the ID article, I was not discussing its merits or demanding that anyone agree with it, or agree with me. I didn't ask for anyone to answer anything. Please try to assume good faith. GusChiggins21 (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: So, maybe a separate article about ID objections related to the fossil record? GusChiggins21 (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Put is it an ID objection, an ID proponent objection, a Discovery Institute objection, or a Johnson objection. (or even simply a creationist objection)--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The point is covered at Darwin on Trial#Overview, which could probably do with citations and a brief reference to the common creationist claim he is reiterating, as well as Eldredge's response to these claims in pointing out that punk eek is still a gradual process, if intermittent. The claim had already been made in Of Pandas and People, and refutation of the claim formed a significant part of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District where Kevin Padian testified on October 14 – that could do with expansion, see the Nova programme for a summary. ... dave souza, talk 08:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it would be a pointless fork. No DI objections towards the fossil record are that unique to the DI to require a specific DI-objections article.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fossil Record?

message: Including a junk science is not NPOV. It's saying that it is junk science, which according to the article,"The term generally conveys a pejorative connotation that the advocate is driven by political, ideological, financial, and other unscientific motives."
That shouldn't be in an encyclopedia.
RJRocket53 (talk) 19:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an accurate reflection of how a significant proportion of the scientific community has received ID, so is required by NPOV: Pseudoscience and NPOV: Giving "equal validity", in my opinion. Of course ID may be theological Truth, but unfortunately they claim it's science. ... dave souza, talk 22:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Has intelligent design been called "junk science" (those words) by any notable person?  If it has, then it's perfectly NPOV to include a link to that - ID is linked to junk science by the sourced person saying that ID is junk science.  If it hasn't, then applying the definition ourselves to decide that it applies to this case is probably an original research synthesis.  TSP (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ...and yes, it has, because we source it in reference 17; so this is fine to include.  TSP (talk) 00:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure it is. As long as it remains a notable viewpoint and verifiable per our policies, it is required by WP:NPOV for a balanced article. BTW, it has been shown that the leading ID proponents meet all four motives ascribed to junk science. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Intelligent Design" or better simply "design of some sort", would be a logical probable theory to know how to make acceptable to the Scientific method. I have the semantics and definitions for this ! But I do not defend religion as such. And there is a lot of junk science, published as a fact or science, and also there are a lot of junk religious books ! User: GeorgeFThomson (24.86.41.40 (talk) 05:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Junk Science Link 

message: Orangemarlin removed the phrase and its related paragraph from the section on the basis of unsalvagable POV . Perhaps this section should be archived. It's getting OT.  --ZayZayEM (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: removed

message: In http://www.arn.org/idfaq/What%20is%20intelligent%20design.htm#_ednref3 Dembski says:
*Rather than trying to infer God’s existence or character from the natural world, it simply claims "that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable."
Am I the only one who feels that this description of ID should be in the article somewhere?
:I suspect you are. It is merely a less equivocal ("necessary" instead of "better") articulation of the assertion currently in the lead. Given the IDM's penchant for restating the same thing hundreds of different ways, with varying equivocation, I would demand strong evidence of the notability of any particular articulation of this assertion, before it got a mention in the article in addition to the existing one. HrafnTalkStalk 04:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Central claims of ID

message: From 
ScienceApologist (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See Flying Spaghetti Monster#Polk County, Florida which includes that quote, as well as quoting Margaret Lofton, one of the school board members supporting intelligent design, who said "They've made us the laughingstock of the world". It's not clear whether "they" is the Pastafarians, or the cdesign proponentsists. Of course, this could lead to quote-mining – "see, it's not pseudoscience!!!" . .  dave souza, talk 20:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting quote from the vice president of USF

message: *ouch*
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/bill-greene-rips-wikipedia-a-new-one/
I didn't feel a thing, but then again I am not one of the editors of this article. Angry Christian (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (Wikipedia mentions start at 6:43.  I tell you that because this show moves very, very slowly.  That is 6 minutes and 43 seconds of your life you can save.  I'm not sure there's actually anything of substance said in those first 6 minutes and 43 seconds.  In about 20 minutes I'll say whether anything of interest is said after that.) TSP (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the public service announcement TSP, it is much appreciated. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia/Intelligent Design references (but not referring to this page in any detail) go on until 13:00, then it moves on to another topic; it picks up again about 18:00 with discussion of ID in general, then moves on to Wikipedia a few minutes later - I'll give a time when I have it.  TSP (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  No more Wikipedia mentions before 30:00... TSP (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, it's back at about 51:30.  Bill urges his listeners to come to this page and see whether they can improve it.  TSP (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  And some more at 55:00.  TSP (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  ...and that's it.  I wonder if we'll get anyone from it.  (Maybe we've already had someone from it.)  TSP (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: He was a Wikipedian? TSP (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: TSP thanks for doing the work for us.  I think I'll utilize that hour for more productive things like downloading porn or getting drunk.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Bill Greene Show 

message: "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection".  This is clearly ID propaganda.  It alludes to the common creationist ploy of mischaracterizing evolution, Darwinism, natural selection, etc., as being synomynous (who has EVER claimed that natural selection explains life?), and it raises the diversionary question of whether natural selection is "undirected".  It has absolutely no place in the lead.  The lead should be a discussion of what ID is, not a forum for repeating ID jabs at evolution.Heqwm (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Evolution is undirected, in the sense of not having someone in charge of it. You might be confusing this perfectly sensible claim with the creationist claim that evolution is random. --FOo (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk about what ID is, not what it isn't

message: Daniel Dennett compares ID advocates with Young Earth creationists, who assert that the Earth is only a few thousand years old and all life forms were created by God. While he acknowledges that ID advocates are more reasonable, he points out that they will only admit Young Earth Creationism is nonsense in private and will not say so in front of their creationist peers out of loyalty and fear of offending their fellow theists. He suggests that they will have to make such concessions to have any chance of being taken seriously by the scientific community:Dennett, Daniel C. (2006), Breaking the Spell, Viking (Penguin), 
:Can I have some feedback on this (now) proposed addition? There is little or nothing here on the dynamics of the various creationist/pseudo-creationist franchises, except for theistic evolution/ID. I can't see what section (or daughter article) this would fit into, so I created a new one. Apparently it's POV, despite relaying someone else's opinion, though since I agree with him and prefer to call a spade a spade, I might be overlooking something. Richard001 (talk) 06:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's hearsay (strike one), with no attribution as to who said it (strike two), from an advocacy source (I'll call that a ball), designed to mock progressive thought and learning (another ball). For those of you unfamiliar with american baseball metaphors, I'll craft another phrase, (pretend Behe said it), which might work for those who know this particular biological topic well. 'Some evolutionists have said: "Sure, we once might have thought that all evolution was gradual and rambling, taking thousands and thousands of years, without any sharp divisions, but please don't ask us to acknowledge the falsehood of the sillier versions of our position!"'...(for those not following, see Punctuated_equilibrium). If Behe had said that, would it belong in the evolution article, or would it be a POV attack? Ronabop (talk) 07:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll list some other POV issues. "He points out..." gives the claim authority yet all we have in support of the statement that "they will only admit Young Earth Creationism is nonsense in private" is his opinion. This is also done here "he acknolwedges that ID advocates are more reasonable". Again it is just his opinion that ID advocates are more reasonable but it is presented as if he is stating a fact. I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid as it is very easy to introduce POV when presenting opinions through your choice of wording. JamesStewart7 (talk) 08:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the analogy with evolution is, well, even an analogy... Evolutionists never believed in 'constant speedism' and it's hardly as if the 'punctuated equilibrium' model has unanimous support either. If you want a real analogy, it would be something like a modern camp of evolutionary biologists believing evolution acts for the good of the species, or in a purposeful direction. And if they were the case, you know as well as I do that they would be unsympathetically ridiculed by their peers. But since it is somewhat hearsay-ish (though I doubt Dennett is just making this stuff up to make IDers look bad) I can accept that it isn't appropriate for the article. The fact that IDers would never say this stuff in a form we could cite basically makes them immune on this one. Richard001 (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Well - the first problem is the title - it isn't a comparison with other forms of theism, it's a comparison with other forms of creationism.  Apart from that, it gives undue weight to Dennett's opinion - after all, it doesn't mesh with the fact that there are prominent YECs within the IDC big tent.  While Behe has clearly identified himself as an old-earther, most of the other prominent IDists are silent on their beliefs.  Guettarda (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Relationship with other forms of theism

message: I am a bit surprised by the present page completely ignoring the finalist/orthogenetic aspect of the ID concept. As I wrote recently in this discussion page (albeit a bit in trollistic way, I admit it) the fundamental difference between WHY and HOW questions are an easy and additional element that allows anyone to distinguish what is a scientific question from what is not: science is never about finalist questions. The mere evocation of intelligence in the origin of everything implies an automatic acceptation of the orthogenesis principle, otherwise it shouldn't be called intelligent design but rather dumb design (and not random design, because that is precisely what the ID concept is opposed to, dumbness being very far from randomness, which is impossible to achieve perfectly under a finalist objective). I would love to complete in such way the actual page, which I otherwise find quite good if not excellent, but I feel that I am not the person with the best references to do it. What is your opinion about this matter? Thank you -- Sophos II (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:OR--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, WP:OR. As nice as this is, I am sure if you looked in demarcation problem and some of the references there, you might find that this has been addressed to death in philosophical circles. --Filll (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the finalism?