Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 48

message: How can sentence like "Others have concurred, and some have called it junk science." made it in the article? I'm sure there are some who have called evolution as junk too.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.104.99 (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to the top of this page. There is a header-section marked "Please read before starting". Read it. This section links to a number of policy pages. Read them. They answer your complaints, which have been made by hundreds of creationists before you. HrafnTalkStalk 12:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: "Others" is referring to people of the scientific and education community, you know, relevant people.--ZayZayEM (talk) 13:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, not everyone in the scientific and education community are relevant and not all of them called Intelligent Design 'Junk Science' (only those against it). I still think this article is clearly too biased. You got to be blind not to see it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.104.99 (talk) 10:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are blind, they don't see it, and they don't want to see it.  The facts are that ID is not accepted as science by nearly every single biologist with credentials, that no reputable biology journal has published anything from Demski et. at., that the IDers have lost their case in court and have deserved to.  But this article is so obviously biased that it is clear that the Wikipedia position is the anti-ID position.  The article could just state the facts, let the IDers hang themselves, and not inject such clear evidence of the anti-ID position of the self-appointed editors and let the article at least appear less biased.  But these editors clearly want the article to take an unreserved position that ID is bad, and they think that is "neutral". 207.190.198.130 (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You're right not everyone is relevant...however all those who are (i.e., actual authorities on biology) think ID is junk. 67.184.132.39 (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we all know better places to get information about ID, but this article with it's accompanying regular editors is an interesting look into the social aspect of the controversy.71.185.15.84 (talk) 09:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How NPOV is this page, really?

message: So the wording might have to be sharpened to make it more clear what the contradiction is. Obviously for legal purposes, the DI and its supporters claim that the "intelligent designer" is unknown and anonymous, and could even be a race of hyperintelligent space aliens. However, we all know from repeated quotes and other evidence is that they intend the intelligent designer to be  God, and not just any God but the Christian God of the Protestant bible. So they are just being coy and possibly even disingenuous when they claim that the intelligent designer is anonymous or unknown or they do not intend it to be God. The agenda, as stated repeatedly, is to promote the literal reading of the protestant Bible and its incorporation into American culture in a more prominent way and even the establishment of a Protestant theocracy. This is why Muslim support for intelligent design is weaker than Muslim support for creationism. The Muslims recognize the covert nature of the movement and the misrepresentation and its true agenda, which they view as hostile to Islam (which it probably is, to be honest).--Filll 15:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely agree that the ID movement is disingenuous, and that this should be mentioned in the article. Ilkali 16:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: BobLMartin, I have to disagree with you on several points. First, why do you believe that the multiverse can never be "proven or disproven"? Never is a long time, and you clearly do not know much about physics if would you make such a claim. Also, the use of the word "prove" here is a bit problematic, although I know what you mean; if you want proof, go to mathematics or logic. Proof is not part of science. Sorry. And I think your statements about what the ID movement believes and supports are inaccurate and not supported by cites, although one might be able to find some. And the provisional conclusion that evolution is a viable explanatory theory that makes accurate predictions is based on literally 100s of millions of pieces of evidence, from DNA, from the laboratory, from field studies and from fossils. It is not based on faith in any way shape or form. There are axioms in science, but the assumption of the correctness or dominance of theory of evolution is not one of them, and such a claim would only be made by someone who knows nothing about science, biology or evolution.-Filll 16:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Who wants to bet this brand new editor (above) is a sock?  Anyone?  I'll give good odds.  Baegis 02:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You would win that bet. I've indefinitely blocked Showerrug as a Raspor sock. Raul654 02:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Has or Had? I would class anyone arguing the former (and advocating your first point, legal system is not religious) to be making the same sort of contradiction as the DI. ID has yet to seperate itself from religious dogma, see KvD, the proponents continually attempt to claim the otherwise, but not consistently.--ZayZayEM 07:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary break

message: A new editor was a bit too bold in cutting some cruft.  I reverted that edit, and will remove most of the material, keeping the essential parts thereof. Bearian 17:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if it was too much, but I do support trimming the fat.  CruftCutter 17:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that the information is relevant. I also agree that it a tad bloated. Perhaps we can trim it down to the basics and include a "see here for full article" link? TechBear 17:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just trimmed a bit of the verbose fat. Bearian 17:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool.  I just did some more.  CruftCutter 17:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Just a note: This is the full article. It has a horde of daughters. See :Category:Intelligent_design  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZayZayEM (talk • contribs) 03:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: And I reverted your edit.  Stop making wholesale changes to this article without discussing it on the Talk Page.  I find it highly, highly suspicious that you registered today for an account and went about wrecking this article.  Strange.  Baegis 18:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This edit is wonderful.  It is concise, gets to the key point (I.D. was found to be a creationist pig with lipstick and a pretty dress) and points the interested reader to the main article.  CruftCutter 18:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cutting the cruft 

message: The Media articles section had this addition, briefly: *The Intelligent Design Debate A general article condemning intelligent design (Capital Weekly) 
It's interesting to see how ID's being covered, though the reporter makes a common mistake in writing "For all intents and purposes, however, it is a phrase propagated by co-founder of Discovery Institute, Stephen C. Meyer." .. .. dave souza, talk 13:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think its a good article. Do we really need to link it? It's just some op-ed by someone (are they notable) that really doesn't bring any new cards to the table, and as you mention, maybe doesn't even bring the right sort of cards to start with.--ZayZayEM (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Media articles

message: "The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God." - William Dembski, 12-14-2007.  http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000006139.cfm
I wonder why he did not publish this major ID discovery in a science journal instead of breaking this news to the Focus on the Family people?  In the article he does not give evidence or even reasons of why the designer is the christian god, but I'm convinced he has a very solid scientific reason for it.  I guess the lone Jewish and single "athiest" supporters of IDC will need to find a new home, or convert.  
How should this unexpected IDC scientific discovery be incorporated into the article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is an interesting question: Is he saying that the Christian God is the Intelligent Designer, or is he saying the Intelligent Designer is the Christian God? The first phrasing gives lie to the alleged secular purpose of ID; the second is abject heresy as it replaces the Christian God with something else. (Insert scientifically engineered cackle of evil glee here.) TechBear (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heresy. It will feed their persecution complex if catholics hate them too.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Dembski has determined the intelligent designer is the christian god, why not simply teach the christian bible in public science classes?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.190.208 (talk) 03:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because that would be an unconstitutional establishment of religion? Raul654 (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to a Time magazine article in their 22 March 2007 issue -  The Case for Teaching The Bible -  it is constitutional to have a class on Bible studies in U.S. public schools. But the classes must not be devotional or sectarian in character. The Bible must be studied as a cultural artefact like Shakespeare.  And, the class certainly can not merge with the science class. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course. This has always been true. I even support this. However, this is not what fundamentalists want. Otherwise, they would just do this and be done with it. Decades ago. No; there is something else going on here.--Filll (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Not a breakthrough, but certainly a good reference to cite. Have we yet?--Filll (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major ID break through - Dembski has identified the designer! 

message: Have a look at Dembski's answer to question 4. It's at the least interesting. Adam Cuerden talk 00:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Curses! Too late! Adam Cuerden talk 00:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interview. 

message: I think this statement leaves Dembski's recent quote in the dust. HrafnTalkStalk 15:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Tis easy -- you just litter your arguments with God-shaped holes, and deny any scientific effort to fill them in with genuine research, and any theologian who points out their obvious God-shapedness. HrafnTalkStalk 16:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nancy Pearcey quote 

message: Who are these people; Dembski and Pearcey?  Folks who quote their "wisdom" as science need to give their academic credentials.  The Pope's credentials were highly-scrutinised by the College of Cardinals, and for Roman Catholics his word is infallable, yet I doubt he would agree with much of the rubbish these anti-science neo creationists say.  
I recall a priest in the 60's giving a sermon that dispelled any possibility of conflict between evolution and creation.  He said the Bible is allegorical--when man evolved to capability of reason (ergo the ability to ascertain right from wrong) was the day man was born.  I have spoken to a number of biblical scholars, all of whom state that the bible books were edited and written many times in many languages in ancient times after being handed down verbally through many generations.  The Bible deals with science very poorly.
::Our American Founding Fathers (in establishing a government free of imposed religion) remembered well the Jesus quote.  When asked whether a coin belonged to God or to Caesar, "Render to Ceasar that which is Ceasar's, and to God that which is God's."
I find it hard to believe that any man who believes in a literal interpretation of every word of the "Bible" would listen to Nancy Pearcey.  
From The Good Book:
I Timothy, 11-14: "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.  But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.  For Adam was first formed, then Eve.  And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."  
According to Apostle Paul, we men should never listen to a single word she (or any woman) says.--W8IMP (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you would have realised, had you actually bothered to read the articles on them, both William A. Dembski‎ & Nancy Pearcey are senior fellows at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture -- the organisation that created intelligent design and the intelligent design movement. As such, they can be considered to speak authoritatively for it. Dembski is (along with Michael Behe‎) one of ID's principal theorists. Pearcey is a lesser light, but still fairly high up in the ID movement. HrafnTalkStalk 02:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So what? 

message: Doing a bit of reading on the DI's website, I came across the claim that ID is completely compatible with universal common descent: . I get the impression that on many issues, to keep as many people as possible in the "big tent", the DI is quite vague, as in discussion of nature of the intelligent designer, biblical inerrancy, age of the earth/dating creation, speciation, macroevolution, etc. If they make it vague enough, they can get almost everyone in the "big tent", including assorted deists, pagans, pantheists, panentheists, polytheists and even some agnostics and atheists. 
However, when push comes to shove, they want to trot out these ridiculous attacks on evolution, and start spewing almost incomprehensible nonsense about materialism, naturalism, ontological naturalism, scientism etc (in the new book Design of Life, they apparently claim that intelligent design rejects the supernatural and miracles but also materialism !!??). So no matter how hard they seem to want to disguise their agenda, when you wait long enough, or dig a little, you uncover raving young earth creationists and anti-science bigots and luddites just beneath the surface. Not sure if references for any of this can be found, but it is somewhat interesting as I slowly start to find out what intelligent design really is.--Filll (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An entertaining apologia, they undermine the "compatibility" with common descent further down where they discuss human chromosome fusion, "This evidence is equally consistent with both human descent from an ape-like ancestor, or a completely separate design of the human species, and therefore does not offer decisive information regarding whether humans share a common ancestor with apes." Vague as ever, surprised they don't claim ID is fully compatible with atheism. Nice the way they approvingly quote from Charles Thaxton's Kitzmiller deposition – "I wasn’t comfortable with the typical vocabulary that for the most part creationists were using because it didn’t express what I was trying to do. They were wanting to bring God into the discussion, and I was wanting to stay within the empirical domain and do what you can do legitimately there." Ben Stein will be furious about keeping God out! .. . dave souza, talk 22:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vagueness 

message: We finally have a pre-release review of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed:   Adam Cuerden talk 10:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed#Newspaper article . . dave souza, talk 14:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heads up.