Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 45

message: Does anybody object to me turning the subsections of the 'Overview' section into top-level sections -- they make the overview section appear ridiculously long. Also, would anybody object to me inserting a stub 'Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District' subsection within the 'Controversy' section? It really deserves a subsection of its own. Hrafn42 07:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like an improvement to me, though my suggestion is that the "overview" becomes focussed on the history, with the Origins of the concept and Origins of the term as subsections, then a new Concepts main section incorporating most of the existing Overview text with Irreducible complexity, Specified complexity, Fine-tuned universe and Intelligent designer as subsections. I'd suggest that the The Dover Trial section should go after Polls, and should be followed by a Teach the Controversy or Explore Evolution section which would briefly summarise the post-Dover strategy of avoiding "intelligent design".....dave souza, talk 16:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a good refinement, though I must admit a (possibly quite idiosyncratic) discomfort over describing either ID (Origins of the concept) or Irreducible complexity & Specified complexity as "concepts". To me they are (partisan/tendentious) "arguments" or similar, not (neutral/cerebral) "concepts". Hrafn42 17:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, the "concept" term appears in the current headings, but really they're philosophical arguments. .. dave souza, talk 18:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Please don't add a stub section to a Featured Article. If you want to add content make sure it's complete when you add it. Having section stubs can result in the article losing its FA status. FeloniousMonk 00:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it looks good. I just wonder about the length of the article overall.--Filll 12:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about the length. But given that KvD is the sole important court case on ID, it deserves its own section, and a significant treatment, in this article. Hrafn42 13:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This had a section-title once, but seems to have lost it

message: I get the impression, on occasion, that often the only way to get people to pay attention (favourably or unfavourably) to proposals on the talkpages is to go ahead and make the edits. Only then do they go and look for what you've been talking about (at times until one is blue in the face), and give a response. This strikes me as dysfunctional, in that it tends to reward unilateral behaviour over consensus-seeking.
This proposed section is cobbled together mainly from the introduction, 'Responses' & 'Analysis and criticism' sections of the main article, trimmed down to eliminate most of the legal-system-specific, as opposed to ID-specific, detail. It probably could do with some further refinement, but I hope it would not look too out of place in an FA.
On its placement within the 'Controversy' section, I would note that this section's introductory paragraphs mentions KvD early on so I would suggest that it feature near (or at) the start of this section. I also think that the introductory paragraphs may be getting a bit long and unfocused, and that some of it should be moved into existing/new subsections.
Hrafn42 10:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it looks good. I just wonder about the length of the article overall.--Filll 12:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about the length. But given that KvD is the sole important court case on ID, it deserves its own section, and a significant treatment, in this article. Hrafn42 13:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Note 3 seems highly confusing to me; could it be clarified somewhat?  Here's the text of it, without the attribution at the end:
"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."
There's a double quote at <""this argument> and the first opening quote is not closed anywhere that I can see.  I'm not actually sure who is saying what, from this.  Mike Christie (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is Judge Jones quoting John Haught quoting Aquinas.  It's actually not completely verbatim, and has been edited slightly, which probably explains the erroneous quotes.  It should be:
"ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of
God. He [Haught] 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. Dr. Haught testified that Aquinas was explicit that this intelligent designer "everyone understands to be God." The syllogism described by Dr. Haught is essentially the same argument for ID as presented by defense expert witnesses Professors Behe and Minnich who employ the phrase "purposeful arrangement of parts." Dr. Haught testified that this argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley and defense expert witnesses
Behe and Minnich admitted that their argument for ID based on the "purposeful arrangement of parts" is the same one that Paley made for design. 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." Tevildo 20:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're sticking with the reduced version, some strategic ellipses are necessary. Tevildo 20:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; though I'd be happy with the full version (including the square bracket clarification "[Haught]"), plus some form of your initial sentence that explains context and who is saying what.  Mike Christie (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Firstly, It is not Haught quoting Aquinas. It is the judge summarizing Haught's testimony with a brief quote of Haught in the middle. And Haught is not quoting Aquinas but rather is summarizing the fifth of Aquinas' "five ways" with only a very brief paraphrase of Aquinas' "and this we understand to be God".  The quotes and subquotes, prior elipses and attibution apparently got screwed up during the last round of footnote consolidation, which is what happens when people try to do this without closely examining the citation and understanding it. I don't have time to fix it myself right now, but it can be found via Kitzmiller v. Dover which links to the entire ruling at Wikisource, or it can be found in a single document at . Either way it's on page 24 of the ruling. ... Kenosis 22:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to clarify note 3 

message: :Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg, the low resolution book-cover image of Michael Behe's book Darwin's Black Box, has been nominated by User:Videmus Omnia for deletion at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. 
Please see Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_August_21#Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg. ... Kenosis 17:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg nominated for deletion 

message: I have done a partial revert of some recent changes by Kenosis, to restore some comments about the Time magazine cover  and the public controversy. I consider that the comments, which I added a few days ago, give a useful addition to the article quite apart from any concerns about image protection. I am happy to defer to consensus on this, and have enormous regard for the hard work Kenosis has done on this article. However, I would like my proposed addition to be considered here. The section in question is as follows:
... The public controversy was given widespread media coverage in the United States, particularly during the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in 2005.  Prominent coverage of the public controversy was given on the front page of Time magazine with a story on Evolution Wars, on 15 August, 2005.  The cover shows God facing off against a chimpanzee, and asks:
:The push to teach "intelligent design" raises a question: Does God have a place in science class?
The Time magazine story describes the controversy in the Dover school district and the Kitzmiller vs Dover lawsuit that was brought as a result. The eventual decision of the court ruled that intelligent design was a religious and creationist position, and answered the question posed by Time magazine with a firm negative, finding that God and intelligent design were both distinct from the material that should be covered in a science class."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.
I have just restored everything from "Prominent coverage" through to "in a science class." Is there any good reason for removing this? I think it does add to the article by making explicit that the cover was so damaging for the ID attempts to argue that this is a scientific dispute. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 01:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: References to Time may be unneeded now <snif!> Regarding another image, the Black Box cover apparently showing Johnson trying to measure up against a chimp (no images of a wee bearded gnome like Behe) is presumably the current cover, the original can be seen here. .. dave souza, talk 10:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This presumes, Dave, that it ever was necessary, i.e., the text itself. The image , IMO, said all that need be said about the public dimension of the controversy in the US, as differentiated from the detatiled specifics and minutia of the arguments. IMO, the image was self-explanatory -- self standing -- and, maybe you recall it did indeed stand by itself for well over a year. . ... Kenosis 12:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time cover comments 

message: Every time I see this it seems to be getting larger. 135 kb is over four times the old recommended limit of 30kb, which is still a long article to read. I'm not going to look through all the archived discussion of this, but it looks to me like the article could still use better summary style. Some possible subdivisions include history of intelligent design, intelligent design controversy and introduction to intelligent design articles. Richard001 07:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's already a timeline of intelligent design, and a creation-evolution controversy, but I seem to remember not so long ago, the idea of an introduction article being kicked around, may not be such a bad idea. ornis (t) 07:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This seems sensible. History of intelligent design is well overdue.--ZayZayEM 15:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The timeline (still under development) explores the history and provides a resource which could be used when developing a History article. .. dave souza, talk 17:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the history and controversy are integral to the topic, which spans only about two or two-and-a-half decades to date. 135kB is not the article length, only the size of the page. The body text and illustrations take well under 60kB, which is well within reason. Also, the 32kB recommended article size (a) is a three-to-four-year-old recommendation prompted by limitations in browser and "bandwidth" capability, and (b) is determined by the local consensus. ... Kenosis 18:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm all ears. What would be a proposal for the content and accessibility level of an article such as Introduction to intelligent design? It's not as if all the obscure molecular biology and cosmological terms, formulas and numbers are in the article; it's almost all expository text at present. ... Kenosis 19:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This is already an FA, don't think we need to split it up yet. Also, article splits make it too easy for POV forks to be created. FeloniousMonk 20:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Size

message: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. One wonders if this should really have its own article yet, but someone else created it. Adam Cuerden talk 19:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is a bit early, frankly. I suspect from past experience that it is likely to get deleted. Other articles on upcoming films were deleted. I would put work into this, in particular compiling links and information which contradicts the claims of Stein's letter on the website, which I posted above. However, I do not want to bother if it will just be deleted.-Filll 20:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: dissecting claims isn't what Wikipedia is for. We can report others dissecting claims, but dissect them ourselves per WP:NOR. I think the dishonest way Stein is alleged to have gotten a few of his interviews is probably notable, and reported enough in the semi-respectable blogosphere to be referenced accurately.--ZayZayEM 00:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: That article has no content. *sigh* are we gonna clean it up or  it?--ZayZayEM 00:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Speedy it. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Hrafn42 04:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So tagged. ornis (t) 04:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ID-related new article 

message: Is this alteration really a good idea? I would think that using subst[ituted] templates would increase the chances of successful vandalism (as it would make the vandalism harder to notice) as well as increasing maintenance overheads. Hrafn42 04:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I think it was a terrible idea, and I've undone it. ornis (t) 05:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subst of templates 

message: Please consider WP:NOT#FORUM and read my comments on Adam's talk page.
The discussion never had anything to with improving the article and was deterioting fast into a point-and-laugh fest at IDists. This is not productive. There was nothing wrong with my deleting it.
The topic has been reintroduced appropriately. I am not censoring the topic.--ZayZayEM 17:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. No doubt notable information about this topic will turn up all too soon, best wait till then. ... dave souza, talk 18:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep on topic 

message: She is a signatory of A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.
The RFC concerns whether it is appropriate or not to include a disclaimer noting that Picard is outside of her speciality, and that the petition was an absolute failure of an appeal to authority.
There have been no supplied WP:RS that utilize this argument. So it has been argued for exclusion on the basis of WP:NOR--ZayZayEM 09:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment: [[Rosalind Picard]]

message: I made careful emendations in the "Movement" section of the article. For some reason Adam Cuerden comes along and simply dismisses them as of no account?
"All leading intelligent design proponents are fellows or staff of the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture" the article claims. Yet the truth is, based on what I could find by following the cited links, the vast majority are fellows or staff only of the Center for Science and Culture. According to the cited source, only Stephen C. Meyer is a staff member (as well as a Senior Fellow) of the Discovery Institute. It is only when you get to the CSC that you find Behe, Dembski, Wells, Kenyon, Thaxton, Johnson, etc. --I posit that the sentence as currently written is at least misleading. 
Similarly with the next sentence: "Nearly all intelligent design concepts and the associated movement are the products of the Discovery Institute, which guides the movement . . . " --Sources please? I would like to suggest that though the claim may be true, there is no verifiable evidence for the assertion . . . so it doesn't belong in the article.
And the rest of the sentence trails off in something a bit less than clear prose: ". . . and follows its wedge strategy while conducting its adjunct Teach the Controversy campaign." --I'm curious why my more cautious revision--"Nearly all intelligent design concepts and the associated movement appear to be products of the Discovery Institute via its wedge strategy and its adjunct Teach the Controversy campaign"--proved unacceptable? 
Prior to my edits, (and now, once again), the article says concerning "leading intelligent design proponents": "In statements directed at the general public, they say intelligent design is not religious; when addressing conservative Christian supporters, they state that intelligent design has its foundation in the Bible." --Once more, I followed the citations and found no evidence for the general comment about the undefined "their" comments about intelligent design being non-religious; I found several references to comments that demonstrate Phillip E. Johnson's ideas about ID being founded in the Bible. So I attempted to clarify the matter, noting the need for at least some citation about undefined ID leaders' claims concerning ID's non-religious character and narrowing the scope of the second comment to that which is proved: "Johnson has said that intelligent design has its foundation in the Bible."
Next sentence refers to "the institute" (lower-case). I clarified the reference as to "the Discovery Institute," but got slammed even on that emendation. . . .
And then, finally, in the first paragraph beneath the subhead "Religion and leading proponents": Some of the sentences are unnecessarily complex and convoluted. Moreover, I sense an attempt to present Johnson in an ethically questionable light: "Johnson has stated that cultivating ambiguity . . . is a necessary first step. . . ." And, "Johnson explicitly calls for intelligent design proponents to obfuscate their religious motivations. . . ." Follow the citation, however, and an impartial observer, I believe, would have to characterize Johnson's statements in more neutral terms. One wouldn't have to use my words, I'm sure, but I think I summarized him more fairly: "Johnson has stated that employing secular language . . . is a necessary first step for ultimately reintroducing the Christian concept of God as the designer. Johnson explicitly states that part of the Wedge strategy involves removing religious speech from scientific discussions so as to avoid having intelligent design identified 'as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message'; yet, he notes, the specific purpose of such a disjunction is to enable discussion of religious issues later on."
I think my edits carry all the original provable meaning, and also avoid the unprovable and tendentious remarks in the original. Therefore, I request the "powers that be" to undo Adam Cuerden's reversions of 07:43, 6 September 2007, and reinstate my emendations from 06:37, 6 September 2007.
Thank you! —Brightflash 03:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My impression is that your changes are less accurate than the original on a number of points: e.g. both the DI & its CSC each have their own list of Fellows, and so it is necessary to include both to cover all activists, Johnson isn't the only one founding ID in the Bible (many/most prominent ID activists have said such things), etc. I therefore support Adam's reversion. Hrafn42 03:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Proposed changes are less accurate, less complete, and ignore both verifiable facts, opinions and sources. Sources are provided and available that all the leading DI/CSC Fellows believe the designer to be God and ID to be a form of revelation for example. So I can not support the changes. But I do encourage Brightflash to continue reading all available sources and giving this topic some thought and coming back when he has a better understanding of the current state of affairs. FeloniousMonk 04:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiable and/or Accurate? 

message: Making a logical argument against intelligent design is exceedingly difficult because complex structures do indeed require design.  Nevertheless, there are people out there who have made convincing counterarguments.  For the spirit of debate, please include some of those sources.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.63.78.105 (talk) 09:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a debating forum. Counter arguments are supplied and sourced in this article and others in the ID series. Do you have a suggestion to improve the article? ornis (t) 10:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Your first claim is directly contradicted by work on emergence, complex adaptive systems, and the evolution of complexity. On your second point, in order to establish that there are "convincing arguments", it would be necessary to establish that a significant proportion of the scientific community has been convinced by these arguments (see WP:UNDUE). As far as I know this has not happened. Hrafn42 10:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no need to invent inadequacies that don't exist for the sake of squeezing unverified authoritative statements or straw men into the Talk page. (206.63.78.105) Vacancy 17:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  opposing view points please 

message: This is slightly off topic, but it's still related to improving the wiki.
I've just made a simple english wiki page on :simple:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. I know, it's a bit mad, but... =) Adam Cuerden talk 20:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is great. As everyone who knows me already knows, I am always in favor of making Simple Wikipedia articles and also Introductory articles. I would like to have a way for elementary school students to learn about a given topic, then high school students, and then advanced articles, on the most important topics (and intelligent design is fairly important, I would argue). --Filll 01:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye. It actually came about because I was trying to improve the :simple:creationism article, and needed to link to :simple:Edwards v. Aguillard to talk about the U.S. court decisions, so had to make that. Having done that, I figured I had best do Kitzmiller too, which I know far better. We need to do simple wikipedia coverage well, because if we don't, creationists will. There were some POV-pushing versions of :simple:Creationism, for instance. Adam Cuerden talk 05:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Awesome. It manages to stay informative and correctly balanced while making it simple.--ZayZayEM 02:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good. A few points seemed to me to misrepresent things a bit, but then it is a wiki ;) ... dave souza, talk 09:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple english wiki 

message: Duae_Quartunciae thinks this is simply a matter of WP:WRONG. He may well be right. However, I think it might be appropriate to put some hard numbers to this hypothesis. The article had been unchanged for 5 1/4 hours before Thivierr removed the disputed images. Tom Harrison had been active for just under an hour and a half at this time. 6 minutes after Thivierr made this change, Tom protected it. I would also note that this issue has been only 'delete+revert'ed four times in the last seven days. Hardly an intense edit-war, of the type requiring urgent admin intervention. Hrafn42 03:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I noted on my user page, it certainly does seem odd.  No edit-war, no need to protect used to be the rule, but maybe that's not the case anymore. •Jim62sch• 10:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Timing of protection

message: When this was discussed at Talk:Intelligent design/Archive43#Pictures in this article, the WP:FUC policy 3. (a) read:
After considerable discussion and good faith efforts to comply full with the FUC policy, the images were added to the article on 27 July 2007, removed, then readded on 2 August. At that time policy 3. (a) was the same, however there seems to have been a lot of debate on the FUC talk page (with the occasional edit war) and the current version of 3. (a) was introduced on 4 September.
So the vaunted Wikipedia wide consensus that is claimed to trump local consensus, and is rudely applied without proper efforts to achieve that local consensus, is a recent innovation which, like everything on Wikipedia, is subject to change. If more editors are interested in taking this up at WP:FUC. .. dave souza, talk 09:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And even that doesn't match the legal definition of minimal use (although it's a tiny bit better).  We should should make an attempt to consider legal precedent rather than making up policy willy-nilly. Ah, but I guess we're FUC'd if we do, FUC'd if we don't. •Jim62sch• 10:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Timing of policy

message: One possible alternative illustration that could be useful if appropriate text was written around it, is an illustration of Ken Miller's 101 uses for parts of a mousetrap (slight exaggeration, I know -- but you know what I mean), in the Irreducible Complexity section. Hrafn42 10:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why the editors of this article should give ground to ignorance and stupidity by doctoring perfectly good images. -Nodekeeper 11:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't suggesting the doctoring of any images. I'm not even conceding the point on the book-covers. I would however think that having some illustrations that weren't photos of protagonists or book-covers might be useful, by way of variety. Hrafn42 11:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an idea. But personally I do not plan on investing much time into articles when there seems to be egotistical thirteen year olds running interference for a flawed policy. -Nodekeeper 11:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  101 uses for parts of a mousetrap 

message: Carl has been a broken record on a number of points. He has repeated (but has since withdrawn) the "reliable sources for rationales" canard. He continues to rant about the "many editors" who support his contentions (but continuing to fail to make mention of the many more editors who take an opposing view). He continues to trumpet the IfD, as though repeated mention of it will turn it into anything other than the illegitimate impotent kangaroo court that it was on this issue outside its jurisdiction. As far as I know, he has raised one, and only one, issue that is of any import:
The standard imposed by this rule would seem to be readily achievable:
#These books are important to the ID movement, so a paragraph critically evaluating each, in the appropriate section, would not be out of place in the article.
#Each of these books have been repeatedly criticised, often in great detail, often by people with considerably more gravitas on the subjects than the books' writers. WP:RSs for the criticism should not be hard to find.
I would therefore like to suggest that we concentrate on preparation of these paragraphs and ignore (and if necessary censure) Carl's continued repetition of ephemera. Hrafn42 04:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "reliable sources" are the ones you have mentioned as well: the ones needed to write critical commentary in the article. I'm sorry if that reasoning of mine wasn't clear before. If a section of critical commentary belongs in this article, a much stronger rationale can be written for the images, and I will be glad to write it myself. The reason that the previous use wasn't allowed by policy was exactly because there was so little text in the article about the books themselves (distinct from the content of the books, which is of course is well covered). — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You'll be leaving them here period.  •Jim62sch• 21:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A summary and a suggestion 

message: I think we would have difficulty doing better than the Dover decision quote from the Of Pandas and People article:
However we also have access to a whole heap of further information courtesy of the NCSE. An embarrassment of riches. Hrafn42TalkStalk 14:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '[[Of Pandas and People]]' paragraph scratchpad

message: The Ken Miller review is probably a good place to start. I particularly liked his closing paragraph:
However this Dawkins quote from the book's article is also good:
Hrafn42TalkStalk 15:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '[[Darwin's Black Box]]' paragraph scratchpad

message: Stephen Jay Gould's Impeaching a Self-Appointed Judge is probably the most authoritative critique. I especially like this bit, which sums up DoT rather nicely in my opinion:
However I also like Brian Spitzer's explicitly Christian critique: The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth? (subtitled "Why Phillip Johnson's Darwin on Trial and the "Intelligent Design" movement are neither science--nor Christian").Hrafn42TalkStalk 15:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '[[Darwin on Trial]]' paragraph scratchpad

message: The images were added again this evening with the same captions as before; since nothing has changed, the usage isn't acceptable yet, but I'm going to leave them for now in good faith that the critical commentary being discussed here will be added to the article in the next day or two. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll be leaving them here period.  •Jim62sch• 21:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images added 2007-9-15 

message: The concept of irreducible complexity was introduced in Michael Behe's 1996 book, Darwin's Black Box	:Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg
Hrafn42TalkStalk 04:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Irreducible complexity

message: The textbook Of Pandas and People, first published in 1989, was the first book on intelligent design. It was written for use in secondary school biology classes. It was the textbook at the center of the Kitzmiller trial:	:Image:Pandas_and_ppl.jpg
Hrafn42TalkStalk 04:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kitzmiller trial 

message: Phillip E. Johnson's 1991 book Darwin on Trial was among the early "intelligent design" books that attempted to "teach the controversy" about evolution.
“                       	Johnson's current incarnation of this false strategy, Darwin on Trial, hardly deserves to be called a book at all. It is, at best, a long magazine article promoted to hard covers — a clumsy, repetitious abstract argument with no weighing of evidence, no careful reading of literature on all sides, no full citation of sources (the book does not even contain a bibliography) and occasional use of scientific literature only to score rhetorical points. I see no evidence that Johnson has ever visited a scientist's laboratory, has any concept of quotidian work in the field or has read widely beyond writing for nonspecialists and the most "newsworthy" of professional claims.The book, in short, is full of errors, badly argued, based on false criteria, and abysmally written. Didn't anyone ever teach Johnson not to end chapters with "announcement sentences" or to begin subsequent sections with summaries? Chapter 6, for example, ends with a real zinger: "We will look at that claim in the next chapter." The very next chapter then begins with the maximally lively: "Before we try to get any answers out of the molecular evidence, we had better review where we stand." Mrs. McInerney, my tough but beloved third-grade teacher, would have wrapped his knuckles sore for such a construction, used by Johnson at almost every chapter transition."
—Stephen Jay Gould‎	—Stephen Jay Gould‎
Hrafn42TalkStalk 04:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) I reformatted the Darwin on Trial box. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movement 

message: Carl: 3 points:
#The claim you made, and on which basis I made these recent efforts, that "cover images can only be used if they complement critical commentary in the article" is, to say the least, highly inaccurate. WP:NFC is a guideline not policy (something that I didn't notice until Kenosis pointed it out), so can be more accurately represented as "cover images should only be used if they complement critical commentary in the article". One more misrepresentation. One too many. The straw that broke the camel's back. You've forfeited what remaining tiny spark of trust and goodwill you had left. Henceforth I won't believe anything you say until I have gone over the underlying substantiation for myself with extreme skepticism and a fine-tooth comb.
#In case you haven't noticed, there doesn't seem to be much appetite on this article for these boxes. Unlike you and your fellow crusaders, I see little value in quixotically tilting at windmills, so will not spend any more time on something that seems to have little chance of getting consensus approval. If somebody else decides to run with it, I will offer assistance, but otherwise I am done with this sub-project.
#As far as I can see, you and your fellow crusaders have three options:
##You can continue on with your futile quest to attempt to delete the images against the consensus and lacking a clear higher authority to do so. This will most probably result in eventual censure for WP:DE or similar.
##You can attempt to add text-content to the article that would justify the images (which are going to be included regardless of your opinion) to your reading (either with critique boxes or some other format). This will however prove harder than it need have, due to the level of ill-will you have generated here.
##You can simply leave, and let us get on with improving this article our own way.
::I am under no illusions as to which of these three choices you will end up pursuing, but thought that I should at least point them, and their likely consequences, out to you.
Hrafn42TalkStalk 13:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry to hear you have decided not to contribute further to the commentary on the images. The text in the guideline about critical commentary is the consensus interpretation of the "significance" requirements of WP:NFCC, which is policy. Editing an article to bring it in line with policy isn't considered "disruptive editing", and I have made an effort not to edit disruptively. I refrained from removing the images last night, and when I noticed that someone else had done so, I contacted them to ask that they leave the images in place while the article is brought into compliance. As I said above last night, I'm going to wait a couple days in the hope that the use in the article can be brought in line with policy. I was hoping that you and I could work on that, but it seems I will have to find another editor here to work with.  — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "consensus" you claim on the WP:NFC guideline seems more than a little fluid (for example, this dif of changes so far this month) to make it a firm basis for editing. Unless and until it stabilises considerably, or is given  boundaries by some binding rulings giving some precedent, I think most editors would simply go straight to WP:NFCC for solid guidance. Hrafn42TalkStalk 14:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really despise officiousness -- it represents a clear inability to think critically, relying instead on a Manichaean reading of rules drafted by Manicaeists.  Thinking, as Hrafn is trying to explain, is good.  •Jim62sch• 21:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or to put it another way, basing any project on an attempt to rigidly enforce ever-changing 'guidelines' is a formula for an unholy mess. Hrafn42TalkStalk 03:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by Hrafn

message: :Intelligent design is the claim 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."
'Best explained by an intelligent cause', as close as I can figure, is not a coherent clause. I changed this sentence to something along the lines of 'best explained by the actions or choices of an intelligent agent', but it was reverted on account of 'being unacceptable after months of building consensus'. Understandable, of course.
Now, I'm not going to fight much on this, because if the Intelligent Design article lacks coherency that is, quite frankly, a fitting state of affairs in my estimation. But, I thought I should point out that as it stands, the first sentence of this featured article does not, under strict examination, make much sense. The gist is comprehensible but it lacks proper construction. Best regards, Vranak 17:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, you miss the point, That sentence has been carefully constructed, probably by an eminent retired lawyer, to be incoherent but hint at what they want it to mean. You'll notice it's a quotation from the linked sources, with the "ID is a theory" omitted from the start as that's too obvious a bit of misdirection. We could translate the clause you've objected to, perhaps as "are empirical evidence for God but we're not going to mention God", but that would be original research which we're not allowed to do. The ideal would be to find a reliable source translating that "definition" into plain English, then cite that. ... dave souza, talk 17:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  LOL ok! Vranak 18:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening sentence 

message: I wish people would be a little more careful to maintain the new cites when they revert..  Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs) 23:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cites 

message: The New York Times ran an article on it. We may be moving towards the point where we could make a short article on the film. Adam Cuerden talk 00:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I think it's established sufficient notability at this point. It's also generated a fair bit of controversy already, so we should even be able to make a decent-length article on it. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 02:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed IT LIVES!  – ornis⚙ 03:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a zombie, just like Jesus...--ZayZayEM 03:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Expelled" update 

message: There have been repeated concerns about the first sentence, which is a partial quotation from one of the definitions put out by intelligent design proponents. Its language is deliberately obscure and misleading. A third party definition (download page for pdf) has been provided by the UK government for education purposes, and adapting this so that it is neither a direct quotation nor a copyvio I propose the following:
The pdf gives a description of ID under the heading "Is intelligent design a valid scientific theory?", and a brief definition in its "GLOSSARY OF TERMS". ... dave souza, talk 13:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good. I'd probably change it to "fit for their purpose", though. Adam Cuerden talk 14:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes thats an interesting one. I'll check the source. Hal Cross 15:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about "fit for a particular purpose"? Orpheus 18:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I and many others here think that the definition of ID should be the one given by it's leading proponents, i.e.; the Discovery Institute. It's not a good idea to change it away from an exact quote of their definition. Odd nature 22:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think "fit for purpose" is a positive change.  The idea that any part of the natural world has a "purpose" is already invoking teleology, albeit in a fairly uncontroversial way.  Also, "fit for purpose" is the current UK political catchphrase, and it's going to annoy any UK readers of the article.  I would agree with Odd nature and Filll that we should stick with the DI definition; however, if we're going to rephrase it along the lines suggested, how about "well-adapted" or "matched to their function"?  I'd like to say "efficient", but that only connotes energy efficiency these days. Tevildo 00:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comments, it's apparent that the nuances of this proposals are still problematic, and the DI's own definition is how its proponents choose to present it.. dave souza, talk 08:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem Dave. Looks like a reasonable source. Its still worth thinking about a good representation. I'd adopt the general approach of Adam Cuerdon, Hrafn42, and Felonious Monk as above in the Verifiable and/or Accurate section. Hal Cross 09:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed first sentence

message: Following up on the #Timing of DI involvement discussion above, I've expanded the overview a bit to clarify these developments. This includes moving info there from the "Origins of the term" section. The info is about development after the term was first adopted, not its origins. .. dave souza, talk 11:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Timing of DI involvement revisited