Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 44

message: See Talk:Intelligent_design/Yqbd%27s_peer-review_arguments for text. •Jim62sch• 08:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals 

message: Does anyone think that a summary of previously raised issues similar to Talk:Evolution/FAQ might be useful here, to avoid rehashing old debates? ornis (t) 04:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a nice thought but I don't believe it would work. There's already a whole list of links to archive contents, and if people won't click on those, I don't think they would click on FAQ links. I guess I fail the AGF test :-( but that's how I see it. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 04:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what I was suggesting was basically just a summary of those indexed discussions, signed off on by the major contributors. While I agree with you that most won't read them first I think it's useful when someone turns up and wants to exhume the foetid remains of a long dead horse and give it a kicking, to be able to say in effect, "This has already been discussed, consensus  was reached, the summary of that is here: talk:Intelligent Design/FAQ#Is ID Science?". ornis (t) 04:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I've already said I liked the idea, e.g.: "Please listen to the following options, as our menu has changed. Para español, marque dos. If your question is "why isn't intelligent design a scientific theory?, press 3", etc., etc.  Unfortunately I was notified that WP doesn't do this sort of thing. I should note that a modified form of FAQ-links is already included at the top of this page.  Geez, the basics are already included in the article lead.  Maybe how about an RSVP FAQ?, like "have you read the article yet?" and if so, "how far have you read?" and "did you check any of the sources?", etc.  FAQs? For what? All the responses are already in the lead section of the article, IMO. Always open to new possibilities though. ... Kenosis 04:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I agree. Three things were done on evolution that helped. First, the evolution FAQ; I wrote the first version. Second, a well-indexed and easy to use record of past discussions. Third, a baby daughter article, such as Introduction to evolution; I helped with that baby article. Also, removing the misunderstandings and controvery sections from evolution helped, but that option is not available here. Now, evolution really is not been near as unstable as it was 8 months ago. Maybe some combination of these would help this article. It is worth a try.--Filll 04:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put together a draft FAQ from material taken from the talk page, the article and elsewhere. I think if nothing else it will save editors from answering the same questions over and over again, and clearly states when and why, disruptive posts will be archived, userfied or deleted. Thoughts? ornis (t) 05:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good ornis. I do however think that the 'Is ID really creationism?' section could do with further strengthening, to counter the more bone-headed ID-partisans. It may be worth while also including the following quote from Jones from the decision, where he directly equates ID to creationism: "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." It might also be worth while to strengthen the point that proponents believe that the designer is God with Haught's point (quoted in the 'Identity of the designer' section below) that "anyone familiar with Western religious thought would immediately make the association that the tactically unnamed designer is God". Hrafn42 06:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers, I'll look into that, it is just a rough draft after all. Do you think there are any sections missing? I see the archived discussions cove things like: is it a theory, is it falsifiable, isn't no more debatable than evolution, but to me they pretty much boil down to: is it science? ornis (t) 06:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I did actually consider the claim thing, but figured since there wasn't such clear and obvious consensus, (given recent discussion ) that I'd leave it out, though a note about use of terms "theory" and "hypothesis" may be in order. ornis (t) 07:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intelligent Design FAQ? 

message: See Talk:Intelligent_design/Yqbd%27s_peer-review_arguments for text.--Yqbd 05:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of peer-reviewed scientific journals 

message: As summarized by the judge, Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting his claims of intelligent design or irreducible complexity. In his ruling, the judge wrote: "A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory." 
The judge wrote theory. Are there objections to using the word theory now? --Yqbd 03:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The judge also wrote: "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." Hrafn42 03:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then ID is at least a theory, but not a scientific theory according to the judge. --Yqbd 03:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But if it is not a scientific theory, then it must be merely a theory in "the “colloquial or popular understanding of the term [‘theory’] and suggest[ing] to the informed, reasonable observer ... only a highly questionable ‘opinion’ or a ‘hunch.’”" To avoid this confusion, we only use "theory" in the scientific meaning of the word in this article. ID, as you have admitted, is not a scientific theory, so it will not be called a "theory" (see the notes at the start of this talk page & WP:WTA#Theory). This is, I believe, all that needs to be said on this issue. Hrafn42 03:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "not a scientific theory according to the judge" --Yqbd 03:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ... and also according to the scientific community, and the science-education community, and the mainstream press, at least in the US.  In the UK, Australia, the Netherlands, most just laughed, and "alternative placements" were quickly found for the advocates in each of those three sovereign nations.  Turkey remains to be seen. ... Kenosis 03:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Therefore, Hrafn42's quote, "ID, as you have admitted, is not a scientific theory", should be "ID, as the judge wrote, is not a scientific theory". --Yqbd 05:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: So, if the judge says it is a theory then that's a good argument for Yqbd asserting it's a theory, but then when other editors say it is not a scientific theory, they are wrong because the judge ... agrees with them? Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 03:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How would you go about fact checking "No articles supporting intelligent design have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals"? --Yqbd 05:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:V and WP:RS. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 06:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The judge wrote theory. 

message: Would it be a reasonable statement of the consensus of editors of this article that attempts to re-open issues on which a consensus has already been achieved that lack support from either:
#new evidence from a reliable source; or
#a relevant policy change,
...will generally be regarded as disruptive editing and may be summarily moved to a subpage or deleted?
If so, I think a statement to this effect in the notes at the start of this talkpage would be a good idea.Hrafn42 05:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure - we have to cut the newbies some slack. An awful lot of people charge in here with  bold proposals, edits, or arguments, and still turn out to be surprisingly reasonable when called on it. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 05:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you suggest a modification of this statement that would exclude 'legitimate newbies' from being affected but would still allow reasonably prompt diversion of newbie trolls? The reason I'm suggesting that we need such a statement is because we're doing something like this anyway (perfectly legitimately), so it would be a good idea to have it codified (and thus avoiding any appearance of arbitrariness and/or capriciousness). Hrafn42 05:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your sentiments. I'm concerned that the wording at present leaves no room, for example, for the principle that "consensus can change". It's also a bit, well, growly. I will think on it. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 06:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but on the flip-side we would want to avoid trolls asking "has the consensus changed yet?" every five minutes. Hrafn42 06:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:CON|Consensus]] 

message: The paragraph just above the heading "Origins of the term" states:
"Intelligent design deliberately does not try to identify or name the specific agent of creation — it merely states that one (or more) must exist. Although intelligent design itself does not name the designer, the personal view of many proponents is that the designer is the Christian god.[34][22][35] Whether this was a genuine feature of the concept or just a posture taken to avoid alienating those who would separate religion from the teaching of science has been a matter of great debate between supporters and critics of intelligent design. The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court ruling held the latter to be the case."
The above statement contains a popular misconception about the identity of the designer. ID leaders have indeed named the designer. 
The article's reference #34 above is to Dembski's 1999 Touchstone article in which he says that "intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." When Dembski said that, he was identifying, indeed defining, the designer as not only God but Jesus Christ, to which "Logos" refers in the Gospel of John, as Barbara Forrest points out on pp. 3-4 of her paper http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf.
See also the article's reference #142 at pp. 39-40 of "Is It Science Yet? Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution," at  http://law.wustl.edu/WULQ/83-1/p%201%20Brauer%20Forrest%20Gey%20book%20pages.pdf.  Note here also that Phillip Johnson also defines ID as requiring God when he defines it as "theistic realism."
So it is clear that it is more than "a personal view of many proponents" that the designer is the Christian God.  Pasado 05:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would probably be more accurate to say that certain ID advocates have made a point of avoiding to describe the designer, when such avoiding is (how to put it?) politically convenient. --FOo 05:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FAQ: What is the Identity of the Designer? --Yqbd 05:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identity of the designer 

message: What were the reasons for this article having the amount of criticism it has? --Yqbd 05:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the note entitled "Please read before starting" at the top of this page. Hrafn42 06:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you don't see any NPOV problems with the article? --Yqbd 06:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Hrafn42 06:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It has been said over and over again; NPOV doesn't mean that shouldn't be criticizing pseudoscientific ideas like ID. The current view of the scientific community is that ID is pseudoscience, so it's the POV taken by this article. So no, there's no NPOV problems. If, one day, the ID movement produces several articles supporting their view in serious peer-reviewed journals, then we'll have to change the article. But for now they are more interested in convincing the public (in other words people with little understanding of science), so I doupt a major revision of the article will be needed. -PhDP (talk) 08:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To correct Ph comment slightly, the POV of the article is not that ID is pseudoscience, but rather that that view, which is the scientific consensus, is given appropriate weight. JoshuaZ 15:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the explanation for all the criticism again? 

message: I see that that a particular editor is ignoring past discussions and the consensus that resulted from each by flogging a dead horse and edit warring, and that it's become disruptive. Having been blocked once already, he shows no sign of letting up. If this continues, we follow the steps set out at WP:DE and seek a topic ban. FeloniousMonk 17:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support this. There is only so much that we should put up with. And since it seems to continue, in a disruptive fashion, and the editor in question seems to be unwilling to behave in a noncontentious and nonabrasive fashion, then steps probably need to be taken. To do otherwise is to encourage this kind of behavior, and the page will quickly be engulfed in nonsense and destroyed. This is particularly true given the stated objectives of the DI, and reported efforts at recruiting trolls and POV warriors to attack this article at IDEA clubs etc.--Filll 18:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I would likewise support this. The editor in question has been given ample opportunity to either make a substantive contribution to the discussion, or at very least confine their disruption to a subpage -- they appear interested in doing neither. Hrafn42 18:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: For the record, it's three blocks in three days, by different admins, each time due to actions on this article or its talk page. However, we cannot ban a user by consensus. Perhaps a user RFC is the next step. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 19:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can completely block a use by consensus, though. Given a single-purpose account like this, there likely wouldn't be a difference. If you want to request this, perhaps make a post at Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 20:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time for WP:DE? 

message: Time to archive. FeloniousMonk 17:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -- Ec5618 18:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: I was surprised when I tuned into the article because it was so one sided.  Really, assuming that someone has never heard of intelligent design before and they go to Google and type the term in and take the Wikipedia link they expect to be told exactly what Intelligent design is and who its major proponents are.  Instead you get a full page of various quotes in order to prove that it's not scientific.  Okay, we get it; the majority of scientists don't accept it.  But can't you readjust the order of the article so that the more interesting portions are at or near the top? 190.43.195.158 23:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When one goes to google and types in "intelligent design" one finds 8 articles that attack intelligent design, one article that is pro-intelligent design, and this one, which has both pro and anti-pieces. And the criticism pieces are quite prominent because it purports to be science, and in science it is viewed as nonsense. To maintain WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, the article is written the way it is. Also, WP is the result of consensus of hundreds of individual editors. What you see is what you get.--Filll 00:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing wrong with the order of this article. The lead starts out by describing it, and the first two section also serve to describe its claims. Only after that is the criticism section. I really fail to see where you find a problem with the order. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 00:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem may be that different readers find different things interesting. It isn't possible to lay out the article so that everyone who reads it can find what they want at the top. Our only hope is to (a) provide a well-laid out contents section to allow people to get to the section/s they want to, and (b) try to provide a well-laid out article, as described by Infophile, ideally using the same sequence of topics that other articles use. To be fair, the "quotes saying it's unscientific" do follow on from the introductory paragraph saying that ID's proponents claim it to be a scientific theory and intend to fundamentally change the principles behind science. After reading that, one can hardly be surprised if wikipedia's  guidelines on undue weight indicate that we give prominence to the consensus views of worldwide scientific organisations on the subject. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 03:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV and other issues 

message: Looking for archive for "hard-won consensus verion", "modified to avoid".
 It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer."ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer.""this argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley" (the teleological argument) "The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID’s 'official position' does not acknowledge that the designer is God." ,  Ruling, p. 24.• "...intelligent design does not address metaphysical and religious questions such as the nature or identity of the designer," and "...the nature, moral character and purposes of this intelligence lie beyond the competence of science and must be left to religion and philosophy."  In:  .
03:45, 9 August 2007 SheffieldSteel (Talk | contribs) (132,740 bytes) (Undid revision 150112439 by Yqbd (talk) restored hard-won consensus verion, please discuss before changing) (undo)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yqbd (talk • contribs) 
:I'd suggest you start looking at the link entitled "First archive of 2007" and surely it will be somewhere between there and the archive entitled "April - early May 2007, including work on lead." I know, it's a lot of pages - that's what "hard-won" means. Happy hunting! Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 03:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus References 

message: Anti-evolution screed moved to User talk:Myles325a. ornis (t) 05:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userfied 

message: Take a look at--Filll 12:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dog bites man, news a six. Casey Luskin has long competed for the title of most pathetic excuse for an ID-advocate ever. Why the Disco Institute keeps him on staff, I don't know -- a random essay generator could create more convincing propaganda. Maybe they thought his IDEA activities ruined him for any job in the real world, so they had to toss him this bone. Hrafn42 13:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Edit conflict) "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." (Colbert '06) They've been doing this a lot, actually, and this is one of the tamer examples. Michael Egnor once actually compared me to Stalin when I removed an unsourced statement from the Reverse Engineering article. In this case, many of the complaints have been addressed on this talk page ad infinitum, and I wonder if some of the current trolls are taking complaints directly from that article (or its sources). --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 13:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am pretty sure that some of these trolls either work for the DI, or are members of IDEA, or have been recruited by one or both of these.--Filll 13:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (EC)It's like "teach the controversy" in miniature. If you can't convince anyone that ID is even close to science, you send a sock here to kick, scream, edit war and troll till they get indef blocked, then churn out articles exposing the  bias of wikipedia, run as it is by a bunch of hell-bound evolutionists, bent on destroying ID at all costs. ornis (t) 13:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Filll -- the trouble is that there's so many potential troll recruiting sites (e.g. blogs, religious right groups, etc, etc) that tracking down the origin of trolls (unless they're dumb enough to give the game away) is virtually impossible. Hrafn42 13:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Wait, Egnor is in Wikipedia? Reinistalk 16:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope -- not yet. Hrafn42 16:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Filll -- why did you wikify my mention of Casey's name? Do you actually think that this bottom-feeding brain-dead nobody deserves his own article? If we gave him one, his competitors for the title, Davescot & Sal Cordova, would be livid. ;) Hrafn42 13:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On that note, I'm going to dewikify Egnor. I'll leave it up to you for Casey. Also, I wouldn't necessarily say all the trolls here are from the DI; plenty of people believe in creationism or are convinced by ID, and of those, a few are going to be nuts about it on their own. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 13:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: That is why the Gods of Wikipedia invented the 'Show preview' button -- to allow you to test wikifications without leaving embarrassing traces. But even these Gods aren't capricious enough to allow an article on that idiot. :D Hrafn42 13:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, sometimes you can be so idiotic you get an article simply due to that fact. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 13:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gene is idiotic on a far more grandiose scale than Casey, whose greatest ambition appears to be boot-licker to the Disco boys. Hrafn42 15:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A reminder that this page is for improving the article, not bashing people with whom one disagrees. Also please note that responding to Luskin's criticisms by insulting the man on this page will simply make his criticisms look more justified. JoshuaZ 00:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: That's not a bad article. It tries to be fair and balanced in its presentation of what various parties are saying. I recommend that other editors give it a read through, and think about if there are improvements we can make to present this article more fairly and neutrally. Constructive criticism is always worth a careful evaluation. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 14:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I completely agree. We just are not able to keep up and keep all this family of articles in reasonable shape, add new material and new articles. Many of the daughter articles to this one are in sad shape. I have been rewriting many of the articles on petitions and now am working on rewriting Level of support for evolution. Creation museum is not in great shape. Carl Wieland is a mess. And so on...let's pull up our socks and stop basking in the glory of this defended FA. Fighting trolls is not that productive, to be honest.--Filll 14:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A short paragraph on Explore Evolution (book) appears in my article Bernard d'Abrera. d'Abrera's company, Hill House Publishing company is apparently the publishing company for Explore Evolution.--Filll 14:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Explore Evolution isn't for sale on Amazon, or any of the other major online booksellers, so I can't find an ISBN for it. The DI may be avoiding mainstream publicity for it (promoting it purely through friendly outlets like Biola University), to avoid its use getting noticed by First Amendment activists. Hrafn42 15:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The only mention of Explore Evolution from the mainstream media is this brief mention:
One thing we'll have to consider in both the case of The Edge of Evolution & Explore Evolution is where they fit into the article. The article does not presently have a section specifically on ID books, neither book appears to advance any named ID argument (IC, etc). Hrafn42 15:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Eventually, we will probably have to produce an article just focusing on Books on intelligent design. There are quite a few of them, and quite a few more than we have not covered yet, like "By Design or by Chance?" by ARN associate Denyse O'Leary . Reading a bit of her blog convinces me she is completely biased and does not have a clue about what science is. --Filll 16:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Denyse O'Leary doesn't have one blog, she has dozens (including a co-authorship of Uncommon Descent). And it's unsurprising that she knows next to nothing about science, her main 'exposure' to it was covering the science beat for a minor Canadian religious rag. She's a religious journo who pretends (rather ineptly) to have half a clue about science. Hrafn42 16:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: One thing we would need is a rough hierarchy of ID books, from seminal ones (which typically have their own extensive articles already) e.g.: Darwin on Trial, Darwin's Black Box, Of Pandas and People, through intermediate ones (which would typically have a stub article) to ones so minor that few have heard of them (By Design or by Chance? would probably fit into this category). Hrafn42 17:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Excellent. I added the three books we mentioned here to the list.--Filll 18:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: For information, there's a red link at Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns#The campaigns: "the most recent centered around the new intelligent design textbook, website and slogan "Explore Evolution". " It seems to be the replacement for Pandas, with the innovation that instead of calling creationist arguments ID, it now "seeks to put as many old-time antievolution arguments into the science curriculum as possible, without explicitly mentioning their preferred alternative. This, they hope, will make their text the basis of widespread lawsuit-free K-12 instruction." Exploring Evolution | Who is This For? gives a glimpse of their hopes that teachers and parents will take to it, particularly in states that have required or encouraged teachers (1) to help students "to critically analyze" key aspects of evolutionary theory or (2) to teach both "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories such as neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory...  The other one, The Edge of Evolution, is Behe's black box mark 2, and merits a brief mention at the end of the IC section, if only for introducing the exciting news that The Designer has directly produced malaria and AIDS. .. dave souza, talk 18:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We need more neutral sources about EE before we can write  much about it. JoshuaZ 00:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably true. I did contact both the DI and the publisher for information about the book, and they were quite worried that I might be contributing to a review of the book and where it might appear. I didn't tell them of course. I don't need to get into a pissing contest with these guys. Sooner or later the book will be available and we will be able to access professional reviews in WP:V sources.--Filll 18:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here's a start on an Explore Evolution Companion. Notice the Quotations section; this is aiming to get complete coverage of all quotes deployed in the book. Over on Panda's Thumb, Paul Nelson mentioned the possibility of looking into the feasibility of perhaps starting an open discussion forum concerning EE on a Discovery Institute server; I had an open forum set up within an hour or two of that. Paul has contributed a few comments himself in that thread. -- Wesley R. Elsberry 21:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course, the answers are obvious (1)they cannot interact with the authors and editors on EB and Encarta and (2) there is no possibility that they could anonymously edit EB or Encarta, whereas there is at least the promise of being able to edit WP, if they can get consensus.--Filll 18:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just checked, The Columbia Encyclopedia doesn't flatter ID too.  The most critical of these seems to be Encarta, though.  ID there is a subhead in Evolution, and the article with the title ID simply redirects to creationism. Reinistalk 18:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: In some ways I think it is a good sign. If they are upset, we are doing a good job, frankly. Because it means they have been unable to push their narrow POV agenda on us, and are frustrated and angry about it.--Filll 21:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This just in...did you see this article about how biased we are? 

message: This just in... an article dated May. 09 2007?? We're falling behind here, with all these trolly distractions. There's still no mention on this article of The Edge of Evolution which recently attracted some  interesting comments, and we don't seem to have covered Explore Evolution which has been around for ages as Explore Evolution, oops not that one, this one which was mentioned as a forthcoming attraction in March and is now getting reviews. I've been meaning to tackle these points, still a bit bogged down elsewhere so others may wish to get these on the go... dave souza, talk 14:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree. We just are not able to keep up and keep all this family of articles in reasonable shape, add new material and new articles. Many of the daughter articles to this one are in sad shape. I have been rewriting many of the articles on petitions and now am working on rewriting Level of support for evolution. Creation museum is not in great shape. Carl Wieland is a mess. And so on...let's pull up our socks and stop basking in the glory of this defended FA. Fighting trolls is not that productive, to be honest.--Filll 14:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A short paragraph on Explore Evolution (book) appears in my article Bernard d'Abrera. d'Abrera's company, Hill House Publishing company is apparently the publishing company for Explore Evolution.--Filll 14:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Explore Evolution isn't for sale on Amazon, or any of the other major online booksellers, so I can't find an ISBN for it. The DI may be avoiding mainstream publicity for it (promoting it purely through friendly outlets like Biola University), to avoid its use getting noticed by First Amendment activists. Hrafn42 15:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The only mention of Explore Evolution from the mainstream media is this brief mention:
One thing we'll have to consider in both the case of The Edge of Evolution & Explore Evolution is where they fit into the article. The article does not presently have a section specifically on ID books, neither book appears to advance any named ID argument (IC, etc). Hrafn42 15:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Eventually, we will probably have to produce an article just focusing on Books on intelligent design. There are quite a few of them, and quite a few more than we have not covered yet, like "By Design or by Chance?" by ARN associate Denyse O'Leary . Reading a bit of her blog convinces me she is completely biased and does not have a clue about what science is. --Filll 16:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Denyse O'Leary doesn't have one blog, she has dozens (including a co-authorship of Uncommon Descent). And it's unsurprising that she knows next to nothing about science, her main 'exposure' to it was covering the science beat for a minor Canadian religious rag. She's a religious journo who pretends (rather ineptly) to have half a clue about science. Hrafn42 16:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: One thing we would need is a rough hierarchy of ID books, from seminal ones (which typically have their own extensive articles already) e.g.: Darwin on Trial, Darwin's Black Box, Of Pandas and People, through intermediate ones (which would typically have a stub article) to ones so minor that few have heard of them (By Design or by Chance? would probably fit into this category). Hrafn42 17:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Excellent. I added the three books we mentioned here to the list.--Filll 18:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: For information, there's a red link at Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns#The campaigns: "the most recent centered around the new intelligent design textbook, website and slogan "Explore Evolution". " It seems to be the replacement for Pandas, with the innovation that instead of calling creationist arguments ID, it now "seeks to put as many old-time antievolution arguments into the science curriculum as possible, without explicitly mentioning their preferred alternative. This, they hope, will make their text the basis of widespread lawsuit-free K-12 instruction." Exploring Evolution | Who is This For? gives a glimpse of their hopes that teachers and parents will take to it, particularly in states that have required or encouraged teachers (1) to help students "to critically analyze" key aspects of evolutionary theory or (2) to teach both "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories such as neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory...  The other one, The Edge of Evolution, is Behe's black box mark 2, and merits a brief mention at the end of the IC section, if only for introducing the exciting news that The Designer has directly produced malaria and AIDS. .. dave souza, talk 18:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We need more neutral sources about EE before we can write  much about it. JoshuaZ 00:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably true. I did contact both the DI and the publisher for information about the book, and they were quite worried that I might be contributing to a review of the book and where it might appear. I didn't tell them of course. I don't need to get into a pissing contest with these guys. Sooner or later the book will be available and we will be able to access professional reviews in WP:V sources.--Filll 18:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here's a start on an Explore Evolution Companion. Notice the Quotations section; this is aiming to get complete coverage of all quotes deployed in the book. Over on Panda's Thumb, Paul Nelson mentioned the possibility of looking into the feasibility of perhaps starting an open discussion forum concerning EE on a Discovery Institute server; I had an open forum set up within an hour or two of that. Paul has contributed a few comments himself in that thread. -- Wesley R. Elsberry 21:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course, the answers are obvious (1)they cannot interact with the authors and editors on EB and Encarta and (2) there is no possibility that they could anonymously edit EB or Encarta, whereas there is at least the promise of being able to edit WP, if they can get consensus.--Filll 18:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just checked, The Columbia Encyclopedia doesn't flatter ID too.  The most critical of these seems to be Encarta, though.  ID there is a subhead in Evolution, and the article with the title ID simply redirects to creationism. Reinistalk 18:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Breaking news?

message: So a highly opinionated, religiously-centered, agenda-driven publication says Wikipedia is bad because we don't allow their highly opinionated, religiously-centered agenda onto the encyclopedia? What else would you expect people like that to say? DreamGuy 19:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In some ways I think it is a good sign. If they are upset, we are doing a good job, frankly. Because it means they have been unable to push their narrow POV agenda on us, and are frustrated and angry about it.--Filll 21:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Waste of time even talking about it

message: :: Sorry, I demur from the general approval of the candidate introduction. The Edwards v. Aguillard decision warned of shams, where a religious doctrine masquerades as legitimate science. At a minimum, the second paragraph needs to be expanded to include the information that in the legal sphere, the Kitzmiller v. DASD decision specifically identifies IDC as just the sort of sham that the Edwards decision warned about. 
:: I think that the first sentence in the first paragraph is problematic; it is one statement of what IDC is chosen out of a number of mutually inconsistent statements emitted over the years by IDC advocates. Some indication of the definitional problems that even its advocates have is in order, which means that even if one is going to credulously repeat definitions by advocates, one needs a sentence construction that incorporates the concept that IDC is not agreed upon to be any one single, easily stated concept. For example,
::: Intelligent design is described by its advocates variously as the concept 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"; "the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God"; and that intelligent design "is just the Logos of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory", among other things.
:: Passing off the single statement given in the first sentence of the first paragraph above as THE definition of intelligent design is seriously misleading right from the start.
:: Further, one can analyze "intelligent design" creationism in terms of the set of arguments it comprises. When this is done, as it was in the trial record of the Kitzmiller case, one finds that IDC is simply a subset of antievolution arguments previously labeled as "creation science". This concept should also be incorporated prominently in an introductory section. --Wesley R. Elsberry 10:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I support the direction of this change. It also integrates the lead with the rest of the article better.  Pasado 18:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: While discussing the lead, the point that the Discovery Institute was formed in 1990, a year after Pandas, is a bit irrelevant as these references  show that the DI's involvement began when Chapman met Myer in 1994. Also, Johnson only appears to have taken up ID in the mid 1990s – his first mention of "intelligent design scholars" appears to be in May 1995, and in November 1994 the WSJ reported his dismissive comments on Pandas, though in December 1994 he wrote to the WSJ saying it wasn't really dishonest for them to deny being creationist. There's a lot of misunderstanding about Johnson's role before he became involved in forming the wedge / IDM strategy around 1995. My feeling is that we need to begin the overview with a brief history, not just Aguillard as at present, with the origins of the concept and term forming subsections of that, followed by a Concepts (or Arguments) section which would include Irreducible Complexity etc. and note that they've now moved on to presenting the antievolution arguments without mentioning ID, in Exploring Evolution .. dave souza, talk 11:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction / definition section

message: I would like to recommend to editors working on this article two books, not just to ass to the further reading list but as resources for editors to this article.  Both are books by Philip Kitcher: Living With Darwin: Evolution, Design and the Future of Faith and Abusing Science: the Case Against Creationism.  One was reviewed, and the other discussed, in an essay by H. Allen Orr in the most recent issue of The New York Review of Books.  Orr is an evolutionary geneticist in the Biology Department of the University of Rochester; he has published in Science and Nature as well as other top peer-reviewed journals in evolutionary biology, so his credentials as a scientist are impeccable - and he argues that both of these books, while specifically polemics against creationism and ID, are also superb and accessible inroductions to the philosophy of science and evolutionary theory.  Kitcher is himself the subjct of a Wikipedia article; he is a professor of philosophy (of science) who holds the Dewey Chair at Columbia University, and who has published on both creationism and sociobiology and has also published in a host of peer-reviewed journals.  I have to say, I am especially impressed when a pracicing scientist heaps praise on a philosopher of science.  Orr emphasizes that in addressing creationists Kitcher is really trying to lay out as clearly as possible the essence of scientific thought and the history of the development of evolutionary theory, as well as the history of creationist thought (including but not limited to ID).  I do not have these books, but if any editors here has access to them they might provide us with helpful ideas not just of themes we might want to develop, but of ideas about how better to express certain ideas.  I just read the review this week, and it really is an outstanding review, which is why I bring it up now. I would think that even advocates of creationism would want to consult these books - if they are interested in developing arguments to support creationism; a good argument for creationism would be strengthened if it could respond to the argumnts in these books. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out the list I have collected here. Disclaimer: I've contributed to the first two books on the page; of course those are indispensable for the well-read person interested in what "intelligent design" is about. :-) -- Wesley R. Elsberry 20:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  recommended reading 

message: This book is getting a pretty heavy sales pitch. Here is what I found on the DI website :
It sounds good enough that I would want to read it. Unfortunately, I suspect I already know the quality of material within.--Filll 22:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, information's starting to trickle out. .... dave souza, talk 22:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's quite old, though. Reinistalk 07:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have anything better?--Filll 12:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad, didn't notice the date: #Breaking news? above gives some newer sources, particularly in relation to the August Biola University’s  “Science Teachers Symposium” entitled “Teaching Biological Origins.” There's a pretty good overview in Barbara Forrest's Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals., so that's a reliable source that could form the basis of an article, filled out with details such as the list of who it's aimed at. Will aim to focus on my current project and get onto this in a few days. .. dave souza, talk 12:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The Discovery Institute seeks to cloak ID and introduce ID into school curricula indirectly though their Critical Analysis of Evolution model lesson plans, and justify doing so by trotting out irony-laden and thought-terminating slogans such as "presenting all the evidence, both for and against, evolution" and "Teach the Controversy". Now the Discovery Institute accomplishes both in one stroke: "Explore Evolution" is both a thought-terminating cliche and a textbook. We already have it mentioned at Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns. Perhaps it merits its own article? Odd nature 17:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW, anyone notice in "Explore Evolution" that the DI uses a bait-and-switch between ID and evolution, simply calling the former a subset or compatiable with the latter? Dovetails with their history of misleading and confusing lables for evolution such as "naturalistic evolution", "biological evolution", and "Darwinism". Worth noting if it gets its own article. Odd nature 18:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: People can inspect an early draft of an article about Explore Evolution on Wikipedia. It is very hard to get ahold of the ISBN number for the book and I called the DI itself to get it. They were extremely nervous about why I wanted it and wondered if I was going to be writing a review of the book and where it would appear.--Filll 12:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explore evolution 

message: Per earlier discussion on identifying where trolls may be coming from, wikiscanner may prove a useful resource. Hrafn42 06:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the interest of WP:BEANS I won't go too far into this, but, much of the biased editing that can ultimately be traced back to the DI comes from the DC/VA area, home of their PR firm and the location of a former DI staffer. FeloniousMonk 06:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, I understand the DI staffer, the one in the DC/VA area that I think FM is referring to, has been suffering some fairly serious physical health problems.  Intense disagreements aside, I want to wish him the best possible stable health. ... Kenosis 06:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I have a suspicion that some of the trolls and POV warriors here and on related articles are from a small group that produces sock puppet after sock puppet, or recruit meat puppets from a similar IP address. I wonder if we could be more efficient at identifying and blocking these disruptive elements earlier and easier than our current methods.--Filll 15:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you guys going after User_talk:66.47.51.78 from the NSCE?  21:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identifying the source of trolls 

message: Nick Matzke has an article up on Pandas Thumb on 'The true origin of “intelligent design”', in particular discussing the formative influence A.E. Wilder-Smith had on ID:
:intelligent nipple designer Who want's to write this one? FeloniousMonk 06:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody who, to employ the vernacular, doesn't mind "making a tit" of themselves? ;) Hrafn42 07:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... I fear that including this material might be in violation of WP:POINT...  Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 13:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article on the origin of ID 

message: :::Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute,[5][6] believe the designer to be God.[7] Intelligent design's advocates claim it is a scientific theory,[8] and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.[9]
I would like to suggest some changes. First some questions:
*what is meant with "primary"? Are they the most fierce, or the most respected?
*isn't it obvious that it is a scientific theory?
*is "accepting a supernatural explanation" equivalent to "redefining science"? Is it not really expending the scope of science, turning what was previously labeled "supernatural" into "ill-understood science"?
— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I might also point out that what you are suggesting, and what intelligent design proponents and other creationists are suggesting, has already been tried. The Muslim world used to be the most advanced in science and technology. Then al-Ghazali published The Incoherence of the Philosophers in the late 11th century, advocating the very same positions you do; that is, to allow the supernatural into science. And guess what? The most advanced technological and scientific civilization on planet earth went into a Religious Dark Age that it has not emerged from, 1000 years later. THAT is what "intelligent design" and the Discovery Institute will lead to. Sound good to you?--Filll 17:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks SheffielSteel. Filll, I've replied to you, thanks. I am in some doubt though, that the refences given actually support the claims "most prominent". Should not the article simply reflect the debate in stead of stating who's right and who's wrong? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we will leave the article exactly as it is now. We will not teach the controversy. Raul654 17:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Xiutwel, please read the footnotes and follow the sources if the footnotes are not adequate. The Discovery Institute is the sole nexus of "intelligent design".  ID is not the product of independent, separately funded academic institutions or independent, separately funded individuals.  Rather, the DI and its offshoots the Center for Science and Culture and the ISCID constitute the trough, so to speak, to which leading ID proponents have gone for their funding (via paid "fellowships"), and through which they have networked since the early 1990s. ( See, e.g., footnote 5) ... Kenosis 18:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sentence 3 

message: Apparently Explore Evolution is aimed at the high school market, and William A. Dembski and Jonathan Wells, The Design of Life, Foundation for Thought and Ethics, to appear, fall 2007. 
is aimed at the college market. It is a rewritten version of Of Pandas and People, 360 pages long.--Filll 22:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the next version of Pandas is titled, "The Design of Life", primary author/editor to be William Dembski. Another major contributor is said to be Jonathan Wells. The Foundation for Thought and Ethics was still scrounging for cash to get it launched, last I heard. The DI "Explore Evolution" effort is based largely upon text by Paul Nelson. --Wesley R. Elsberry 19:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification! ... Kenosis 20:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I read my post again, I realized the punctuation might have given a mistaken impression. I fixed it. Hopefully it is clearer now.--Filll 20:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Is there a reliable source for Nelson's primary authorship (or similar) of Explore Evolution? It'd be worth inclusion in that article. Hrafn42 07:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The official order of authorship is alphabetical.--Filll 13:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I rather expect someday to be tasked with comparing the text of "Explore Evolution" with various other source texts, for example, the Meyer essays on the Cambrian explosion, Paul Nelson's dissertation, and the John Wiester essay from the 1991 JASA. That would all be original research, mind, but if that happens, it will likely be in connection with a court case, and may be referred to in transcripts or a decision. --Wesley R. Elsberry 18:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New book