Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 41

message: this article seems like a goldmine for discussing the political end of ID, especially the split in American conservatism over the topic. JoshuaZ 04:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I watched the debate (not because I'd vote for a Republican, but because I'm a wonky kind of guy), and when the question was asked, McCain seemed to stumble for a second or two.  Interestingly, McCain, Guliani and Romney did NOT raise their hands.  Romney was most interesting lending credence to the fact that the LDS faith is not anti-Evolution.  Of course, if you watched the abortion question, I believe that the answers were unanimously right wing.  But I wasn't absolutely sure.  Orangemarlin 15:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see the relevance at the moment. The main task here is to report what the reliable sources say about intelligent design.   Seems to me the creation-evolution controversy is another topic, and other political issues are relevant to yet other topics. Or was this just intended to give broader insight into the contemporary political jockeying in the US, with which ID was somewhat intertwined? . ... Kenosis 15:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we are all bright people, so interesting information that frames this debate is useful.  The fact that the New York Times states that "Some of these thinkers have gone one step further, arguing that Darwin’s scientific theories about the evolution of species can be applied to today’s patterns of human behavior, and that natural selection can provide support for many bedrock conservative ideas, like traditional social roles for men and women, free-market capitalism and governmental checks and balances."  What reads like social Darwinism may in fact move this debate from a political one to a strictly fringe-religious one.  Right now, a certain number of right-wingers might take anti-Darwinism to be a matter of political gospel, when in fact it's not.  And yes, this is an American problem, but ID is pretty much nothing outside of the US.  Orangemarlin 16:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kenosis: not too sure I understand the vehement dismissal of the article.  While the ID  article may not be the perfect place to bring up the NYT article (Intelligent_design_in_politics might be better), it does have a bearing on the bigger picture of ID as a movement, which we do touch on in this article.  •Jim62sch• 23:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh! Jim, I didn't intend to be vehement, nor dismiss it out of hand.  Perhaps I could have said "I'm afraid I don't see the relevence at the moment", except I'm not "afraid" of not seeing the relevance.  Orangemarlin explained it adequately for me, saying essentially that it's relevant to the wider context, to framing the debate. ... Kenosis 09:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You're not a-scared?  ;)  •Jim62sch• 13:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York Times article 

message: Reading the above, it seems to me that it could help if we use the more detailed description as an intro, then cite the DI definition verbatim as their statement:
Natural selection isn't linked as it's a quotation, and could be linked and briefly noted as not being "undirected" in the next paragraph about the response of scientists. .. dave souza, talk 02:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dave, you're among the most thoughtful, rational persons in these parts of the world in my opinion.  But........ "Intelligent design" can't contend anything.  I've no serious quibbles about much else that you've just put forward as a possible option for the article lead. I still think the safest route is to quote ID's primary advocates' website for the initial definition, consistent with past consensus (within the last year and three months at least) about how to introduce the concept/proposition in the first sentence. ... Kenosis 02:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I had "is the proposition", tried "is the contention" then thought "contends" might work – it would with "ID theory" but I wanted to avoid theory too early. Changed to 2nd option .. dave souza, talk 06:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but this is no improvement on the current version. FeloniousMonk 03:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can live with the current version, but think it could be improved by clarifying some obscurities. It seemed attractive having a direct quotation, as we did (cropped) for a while, but thinking it over, the term "proposition" used by Jones does show that it is the view of its proponents and not Wikipedia, so it's overall better to have the reworded summary as at present. See below for suggested clarifications. .. dave souza, talk 09:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: FM, I think I might have started this whole war, because I reverted the lead to a version from the end of March or beginning of April.  THAT version is the one that is the best.  IMHO, everything has been downhill since.  Orangemarlin 06:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And it's now like a sled, with greased rails, running down a 70 degree icy slope. •Jim62sch• 21:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think OM has a good point: ID is a teleological argument at its core, it is nothing more or less.  (Of course, teleological arguments are functionally fallacies as they attempt to prove that which can neither be proven nor disproven, and hence are neither scientifically nor logically valid.  But I digress).  In any case, "contention" is certainly not the correct word; and what comes after is not really accurate.  We're going around in circles trying to please people who see ID as some sacred theory that gives a "scientific" voice to religion.  In the meantime we are missing the forest for the trees and are creating leads that are obfuscatory and fallible.  •Jim62sch• 13:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: God, no! Aimless is even worse than undirected! Adam Cuerden talk 14:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro para reshuffled

message: For comparison, here's the current lead first para –
It's concise, and close to the DI definition, but like that definition is too vague to give any idea of what the ID arguments are, other than saying they're claimed to be better. Here's a suggestion accepting that "proposition" is enough to indicate that this is the concept of its proponents, while giving more of an idea of the claims of IC and SC, and adding what to me is a very important point, that ID openly requires a redefinition of science. Note that the "undirected" which has been omitted from the current lead is a subtle reference to teleology, and could be translated as lacking an aim or purpose. Here's a suggestion with those points added to the current lead para:
The version OM favours put the "argument for the existence of God" first, and did not have the point that it's modified to avoid identifying "the designer". Would it be worth having a straw poll to get an idea of who else shares that preference? .. dave souza, talk 09:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think OM has a good point: ID is a teleological argument at its core, it is nothing more or less.  (Of course, teleological arguments are functionally fallacies as they attempt to prove that which can neither be proven nor disproven, and hence are neither scientifically nor logically valid.  But I digress).  In any case, "contention" is certainly not the correct word; and what comes after is not really accurate.  We're going around in circles trying to please people who see ID as some sacred theory that gives a "scientific" voice to religion.  In the meantime we are missing the forest for the trees and are creating leads that are obfuscatory and fallible.  •Jim62sch• 13:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: God, no! Aimless is even worse than undirected! Adam Cuerden talk 14:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reshuffle mark II

message: I would like to suggest that we take this to formal mediation, with the following parameters:
-----
===Involved parties===
*Orangemarlin
*(Other users who are not prepared to accept definitions other than "argument for the existence of God" - FeloniousMonk?  Filll?)  
*RBJ
*(Other users who are not prepared to accept "Leading proponents" - Morphh?  Adam C?)
===Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:===
*WP:RFC link - Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive37#Request_for_comment:_lead
===Issues to be mediated===
*Should the lead begin "Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God", or "Intelligent design is the proposition 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.", or appropriate paraphrases of either? 
*Should the lead contain "Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute"?  If not, how should this fact be expressed?
I hope I've identified the two main issues that are holding us up.  I don't want to misrepresent anyone's position, so it would probably be better if anyone who feels that they should be parties to the proposed mediation adds their own name before we make it official. Tevildo 07:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead has been completely renegotiated since the start of the RfC cited above, so rather than going on to another stage, what's needed now is identifying the areas of dispute, which you're doing, then another RfC if we can't agree a form of words. .. dave souza, talk 09:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt whether another RfC is going to be productive, as I don't see how it's going to differ from the discussions we've been having over the past two weeks.  However, if that's what we need to do, let's do it.  I think that any formal process has to restrict itself to the above very narrow issues, rather than being a general discussion of the lead, if it's going to get anywhere - can we rely on everyone involved to do that? Tevildo 10:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ¡Mira, Sancho, los molinos de viento! ¡Los carguemos ya! •Jim62sch• 13:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, I know - which is why I think we have a case for going to mediation _now_, without the pointless exercise of an RfC beforehand.  However, if the bureaucracy insists on it...  Would there be any objection to putting the RfC on a sub-page (Talk:Intelligent design/RFC, perhaps) so that it at least has a chance of not getting overwhemled? Tevildo 14:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: (Incidentally, Don Quixote was written in 1604, but the inverted ! wasn't introduced until 1754.  Just in case anyone doesn't get the reference). :) Tevildo 14:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Back when I was involved with lobbying for ID to primarily designated a TA, I was envisioning something like "Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God that proposes "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." I don't see these as mutually exclusive phrasings. I think the second statement (even though its a ID quote) is better as a primary designation, but I feel a simple proposition is a weak non-specific noun when compared with linkable design argument.--ZayZayEM 14:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formal Mediation Proposal 

message: *Should the lead begin "Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God", or "Intelligent design is the proposition 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.", or appropriate paraphrases of either? 
*Should the lead contain "Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute"?  If not, how should this fact be expressed?
I hope I've identified the two main issues that are holding us up.  I don't want to misrepresent anyone's position, so it would probably be better if anyone who feels that they should be parties to the proposed mediation adds their own name before we make it official. Tevildo 07:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead has been completely renegotiated since the start of the RfC cited above, so rather than going on to another stage, what's needed now is identifying the areas of dispute, which you're doing, then another RfC if we can't agree a form of words. .. dave souza, talk 09:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt whether another RfC is going to be productive, as I don't see how it's going to differ from the discussions we've been having over the past two weeks.  However, if that's what we need to do, let's do it.  I think that any formal process has to restrict itself to the above very narrow issues, rather than being a general discussion of the lead, if it's going to get anywhere - can we rely on everyone involved to do that? Tevildo 10:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ¡Mira, Sancho, los molinos de viento! ¡Los carguemos ya! •Jim62sch• 13:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, I know - which is why I think we have a case for going to mediation _now_, without the pointless exercise of an RfC beforehand.  However, if the bureaucracy insists on it...  Would there be any objection to putting the RfC on a sub-page (Talk:Intelligent design/RFC, perhaps) so that it at least has a chance of not getting overwhemled? Tevildo 14:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: (Incidentally, Don Quixote was written in 1604, but the inverted ! wasn't introduced until 1754.  Just in case anyone doesn't get the reference). :) Tevildo 14:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Back when I was involved with lobbying for ID to primarily designated a TA, I was envisioning something like "Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God that proposes "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." I don't see these as mutually exclusive phrasings. I think the second statement (even though its a ID quote) is better as a primary designation, but I feel a simple proposition is a weak non-specific noun when compared with linkable design argument.--ZayZayEM 14:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues to be mediated

message: Again, the tendentious and incessant gripes of the ID promoting crowd notwithstanding, there's nothing here to mediate: This article is accurate and extremely well sourced. In fact, it is one of the most heavily sourced articles in Wikipedia and its tone is consistent with all the most sources on the topic.  That being the case, any misuse of mediation to force in less than neutral content into the article will 1) fail, 2) be viewed for what it is and only compound the already substantial evidence of chronic and disruptive pov pushing by those seeking to promote the minority (pro-ID) viewpoint while downplaying that of the majority (the courts and the scientific community). FeloniousMonk 03:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: There's nothing here to mediate

message: Er... I know this is a little off-topic, but... do you think we're done with some of the earlier discussion? Because this talk page, even after removing everything before the vote, is still over 300kb long, which seems excessive. Adam Cuerden talk 16:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think we can archive most of it - certainly up to "Answers in Genesis", and possibly all the way down to "Unprotected". Tevildo 16:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: Intelligent design is a traditional argument for the existence of God (modified to remove explicit identification of the creative force)[1] which claims that an intelligent agent has designed certain aspects of biological life and the universe.[2] Its proponents claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, established theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.[3] However, the consensus of the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science,[4] with the U.S. National Academy of Sciences explaining that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[5] 
Intelligent design grew out of creation science, an attempt to scientifically justify a literal reading of the book of Genesis, after the United States Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguilard that forcing schools to teach creation science alongside evolution was a violation of the principle of seperation of church and state. Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon revised a creation science textbook they had been working on to remove most of the explicitly religious references and replaced "creation science" with the term "intelligent design". A newly-founded orginisation, the Discovery Institute, with which all the leaders of the movement would be connected, picked up the term, and expanded and refined it. The original book, Of Pandas and People's assertion that things "began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact"[9] were replaced by more subtle, biomolecular definitions, such as Michael Behe's irreducible complexity, which claims that biochemical systems where one part cannot be removed cannot be evolved. However, Behe was forced to admit under oath that irreducible complexity did not actally address the task facing evolution.[10] Other proposals such as specified complexity have not fared much better, and Behe himself was forced to admit under oath that no scientific evidence in support of the intelligent design hypothesis had been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Intelligent Design itself went on trial in 2005 in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, and, like its predecessor,  Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, is essentially religious in nature, and  requiring public school science classes to teach that intelligent design was an alternative to evolution violated seperation of church and state.
The "Teach the Controversy" campaign followed its defeat.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs) 
:The information is good, but I think the style is a bit too "chatty" - good for a newspaper article, but not for an encyclopedia.  Some obvious changes - "seperation of church and state" needs to be "First Amendment", as the two are _not_ identical.  I don't think that we can claim - er - common descent from the very crude Pandas definition to Behe.  "Have not fared much better" is (a) imprecise (b) borderline OR.  I think we should keep the wording of the current version as much as possible, and add information gradually, rather than attempting radical re-writes at this stage... Tevildo 21:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A fair point. Let's leave it for now, then, but make an effort to gradually add more information, while cutting unnecessary parts. Adam Cuerden talk 22:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as size, I don't think it is overly large.  WP:LEAD#Length states our lead based on article prose length should be three to four paragraphs.  However, they may be too lengthy and detailed. Morphh  (talk) 23:41, 07 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Work

message: Hi guys, just browing the article, which obviously many people have put a lot of time and effort into.  I just have a question, that may have already been discussed in another talk page.  In the Overview Section, in the last paragraph it is stated that according to a Harris poll, 10 percent of individuals believe in intelligent design.  In my humble opinion, this is somewhat misleading.  I think the contents of the entire poll should be posted, so the reader gets a better grasp on all aspects of this poll.  I think the reader is left to assume that, therefore 90 percent of individuals beleive in evolution, which is clearly not the case.  I think it would be more clear if this sentence stated 10 percent believe in ID, however almost two-thirds of U.S. adults (64%) agree with the basic tenet of creationism, or that "human beings were created directly by God." While approximately one-fifth (22%) of adults believe "human beings evolved from earlier species" (evolution), as stated in the Harris poll.  I think that would provide more clarity to this statement.  Overall, it seems the editors have taken a lot of time to explain both sides of this issue.  Thank you.  131.44.121.252 18:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, thanks.  A number of participants were just discussing this above, and deciding what to do about that paragraph which mentions the polls. ... Kenosis 18:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See above.  •Jim62sch• 18:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Overview Section:'''

message: Well, I'm off on holiday in a few hours - it's kind of a last minute thing, but my rather spectacular meltdown seemed to merit it. It's looking a lot better now. I'm not... completely sure that things are always presented in the most logical order in the lead, but, well, I'm not going to argue about it until I'm a bit calmer.
I have made one change - revert it if you like, I guess, but I do think something needs done about it: "undirected processes" is (probably intentionally) ambiguous, so I kept the first, less controversial bit of the quote, but paraphrased the second bit to a more exact "unguided". I also changed "proposition" to "claim", as, well, with the "best" and all, it's being described in the proponent's terms. "Claim" makes that reasonably unambiguous, whereas "proposition" is a fairly neutral word that would go best with a neutral phrasing, or something not so strongly disputed.
It now reads Intelligent design is the claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause" as opposed to unguided processes such as natural selection, which I think is a little more precise. See you sometime Tuesday! Adam Cuerden talk 22:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adam, hope you have a pleasant holiday, and come back refreshed. ... Kenosis 01:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S. I must say I really like the new paragraph three. Great work, everyone! Adam Cuerden talk 23:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarifying lead 

message: This phrase, found near the end of the lead is kind of obscure. Can we instead say something like "in violation of the prohibition against the promoting of religion by the government in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution"?
...That, of course, is excessively verbose, but I'm sure we can come up with something. Adam Cuerden talk 12:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took out some of the extra specifics from the third paragraph, such as the mention of Phillip E. Johnson and Stephen Meyer.  The lead is, per WP:LEAD, generally expected to be a compact summary of the rest of the article.  Constitutional separation of church and state is articulated in the way Adam proposes in the very first paragraph of the "overview" that follows the lead, and yet again in the approximate way he proposes in the third paragraph of "Origins of the term".  That's two levels of gradually expanding specificity. If it needs to be more specific, by all means it could be made yet more specific in some appropriate place in the article.  But it's already specific enough for the lead. (If Phillip E. Johnson and Stephen Meyer need to be mentioned as being directly involved in the founding of the Discovery Institute and in having founded the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, this can readily be integrated into the Overview or given more specific treatment somewhere else in the article.  Offhand, I think this more relevant in the overview than is the current last paragraph about the highly questionable Harris and Zogby polls). ... Kenosis 13:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's SHORTER, but the lead is supposed to be the most accessible part, not just a short summary. Since  "Establishment Clause" isn't a term in general use, we ought to say, or at least imply, what it is in the minimum necessary detail that still allows the reader to understand the sentence. One possibility strikes me:  The last sentence,  "U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature." is... actually a much easier sentence than the one before, so if we rearranged the two sentences to allow a phrasing like "ruled that it was not science, but instead essentially religious in nature, and thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution." that would strongly imply what the Establishment clause is. It might lose Judge Jones, though, but... well, we could rearrange and chop up. Adam Cuerden talk 14:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have no objection to squashing in a note about "the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution" in the lead (though there's a very approximate limit to how much can reasonably be put there before it increasingly fails to be a WP:LEAD).  I made several adjustments here and here , leaving it in this form. A very minor quibble I still have about using the words in the third paragraph of the lead, "... trial challenging its intended use..." (technically a "trial" doesn't challenge, but instead it is a "complainant" who challenges and a "trial" that is the process for assessing the complaint), but offhand I think we can get away with this informal wording in this one place.  ... Kenosis 19:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points. Sorry! I forgot about that specific. How about "and thus the district's promotion of it violated the Establishment Clause", or something along those lines? Of course, we could always go back to the version I linked as the pre-rearrangemt version and just explain the establishment clause instead. Adam Cuerden talk 21:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Establishment Clause 

message: As it stands now, we have this phrase: "U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, but is essentially religious in nature".  I wonder if this would read better as "not scientific, but essentially religious in nature", making both of the possibilities being compared adjectives.  On the other hand, I'm worried that "not science", which I believe Jones said in as many words,  might be stronger than "not scientific", and thus might - if that is true - mischaracterise Jones' ruling. Thoughts? Adam Cuerden talk 21:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure. I would be okay with either a literal quotation, preferrably using quotation marks, or a paraphrase (at the risk of introducing OR of course, if the meaning changes too much). What do other editors think? SheffieldSteel 21:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "H. Conclusion. .... In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." ... dave souza, talk 22:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the quote (well, part of it). Though I am worried about using too many exact quotes - they can be distracting. Still, we'd never get away with that in paraphrase. Adam Cuerden talk 23:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncertain revision. 

message: I noticed that some commentators out there have written that intelligent design can apply to, and indeed suggests, polytheism. I wonder if that idea should be included in the article or not. 204.52.215.13 19:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Verifiable sources would be needed of such suggestions, and their inclusion in the article would be subject to the requirement of WP:NPOV that minority positions should not be given undue weight. .. dave souza, talk 20:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Given that ID doesn't even explicitly rule out space aliens, I would very much doubt that it would explicitly rule out polytheism. Implicitly, it is fairly clear that what IDers have in mind is a monotheistic God. However, unless you can catch them in a logical self-contradiction that excludes polytheism (equivalent to the one that excludes natural designers such space aliens), I do not see how they would be even implicitly excluded. This does not however prevent ID from contradicting certain specific polytheistic creation myths. Hrafn42 03:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ID and polytheism

message: Intelligent design's primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute,[6][7][8][9][10][11][12]
Oh, come now: That's just excessive superscripting. Can we group the references into 2-4 batches? Adam Cuerden talk 05:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a good idea. This is something we've learned through many hard lessons here. The problem is that some don't bother reading through grouped sources. Each source should have it's own footnote to avoid confusion. Read the section above containing Africagenesis' objections and tell me how that wasn't a contributing factor with his issue. FeloniousMonk 05:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying reduce it to one, but a compromise between identifying multiple sources and readability. Seven is too many for readability. Adam Cuerden talk 05:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. A number of the current participants in this article just very recently argued about a large quantity of minutia, and how precisely they should be stated in the lead section of the article, neglecting either by accident or design the issue of accessibilty.  On balance, in my estimation the extra split-second it takes for the casual reader to choose to skip, hop, or jump past multiple footnotes is not even remotely comparable to the actual complexities of the topic of intelligent design. ... Kenosis 06:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Adam, I'm sorry, but I disagree too.  I actually would posit the argument that we could probably reduce that to one reference.  "40 days and 40 nights" seems to contain sufficient evidence to link the DI and ID together pretty well.  But anyways, aside from that, it doesn't bother my readability to see that many references.  Orangemarlin 06:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't feel so strongly about it to push the point in the face of unanimous opposition... Adam Cuerden talk 07:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea what the weight of opinion is here at the moment or in the longer term.  But I disagree that consolidating footnotes helps anything in a complex, continually controversial—or at least repetitively controversial—article such as this. ... Kenosis 07:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The number of footnotes has grown in response to the neverending objections raised by some readers.  It is not enough to simply say "the Sun is a star" with just one source, we have to have that information verified by quotes from astronomers, cosmologists, theologians, physicists, photographers and some school teacher in Iowa.  •Jim62sch• 12:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could always just combine them into a single footnote, the way it was done before (see the FAC discussion) - anything not repeated elsewhere can be lumped together with no loss of information.  Guettarda 02:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over-referencing 

message: It is a variation of the teleological argument for the existence of God that has been framed to not explicitly specify the nature or identity of the designer.
Ignorigng whether "form" or "variation" or "modification" or something else is preferred - I could go either way, so long as we in some way emphasise the change -  I must ask: does the word "framed" actually provide important meaning?  Because it would read better to say "It is a variation of the teleological argument for the existence of God that does not explicitly specify the nature or identity of the designer." or, if not using a noun that emphasises change, "It is a form of the teleological argument for the existence of God modified so that it does not specify the nature or identity of the designer." or... something like that, but I'm worried that subtle shades of meaning might be lost. Adam Cuerden talk 12:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As is ordinarily the case, there are multiple different ways of stating the information to the reader.  No objection to replacing "framed" with another suitable verb. ... Kenosis 14:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Presented"? KillerChihuahua?!? 19:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query 

message: I've restore the intro back to it's long standing structure, which 1) is easier to read, 2) is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject, 3) has stood for years for good reason. That reason is that that structure simply makes sense from a editorial and a policy standpoint: Simply state what ID is followed by what its proponents say it is in the first paragraph. This satisfies WP:NPOV for being neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. The following paragraph can then be devoted to describing how it was received by the venue in which ID stakes its claim, the scientific community. The remained should cover its legal status. The recent change to the structure interleafed the ID and scientific community's views within the first two sentences, making for an article structure that appears to be "tit-for-tat" and more difficult to read. I've yet to read a compelling argument for why that is better, and again this appears to have been done without consensus. FeloniousMonk 17:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I probably did not help that situation, with this edit, wherein I tried to squeeze in a clause about it being held out to be a scientific theory (while actually being a form of teleological argument, a philosophical or theological argument for the existence of God).  I had hoped maybe there'd be some support for the approach, but it fell flat. ... Kenosis 20:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a nice idea, but, well, we can't trust people to realise the teleological argument isn't a scientific theory  given one of my friends insists flood geology is more scientific than evolution. (remind me to paste the last online conversation we had about that sometime). Adam Cuerden talk 21:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget to paste the last online conversation about flood geology.  Orangemarlin 00:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, Kenosis seemed to think the information from the last sentence of the first paragraph had to go immediately after the lead sentence, so my rearrangement was the only NPOV way to do that without repeating information. Didn't really think it'd stand. Adam Cuerden talk 18:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro structure again

message: This clause is a bit out of place where it is; what do you think about moving it to the discussion of the Discovery Institute in paragraph 3 (or, rather, the information from it) where it would fit more comfortably? Adam Cuerden talk 18:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you think its out of place? KillerChihuahua?!? 19:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This section title almost made me vomit until I read the comment. Thanks. Simões (talk/contribs) 19:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It interrupts the flow of the facts: While moving from ID not explicitly naming the designer to the leading proponents identifying him as the Abrahamic God, we suddently add a completely unrelated fact about those proponents belonging to the Discovery Institute. It could be made to flow a lot better, with simpler wording, if we talked about the DI when we're talking about the DI anyway, instead of forcing it into a discussion about the designer according to ID. Adam Cuerden talk 19:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not think about how to make the sentence flow better, rather than moving it out of the lead?  Guettarda 02:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the third paragraph is part of the lead? Adam Cuerden talk 10:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the DI, believe the designer is the Abrahamic God, it is important to have that information in the lead. Its crucial to understanding ID. That said, if I could think of a better way to integrate that, I would, and if you can think of better phrasing, please post it here. It would be nice if we could improve the flow. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute 

message: Firstly, in my opinion "Claimed by its advocates to be a scientific theory,[4] " appears to give the teleological argument as an argument against its advocates, though they are actually happy to cite the argument (Paley etc) as earlier "design theorists", and so introduces unnecessary complication. The CSC source "for the claim that ID is a "scientific theory" irrespective of movements to change the definition of science" evades the issue and whinges about Darwin supporters being unfair, but underlying it is the need for science to accept their premise that "the 'apparent design' in nature... [is] the product of an intelligent cause", which as Kitzmiller has shown has to be supernatural. I've been roughing out a timeline which is now at User talk:Dave souza/ID timeline, and evidently Johnson started around 1987 with the idea that the definition of science was unfair, and though he may have heard of the term from Meyer around 1988 he didn't use it in his first book until the 2nd edition of 1993. As for the definition, an argument for the short summary one is that there are two current definitions of ID: the lawyery DI one that we've been using, and the Pandas one that goes back to around 1983, tweaked in 1997 and still current: definition "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc."  – so I'd like to see the shorter summary in the lead, and both full definitions explored in the Overview section. Am aiming to produce more ideas, but not tonight... dave souza, talk 20:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments and proposals..

message: While the claim that ID is a scientific theory was previously at the end of the first paragraph to lead directly to the rebuttal in the second paragraph, it has recently been duplicated earlier as "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, and said by its advocates to be a scientific theory." I've suggested modifying the last sentence to avoid repeating this statement, but as discussed above there is opposition to this change. Perhaps a better approach is to remove the first statement, shown in italics in the quote above, and change the last sentence. At present it reads "Intelligent design's advocates seek a fundamental redefinition of science, no longer limiting it to natural explanations for what is observed in the universe, but accepting supernatural explanations as well, and, on this basis, claim that intelligent design is a new scientific theory." It could be made more general by removing "on this basis". ....... dave souza, talk 06:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ID is said by the Discovery Institute to be a "scientific theory" over and over and over again. Six times, on the one Discovery Institute page just cited as "over and over and over again", the words "scientific theory" are stated in the context of advocating the inclusion of "intelligent design" in public school science curricula. It's a scientific theory because of X; it's a scientific theory because of Y; It's a scientific theory because of Z; it's a scientific theory because of A; a scientific theory because of B; a scientific theory because of C;, and also, I might add, because "science" has been taken over by athests, materialists, etc., etc., etc. (The six uses of "scientific thoery" on the Discovery Institute webpage just mentioned are of course more neatly woven into the syntax of the page than just X,Y,Z,A,B,C.) I agree that the fourth sentence (currently the last sentence of the first lead paragraph) could be made more accurate and succinct by the removal of the words "...on this basis". ... Kenosis 07:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, have removed "on this basis". We know that the DI keep claiming it's a "scientific theory", the question is how often we show it in the lead, and whether we keep it close to the rebuttal. Both the DI and the FTE (in 1983 onwards) have explicitly linked their claim with their assertion that science should not confine itself to natural explanations. ... dave souza, talk 09:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Dave, and Adam. One could always quibble, but I think it's reasonable. ... Kenosis 15:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplicate scientific theory

message: I reverted the edits by this user because they did not appear to follow the discussions herein.  I used popups, forgetting that it saves automatically not giving me a chance to write comments.  Orangemarlin 19:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I kind of like the idea behind "The Discovery Institute's response was to rewrite many Creationist texts, removing all references to a "Creator" and replacing the term "Creationism" with their new term "intelligent design" (without specifying who the "designer" might be)", though, of course, it's wrong to attribute it to the Discovery Institute, which didn't then exist. Adam Cuerden talk 19:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, I kinda remember seeing similar edits made before.  Wonder why that is? •Jim62sch• 23:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't know. Why? Adam Cuerden talk 03:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of edits by [[User:Rcarlberg|Rcarlberg]]