Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 34

message: In the secular world, the beginning of wisdom is the phrase "I don't know."  Nobody knows how we got here.  The constant references to ID being "unscientific" in this article are bizarre, at the very least.  In order for a thing to be scientific, it must have two characteristics:  it must be observable, and it must be repeatable in an experimental setting.  Nothing else is "scientific."  So, while ID fails in this regard, so does evolution.  Indeed, when anyone points out that evolution is not observable, the usual response is to simply throw a few more million years into the equation, making it ever more unobservable.
::I dispute your criteria for what is scientific, and I dispute your statement that evolution is not observable. Certainly, supernovae are not "reproducible in an experimental setting" yet I wager that few would say supernova astrophysics is not science. Certainly inferences about the evolution of the solar system, inferred from isotopic ratios in meteroites, are scientific, yet this has the same observability as fossils. If one takes all the different types of animals, that is certainly "reproducibility". as for not observalbe, we can certainly observe evolution in action in microbes and insects, and, through the fossil record, evolution in organisms with longer lifespans. I believe that scientists are starting to see evoluiton in action in certain cases that favor rapid evolution, eg when a new type of fish is introduced into a lake, where there are few existing fish species, the new fish can diversify very rapidly. I apologize for not having the reference handy, but perhpas a specialist can help out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.220.64.105 (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I would say the scientific crowd has a certain desperation: for scientists, ID vs evolution is like arguing if malaria is caused by insect bites or swamp vapors. To most scientists, it seems really silly. I'm not sure about the majority is vauousness argument (which indicates a certain bias on your part): if 99.999% of people who study this for a living agree , more or less, that evolution is a good theory and ID is not, I think that is worth something: would you disregard the opinon of car mechanics if 99 out of 100 said you needed a new oxygen sensor and one said you needed new rings ? maybe the one mechanic is right - maybe not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.220.64.105 (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Doing so would violate our core policy, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, which describes the "the neutral point of view" as "a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. ... Debates are described, represented, and characterized, ... Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate."  FeloniousMonk 04:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Take it to the judge. .. dave souza, talk 22:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They already have: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. They lost. FeloniousMonk 04:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: varthold, 31 December 2006

message: I wonder how many times these discussions have been repeated.  I've looked through the Talk:evolution archives and the same discussions were repeated 20 or 30 times with the same resolution.  Honestly, the repetitiveness here is the exact same and it comes down to one point.  Evolution as a fact is science, verifiable and repeatable.  ID is based on religious faith that is accepted by few people who are very passionate.  Religious faith cannot be proven, so therefore is POV, pseudoscience and religion.  To repeat the argument 400 times, subtly changing the words, is not going to change anyone's mind.  Wikipedia does not espouse any religion, just encyclopedic fact that is verifiable.  Orangemarlin 23:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reduntant repetitiveness 

message: What the discovery institute has done, with an infusion of money, is revive William Paley's arguments from 2 centuries ago with slightly more modern language. These arguments can be even more solidly rejected now than they were 200 years ago. Science's accomplishments are far greater than they were 200 years ago, and the definition of science is more precise, at least among scientists. The public still has very little understanding of what science is, so the expenditure of large sums of money by the DI and the publicity with having a high profile court case or two has confused the issue. In the public's mind, DI might as well have won the Dover court case. Most of them probably do not know that DI lost in court, they only know they have heard of ID now. Most of the public do not know what science is; just look at how many believe in alien abduction and telekinesis and ghosts and various conspiracy theories (JFK, 9/11) or whatever. So in some ways, the stink DI has made has served the purpose intended; it has given this issue a very high profile in the public's mind. This, coupled with an almost complete lack of understanding of what evolution is in the public's mind, has created a dangerous situation. After all, what politician or decision make could object to the very reasonable sounding "Teach both sides and let people decide for themselves" or "Teach the controversy", or "Mainstream science is unfairly supressing us". It would take very little for the fundamentalists to gain the upper hand on some future supreme court, or in some future congress. Just look at the anti-Michael J. Fox advertisements in the last congressional election. I suspect these ads would have been far more successful if Rush Limbaugh had not stuck his foot in his mouth and made such ludicrous statements. --Filll 13:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My view

message: As successful as the Discovery Institute's strategy was with the public, it is really caught in a difficult position legally and scientifically etc. To raise money and get support from churches, they must someplace make a connection to God or the divine or theology. If they do not, they will not get any money. However, they have to keep this agenda "secret" to have any chance in the US court system, or in the scientific establishment. Of course, this means that a huge volume of fairly extremist religious types will be exposed to the secret real motivation behind their books, lobbying, strategies, research, etc. And some will proudly brag about it, as religious people like to do, to the filthy heathens and infidels. For example, take a look at this story about the Biologic institute: 
--Filll 14:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Strategy

message: I'm not sure that throwing polling data back and forth between the Evolution side and the Creation myth side does any good.  Facts aren't proven by polls, they just show how uneducated and silly people can be.  I forgot the exact numbers, but a substantial number of Americans believe they've been abducted by aliens.  So, in the UFO article (and I'm going to check if that's considered pseudoscience, because if I'm going to stand on principle with Noah's Ark and ID, I'm going to do the same with Divining Rods and UFO's), does it qualify as NPOV information to state that in some Gallup Poll or something, 60% of Americans believe in Aliens? That just shows that 60% of Americans need to have their heads examined by a qualified psychotherapist.  I don't care how many people believe in ID, it is pseudoscience, it is myth, and it is religion, but it is not factual and it is not science.  If Raspor or whatever Mr. 3RR added to the revert war, I don't think Polling data belongs in an encylopedic article.  Unless you're going to state how gullible some number of people are to mythology.  I might buy that.  Orangemarlin 04:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A more telling point might be a poll of southerners in 1962 on segregation. But you can't win an argument with this sort of thing. You can just be polite and keep pounding away at the facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.220.64.105 (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you suggesting 4 out of 5 dentists don't recommend Trident to their patients who chew gum?  Seriously, I'm kind of ambivalent on the subject yet I can see how it could get nutty  The Harris poll numbers that Felonious Monk added don't move me one way or another but he must have felt they were relevant.  I'd like to hear his comments for including them. Mr Christopher 15:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your assessment of polling data.  What bothers me is when the Creationists come out and say, "see X% of Americans believe in little green men were responsible for Noah's Ark and the Loch Ness Monster and also believe in Intelligent Design" (please note my sarcasm), put it in these articles as their source that their ideas merit adding to an article, I am concerned.  I don't think that facts are subject to polls--that's the arena of weasel politicians, not an encyclopedia.  If you think of an encyclopedia as being something that is supposed to last a lifetime, what is next year's poll going to say?  Besides all that, it's obvious what people really believe--didn't Santorum and the ID gang in Pennsylvania (including the Dover Board of Education) get tossed out of office?  More than that, I'd rather see a worldwide poll of Creationism--I doubt that 1% of the world thinks these people know what they're talking about, but in the end, it doesn't matter.  Facts and science don't require polls.  That's my humble (well, maybe not so humble) opinion.  Orangemarlin 17:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: <edit conflict> Indicating the number of a subject's believers/etc is explicitly mentioned in the NPOV policy (as argued by FM, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Npov#The_neutral_point_of_view). I too would prefer more objective measurements, but I guess in matters of belief polls, however evil they may be, are often all we have. AvB ÷ talk 16:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember one thing: truth is not driven by consensus.  That no one in 1320 AD believed that the earth went round the sun did not make the simple fact that it did so any less true.  Likewise, that over 90% of the population of the US believe in a deity or deities does not make the existence of a deity true. •Jim62sch• 18:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's so true. However, one should never forget that we aim to provide verifiable information. If it also happens to be True, we've succeeded beyond our remit. Even so, in cases like these, if we provide information on the number of people who hold a specific belief, and our information is The Truth, it is the truth or reality that specific people hold a specific belief, not the truth of the things they believe. AvB ÷ talk 12:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lies, damned lies and statistics (or polls) 

message: For interested parties, FYI: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Raspor 
Anyone who has tried to resolve his issues through policy and reason will need to endorse the RFC here if you agree with the summary I've provided... Or write your own. FeloniousMonk 00:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved most comments and especially sections by raspor to Talk:Intelligent design/Raspor's and adlac's objections, where they should probably stay until this user grasps the a basics of science. Anyone arguing that astrology is a scientific theory shouldn't be surprised when other editors disagree. -- Ec5618 18:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I move that we put any new comments from raspor to that section while his RFC is pending.  He is clearly out of line and unable to control himself.  Mr Christopher 19:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  Of course, I couldn't figure out what he was writing, since it is poorly formatted, has no punctuation or capitalization, and is just plain belligerent.  When does this RFC get going?  Orangemarlin 20:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: for those who may want to discuss this RFC and other possible routes of administrative action, you can do so on the RFC talk page - Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Raspor Mr Christopher 21:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User conduct RFC:  Raspor 

message: I've put this article up for Peer review: Want to try and push for FA again. Adam Cuerden talk 03:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FA attempts for articles on controversial topics in which one side is running a wide disinformation campaign (as is ID) are almost invariably scuttled by bad faith, baseless objections raised by ideological ax-grinders. That was the cause of the failure on last attempt for this article. For this FA to succeed, there will need to be in place an ad hoc process for discounting baseless objections; moving them off of the FA page and onto the talk page and limiting participation to established editors in good standing, perhaps. For example, an objection to the article that ignores the fact that WP:NPOV requires both sides to be presented should not count against the article gaining FA status, and should be removed from consideration. I've suggested something like this before, and there was strong support for doing this then. FeloniousMonk 02:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: The current proposal is to insert "the concept's main promoter" or "its main promoter" after "the Discovery Institute, [4][5][6][7][8][9][10]".
This summarizes information from the article body ("Nearly all intelligent design concepts and the associated movement are the products of the Discovery Institute, which guides the movement and follows its wedge strategy while conducting its adjunct Teach the Controversy campaign."). The words "main promoter (of ID)" are abundantly sourcable in pro-ID, neutral and anti-ID sources such as these links from the first page of a Google search for "intelligent design" "main promoter": , , and . AvB ÷ talk 09:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for start of the lead (cont'd)

message: Scientists including Einstein see evidence of some sort of order in the universe. Some might even try to make analogies between it and some sort of Deity, as Maimonides did when he made the identification of scientific laws with angels. However, this of course might be just the Anthropic principle in action. However, the difficulty arises, as I see it, when this evidence for mathematical structure and balance (see The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences for example) is extrapolated to use to attack evolution. As near as I can tell, evolution is just a continuation of the same physical laws and order that others are using to justify the existence of Design. The DI argument however, tries to take reasoning and facts that SUPPORT evolution as part of design, given that they follow or seem to follow from the order and laws in the universe, and try to ATTACK evolution. So they have 
*evidence of order, which they claim is evidence of a designer in the laws of nature.
*evolution follows directly from these laws of nature by standard scientific methods, so might be taken as evidence of a designer
*want to claim that evolution is not correct since it violates evidence of a designer. 
So I can produce one set of reasoning that argues evolution is evidence of Design. And another set of reasoning (DI reasoning) that argues evolution is not compatible with Design. 
Seems to me they are in a bit of a logical quandry.--Filll 17:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe so.  The primary issue remains that the scientific community has overwhelmingly disagreed that it is scientific, and, as Judge Jones said in Kitzmiller, "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents". ... Kenosis 17:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: What this does, at least to me, is reveal a "semi secret" agenda: to lobby for biblical literalism and biblical inerrancy by corrupting science. And look at Hinduism  and Creationism. It is even more obvious when you can look at something from arms length without our internal cultural bias and view it from the outside. It is clear what difficulty the mixing of religion and science produces. Do you want to use cow piss to cure AIDS ? (of course, this might work, but I want to see the evidence first, not some sort of semi-religious justification).--Filll 17:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cow piss, peach pits, or the laying on of hands to cure AIDS are all perfect examples of pseudoscience IMHO.  Evidence is what we need.  Orangemarlin 20:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "So I can produce one set of reasoning that argues evolution is evidence of Design. And another set of reasoning (DI reasoning) that argues evolution is not compatible with Design. Seems to me they are in a bit of a logical quandry."  The history of science is full of logical quandries - can anyone say "wavicle"?  In fact, I tend to get nervous when we don't see logical quandries - but then maybe I'm just too much of a cynic.  Whatever some judge has to say about science really isn't relevant to me.  To me, science is about the scientific method, not some guy in a black robe making fiats - we kinda got past that stage a couple of centuries ago (if Socrates could interject a few words before he quaffed his cup of poison, I think he'd agree with me).  But then, on the other hand, the way most IDers that I've met approach science, they couldn't find it if it was attached to their ass and they had both hands free and it doesn't help their cause that they have no evidence.-Psychohistorian 03:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: What "other" ID is there that that is not affiliated with the Discovery Institute? ID, that which been the subject of all the articles, books and lawsuits since the early 1990's, is a product wholly of those who call themselves the "wedge", Johnson, Meyers, Chapman, Thraxton, Wells, and their promotional machine: the Discovery Institute. There is no "other" ID in the news. And you're talking about the teleological argument, BTW, not ID. And Einstein was not a believer in either. FeloniousMonk 02:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Intelligent_design#Origins_of_the_concept is already full of them. FeloniousMonk 03:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with ID as DI tries to frame it

message: It must seem to Raspor and Adlac as if they are banging their heads against a brick wall, and that the anti-id-ers are just out to get them. It would appear to them as if there is a clash of beliefs, and they are just outnumbered. And then it starts to get personal.  
I want to point out that this is not an ID vs anti-ID issue.  It's not a POV thing, although I know that it seems so. The brick wall, unfortunately, is real.  But it isn't made up of anti-id-ers.  It is in the constraints of wikipedia itself, as an encyclopedia, and rests with the guidelines for reliability of sources.  Let me explain.
There is no problem with describing the ID position until you get to the point where ID is described as a science, where ID does not meet the current definition of a science.  The ID position is that the definition of science should be changed.
The Wikipedia position is that we can only report on what is, not on what the situation might be if things were differently defined.  The moment ID gets described as a science, the ["policy on reliable sources"] kicks in.
"Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community" applies directly here.  
ID may be perfectly true, but no matter how much discussion takes place on these pages, we are precluded from calling ID science.
Trishm 21:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The limits of Wikipedia for ID as Science 

message: Any suggestions on what to add to make this an FA? Geo. 16:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want an idea of what is involved, take a look at the process going on right now at evolution. For example, look at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Evolution.--Filll 16:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Evolution was already a FA. What is being discussed now? The quality of proposals going on there now are quite poor compared to previous months; I don't see how any of that would be an improvement.  FeloniousMonk 23:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Avoid having freepers show up here would be a good start, Geo. But as I mentioned here before, we'll need a process to deal with bad faith objections from ideological ax grinders attempting to scuttle the FA bid. FA attempts for articles on controversial topics in which one side is running a wide disinformation campaign (as is ID) are almost invariably scuttled by bad faith, baseless objections raised by ideological ax-grinders. That was the cause of the last attempt for this article. For this FA to succeed, there will need to be in place an ad hoc process for discounting baseless objections; moving them off of the FA page and onto the talk page and limiting participation to established editors in good standing, perhaps. For example, an objection to the article that ignores the fact that WP:NPOV requires both sides to be presented should not count against the article gaining FA status, and should be removed from consideration. I've suggested something like this before, and there was strong support for doing this then. FeloniousMonk 23:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA 

message: I believe some further minor editing will need to be done on the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead.  Currently it reads: "The international scientific community has declared intelligent design to be unscientific,[13] pseudoscience[14][15][16] and junk science.[17][18]"  Perhaps it should read "The international scientific community has declared intelligent design to be unscientific,[13] pseudoscience[14][15][16] and/or junk science.[17][18]" (Proposed change emphasized in bold.) Although WP:MOS#Slashes prescribes avoiding "and/or", I believe this would be an exception but would need some degree of consensus to override the MOS guideline in this instance. Or, perhaps there's another accurate way of phrasing that sentence. ... Kenosis 23:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase "unscientific, pseudoscience, and junk science" sounds multiply redundant to me. Pseudoscience and junk science are unscientific. In any case, simply changing the word "and" to "or" doesn't necessarily imply "exclusive or" - it can also mean a combination of things in the list. I think the word "or" is more appropriate in that sentence than and/or. -Amatulic 23:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The devil in the details is that "unscientific" includes pseudoscience and junk science.  Different organizations and prominent individuals within the scientific community have characterized ID in ways that include one or more of "not scientific" or "unscientific", pseudoscientific, and junk science, in varying combinations, though the entire community has not chosen to use all three classifications (or characterizations) in describing ID. ... Kenosis 23:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As I said, the devil's in the details here, and given the contentious history of this article, I figure it's only a matter of time before someone complains about it, either from the scientific community or from the ID Department of Propaganda (IDDP), or alternately, from the Wikipedia Department of Strict Literal Logical Positivism (WDSLLP).  The scientific community generally does not use the term "junk science" in its official statements, and only a few scientific organizations have shown willingness to use the term "pseudoscience".  The previous wording was correct, while the current wording is not correct.  The previous wording was: "The scientific community views intelligent design as unscientific,[12] as pseudoscience[13][14][15] or as junk science.[16][17]"(italics mine)  Someone more recently added the word "international", and changed the verb from "views" to "has declared".  And in fact, the scientific community has not declared that it is "junk science", because that's basically a locker-room term used behind the scenes (and also, of course, used by opposing camps in political and commercial squabbles).  We have citation for the assertion that this is in fact the way it's viewed by the sci community, but that community has in no way declared it to be such.  The use of "pseudoscience" should be seen similarly, except that the scientific organizations are divided about the use of the term; some have used it, and some haven't, yet it plainly is viewed as pseudoscience, and is verified as such by the fact that some sizeable organizations have chosen to take that extra step and call it "pseudoscience" or "pseudoscientific".  So, perhaps the sentence would be more accurate if it accommodated the request to clarify that the relevant scientific community is to some extent "international" (the issue has consumed US politics but also has been an issue in the UK and Australia to date, with commentary from organizations in both of those nations), but did not use the words "has declared".  Seems to me that the following wording would work: "The scientific community, both in the United States and worldwide, views intelligent design as unscientific,[12] as pseudoscience[13][14][15] or as junk science.[16][17]"(italics mine)... Kenosis 02:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok--Filll 03:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kenosis, one minor suggestion, we might consider using something less all inclusive than "worldwide", maybe something like "..both in the United States and abroad".  I'm thinking of a pre-emptive strike because I think we will have a line of people demanding we prove the world wide bit.   With that in mind we can easily support "abroad" but I'm not sure we could support "world wide".  That's my take on it.  Mr Christopher 15:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood, Mr. Christopher.  I don't think we absolutely need specify what countries at that stage of the article, TBH.  It has the unexpected secondary of hinting at where the controversy is primarily located, but that it's also reared its head elsewhere. Actually, in my estimation that whole clause needn't be there; no need to specify because the scientific community is inherently international anyway.  Indeed it should be presumed to be international unless otherwise specified.   ... Kenosis 16:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are in agreement.  Mr Christopher 16:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I am totally happy with "United States and worldwide/abroad/etc"...it seems rather US-centric.  Although ID is a primarily US topic, we can't write articles from the perspective of any one country.  I suppose I don't understand why we need: "The scientific community, both in the United States and worldwide".  Is there some reason to believe that the scientific community would be more (or less) sympathetic to ID in one part of the world or another?  Guettarda 03:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may seem that way at first glance, but fact is the US is where it's centered and where it primarily arose in response to Edwards v. Aguilard.  Anyway, I will take the affirmative step of eliminating that clause, with the assumption that "scientific community" should be viewed as international unless otherwise specified. ... Kenosis 04:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraph on the scientific community's view of ID

message: The first ref refers to the removed word "discredited". Adam Cuerden talk 02:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First ref