Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 23

message: The talk that disappeared into Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 21 included quite an interesting discussion on Peer-reviewed articles. It's rather detailed for this article, though a link or mention would be desirable, and I suggest moving the relevant bits to a new page which could be titled Peer-reviewed articles on intelligent design.
:Some might object to being characterized as a peer of authors of intelligent design articles. Endomion 17:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Some suggestions

message: These discussions have been going on for a while, and references to earlier posts are becoming more common, which reduces clarity and readabily. I would like to ask everyone to simply remake their points and to repost their sources. Quoting yourself is one thing, dismissing a question with the words: 'see my previous post' is quite another.
*It was suggested that the ID article has too much criticism, when compared to comparable articles. 
**There was some discussion as to the extent to which other articles are indeed comparable: is ID perhaps unique?
**It was argued that ID is not overly criticised: if ID wanted to present itself as science, it deserved to be held to scientific standards.
*It was suggested that the current pool of editors is stagnant and conservative. A call went out for new editors.
*Several new articles were discussed, and deleted as POV forks.
*The discussion concerning the irreducible complexity of the designer implied by ID seems to have cooled down, although the section is still not to everyone's liking. (*)
-- Ec5618 18:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The "irreducible complexity" issue has been replaced by another argument I suspect to be original research.  I requested a citation of a leading ID opponent making this new argument, and so far this request has been denied.  I will take your advice in remaking my point.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jim I am having very inappropriate thoughts that amount to personally attacking you in my heart. Go to  and . I don't want these dark thoughts anymore. I know you know many languages, I know 2, but I'm not doing this: Джим, я понимаю что ты умнее всех, но в последнее время ты пишешь всякую чепуху. --chad 05:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Naughty Jim, your English is lacking, or you're making silly grammatical errors in your haste. ...dave souza 13:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refactoring 

message: Please see Religious views of evolution for a link to its AfD nomination. --ScienceApologist 16:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the above article. - RoyBoy 800 22:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More Ed Poor forks

message: I think the real question is, is [Ii]ntelligent [Dd]esign a proper noun?  Is  it the 'Theory' of Intelligent Design or is a theory or intelligent design?  Either way, the title and the article should be consistent.  If the page doesn't move, then the words intelligent and design be lowercase in the article as per normal usage.  Regards, Ben Aveling 21:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This addresses my point: the article isn't about all instances of intelligent design, and there was some discussion about moving the page to teleology because it wasn't clear this page deals only with ID. If this page deals with ID, specifically, and if the article continues to use the term capitalised, I feel the article title should be capitalised as well. -- Ec5618 22:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A specific hypothesis isn't usually a proper noun.  For example, Natural selection is the article, while Natural Selection is the redir.  Guettarda 22:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For example  Optimal foraging theory or the Intermediate disturbance hypothesis are generally not capitalised, even though they are abbreviated in caps.  Guettarda 22:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: English is indeed full of exceptions.  In this case common usage is mixed.  I do find it interesting that theories tend to be lower cased.  It's not obviously covered in any of the 3 style guides I've checked.  I can posit a justification, which is that when we say, for example, Darwin's theory, we are refering to a specific theory but we are not doing so by name.  That is, Darwin's theory of evolution is not called the Theory of Evolution, it just is a theory of evolution.  But frankly, that's just my attempt to fit the observed facts to my understanding of the theory.  I think we'd be justified in using either caps or not, so long as we are consistent.  So maybe we fall back on the above Point 3.  Regards, Ben Aveling 10:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper noun 

message: The Kansas newspaper The Lawrence Journal-World article includes links to other articles on the subject, particularly the controversy about Kansas University professor Paul Mirecki who was beaten up and forced to resign a chair after "disparaging comments" he made on a private online chat were broadcast, as well as a neat definition: "having public schools teach intelligent design, which says an unspecified intelligent cause is the best way to explain some orderly and complex features of the natural world." Note the use of lower case. Not really as definitive as the quote we start with, ...dave souza 23:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting definition and lots of links

message: Would it be possible to add future comments behind the previous, thereby maintaining chronology? I find it difficult to keep track of this page when people haphazzardly insert their views. Thank you.--Nomen Nescio 09:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point (although I too am guilty of that).  The problem is, unless we add numerous sub-headers, a comment referring to a comment of 4 days ago will appear to have come out of nowhere, and offering a reference to what we are commenting will require scrolling all over the place.  Jim62sch 11:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oddly enough, by inserting a comment higher up, the displaced comment will have exactly what you are trying to avoid. And I hope those reading this page are aware what they read just minutes before.--Nomen Nescio 20:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I know.  It gets to be a mess either way.  If only we could design an answer.  ;)  Jim62sch 21:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ? Nomen, add future comments ?behind? the previous?  Not after?Lovecoconuts 00:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Nomen likely meant after.  In Dutch, "na" is used for both after and behind (when it is synonymous with after).  Jim62sch 10:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Ah.  Ok.  No problem.  I understand completely.  And yes, I agree about adding newer comments after older ones.Lovecoconuts 14:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Chronology

message: of course, FeloniousMonk and friends are the final authority on what is neutral.  of course!  This article is an exception, yes!  
In fact, if you disagree with them, you can't even put in a POV.  Guardians of this page are REMOVING POV tags, even though someone else has already cited the same imbalance as I have. 
removing POV tags, FeloniousMonk and fellow atheists hovering over this page, is completely out of line and not called for, regardless of what your subjective reasoning is.  Taking out my POV tags is offensive and you had no right to do that.
"other article addresses a pseudoscience which is being seriously considered "
"none of them are direct or credible challenges to science and education, and so are not analogous to ID and poor examples"
now you got to love this reasoning!  Because its a "hot topic" in today's political landscape, that constitutes even more reason to front load it with criticism.  Because this is a political subject, it criticism is even more justified!
here's what I see is going on:
"We cant let those Xians redefine science!  We must assemble, and act.  We must grab that ID page, and make sure we "educate" people about what it REALLY is...fundamentalist hype.   This is why we cant compare ID to those other articles, because ID is being seriously considered in schools!  This article is an exception.  oh yea, we dont have a POV.  We are doing this with complete neutrality....of course  :D   "
</end sarcasm>
the agenda here is so plain, it screams at me.  All I wanted was to simply come to this page and find out about the scientists who advoacte ID and their justification for it as a science.  I wanted this information from THEIR perspective, not from the authors of "DEVOLUTION".  I have no problems regarding criticisms and counter points, but please do it in a more objective fashion.   I got only one perspective in this article:  atheistic.
Marshill 20:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please restrict your edits here on the talk page to the article, and refrain from disruptive behavior, including spurious conjecture about other editor's religious beliefs. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Marhsill - calling everyone who disagrees with you atheists, and stating that there are many scientists who agree with ID, is hurting your credibility here. If you wish to add to the article, Be Bold. For Darwin's sake, I've been asking IDists to PLEASE help us understand what ID is. Make additions to the page that are cited that help us understand WHAT Intelligent Design is. Perhaps in your search you will see why the article is the way it is. --JPotter 22:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto with Jpotter's post.  I have also been asking ID people to clarify ID, because right now - I don't think it can support its very own definition.  By the way, I . am . not . an . atheist.  With all due respects to the atheists in here, but I do feel a bit slighted that people analyzing ID are automatically labelled atheists.  My religion is primarily Christian with adherence to Confucianism values.  No conflict since followers of Confucianism are quite happy for it to be considered as a philosophy rather than a religion.Lovecoconuts 00:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: All edits in this article which are not overtly hostile to ID are immediately reverted, even when they cite sources.  That means your assertion that ID is defined by the daily changing emotional state of three gentlemen is effectively unfalsifiable. Endomion 01:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The Lord forbid I should imply bias.  If anything, a single letter of ASCII text in favor of ID would be an over-representation of the pro-ID side in an article less than a million bytes long, according to Guettarda's statement of 14 December: Balanced treatment of ID as science should reflect it's 1/1,000,000 impact on biology. In light of that we have an article that is already unreasonably supportive of the minority viewpoint."  Endomion 14:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Requesting again that we stick to the article. Jim62sch and Endomion, may I suggest that your sarcasm is not advancing improvement of the article? Please be civil - thanks much. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Bias?  The impact of ID-as-science has had is trivial.  Modern biology functions within an evolutionary and hypothetico-deductive framework.  Even taking DI at its word, there are just a handful of scientific papers related to ID.  The second point is that of balanced POV.  ID represents about 1/1,000,000 publications.  Equal time (pro and con) reflects a ~500,000-fold exaggeration of ID's scientific importance.  I'm not saying that the article should reflect the million-to-one balance - I'm just pointing out that saying that the pro-ID POV is underrepresented here does not reflect the reality of the situation.  Guettarda 14:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a soap-box.  If one believes the political impact of the Intelligent Design meme should be reined in to reflect its minimal impact on peer-reviewed scientific inquiry, this should be taken up with one's representative in Congress or by letters to the editor or blogs or articles in Reason magazine.  As it stands, some opponents to ID-as-science (and I myself oppose ID-as-science, oddly enough) seem to be using this article as a venue for their performance art rather than developing a dispassionate summary of the facts. Endomion 15:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea what you are talking about.  This article is about ID as science.  Intelligent design movement is about ID as a political movement.  How is that a soapbox?  Guettarda 01:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You're entitled to your opinion. But the fact is that the article's content is well-supported, and easily verifiably factual. It's also well supported by policy, which is what we adhere to here, despite your vague insinuation that editors here are advancing a POV agenda. If you don't have anything more substantive and constructive to contribute than the litany of opinion and oblique and vague ad hominems we've been seeing from you lately here and elsewhere, there are plenty of other articles that need attention. Please clean it up and keep your opinions to the article's content, not your fellow volunteers. FeloniousMonk 18:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  And what is the judgment that I "...don't have anything more substantive and constructive to contribute than the litany of opinion and oblique and vague ad hominems we've been seeing from you lately here and elsewhere" other than an opinion about a fellow volunteer?   Endomion 00:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Seems to be a quote taken out of context.  Misdirection doesn't always work.  Jim62sch 01:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No better context than being right next to the source text. Endomion 01:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  The point was that FM's statement was not a judgment; it was a subjunctive clause noting a possibility (note the use of if).  By omitting the "if", especially after stating that his comments were a judgment, you essentially attached a meaning to his words that was not inherently there.  In so doing, his quote was used out of context and the intent of his comments was altered to create the appearance of an ad hom attack, hence my comment re misdirection.  Jim62sch 10:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV tags

message: Some points to remember here to make reading easier for your fellow editors:
# Please avoid HTML markup Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Markup
# Please do not reply to comments out of chronological order or spilt the comments of others Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Layout
# Please use proper indenting when responding to comments Wikipedia:Talk_pages#Formatting
FeloniousMonk 23:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not on talk pages. Using anything other than bolding, italics or (used sparingly) capitalisation to draw attention to your posts is hightly irregular. Colons are used for indentation, though lists (*) are sometimes used as well. -- Ec5618 23:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose of my use of a gray background was not self-aggrandizement but to indicate the text was from an archive and not part of the current flow, a highly irregular situation indeed.  Wikipedia works better when people do not assume the worst in others. Endomion 01:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't have a problem with blockquote, but colored tables to set-off one's comments from others is outside the bounds. FeloniousMonk 00:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As you wish, but now someone will think the quote dredged up from the archive is a recent comment. Endomion 01:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of formatting/markup on Talk pages 

message: What does that have to do with ID? - RoyBoy 800 01:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. AFAIK, nothing at all. I was bold and took it out. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  In See Also: Chaos theory 

message: Please refrain from conjecture about the religious beliefs of editors. This does nothing to improve the article, Intelligent design, and wastes space. Depending upon phrasing, it is often a violation of WP:NPA as well. Please be civil. The near-constant accusations of "athiest" and "fundie" and variations thereof are disruptive. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Conjecture about religious beliefs of editors

message: If you're going to be moving content, don't forget the remove or reorder the relevant footnotes as well. I'll fix it this time from this last move, but I get cranky pretty quick when editors only do half the job and mess up the footnotes. FeloniousMonk 21:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Updating the footnotes

message: /Marshills_NPOV_objections - please go here to read my list of objections to NPOV
Marshill 20:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[/Marshills_NPOV_objections|Marshill's NPOV objections]]

message: Continuing the work of Trilemma (see #My model for the ID article), I have a reorganisation proposal. Please see User:Trilemma/Subpage, where I have callously replaced Trilemma's proposal with my own. See User talk:Trilemma/Subpage for justification. 
Note how uncluttered and clean the table of contents looks, even though no information is lost. -- Ec5618 15:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandalism! Just kidding. I think your proposed layout is a step in the right direction, ec. Good work. Trilemma 18:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. I have not had time to go over it carefully, but it looks like you've managed to incorporate the best of Trilemma's layout and reduce ToC clutter. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal