Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 36

message: I was disappointed to find that this article, like so many resources concerning Intelligent Design, contains almost no mention of either future research or the field's possible applications. Does Intelligent Design as it stands tell us everything we could ever need to know about the history and structure of life, or is there more research pending? Does ID have future applications in fields such as Biology or Medicine? What will the concepts of "Irreducible complexity", "Specified complexity", "Fine-tuned universe", "Intelligent designer" actually mean after the evolutionists concede and ID replaces Natural Selection as the dominant paradigm for the study of biological systems? Can we include some sense of the long-term scientific plan in this article? TheDewi 13:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This kind of comment just is pure nonsense. If our attempts are so bad, why do you not just go to the Discovery Institute Website and find it there? Because it does NOT exist!!! Or at least we, and all the other skeptics, and all the >99% of the scientists and the courts have not found any research in this area, and the way things are going, it looks like ID will not replace evolution as a paradigm. It explains nothing. It is just a waste of time and energy. And it if is admitted as science, it will be flushing real science that our medicine is based on down the toilet. The long term plan is to create a theocracy and to force you to worship in their way and to acknowledge they and only they and their interpretation are correct. It is basically a plan for a new Dark Ages. Read what Johnson et al say is their plan if you do not believe me.--Filll 02:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: We gladly would - but unfortunately ID does not have any of those. DLX 14:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: What will the concepts ... actually mean after the evolutionists concede and ID replaces Natural Selection as the dominant paradigm for the study of biological systems?  If ID replaces natural selection as the dominant paradigm in biology, it will mean the end of biology as an experimental science.  It will also mean a revolution in modern religion, since the "paradigm" of Faith will be replaced with a materialistic "paradigm" looking for Proof.  Guettarda 14:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Future research and applications? How about some present research and applications? Intelligent Design as it stands tells us nothing whatsoever about the history or structure of life. Tsumetai 14:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now be fair, didn't the New Scientist find something about the DI having a secret research program, carrying out... secret research..... which they can't divulge because those scientist chappies will ask for.. um.. peer review or something. Don't miss the next exciting announcement. Should bode well for faith healing...... dave souza, talk 16:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh man, now they're going to have to kill you for divulging the secret research program publicly.  Dave souza said it, I didn't.  Please don't have me shot.  Really, I don't know anything about the cough...secret...ahem.....research....program......sssssshhhhhhhh.   
Orangemarlin 16:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we include some sense of the long-term scientific plan in this article? Absolutely we can and will, when and if the IDers ever develop such a plan.  We'll even include any ID scientific theory if they ever develop one.  Mr Christopher 20:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In response to the feeling that I keep getting from ID proponents that we are too heavy handed with the scientific view, I will move Michael Behe's comments about ID as a science (very reliable source: a Christian under oath) from the overview to the lede.  That way, the ID proponents get their view in first, and the tone of the introduction is less  oppositional.Trishm 21:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have any ID proponents contributed to this section? . . ;) . . dave souza, talk 21:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, I don't think so.  They've argued a lot, though.Trishm 21:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've noticed that.  ID, Creation and anti-evolution proponents tend to yell and scream  Except for Homestarmy.  He seems to know how to make a cogent, calm discussion.  Orangemarlin 02:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Drat. I was rather hoping some IDers more knowledgeable than me would bite, and furnish me with a less woefully incomplete view. I hear a lot about ID being unfalsifiable or non-materialistic, but the lack of any substance (beyond discrediting other theories) is just as grievous in making ID unrecognisable as a science. But please, feel free to prove me ignorant if I'm missing something! TheDewi 16:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just look at youtube and google video videos of Johson and hear what he says and his plans. --Filll 02:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The part you're missing is that ID is unrecognizable as a science, because it isn't one. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Nice bit of fishing, the problem is that the IDers who are so quick to complain that the article is biased are remarkably slow when it comes to producing any substance for their claims. ... dave souza, talk 18:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future research? Possible applications? 

message: Kenosis has made two small changes to the article that I feel we should discuss.  The first is the recombination of the opening two sentences into one.  This is purely a stylistic point, but I think that the opening reads better as two sentences: "ID is an argument for the existence of God.  It is expressed in secular terms...".  Secondly, and more importantly, is the change from "which" to "that" in the "Controversy" section.  As the article stands ("They state that their religious faith is fully compatible with science that is limited to dealing only with the natural world;") it implies (perhaps unintentionally) that there's such a thing as "science that is not limited to dealing only with the natural world", and, moreover, that the supporters of theistic evolution consider their faith to be incompatible with this "supernatural science".  With "which", the sentence just describes science as being limited to nature.  I think that the second meaning is what's intended, so "that" should be changed back to "which"; however, I'd just like to confirm that before doing it. Tevildo 17:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Quick follow-up).  If the first meaning is intended, I think we need to make it more explicit; perhaps "compatible with science, insofar as science is limited...", or "compatible with the areas of science that are limited..." Tevildo 17:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support a change in the Controversy section to read "... science which is limited to...", for the reason just given by Tevildo. ... Kenosis 17:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done - it's open to revision, of course. Tevildo 00:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely that needs a comma: "...science, which is limited to..."? Adam Cuerden talk 00:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has one. :) Tevildo 12:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, I integrated it into the second paragraph, with a comment in the edit summary.  You'll see the relevant summary if you flip through the history. ... Kenosis 05:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see.  Sorry.  I guess I am surprised to see Behe grouped with the scientists, rather than the ID proponents.Trishm 05:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I grouped it, albeit somewhat hesitantly, according to issue rather than class of person.  As I said in the edit summary, I don't think the lead is the place to put it.  But since it was there in a stranded paragraph, I integrated Behe's admission as best I could rather than revert it back into its earlier placement in the Overview.  ... Kenosis 17:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we put him at the start of the paragraph? It would lessen sense of mindless conflict between the ID proponents and scientists.Trishm 02:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I removed "stated in secular terms" from the first sentence.  The extra little clause turns out to have been superfluous because the premise is stated right there. Offhand, I would not be in favor of breaking up the second sentence, as a great deal of work by many editors went into arriving at it in its present form.  When it was recently broken up, it had the quirky feature of beginning a related sentence with the word "they".  The second sentence appears to read just fine as it currently is, so long as it's not on the heels of an excessively long sentence. ... Kenosis 02:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I also removed the parenthetical with the abbreviation "ID" from the first sentence, as it was wholly unnecessary there.  I hadn't realized it, but bit-by-bit that first sentence had accumulated more chrome than a '58_Oldsmobile. ... Kenosis 03:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent minor changes 

message: Well! The first FA objection came up: The section on Intelligence is under-cited. Let's go fer it, laddos! Adam Cuerden talk 19:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen this article is attempting FA, this might help, but the introduction seems to developpe on how it isen't considered as a science than what ID claims to be. I don't know what equilibre the introduction should achieve but in my opinion the "this is not a science" seems much too excessif in the intro. I didn't read the rest of the article, because I might to waste my time with pseudo-science not being published in credible peer-reviewed journals, so my opinion is only relevant for the intro. Fad (ix) 23:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you're trying to say, because your English is a bit broken (not a criticism, just hard to read), but ID is absolutely not a science.  The lead must say this, or the article is not worth anything.  Orangemarlin 23:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The most important thing that one can find out about ID, the lead, is that it is a rehashed argument for the existence of God, that is not scientific. The Lead says this. What is more important than that? Nothing to my mind. If you want more details, you can read further.--Filll 00:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry guys for the broken English, I did not read myself. I've convinced myself to jump in and read the rest of the article, which is OK and very well written. But I still am under the impression that something is not right with the introduction, I agree it is pseudoscience and all that; but that introduction seems as if it was trying to convince and remind over again that it is pseudoscience. I may be mistaken, but I don't see the necessity of that, highlining what most scientist consider this hypotheses to be is verry relevant and a must, but in my opinion the introduction is not the place for developping on that, a résumé is enough. Fad (ix) 01:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do I smell a raspor?--Filll 01:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Coming from a different place.Trishm 02:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know what or who is a raspor, but I am intelligent enough to assume that you think I have some ill intention. I didn't think that this might make any difference, but I am a very strong adherent of natural selection, even Lee Smolin's cosmological natural selection, also the bioneurologic natural selection hypothesis of self-awarness. Oh and, and... Darwin is the scientist I place in the highest estime, since I consider that his hypothesis could be applied in favoring cosmological constants. But again, I really didn't thought that I would be needing to developpe on what I adhere to. Anyway, I am done with that, my opinion on the introduction was an opinion afteral. No hard feelings. Fad (ix) 02:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Our apologies. You were mistaken for a moment for a certain banned editor, who has a troubled history on this page and no intention of contributing productively.  Your personal views are yours to hold.  Any editor who is constructive is welcome.Trishm 03:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh OK I understand, anyway, I wish good luck for the FA. Fad (ix) 20:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Fadix is a reliable, established editor.  Granted, this article makes you paranoid, but it's good to have a fresh pair of eyes on this.  Guettarda 14:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't like how it's written in a box down the side, but as in Talk:Evolution, there needs to be links to the same old rehashed discussions, so that we don't rehash the same old discussions.  I actually like easily finding the archives, especially when someone needs a reference source.  But I don't like the box down the side, not to rehash something.  Orangemarlin 16:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the organised archive here is the inspiration for the one over at Evolution.  I believe this one is largely the work of Ec5618.  Guettarda 18:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA 

message: Take a look at  and . Think we can squeeze something like these in?--Filll 23:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the Templeton Foundation? Orangemarlin 01:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Templeton Foundation funds religious research and scholarship. They funded the Discovery Institute when it started some years back. They were not very happy with the results they obtained-lots of promises, but turned out to be political hot air instead of serious research. Just basically jerks and crooks. So they lost their funding.--Filll 01:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: They also offered to fund ID research, but there were no takers.  It's referenced somewhere in the archives.  Guettarda 14:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Amazing Templeton Foundation guidelines on ID

message: I wasn't the one to remove it, but I'd like to point out to anyone readding it that doing so is not fair use, and is a legal liability for wikipedia.  i kan reed 18:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Time magazine image 

message: The lead section of this article is particulary good, and does exactly what a lead section should in summing up all the information about intelligent design. This might sound weird but I think it might be a little two heavily referenced. Most of the references mentioned there will be used later on in the article (maybe I should have finished reading it :p), and personally so many references so early on is both distracting and slightly unattractive. I feel lead sections should be alot like abstracts, which don't reference at all. Though in this case you would put the reference in if it is not used again.
Uh, just a thought! (a Mentally Efficient Loonies And Nice Insane Elephants creation 19:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, without them the statements are regularly challenged, hence the somewhat excessive use of references.  Guettarda 19:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Shame people can't be bothered to read the rest of the article to find them :p(a Mentally Efficient Loonies And Nice Insane Elephants creation 13:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose we could use "hidden" references in comments. Adam Cuerden talk 20:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's a hidden reference? (a Mentally Efficient Loonies And Nice Insane Elephants creation 13:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comments in the text which don't appear in the article - have a look at the wikicode of the lead, there's one in there.  Guettarda 13:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: In response to the original comment, if you read what the MoS says about the lead section, it appears that lead sections should be referenced.  A lead is a summary of the article, but it isn't an abstract - more like a Micropaedia article.  Guettarda 13:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead Section

message: For those editors for whom the monitoring of this article simply isn't enough of a challenge - might I invite you to wander over to Marriage where there's a heck of a bun fight. 
I think the gang who work here do one of the best jobs on the wiki, and your help would be appreciated - thanks folks! Petesmiles 23:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow.  That wasn't fun to read.  I'll stay here :)  By the way, there are many other controversial articles that work out.  First of all, you need to train editors who have an agenda to learn NPOV.  Second, you need to drink wine.  Lots of it.  Orangemarlin 23:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  i've pretty much have given up on it.  when you know your own POV is NPOV, what's there to learn? r b-j 18:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a level of arrogance that might not help in discussions.  How can you know your POV is NPOV without getting a consensus.  Orangemarlin 18:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I have found stout beer has a similar effect.  Mr Christopher 23:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And it has all the nutrients for strength and stamina.  Orangemarlin 18:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, it's better now than last november, when it simply stated that "A marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman, usually recognized by civil authority and/or bound by the religious beliefs of the participants."  -- Ec5618 14:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is much worse than the stuff going on here.  Orangemarlin 18:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  i fail to see how the present machinations are better than that.  (but it is a pretty bad lead sentence.) r b-j 18:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not difficult enough? 

message: Piotrus raised the issue that the article didn't cover the attitude to ID outside of the US, the UK and AUS.  While I think this may really be something for the intelligent design movement article, offhand I can't think of much to say about ID outside of these three countries (there's the guy in Turkey, but I can't say I have read much about a movement there.  Surely there is an impact in other countries, via the internet if nothing else, but how much documentation is there of any of this?  Guettarda 14:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was an article in le Monde a couple of years ago, but it was about one presentation which failed to do anything but amuse the French. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose there's this story    (second story) - I had forgotten about it.  Guettarda 14:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, here's something in Germany , Turkey , Canada , some weird creationism from Poland ... So how do we use this in a way that's proportionate?  Guettarda 14:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest the global influence go under the inteligent design movement and not this article.  Only because the primary focus on this article seems to be ID itself.  Perhaps the movment article needs to be broadened. Mr Christopher 15:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I perked up at the link to Canada, but having read the article I'm not sure it applies. It appears that a social science funding organization used some odd wording in rejecting a grant application and the researcher in question jumped on them for it. I don't really see any indication that his claim is correct, that the organization in question is harboring ID proponents. Mountain? Molehill? YOU be da judge! Maury 15:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I find it hard to believe that there isn't an active ID community in Canada - after all, the DI is based in Seattle, which is practically a suburb of Vancouver, at least on a world map.  Guettarda 16:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Next you'll be saying that Detroit isn't a suburb of Windsor.  Guettarda 18:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope (FAC) 

message: Attention admins at this page: I wanted to bring it to your attention that ResearchID.org has a hyperlink under "ID perspectives" on this article., and that this may be a violation of Wikipedia standards of notoriety. I want the admins here to be aware that I, the founder of ResearchID.org, had nothing to do with this, and that to my knowledge this link addition did not originate from our admins or members. Please take any necessary actions in accord with Wikipedia standards of notoriety.
Of course, I do not mind that ResearchID.org is linked on the ID article. And I think that ResearchID.org has more potential than some of the sites listed. I must also add that, beyond any doubt in my own mind, ResearchID.org is much more important to the topic of ID than the link to the page on the Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site.
I do not think we have attained the level of notoriety necessary to be linked here YET. Most importantly, I do not want to give the appearance, even for a moment, that we at ResearchID.org have acted inappropriately towards this ID article, or Wikipedia, in any way.  --Joseph "Joey" C. Campana 14:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall anyone complaining about that site being linked under "ID persepctives". ... Kenosis 16:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify a potential area of confusion here - the standards for inclusion as an external link are at WP:EL, and are fairly relaxed; I don't see any obvious reason why ResearchID might fail them, as it seems (on a cursory examination, admittedly) to have "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors."  Joseph might be worried about the much stricter standards of WP:WEB, but those are for articles about individual websites, not merely articles which reference websites. Tevildo 20:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The website appears to have 78 active members. I don't see much of a reason to include it at this time. JoshuaZ 21:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, maybe 78 users is nothing to sneeze at. My understanding is the average readership for blogs across the entire web is, when rounded off to the nearest whole number, a whopping one-reader-per-blog. ... Kenosis 21:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but the author doesn't count.  ;) •Jim62sch• 22:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's safe to say that this particular link isn't a controversial issue.  My comment above just expresses my view that we're not obliged to remove it under the terms of WP:EL; I wouldn't say that I actively want to keep it.  However, if anyone actively wants to remove it, then I'm sure its departure wouldn't cause a fuss. Tevildo 22:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we ought to keep it. WP is supposed to be a useful source of information, including its links, and frankly I find the links in WP very useful. WP can function like an annotated google search, which is extremely convenient, although I know that is not the intent of WP. I do not really care about the WP intent, what I care about is usefulness, and it is useful to include links like ResearchID.org.--Filll 00:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With all that has been said here, it would seem that the link to ResearchID.org is a permissible (but not-yet-having-enough-notoriety to be strictly permanent) inclusion in the list of links. Given this, would anyone object to me changing the label of the link from "Research Intelligent Design" to "ResearchID.org"?  --Joseph "Joey" C. Campana 16:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have heard no objections here for two days now, so I will change the link label to show "ResearchID.org" --Joseph "Joey" C. Campana 18:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to ResearchID.org 

message: This website is full of information on ID in Turkey, and would help us have more of a whole-world perspective. Adam Cuerden talk 10:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This does not appear to be ID per se, but creationism generally. ID is primarily an issue in the United States, an attempt to bypass the Establishment Clause of the First amendment, and in particular the 1987 decision Edwards v. Aguilard.  The material put forward by the NCSE in that link would be more appropriate to note in creationism, the creation-evolution debate, or other similar article, or alternately in a separate topic fork linked to from such an article.  ... Kenosis 12:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Edis makes the point that he is surprised that there isn't more ID in Islamic creationism, because Islam isn't hamstrung by a Genesis narrative.  Guettarda 14:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a very interesting article, and I would recommend it to everyone.--Filll 01:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wider focus 

message: I note that the KSB has now voted to remove ID from the curriculum - which article is best for noting these kind of changes? 
BTW thanks to whoever posted the link to the Marriage article discussion - now I've got something else to amuse myself reading during the slack moments at work (although nothing yet tops the Death Star discussion IMHO) Tomandlu 16:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This spot comes to mine [Kansas evolution hearings] Mr Christopher 16:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  many tnx - article updated.... Tomandlu 17:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kansas School Board 

message: ... a book by Owen Gingerich, an astronomer, Harvard prof, and theist, called "God's Universe" that takes issue with both the Dawkins's and the DIers (not to be confused with IDers).  i think that the article injects POV when it insists that any present day scientist who believes in "design" is part of or associates with or is even sympathetic to the DI.  some scientists accept, on a philosophical level the concept of "design", yet still reject both the scientific assertions and the political positions (regarding education, the bogus "teach the controversy" thing) of the DI.
just something to think about.  i have no intention of attacking this article.  but my experience here and with Fine-tuned universe is that there is a little bit of systemic bias that causes the article to misrepresent what some people are saying. r b-j 18:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But intelligent design isn't a simple argument for the concept of design, but that such design is scientifically demonstrable.  That's what this article is about.  And, as far as I can tell, all of the major proponents of this idea are associated with the DI.  Guettarda 18:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  there have been some hijacking of terminology.  it's not the first time "Christian" "Fundamentalists" (both quotes are independently meaningful) have hijacked perfectly good terms and turned them into excrement. r b-j 02:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Since I'm too lazy to read the whole article trying to find it, r b-j, could you please point out where the article "insists that any present day scientist who believes in "design" is part of or associates with or is even sympathetic to the DI." .. ? ...... dave souza, talk 21:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "... its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute..."  can't this be toned down to "most", or better yet, can there be something in the lead that differentiates the common theistic Teleological argument from the DI crap? r b-j 02:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There are many "design" and "teleological" arguments that have floated around for centuries. But the version called "intelligent design", aside from a very few historical antecedants, is almost exclusively associated with the DI. I bet [[Owen Gingerich does not call his ideas "intelligent design" in his book, does he?--Filll 01:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  he does but with a small "i" and a small "d".  he says that the DI guys are basically full of crap (my interpretation) and that, from the other end, it's not just bad science but bad theology (but he qualifies himself as an amateur theologian).  he basically says that the mindless probabilistic models that create complicated molecules for life are, by themselves, not persuasive (P = 10-321) and supports the common teleological explanation for the existence of such stuff. r b-j 02:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BTW, i'm reading ... 

message: It seems a Texas law maker was sending around a letter to other Texas law makers promoting teaching creationism/intelligent design and dogging evolution in Texas public schools.  He failed to actually read some of the propaganda he was distributing and it turns out one was promoting the idea that Jews are behind evolution and its a Jewish scheme to undermine Christianity ("The memo points to "indisputable evidence" that "evolution science has a very specific religious agenda" and refers readers to a Web site that asserts the universe revolves around the earth. It also suggests that Jewish physicists are part of the force behind a "centuries-old conspiracy" to destroy the Christian teachings of Earth's origins.")   This is one of those many "whoopsie" moments we see amongst the ID supporting politicians.  Anyhow, I thought it was an yet another interesting example of how many ID advocates don't really understand or bother to read what it is they are advocating.  Read it here.  Mr Christopher 20:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Warren Chisum, the lawmaker in question seems to be more of a creationist than an IDer so I'm not sure how relevant it is here. Anyways, I already added a note in his article about it. Feel free to expand it, since I was very brief. JoshuaZ 20:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is where it all started (from yesterday) Memo: Stop teaching evolution House Appropriations Committee Chairman Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, used House operations Tuesday to deliver a memo from Georgia state Rep. Ben Bridges. The memo assails what it calls "the evolution monopoly in the schools." Mr. Bridges' memo claims that teaching evolution amounts to indoctrinating students in an ancient Jewish sect's beliefs....  And you're right, it may make a better home in the evolution article or creationism or even blunders. :-) Mr Christopher 20:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: creation-evolution controversy maybe? I enjoyed his "don't blame me, I was doing it as a favour for a friend"... Guettarda 20:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I am an idiot or something, I cannot find Ben Bridge's article. Did anyone add this? The AJC link is probably better for his update. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I dont think Bridges has one yet. Not surprising since he is a state rep. JoshuaZ 01:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Now I'm officially sickened by these people.  So Chisum is either stupid or a racist.  Good job Texas.  You really know how to pick those politicians of yours.  OK, you did give us LBJ.  And I hope maybe some of you understand when I fear these Christian Taliban members represented by Creationists.  The cultural memory of 2000 years of hatred of Jews by  some Christians seems to have not evolved.  Great.  Orangemarlin 02:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: A reminder that this page is for discussing article content and how to improve the article, not vent our opinions about politicians. JoshuaZ 02:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmmm.  OK, sure, let's put this right in this article to remind everyone of the hatred they have.  Orangemarlin 02:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should go somewhere, but to put it into one of the main articles is POV, because it implies that most creationists think this way, for which there is no evidence. Indeed, the US Christian religious right tends to support Judaism for various doctrinal reasons of their own. The place to use it is on the article for the individuals who used it. If the State Senator doesn't have a WP yet, now he will deserve one.  Let one's opponents be the fools. Over-reacting makes them feel righteous.  DGG 05:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: AGF. The message was not that my opponents are or will be fools, but that my friends should not heedlessly put themselves in the position of looking a little foolish themselves. I think that the opponents of evolution show great restraint in not complaining about some of the language on this talk page. 06:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This material and similar material belongs someplace, but not necessarily here. Definitely on the politician's pages if they have them. Maybe a new article? I notice that there are a few fundamentalist Christian sects (dominionism and some others) that favor supporting Israel because they hope it will bring about Argmageddon and the Rapture and other assorted nonsense that mostly came out of a fevered dream of a young girl sick in bed in the early 1800s. And there is a branch of Shiites (including Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) that hopes to have some sort of cataclysm to bring about the coming of the 12th Imam. Are there other religious sects that have a sort of "paradise will result if we can bring about a disasterous end of the world" philosophy?--Filll 14:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, it has already been added to the Warren Chisum page. JoshuaZ 17:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI ; adds some more context.  Apparently Bridges and Hall were involved in trying to ban the teaching of evolution in GA in 2005.  Which reminds me...do we have an article on the GA textbook disclaimer thing?  Guettarda 18:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's here: Selman v. Cobb County School District. 151.151.21.99 19:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: the sound of a back fire

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Level of support for evolution Please comment. --ScienceApologist 19:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The decision there was that this article was keep   DGG 21:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? I've no objection to keeping or deleting.  But this has only been under discussion for two days, and does not appear to properly be a candidate for a "speedy keep". There were many opinions expressed thus far on both sides of that issue. Why do admins so often make these kinds of hasty judgments without allowing the community the full reasonable range of their input?? ... Kenosis 21:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point had to do with the sometimes premature implementation of "speedy keep" prior to the 7-day minimum normally alloted for community discussion. I just ran across an instance of this happening at Category:Articles with unsourced statements.  But I see the discussion is still ongoing in this instance-- sorry, I took it as closed based on DGG's comment above. ... Kenosis 23:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's a clear keep - the article may not be entirely encyclopaedic, but it's well written and well researched. Any other decision would have been pedantic IMHO. Tomandlu 22:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The discussion still looks live, as of now: no indication of a decision or of the discussion being archived. .. dave souza, talk 23:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New AfD

message: I've added a section on "Status of Intelligent Design elsewhere" to deal with a suggestion in the Featured Article candidacy, but it could use a bit more work. Please help. Also, what do you think of temporarily removing the section on Intelligence to the talk page, so that we can work on it without it delaying the FA? Adam Cuerden talk 05:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I adjusted this material to include a treatment of the international status generally, with subsections on UK, Australia, and "other nations".  I left the material added by Adam untouched except for the resectioning here.  This all takes into consideration, of course, that ID is primarily a response to the 1987 US Supreme Court decision Edwards v. Aguilard. ... Kenosis 05:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adam, I would point out to a user advocating a non-US-centric treatment as an expectation for this article, that the relevant information is already in the article. “Intelligent design” is a response to Edwards v. Aguilard (U.S. Supr. Ct., 1987), which prevented U.S. states from enacting legislation to teach creation science or creationism in the publlic schools, while allowing that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."  Within two to three years of this decision, the intelligent design movement had begun to publish its first books (Charles Thaxton’s Of Pandas and People, which changed uses of the word “creationism” to the words “intelligent design”, published in 1989; and Phillip E. Johnson’s book Darwin on Trial, published in 1991, with the Discovery Institute founded in 1990, etc.). ... Kenosis 16:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Adam Cuerden talk 17:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Is there any link between the Letizia Moratti affair and ID or ID proponents?  Or was it simple creationism?  Guettarda 15:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to "Anti-evolutionists raise their profile in Europe" in the journal Nature, she removed evolution from the curriculum because it "promoted materialism". That's more of a Creationist line. Adam Cuerden talk 17:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Materialism" is a key word for the whole DI CSC/wedge strategy, so it works as well for ID as other creationism.  Guettarda 02:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Interesting find, but a 3.5-year-old press release, noting the first non-US IDEA club isn't really evidence of great deeds, especially given the final line: For more information about the IDEA Club at Braeside High School in Nairobi, Kenya, please contact Caleb O. Seda at .  Hmm...when I type "." into the address line of Thunderbird, nothing happens.  Is it a bug in my software? :)  Guettarda 04:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like Seda has moved up in the world  Guettarda 04:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Full list of international clubs  - one in Kenya (links to press release), one in the Philipines (press release + dead link), one in Ukraine (link leads back to "About student clubs"), one in Canada, which has a live website which asks you to stay tuned for summer events.  Guettarda 04:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of Intelligent Design elsewhere 

message: Zleitzen suggested condensing some of the footnotes down in the lead, into single references (except, of course, the ones that are cited more than once.  It seems reasonable, per readability.  Any objections?  Guettarda 21:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully support this. Adam Cuerden talk 06:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Condensing footnotes 

message: The article includes many criticisms of ID from a scientific perspective. It would benefit from a semantic criticism. The quote "undirected process such as natural selection" is a semantic confusion between "undirected" and "randomly directed". Further the semantics actually lead to a theological criticism which in light of the controvecy the article would also benefit from including. The criticism in full:
Natural selection does not deny that creation is directed. It proposes a mechanism by which random events interact to create. The key failure of those who reject natural selection is their failure to grasp what is meant by the term "random". A random sequence of events is one whose information content is infinite. God being omniscient is quite capable of infinite knowledge of an event. Humans on the other hand cannot predict the outcome of a random event because that would require them to be omniscient. Thus random events are distinguished from events that have finite information content, i.e. those knowable by humans.
By rejecting the role that randomness plays in creation, anti-evolutionists are claiming that creation takes place through events that only contain finite information and are thus knowable by individuals. Thus they deny the need for an omniscient presence in the process all together.
In other words, not only are the anti-evolutionists not proposing empirical science they are, through their lack of understanding, arguing against the need for an omniscient, omnipresent God. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.203.4.2 (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you cite an authority who wrote something to that effect? —xyzzyn 20:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There might be references we could find that demonstrate that the God advocated by creationists and Intelligent design advocates is a weak and error prone bumbler. The reason they do this however is a frantic desire for God to be understandable and personally involved in day to day events. However, I am not sure that this discussion belongs in this article.--Filll 00:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The criticism that anti-evolutionists deny the omniscience of God 

message: "Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God..." sayeth Wikipedia. Really? I thought that was the teleological argument. Intelligent design is a claim that an "intelligence" created the universe "by design". The creationists who advocate it are careful to keep the door open a crack so that it isn't just about proving God's existence. --71.57.90.96 10:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree that the phrasing is a little dogmatic (although essentially true). How about "Intelligent design, whenever examined by US courts, has been found to be an argument for the existence of God..."? Tomandlu 10:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about "Intelligent Design is an attempt by certain US religous institutions to circumvent various court rulings that prevent teaching Creationism in US science classes?" That seems to be a pretty accurate summary. SheffieldSteel 00:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or: "Intelligent design is a legal strategy specifically designed to circumvent the U.S. Supreme Court's 1987 ruling in Edwards v. Aguilard, which prevented teaching creationism as an alternative to evolution in public school science classes.". It could give the whole article a fresh start-- a bit more honest and direct about the verified facts. ... Kenosis 01:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  all of these things are true (in my opinion), but why not let people say what they mean (and pick it apart later)?  the lead sentence is nearly inflammatory anti-ID POV.  is it not obvious?  (as obvious that ID as science is a load of crap?) r b-j 05:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is not obvious, and it is not solely a personal POV of any of the participants in this page.  What it is is thoroughly verified by WP:reliable sources in the scientific and legal communities.  This article has been discussed more thoroughly than nearly any article on the wiki.  It is highly restrained in its judgments, thouroughly sourced with nearly 150 footnotes, and has been repeatedly gone over by numerous participants with an exteremely fine-toothed comb.  The term "intelligent design" was only evident in modern discourse after Charles Thaxton changed roughly a hundred instances of the word "creationism" to "intelligent design" in a later draft of the 1989 book Of Pandas and People.  This, and the events that followed, were in direct response to the Supreme Court decision Edwards v. Aguilard.  The court in Kitzmiller v. Dover ruled that it was not science but instead an argument for the existence of God, and therefore could not be taught as an alternative to evolution in public school science classes in the US.  The opening statement, and indeed the entire article, is quite consistent with the verified sources concerning the subject.  ... Kenosis 05:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kenosis, even though it is my judgement as well that ID is, in the final analysis, a Teleological argument, and is not science.  and i am completely sympathetic with detractors that are alarmed that they want to put this in the science or biology classroom, it is really not good faith to define a person or a group of people, not as they define themselves, but in a negative analysis of them.  i may think that Republicans are crooks and hypocrites (and i do in most cases), but to go to the article on the Republican party and define in the lead that it is the party of crooks and hypocrites (rather than the party that supports less government, strong military, free enterprise, family values, whatever) is obviously POV.  let people define for themselves who they say they are.  THEN deconstruct it, if the evidence allows (which it does, in my opinion). r b-j 05:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I agreed with earlier versions of the article, but this was changed by a fairly strong consensus in recent months, which decided to "cut right to the chase", so to speak. If the article is to read differently then it should be re-consensused. ... Kenosis 06:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: just say, very briefly and concisely, what IDers say that ID is (they've coined the term, they get to define the term they've coined otherwise i'm gonna go define Republicans as lying stinking bastards - but somehow, i don't think that edit would stick).  and then, immediately say what science and/or the courts or whatever say that ID is.  that will capture the controversy (not in science, there is no controversy there, but in the overall political millue) in a nutshell. r b-j 07:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but if we spend a little time selecting quotes, we'll probably hit consensus faster. Anyway, the front page is hard to edit with all those reference tags interrupting the flow, so we'll save a lot of grief by planning it out here. So... suggested quotes? Adam Cuerden talk 07:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  I wouldn;t object to some version of RtG's that started as "according to its proponents...", semicolon, and then the part about it being an argument for the existence of God. Or some similar arrangedment. JoshuaZ 07:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Astonishment at the first phrase of the article

message: Great work, everyone! Only wish I had done more - my role in the FA is miniscule. Adam Cuerden talk 13:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations and well done all – from someone whose role in the FA was nil, since y'all seem to be doing pretty well here without my less well informed attention. The article's been excellent for a long time, and recent changes have made modest but useful improvements. ... dave souza, talk 09:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done!  That's excellent work.  I'd long ago given up on it ever being possible (despite the article's quality), so am another negligible contributor.  It certainly should give hope to editors working on similarly controversial subjects.  Again - fantastic!  --Plumbago 09:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made precisely one edit, so I didn't do much.  It's hard to edit something that is so disgusting to me personally.  But it really is a great article, if you want to know how the anti-science fringe thinks.  I'm curious as to why it is categorized under FA as "Philosophy."  Anyone have any ideas?  Orangemarlin 17:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huzzah! FA! 

message: From the Panda's Thumb:
:For a recent example of ID proponents from the Discovery Institute making conflicting statements for political effect, consider these DI statements made in August 2005:
:Discovery Institute’s William Dembski, August 4, 2005
:* President Bush is therefore completely on target in wanting intelligent design taught in the public school science curriculum.
:Discovery Institute’s John West, August 8th, 2005
:*Discovery Institute opposes any effort to mandate the teaching of design. All it is asking for is the teaching of scientific criticisms of modern Darwinian theory as well as the best evidence for the theory. 
he teaching of design Santorum shines
Perhaps the article should say that Panda's Thumb asserts that ID propononts have made conflicting statements about the teaching of ID in public schools: Dembski is for it; West says the D.I. is against it. --Uncle Ed 17:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflicting statements about ID

message: I've made a few invisible changes to the introduction, using HTML comments to make it easier to find the text in between the references. I've flipped between the two versions repeatedly and can find no difference in display of the text outside of the edit window. Adam Cuerden talk 15:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invisible changes 

message: After parsing through the ad-hominems and arguments about article tone in comparison to certain other article(s) on the wiki, this is what I see as substantive in the section above.  Rbj has proposed that the article lead read as follows:
Intelligent design is the belief that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." It has been determined by scientific consensus to be a pseudo-science, not adhering to the scientific method, and by legal ruling to be "not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God." Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life and have stated goals for the teaching of ID alongside of Darwinian evoluton as a plausible alternative to evolution. Opponents understand this as a disguised strategy to reintroduce Creationism to the classroom after being banned from state supported education by the Edwards v. Aguillard ruling. 
Sure, if the consensus had been to write it this way, it would presently read this way, with clusters of footnotes and wikis wedged in there.  Fair enough.  The only thing new that I see here is a proposal by Rbj for the inclusion of the specific statement that opponents understand ID as a "disguised strategy to reintroduce creationism to the classroom after being banned from state supported education by the Edwards v. Aguillard ruling." Yes, we can find citations enough to include this in the lead, I imagine.  But to me it gives the appearance, at this stage in time, of being more negative in tone than the present lead.  I'd be interested to see how the participating editors would phrase such a sentence so as to make clear that ID is a legal strategy in the article lead, assuming of course that a consensus could ultimately be achieved to include this insight that early in the article ... merely hypothetically at this point in time. ... Kenosis 15:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. We might get more support with "However, opponents claim this is a disguised stratagy..."  Adam Cuerden talk 19:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  it's fine by me.  i reiterate that it was an example of how to set a decently NPOV tone, not as a vebatim (and referenced) proposal  Kenosis seemed to ignore that. r b-j 05:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Given the wedge document, how is it disguised?Trishm 22:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wedge Document was not intended for public consumption; it was leaked. ... Kenosis 01:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  on that we certainly agree. r b-j 05:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am aware of the leak.  The question is is it still disguised?  Isn't it blatant once you have read the Wedge strategy?  Or do we pretend the game is the same, and ignore unintended leaks?Trishm 22:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rbj's proposal

message: I moved the Behe testimony in the intro out of the section dedicated to the the scientific community's  response of to ID to the following paragraph. As an notable ID proponent Behe is not part of the greater scientific community, meaning his testimony was out of place in that section. I shifted it to the next section, the Dover trial, which makes more sense seeing Dover is where Behe gave his testimony. FeloniousMonk 06:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved Behe testimony in intro 

message: I broadly support the article as it stands - but i wonder if there might be an opportunity to make something clearer. What people seem to either misunderstand or not accept is what the article is about - does this opening offer any benefits in terms of clarity at the lead?
'Inteligent Design is a term coined by members or affiliates of the DI in early 1990s, and is an argument.... current article continues.....
whaddya reckon? - Petesmiles 02:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's gets the sequence wrong.  ID predates the DI.  Guettarda 02:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes - DI ID predates the DI :)  Guettarda 02:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Spade is a spade after all.... 

message: If a science-teacher in the US wanted to explain why ID violated principle of science (not falsifiable etc.), would they be able to do so? i.e. given that judge jones at kitzmiller said ID was essentially religious, would that mean that science-teachers could not discuss it as bad science?
This is decidedly OT for this discussion page, but if anyone has any particular insight, etc. please add to my talk page. tnx Tomandlu 22:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not?  There's nothing wrong with discussing ID, just with teaching it as science.  Guettarda 13:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: OT RFC regarding sep of church and state and ID

message: I've just visited Philip's talk page (having posted there, and I'm afraid taken ages to check back in - sorry, Philip..) - and reading the comments above reinforces my thinking that we might be served by making a small change.....
here's another attempt that might help (further to my previous in the Spade section above....)
'Inteligent Design is a term made notable by members or affiliates of the DI in early 1990s, and is an argument.... current article continues.....
does that help? cheers, Petesmiles 02:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do you propose this addition?  Guettarda 04:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...another gentle attempt to make it clearer.... 

message: you know, first impression is that it's pretty good.... I think i like it! (will cogitate further.....) Petesmiles 02:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well, if you continue to feel that way, i hope you defend it (and/or improve it) because there are some hard-core POV pushers here who fancy themselves as NPOV (cough, cough) who will certainly act to revert it.  i cannot defend this by myself.  also i have no need for it to be left verbatim, only that the previous blatent POV intro be toned down. r b-j 02:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, most editors don't.  And I guess you'll accuse us of being hard-core POV pushers.  Nice.  Orangemarlin 03:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  you can't call it "consensus" and if you counted all of the editors who pop in here and complain about the bias in the article, i doubt the use of the word "most" in addition. i'm done with it for the day. r b-j 03:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Make inflammatory edits, then claim that anyone who reverts it is a POV pusher - a classical case of Poisoning the well Raul654 03:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  it's not inflammatory, but the intro that you guys keep insisting on putting in there is.  r b-j 03:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  and it's mistaken to say it's Poisoning the well, because i have been repeatedly bringing this up ever since i discovered the new POV version (and variants).  the judgement of hard-core POV pushing is evident from the POV intro that violates multiple WP guidelines regarding NPOV in tone as well as insinuation that one particular side is the "correct" side came from earlier discussion.  it is after the fact, not pre-emptory. r b-j 03:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It is inaccurate and uses the rhetoric of ID promoters; therefore it is less neutral, not more. 151.151.21.100 17:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  rbj's opening.... 

message: As having two info boxes on one page often leads to bad behaviour (click the "hide" button on the table of contents, and they bunch up hideously) can I suggest we either make the creationism, evolution, and intelligent design templates the same width, so they can be put in a holding box together; or make combined templates for use wherever needed? Any thoughts? Adam Cuerden talk 03:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha! Fixed! Adam Cuerden talk 04:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info boxes 

message: I've read the chat above - and i think there's actually a bit of progress being made....
Re : Kenosis' point about Opponents - could we substitute 'others'? - i see what you mean that to refer to an 'opponents' perspective sounds like those people are somehow biased or involved.
Re : Guettarda - you say that the newer intro is fundamentally better, but that we should change the universe link - I quite agree - does that sum up your input?
Re : Adam - you mention that perhaps the criticism isn't strong enough, and that the references are a bit broken. Obviously if the references are no longer relevant then we need to fix them - which doesn't seem insurmountable. My thoughts on the criticism are that it's actually better to have it in the first para than left to the second - and it's only an introduction, so an indication that the criticism exists, and where it comes from is good for me....
Re : Dave - as you probably remember, I was one of the folk who really didn't like calling ID a concept, because i felt that conflated the age-old thinking with the DI too much... but somehow i don't read this intro in that way. I guess I feel that it's accurate - as rbj said in his own...er.. unique... way ID is exactly that belief... and I don't think it comes across as therefore by definition making the Pope an IDer... I'm still a little undecided on this though....
anyways... My reading of most points above is that we may get consensus for a modified version of rbj's intro - cheers all for now.... Petesmiles 00:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Newer = the current version, not to older one that was changed a few months ago.  Guettarda 01:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No, not really.  I don't see any way to satisfy Rbj, since his conception of what ID is lies outside of the scope of the article.  He says that ID is a belief.  No, it isn't.  It's a hypothesis, and what purports to be a new way of doing science...a way of science that allows us to prove the existence of God (or at least, of a god or gods).  What Elliott Sober calls "mini-ID", the most minimalistic form of ID, which is designed to pass the Edwards standard and be acceptable all stripes of creationists, from YECs, to OECs, to theistic evolutionists, says simply that "some things" are too complicated to have evolved without "intelligent guidance" (which, it is pretty easily demonstrated, is and can only be God), and we can prove it.  Without the last bit, ID cannot hope to call itself scientific, but by its very presence, it becomes a form of the teleological argument.  Of course, there's a lot of ID beyond "mini-ID", so simply using a mini-ID definition not only fails NPOV (since it reports slogan as fact), it also fails because it doesn't fully and accurately describe the pro-ID positions.  The property of all views of ID is that it is an argument for the existence of God, even if the DI is wishy-washing in their official language describing it to the world.  Guettarda 04:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Raspor. Welcome back. Not really...... dave souza, talk 13:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  my take on the chat above...... 

message: This is a really great article. It is extremely informative, and very well documented.  However, it needs to be branched a little, to reduce the length and make individual topics easier to find, easier to expand upon.  The branches themselves can then be referenced from elsewhere. I have been working on Jewish reactions to intelligent design.  I modified the box.  How about Scientist reactions to intelligent design, mainstream protestant, Catholic, etc?  More pictures would break the article and make it easier to read, helping readers to keep their eyes in the right location, and helping the reader use a scroll bar to skim through the article. --Metzenberg 07:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Scientific reactions to" is dangerous: It strongly risks POV fork, with only criticism in it and only praise in the main article. Undue Weight means we have to make it clear that, in the relevant field, ID is a fringe opinion and evolution widely accepted; I'm not sure how we could do that with only a summary of the scientific viewpoint, or how the scientific reaction page wouldn't have to repeat the ID arguments in order to explain the criticism, making them cover much the same ground. What about something more tangental; a part of the scientific opposition that goes on a bit too long, say? Adam Cuerden talk 08:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Adam is right. Separating the scientific community's reception of ID to a subarticle with nothing more than a paragraph or two summary here would create a POV fork and gives the minority view (those of ID proponents) undue weight. We already have List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design.FeloniousMonk 16:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the list of scientific organizations works perfectly here as a reaction to scientists. I would consider the scientific organizations that support intelligent design more appropriately categorized as religious organizations. --Metzenberg 04:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no scientific organisations that support ID, AFAIK.  Guettarda 05:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Branching this article 

message: I noticed that the criticism of IC is longer than the description of it. If you go to the evolution article, it contains no criticism. The whole ID article is littered with criticism that is not useful. I know people hate this topic but it should be informative and NPOV and should be reduced. Wyatt 15:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Evolution article is on a subject widely accepted in the scientific community. ID and all related concepts have been trashed repeatedly by them. Have a look at the section of WP:NPOV on Undue Weight. Adam Cuerden talk 16:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Adam is again correct. Also, you're selectively citing only part of the policy. Please read WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience. It says "The task before us ...is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." Since ID and IC claim to be not just scientific but better science than evolution but are both considered pseudoscience by actual scientists, the amount of article real estate given over to the reception of IC by the scientific community (which you term criticism) is appropriate, perhaps even too short given the complete rejection of IC by the scientific community. FeloniousMonk 16:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irreducible Complexity 

message: If you want a good laugh compare and contrast the comments of the editors of this article with the same editor's comments regarding the so-called Jesus Myth. On this page the only thing that matters is the consensus opinion. But on the Jesus Myth page the consensus of a billion Christians is less important than the musings of a bit of Wiki-original research.  It's really quite funny to see how easily the exact same editors speak from both sides of their mouth. ElderStatesman 00:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compare and Contrast 

message: Does this need restoring?
136[["Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America's Soul," Ecco/HarperCollins, , [February 2007]
]]
:Maybe it was intended as a See Also? SheffieldSteel 23:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TBH, I wouldn't mind seeing a brief "further reading" section somewhere around the bottom of the article.  No doubt it'll involve some debates about what to include, but such a section could be useful to readers interested in further research in text rather than online. ... Kenosis 03:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Further reading" seems to fit, according to Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Further_reading.2FExternal_links - I've added one in and put this title in it. Tomandlu 09:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference edit

message: A bit OT, but I was amused to spot that the library of congress always equates intelligent design with teleology... search for "intelligent design" as a keyword, then take a look at the subjects/content tab for any relevant book. Tomandlu 12:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fascinating.  For once the government gets it right.  Use this link to do your LoC search.  Mr Christopher 20:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intelligent Design, teleology and the lib of congress

message: As someone who doesn't find intelligent design terribly compelling (though I am a Christian), I think this page is a piece of crap.  It's interesting that the page on voodoo is much more respectful and even-handed in the handling of its subject than this one is.  As a result, the voodoo page is also much more informative.  I think the people who created this page should step back and let some fresh voices take over.  Maybe a new first sentence should be constructed (perhaps something like "Intelligent design is the idea that the complexity of the universe is best explained by the existence of an intelligent creator"), and go from there.
As it stands, it should be called "Objections to Intelligent Design".
:This issue (or similiar) comes up all the time. Voodoo, afaik, is not trying to overturn science by, for example, suggesting that pathologists are ignoring zombies. This article deals with the controversy because there is one. That doesn't rule out bias in the article, and by all means propose meaningful changes that might reduce that bias. However, trying to remove the controversy would be inappropriate Tomandlu 16:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you believe the people behind intelligent design are trying to take over science, that's still hardly justification for not even allowing one sentence of a NPOV before the editorializing comes in.  --Kgroover 13:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Intelligent Design is not trying to do anything. Intelligent Design is a concept. Concepts are only dangerous when they are suppressed. P.S. I'm considering switching to Voodooism after reading the Voodoo article. ElderStatesman 17:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought sock puppets evading bans are not allowed to edit. Why are you still here? 151.151.73.168 19:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A determination will be made if he is or not.  An IP check will be done (I guess, I don't know for sure), and if he is one, then so long.  Otherwise, he can edit until he is either cleared or found guilty.  Orangemarlin 19:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ElderStatesman created his account at 20:36 on March 17, just a few hours after FM blocked the 70.108.101.57 sock puppet at 15:59 on March 17. You can request a IP check yourself at WP:RFCU if FM is not around. 151.151.21.103 20:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, User:Everwill has the same article editing pattern  151.151.21.103 20:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal opinion here 

message: I feel as if this should be changed to "Theory of Intelligent Design" --James, La gloria è a dio 22:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Thanks for your input.  Orangemarlin 23:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you do not agree that this is one of te theories out there that talks about how the universe was created? Do not let your POV get in the way of wikipedia being as accurate as it can be. Peace:) --James, La gloria è a dio 23:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: yes, it's not a "theory" in the same sense that General relativity or even evolution (or the historical germ theory of disease) are theories that tie together into a unified form a lot of different observational evidence and also makes testable predictions.  it's a belief and some who believe it want to put it in the same category of scientific, but it isn't that. it can (along with virtually anything) be called a philosophy and even a theology. maybe even a philosophical theory, i dunno.  but it's not a scientific theory because it does not contain the elements of such.r b-j 02:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If ID can be called a theory, cannot the Easter Bunny or any other magical figure be called a theoretical concept?  If you insist on teaching your religion in my classroom, I must insist on also including mine.  We must open each school day with the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of tree worship.--W8IMP 05:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with the above. Intelligent design presents itself as a scientific explanation; however, it does not qualify as a scientific theory and therefore the label is inaccurate. In any case, it is superfluous: intelligent design alone suffices quite nicely. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's look at the intent of James.  He is trying to force the word "theory" onto ID and Creation Science in order to give it equivalence with Evolution.  Nice try, but we're not buying.  Orangemarlin 08:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, Raspor/Everwill.  Whatever you say.  Orangemarlin 19:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Orangemarlin is on solid ground.  The tag on James' sig "La gloria è a dio" is sufficient to betray his reasoning.  •Jim62sch• 11:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: I would greatly appreciate input in discussions surrounding content of Jewish reactions to intelligent design. My interference appears to have gotten this and Jewish opposition to evolution blocked. I apologise. But I think both articles need serious attention less they waltz into OR and essay gray areas.--ZayZayEM 09:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Input appreciated 

message: The Design Argument: David Hume vs. Post-Science: 
One of the oldest and most popular arguments for the existence of God is the design argument – that all the order and 'purpose' in the world bespeaks a divine origin. A modern manifestation of this belief is creationism.
The following debate is from the front page of the Self-Creation.org site of Dr. Hugh Ching, founder of post-science, http://www.self-creation.org and Wikipedia on David Hume http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume
Hume: For the design argument to be feasible, it must be true that order and purpose are observed only when they result from design. But order is observed regularly, resulting from presumably mindless processes like snowflake or crystal generation. Design accounts for only a tiny part of our experience with order and 'purpose'. 
Post-Science: From the post-science discovery of the solution of completely automated software, post-science expects that in one or two thousand years mankind will start to think about creating itself based on a completely automated software. In the process of self-creation, we have to have a design and must decide the purpose of our creation, as whoever created us must have done. However, the problem of completely automated software involves around five hundred, or virtually an unlimited number of, variables, and is about two orders of magnitude more complex than an average problem in science, which has roughly five variables. Post-science, in its reexamination of the existing creation, finds that the current creation has almost at an optimal design, from which post-science finds little which can be surpassed and, thus, conclude that we most likely are also created. In particular, post-science realizes that evil is created as a survival mechanism for the weak to compete against strong, and pain and suffering are designed as warning devises and a way for mankind to learn lessons on non-violable laws of nature in the absence of its creators.
Hume: Furthermore, the design argument is based on an incomplete analogy: because of our experience with objects, we can recognise human-designed ones, comparing for example a pile of stones and a brick wall. But in order to point to a designed Universe, we would need to have an experience of a range of different universes. As we only experience one, the analogy cannot be applied. 
Post-Science: With the permanent creations based on the completely automated software, we will have two types of permanent entities, ours is primitive and the existing seems to be optimal. One example is the solution to touch. Touch is still not even recognized as a problem, but post-science and our creators have it solved. Here, if the solution is correct, is an order of the creation yet undetected, by the people who try to refute creation.
Hume: Even if the design argument is completely successful, it could not (in and of itself) establish a robust theism; one could easily reach the conclusion that the universe's configuration is the result of some morally ambiguous, possibly unintelligent agent or agents whose method bears only a remote similarity to human design. 
Post-Science: Post-science believes that the origin of life starts from unintelligent raw materials. To advance from raw materials to anything intelligent takes almost infinite amount of time, which the universe has. This transient stage of the development of intelligence is based on random chance and is very disorderly. And, mankind would be very unfortunate, if we are still in this transient stage. Post-science believes that our living system is currently in a steady state of self-creation. Post-science would welcome any design which can surpass the existing design of life. However, post-science admits that art, particularly, beauty is still lacking in the creation, but, on the other hand, it realizes that love holds a dominant position in the universe and that our creators rather create those they have loved rather than those who are most beautiful.
Hume: If a well-ordered natural world requires a special designer, then God's mind (being so well-ordered) also requires a special designer. And then this designer would likewise need a designer, and so on ad infinitum. We could respond by resting content with an inexplicably self-ordered divine mind; but then why not rest content with an inexplicably self-ordered natural world? 
Post-Science: Self-creation needs not worry about prior creators. However, self-creation might go on ad infinitum only forward, but not backward in time. Before self-creation is the transient stage of creation. Maybe the next stage of the progress of development of the living system, or the intelligence of the universe, will be the “inexplicably self-ordered natural world" as well as the "divine mind.” 
Hume: Often, what appears to be purpose, where it looks like object X has feature F in order to secure some outcome O, is better explained by a filtering process: that is, object X wouldn't be around did it not possess feature F, and outcome O is only interesting to us as a human projection of goals onto nature. This mechanical explanation of teleology anticipated natural selection. (see also Anthropic principle) 
Post-Science: Self-creation’s purpose is for the future, not the past. With only a few thousands of years of recorded history, post-science is starting to speculate on self-creation. This shortness of the recorded history makes leaving any sign of self-creation unnecessary. Self-creation will include evolution as a design specification in anticipation of uncertainty the design. 
But, before we get too ambitious with our design plan we should understand the existing situation. Sure, post-science would not rule out the possibility of progress, for example, shortening the period of irrationality and suffering from 10,000 years of recorded history, when mankind is conscious of its own suffering, to, say, 1,000 years and making our natural life span longer to or infinity, but the later is in conflict with the former; imagine what can happen if Stalin and Mao had lived much longer or if Hitler were as intelligent as Kant. We can also include paranormal phenomena into out design, but, if self-creation is correct, sometime in the distant past, pain must have been considered a paranormal phenomena before pain was discovered. The first creator to propose the creation of pain must be one of the most ridiculed being in the universe! Today, if I propose to program a computer so that it can feel pain, my proposal will equally be rejected, but the existence pain is already proven.
The following is an explanation of Self-Creation from http://www.Self-Creation.org
The self-creation of the living system should be the goal of our existence, for what we have self-created will be able to do anything we can do. In the process of self-creation, we will know from our own design specifications, the meaning of our lives and the purpose of our existence. 
Self-creation is based on the technology of complete automation, and the goal of complete automation is to self-create the living system. Complete automation starts with the construction of Self-manufactured General Purpose Robots with the ability of touch. The Robots will be programmed with completely automated software. 
The solution to touch is first revealed in the 1978 book "Table Tennis Scientific Analyses" which describe the prolonged contact between a book and a racket during impact. The solution to touch, patents "Completely Automated And Self-generating Software System" Pat. No. 5,485,601 in 1996, and "Quantitative Supply And Demand Model Based On Infinite Spreadsheet" Pat. No. 6,078,901 in 2000 form the foundation for complete automation. 
The vision of self-creation is guided and guaranteed by the existing living system. DNA is the ultimate completely automated software in a chemical computer. Humans represent the optimal model of Self-manufactured General Purpose Robots. 
All the engineering creations of the current scientific culture are created for temporary existence. In particular, software are partially automated and designed for temporary existence. Complete automation deals with permanent entities and analysis extending to infinity in time and space. Our society will become increasingly complex. Complete automation is the solution to unlimited complexity. 
Rational decision-making based on the Infinite Spreadsheet is also the solution to peace, based on rational arbitration. The bulk of current software budget is on maintenance, which can be greatly reduced by the completely automated software. The goal of self-creation narrows down the choices of technologies we should develop. The vision of complete automation should be one of the most important breakthroughs in the coming knowledge economy. 
The technology of complete automation includes the solutions of software, value, and touch based on jumpulse. The Complete Automation Laboratory is headed by Dr. T. L. Kunii (homotopy theory), Prof. C. V. Ramamoorthy (Ram Number of Universal Permanent Numbers), Dr. Hugh Ching (the Infinite Spreadsheet and completely automated software), and the late Dr. Ta-You Wu (Father of Chinese Physics). 
The Laboratory is formed to introduce the concepts of complete automation and permanence to the world, which is currently dominated by the scientific views of temporary creations and partial automation. The Laboratory hopes to move the world from the destructive knowledge of science to the constructive knowledge of post-science. It also hopes that cooperation will replace competition, which is necessary in determining right from wrong only in the absence of the solution to value. 
The belief of self-creation will put life science at center-stage of knowledge. Science uses past phenomena to predict the future and is, therefore, backward looking. Social science is based on value, which depends on future consequences. Social science has to be forward looking. Life science deals with creation and sees the world from the point of view of the creator. 
Most traditional religions are preoccupied with social science and the struggle between good and evil. If the living system is created, it should be all created for good purposes. While religions try to eradicate evil, self-creationism considers evil an important part of creation. From the point of view of life science, evil is created as a survival mechanism for the weak to compete against the strong. Without this survival mechanism, a large part of creatures will perish. Most wars are justified on the principle of the struggle against evil. The elimination of this justification will greatly enhance peace and will allow the rational method of arbitration to replace armed conflicts. With peace, mankind can start to embark on the path of constructive development of our world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chien Yi Lee (talk • contribs) 01:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the lion will lie down with the lamb. But is there a reliable source calling it intelligent design? .... dave souza, talk 01:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I am under the impression that a single bird in the hand is actually worth two in the bush, but what exactly are you talking about, Chien Yi Lee? Mr Christopher 18:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-Creation 

message: I was temporarily confused when I found a completely different discussion on Talk:Intelligent Design, which turns out to be several years old.  I am changing that page to redirect here. -- Cat Whisperer 20:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've merged the histories of that aticle and talk page into this one, although I apologize if anyone noticed that the article disappeared for a few minutes--for some reason the database locked up when I was half-way through, and I then had further issues with my inet connection. In any case it's done now :). AmiDaniel (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on [[Talk:Intelligent Design]]? 

message: [ResearchID.org] is a wiki site on ID, I would recommend it for inclusion in the list of pro-id websites.
:It's a low-volume wiki with a handful of contributors.  What does it have that isn't covered more autoritatively elsewhere?  Guettarda 07:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it's all DI can muster? I'd still hesitate to say i'd actually half-heartedly support its addition to the link list.--ZayZayEM 12:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to belittle Joe Campana's (who's a good guy) effort, but ResearchID is moribund, largely the product of just two or three editors, and not notable as a ID site. Its single claim to fame was when the DI blog linked to an article there once. FeloniousMonk 17:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link Suggestion 

message: Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God,[1] is the very first line of the article. This is refrenced, but is refrenced from a anti-ID person's testimony. There is no such claim made as a part of the ID theory by at least the great majority of ID advocates. Is this even an attempt at neutrality?--Erkin2008 07:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add another one to the list of editors that do not think the first part is neutral.  Several editors have been trying to argue this very point and the article was protected due to the edit war that ensued.  The article states this as a fact, when the reference is only an opinion. Morphh  (talk) 11:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A very notable and neutral opinion, you fail to properly note, I'll point out. Erkin's reasoning, that only ID proponents get to describe what ID is, doesn't follow and isn't supported by policy. FeloniousMonk 16:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Since courts and other neutral observers state that ID is religious dogma, that necessary means a god is involved of some sort.  I guess the alternative is the intelligence are green men from Mars.  To me, they're one in the same, but we're trying to stay neutral.  Sticking with the lead, it does not matter what the affiliation of a reference is, as long as it verifies the statement.  The lead is only calling a spade a spade, not clubs.  Please, without typical histrionics, explain why mentioning that ID is an argument for the existence of G_d violates WP:NPOV in any way?Orangemarlin 15:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I suppose it comes down to sourcing.  Are there sources which deny that ID is a teleological argument?  Guettarda 15:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It comes down to common sense. If it isn't God what is the point of having ID? Even little green man do not disprove evolution. Although Martians may have brought life to earth they are also subject to evolution, how does that constitute an alternative to evolution?Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 16:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "A pyramid scheme is a wonderful opportunity to increase your income for very little work. Pyramid schemes have been criticised in certain quarters and court cases..." What its advocates will publicly say about a thing isn't always the best description of it. SheffieldSteel 16:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does not everyone agree with the definition... "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 part seems to be fact agree with by both parties.  While this part of the sentence is generic fact, the first part is opinion (yes a very notable opinion that is neutral); however, that does not change the fact that it is opinion and there is a differing opinion.  You can't start out the definition of ID stating an opinion as fact and state that it is NPOV.  Go with the basic definition of what ID is and then state the majority opinion and then state the minority opinion.  ID is ... basic def ...  However, ... argument for God... Proponents argue that .... not argument for God...  Why is this such a problem!!!  This does not reduce reduce the argument or make it the proponent definition (it would not say ID is not an argument for God in the first sentence).  It shouldn't make the claim either way in the first sentence and it certainly shouldn't state it as fact.  Second sentence can go into opponent definition and third sentence can describe proponent view. Morphh  (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Majority opinion of ID is that it's junk science, is a religious argument for Creationism, presupposes the existence of a supernatural being and shouldn't be taught in schools.  The minority opinion is yours. Orangemarlin 17:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For one, I never said it was my opinion - I actually think it is junk science and a religious argument as well.  However, this is not the point - you made my point.  Majority opinion, minority opinion.  Currently, the majority opinion is stated as FACT in the lead.  I don't think either should be in the lead sentence... just a common definition.  Morphh  (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ID & A god

message: I don't see why there is so much emphasis that the US Court has ruled it a religious system? I think that is valueable in the context of the Separation of Church and state, but doesnt disprove Intelligent Design. The USA is just one part of the world, and its decisions change, and the Federal Courts have also considered the things like 'in god we trust' as unconstitutional. I think this shouldnt be in the header, and many in a "equal time in schools" section. Wyatt 21:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jones is an independent observer who summarised the material - thus, it's a good, neutral source.  That's why the Kitzmiller ruling is a useful source.  Guettarda 21:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science, Wyatt, and you'll learn a little. .. dave souza, talk 22:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason is that it confirms that ID is a religious doctrine and not science.  It's from a neutral, verified source (what better source than a court ruling).  That's why we care about the ruling.  Yes, the issue was separation of Church and state, so it was nice that a court would tell us that ID is a religion.  Thank you for making the point! Orangemarlin 17:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, Wyatt, the court did not "disprove" intelligent design. Nothing can disprove intelligent design because it is not a falsifiable idea (it cannot be disproven because it is magical and not scientific).  What the court determined, amongst other things, is that ID is not scientific, that it is religious creationism being dishonestly peddled as science in order to wedge its way into our public school system.  That judgement is given a lot of significance because, as mentioned, it was a neutral party who heard expert testimony from both sides of the debate and ruled accordingly. Mr Christopher 21:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, the bottom line is that if you wish to believe that a god or gods or aliens created life on earth, or the earth itself for that matter, go for it.  Just don't try to sell your beliefs as science. •Jim62sch• 22:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Federal Court