Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 14

message: Alright, what the heck happened to this article? The "ID in summary" section was supposed to be the proxy for the intro. The intro was supposed to be a short and sweet single paragraph on what ID says it is. Now the intro is almost nothing but criticism, and what ID says it actually "is", is buried. Can someone refactor this? Personally I'd push to ahve a two sentence intro, one to say what ID is and one to give the mainstream science point of view, and the move all the rest of the criticism down into the rest of the article. FuelWagon 02:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Take a swack at paring it down. FeloniousMonk 03:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: what the=

message: "Despite ID sometimes being called Intelligent Design Theory, the scientific community does not recognise ID as a scientific theory and considers it to be creationist pseudoscience."
I'm not debating whether or not this is relevant, it certainly is important to know what the opposing sides think about controversial topics such as this.  I just dislike the wording of the sentence.  If we believe Wikipedia, then the scientific community is the entire body of scientists, regardless of their stance on ID.  This sentence makes it sound as if every scientist thinks that ID is a crock of crap.  Why not word it "most of the scientific community does not..."?  I don't think the scientific community will mind, unless they unanimously agree on this too.
* that's a simple one, it's because it's NOT a scientific theory.  So this is an entirely factual sentence. Mmmbeer 02:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't this sound a little bit weird to you? 

message: here FuelWagon 19:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: vandalism reported

message: How does ID address the issue of poorly designed organs or systems? For example humans often suffer from back problems. Evolution puts this down to the fact that the function of the spine has changed . Evolution must work on the organs/systems already in place. The spine is imperfect for upright posture, but evolution had to make do. If the human back has been designed then firstly why was it designed so badly? And secondly why was it designed to be so similar to the spines of other animals, when those spines serve a different anatomical role? The same can be said of things like the appendix. Evolution can explain it's existence in humans, ID can't. Does ID have explanations for these observations? Should they be included in the article?Alun 10:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Another ID problem/query

message: There are none. The closest you can come to is Mike Denton who is now "switched over" to the theist camp according to LeaderU. Therefore the edit for accuracy is legitimately made. Joshuaschroeder 08:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the edit. --JPotter 16:40, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Why is this point even relevant?  Theism is a consequence of accepting ID.  Well duh.  Did you forget that non-theism is a consequence of accepting strict naturalism?  Theists and non-theists have opposite agendas.  By making this point, you cleverly make people believe that ID people have religious agendas while conveniently disguising the fact that anti-ID people often have anti-religious agendas.  Smells like bias to me.
--David Pesta 00:53, Feb 13, 2006 (CST) (new contributor)
All ID people have religious--indeed, Christian--agendas, as Dembski and Johnson and the rest have made explicitly clear. On the other hand, lots of theistic scientists (and laypeople) side with evolutionary theory, Kenneth Miller being the most prominent. Willerror 23:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ID proponents who are not theists

message: OK, I've been accumulating a bare bones outline about "Intelligent Design" here. For the life of me, I cannot fathom why the ID article is so freaking long and so dense with vocabulary. There are a fixed number of sources, about half a dozen topics, and each topic basically has two points of view. Am I missing something? Are there important topics that I've missed? I'm still trying to find some good sound-bite quotes from both sides that give a good POV as to what each side thinks ID really is. anyone got some sourced quotes? FuelWagon 23:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your version has some issues of it's own; without getting into details of something that is peripheral to the article itself, it whitewashes over the fact that there is a clear conflict between what the leading ID proponents claim ID is to the public and policymakers, and what they say ID is when speaking to each other, their supporters and constituents. It completely ignores that the leading promoters of ID, the Discovery Institute Fellows, Dembski, Johnson, et al., engage in dissemblance and duplicity about what ID really is as a matter of stated policy. These points are central and necessary to understanding ID in context and necessary for understanding the criticism of ID; an accurate and complete ID article must cover these points early. As I've said here before, an article on ID that attempts to cover ID without any context around its proponents is like an article on Catholicism that doesn't mention the Vatican — incomplete and deficient. Paraphrasing Ian Pitchford, Wikipedia shouldn't aid ID proponents in dissembling. FeloniousMonk 04:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  In some instances there is even a third ID discourse, in addition to the two discourses of IDists mentioned above by FM (that is to say (1) that presented to the public and policymakers and (2) that presented to each other). This is the discourse presented to reviews of ID publications, especially those lavishly draped in the language of mathematics, probability theory and computation. It is treacherous terrain, since any effort to understand what any of this means within the accepted standards of mathematics inevitably leads to the conclusion that it means nothing, but then runs into the typical response that "this is not mathematics".--CSTAR 04:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

text: So, there is another topic that needs to be added. Something about "motivation", perhaps, and there might be an "internal versus external motivation" section with quotes made to policymakers and quotes made when preaching to the choir. I'm thinking there may also need to be a "history" topic/section with a brief history of who, what, where, when this thing happened. Yes? FuelWagon 18:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: notes

message: 1) Shorter.  Simpler.  Deleted sentences are unnecessary.  Also, I fear that some readers would have interpreted the deleted sentences to mean that the "mainstream scientific community" is a kind of priesthood of atheists who reject ID not because it is bad science but because it lends support to mainstream religion.  ID is bad science because it is not testable.  So say that and shut up.  Don't reinforce the prejudices of some readers.  Also, the "origin of the universe" is not a part of biology. Ivar Y 23:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not again with this. The passages deleted were informative and necessary. We've already discussed this at length with you, telling us to shut up (at least obliquely) is not going to make your proposed edits any more acceptable. There's been no consensus for what you've been proposing for over two weeks now despite your vigorous denials of the obvious. I'm restoring the content you deleted, and please abide by consensus and don't waste the time of others with weeks of objections. FeloniousMonk
I do not know what specific edits Ivar Y made, but the comments above seem reasonable, if a little heated. The origin of the universe is not part of biology. In fact, even the origin of life is an area of biology with much less solidity than the history of evolution starting from the first cells. Everything before that remains somewhat conjectural, unlike what appears in the fossil record. 
As for "mainstream scientific community," I too am uncomfortable with this phrase. I think "the mainstream scientific community" is a rhetorical device intended to squelch objection. "MSC" creates the illusion of unity where it probably does not exist.  "Scientists" is too broad a category to constitute a community in the usual sense. I would say that no biologist who completely understands how evolution works disagrees with evolution, with the possible exception of IDer Jonathan Wells (which exception prevents the definition from being totally circular I hope).  Other "mainstream" scientists who object to evolution (or agree with it) usually turn out not to have any particular background in evolutionary biology. This is somewhat like anthropologists and geologists deciding by popular vote whether to accept quantum theory. It would be more effective and true to say that no working evolutionary biologist gives ID any credence.     Eperotao 18:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, if "'mainstream scientific community' actually is a rhetorical device intended to squelch objection" it doesn't seem to be effective. The use of the term "mainstream scientific community" is result of objections raised by some at this article and elsewhere that the use of scientific community was prejudicial against creationists who also assert that they too are employing science (it's actually pseudoscience, since any question as to origin or cause is going to be a foregone conclusion). I'm not against using the term 'scientific community' here since it accurately reflects the position statements on ID issued by nearly all professional organizations of the natural sciences, as well as that of the National Academy of Science. Which is why using 'scientific community' or 'mainstream scientific community' is far from being overreaching when speaking of majority of scientists. FeloniousMonk 20:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not say "a majority of scientists"? --goethean ॐ 20:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: It is silly, but not completely trivial.  The words "scientist" and "biologist" are far from equivalent. Many of evolutionary biology's critics are scientists from non-biological disciplines.  I think the lukewarm support of, say, 80%? of scientists is less meaningful than the vigorous support of 100% (or 99.99%) of biologists. If one cites the opinions of biologists, especially organismal biologists, then "mainstream" and "community" are legitimate descriptors. I think "the community of biologists" is totally legitimate and then you don't even have to invoke "mainstream." But most writers feel the need to call on the support of other scientists, among whom there is less consensus.  And that's when the qualifier "mainstream" becomes a necessary rhetorical device, whose purpose is apparently to exclude the many scientists who don't in fact accept evolution. So why not just say that  biologists whole heartedly accept evolution?   Eperotao 23:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanations of Edits