Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 25

message: The following was done simply to be able to place a POV tag on this article, which is being removed at every attempt to do so.  This article needs to be POV tagged because its neutrality is contested (note:  POV tags do not equivocate to POV, only that its in dispute, which it is)
====SECTION ONE: “Intelligent design in summary”====
1  Unfriendly definition.  The definition contains a misquote of the term “superior to” as the sourced article does not define it as such.  The definition itself is not representative of ID proponents, no ID article I have ever read defines ID in this way.   To define ID, it does not make sense to do so in a manner espoused by the enemy.  A friendly definition is needed here.
 “The scientific community views intelligent design not as a valid”    Really?
Yes.WolfKeeper 02:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto  Tom Haws 21:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Justification for Contesting the Neutrality of this Article

message: 1  Unfriendly definition.  The definition contains a misquote of the term “superior to” as the sourced article does not define it as such.  The definition itself is not representative of ID proponents, no ID article I have ever read defines ID in this way.   To define ID, it does not make sense to do so in a manner espoused by the enemy.  A friendly definition is needed here.
 “The scientific community views intelligent design not as a valid”    Really?
Yes.WolfKeeper 02:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: SECTION ONE: “Intelligent design in summary”

message: Here, where Intelligent Design is supposed to be summarized, one would expect to find a friendly explanation of it.  Instead, it’s a bed of criticism.
1.  ”putative purpose” .   Footnotes for this sentence further criticize.  This is a criticism and unfriendly to ID.
2.  Unfriendly   “claim that they look” ….”of what they call”  ' “design”  is in quotations indicating subtle ridicule.  
3.  Unfriendly  - ->  “believe” ' “which they infer”  use of faith-based terminology in regards to identifying intelligence (even SETI has criteria for intelligence that does not include faith).  This sentence is unfriendly to ID.
4.  Criticism  “this stands in opposition to mainstream science” 
5.  Criticism  “However, modern developments….” This sentence completely counters the previous one, inserting a criticism against the prior sentence.
MISSING:  
What is some of the evidence for ID, from an ID perspective?  Let ID speak for itself.
What are ID’s main arguments in a summary form? (simply stating include irreducible complexity, information mechanisms, and specified complexity as terms without any support or clarification is not friendly to ID)  We are looking for a friendly argument here.  At no point in section two is ID given a chance to present itself *as it is* without a backlash of criticism.
SUMMARY FOR SECTION TWO:
Unfriendly to ID.  Section two is entirely a criticism and at no point is ID presented fairly.  This is the one section in this article where a wiki reader would expect ID to presented in full, on its own, as explained by its proponents.  Not being able to resist the temptation to insert a criticism at *every single* opportunity speaks loud of bias and fear.  One who is too afraid to let ID present itself without interruption is someone who is insecure about something.  I prefer the model of presenting ID uninterrupted, followed by criticism so that people can make up their own mind, rather than it being made up for them.  This section is titled “Summary of ID”.  So why isn’t ID being summarized?  Why is it criticized at every opportunity?  
Please rename this section to “Summary Criticisms of ID” 
Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: SECTION TWO: “Origins of the concept”

message: Missing a lot of references here.   “Intelligent design in the late 20th century can be seen as a modern reframing of Paley's doctrines”   is opinion.  Many people do not see it that way.  Who sees it that way?  Atheists?  Honestly, I don’t know.  No reference is cited.  How about a statement that says “Some see it this way, while others see it this way” and reference both.  
The last paragraph, especially, is a nice little way to de-xianize ID and turn ID around against them.  Its subtle, but effective.  Make ID a greek-borrowed concept, and you undermine the Christianity of ID.  No references here, but it’s a nice underhanded tactic.  Most definitely opinion.  And one that speaks of an agenda.  Aside from the final paragraph where a clear /POV has been inserted, and a couple of unfounded assumptions missing references, I am willing to go along with this section.
Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: SECTION THREE: “Origins of the concept”

message: This is informative.  This is a neutral section, the only one that I do not dispute.  .
Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: SECTION 4: “Origins of the Term”

message: ID proponents see ID as  “even more scientific than evolution”   is a clear slant and the authors opinion.  Its not cited and its just plain false.  Many ID proponents put them on equal ground as valid theories for life.   “this presents a demarcation problem”    Ha!  The beautiful setup of that strawman in the first sentence and then the subsequent knock down was a great piece of work.  Good job guys.  
 “For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a couple or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word”  This is unreferenced.
 “in any meaningful sense of the word”  is a bit overdone here, speaks of a serious emotional connection to the material.  
Now that we have clearly stated how utterly unscientific anything can be if it doesn’t live up to this 8 item list, lets see how ID does against the list. (we are then told how ID fails ALL CRITERIA except one.)   So what happened here, for those that missed it…is we are first prepped about how something that doesn’t meet criteria cannot be called science “in any meaningful sense of the word”.  And then, once we are prepped, its time to drop the bomb on ID.
 “In light of its failure to adhere to these standards” – a very strong criticism, obviously.  
MISSING FROM SECTION 5:
What do ID proponents say about the criteria?  I would like to see how an ID proponent answers each of those criteria for ID.  Another thing missing is ID having any chance to present itself, not a single ID friendly statement in this entire section.
 The entire section is a criticism.  Please rename it to “Criticism against ID as a science” 
Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: SECTION 5:  “Portraying intelligent design as science”

message: “organized neocreationist campaign to promote a religious agenda”   unreferenced and clearly, obviously unfriendly. 
 “unofficial spokesman”  who said this?  I never said this.  I don’t know of anyone who has.  I don’t follow this person, and most ID proponents I know don’t either.  He’s not my leader or spokesman for that matter.
 “The conflicting statements of leading intelligent design proponents” 
 “obfuscating its agenda” '
 “follows its wedge strategy” 
 “proponents allege” 
.Must I waste my time explaining each of these?  Unfriendly remarks and connotations are dispersed throughout this entire section.  This section is clearly loaded.
I can summarize this section after reading it:  “ID is a religious agenda led by one organization and one man to undermine true science and replace it with christian fundamentalism”.  Sound good?  And you think this is NPOV, do you?
Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: SECTION 6:  “Intelligent Design as a Movement”

message: The opening sentence of this section:   “A key strategy of the intelligent design movement is in convincing the general public that there is a debate…scientifically there is no debate whatsoever.” 
Wow!  Talk about giving ID a fair shake.  And we aren’t even at the criticism section yet.  Supposedly, we are still being neutral and teaching people about ID.  Before even reading through the first paragraph we are told “it’s a done deal folks.  You may read on if you like, but we’ll just come out and state it for you”  
 “The intelligent design debate centers on three issues:” 
Who says that?  I see no references.  I don’t know of any ID proponents that say that.  Is that from talk.origins?
 “instances of so-called irreducible complexity”    Let me guess, more NPOV right?    This is a poisoning the well fallacy.  Quoting from the page Poisoning the well
 
The so-called 'Theory' of Evolution
We now examine the theory of evolution... 
which has already "poisoned the well" to a balanced argument."
Use of the term “So-called”  obviously, a little insertion by the author(s) to undermine something before the reader is even allowed to make up his/her own mind.
 “Finally, supporters hold that religious neutrality requires the teaching of both evolution and intelligent design in schools, because teaching only evolution unfairly discriminates against those holding Creationist beliefs.”  
Who says that?  No references.  I’ve read supporters of ID who want it taught simply to give an option as an alternative theory, but not because of discrimination.  
 “According to critics of intelligent design…it has not even presented a case worth taking seriously.” 
Well that is quite obvious, I can tell the author of this article feels that way very strongly.
 “grossly misunderstanding the issue, and indeed misunderstand…science itself”   
A very passionate section this has become.
  “While Christian fundamentalists may think their God”    
Oh finally!  Yes!  We Finally get to the truth of the matter!  Its all about those fundie xians.  The author just couldn’t hold it back any longer.  It literally spilled out of his fingers as he typed.  I can imagine the frustration and emotion that welled up inside this author as it finally flowed out like a mighty river.   Hmmm..somewhere I read something about Wiki’s policies on using the term “fundamentalist”…but oh well, this is a neutral article, one I can’t even dispute.
 “promotion of intelligent design as a way to return religion to a central role in education”  
woah!  Really?  Such an unsourced comment is quite  bold.  I know many ID proponents have no goal like that whatsoever. ]
Ok I’m getting weary with the overflow of emotion and POV in this section.  Need I continue?    
This section can be renamed to “Defeating the so-called ‘Intelligent Design Debate’” 
Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: SECTION 7:  “Intelligent design debate”

message: '“The following are summaries of key concepts of intelligent design, followed by summaries of criticisms”  
For the first time in this article, we are told to expect criticism.    
The good news here is that at least I am expecting a criticism to be SEPARATE from the key concept.  Hopefully (for once) I will read a concept uninterrupted.  So, I’m happy and optimistic at this point that I will finally get some neutrality.
Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: SECTION 8:  Intelligent Design Concepts

message: Again, in section 8, I am expecting to read a friendly section followed by a critique section.  So here is where I get to learn about Specified complexity without interruption.  At least that’s what I expect…..
“he states” “he argues”  “he argues”  “he argues”  “proponents…argue” 
C’mon.  Simply state what SC teaches.  Let me help you here.  To be neutral and give SC a fair shake, consider this quote from the article:
 “He argues that CSI cannot be generated by the only known natural mechanisms of physical law and chance, or by their combination. He argues that this is so because laws can only shift around or lose in” 
This can be rewritten to a more neutral:  “CSI cannot be generated by the only known natural mechanisms of physical law and chance, or by their combination. This is because laws can only shift around or lose in”
Continuingly using phrases like “claim” or “argue” in ID friendly section is slanted.  I know there will be criticism to follow, so what is so hard about just presenting the concept as it is?!  This is the place where ID should present itself not as “THEY” but simply as it is.
here is a great example of a neutral article.  it is written by a an author and site opposed to ID.  Yet its vastly more fair than this wiki one.  Note how, when ID is presented, the excessive use of "they argue"..."they claim"..."proponents state"...etc. 
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html  read this anti-ID article, this is how I'd like the wiki one to be balanced.
 “Critism” 
This section contains 4 paragraphs.  The SC “friendly” section contained 2 paragraphs.  The criticism section is double the friendly section.  And the friendly section wasn’t very friendly.  
Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: SECTION 8B:  Specified complexity

message: I am expecting to learn about this argument in a fair way.  I know a criticism section will follow as defined in the beginning of section 8.  So hopefully, I’ll learn about FTU uninterrupted; what it teaches, and what are its criticisms.
 “They propose that the natural emergence of a universe with all the features necessary for life is wildly improbable.” 
Not a friendly statement!  Use of colorful language “wildly” not necessary.  MISSING:  why do they claim this?  What is the support for FTU?  Why must it be FTU?  Not a single reference here.  We get only 2 paragraphs here for FTU, but nothing to be referenced!  And the second paragraph isn’t even about FTU, it is clarifying what the “mainstream” adheres to and defines a different term.  
 “The strong form is a distinctly minority position and is highly controversial”   
Is this a rebuttal to the first paragraph?  Seems that way.  Well, I’ve read the FTU section and still haven’t learned anything *really* about FTU.  I've read nothing about FTU's arguments or its strengths.  I have a feeling, though, that as I get to the criticism section, I’m going to learn all about its weaknesses.
 “Critism” 
Well lookie here!  We get 4 paragraphs of criticism.  FTU got only 1 paragraph (the second FTU paragraph wasn’t even defining FTU).  So once again, criticism doubles…in this case, triples content for the original idea.  All justified by the NPOV: Undue weight rule, I’m sure.
Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: SECTION 8C:  “Fine-tuned universe”

message: C’mon people.  Do I REALLY need this section of “general criticism?”  Its not like I haven’t read any yet!
 The next 3,212 words of this article are devoted entirely to criticism. 
Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: SECTION 9: “General criticism of intelligent design”

message: At the end of the article, I am still waiting for a friendly presentation of ID.   
In the end, I have read an article that would be an excellent addition to Jeffrey J. Lowder’s secular web at www.infidels.org.  If this is a neutral article, I’m sure that’s a neutral site as well.
It’s a shame that on wiki, something like this is forced on people.   It is forced because those who guard this page do not even permit a POV tag.  Remember that a POV tag does not equivocate to POV, it merely states that its in dispute.  I can understand, from an atheist/agnostic/naturalist/skeptic perspective why this is a great article.  I can understand why someone like that would feel so strongly that this is  NPOV.  I can understand why this article is so fiercely protected and defended from dispute.  I’m sure it’s a losing battle for me.  Who am I, but just a wiki reader who enjoys this site like all of you.  Saddened?  Yes I am.  I am saddened that good topics get corrupted  by agendas.  I am saddened that individuals here wont even permit a dispute tag on an article that is supposed to be neutral.  I am saddened that this article does not allow one to make up their own mind about ID, but that it makes it up for them.
Someone accused me here of “storming” in.  Yes, I did.  Why?   Because I am a wiki-reader.  I loved the creationism page, the evolution page, the homosexuality page, the arguments for and against God pages.  All these hot topics, presented so well and fair.  I was impressed.  Then I came here and was utterly shocked how biased and slanted it is.  I couldn’t believe highly educated people such as yourselves would be so overtly biased and then hide behind a set of Wiki NPOV rules.   I know I will lose here, there’s only one of me and many of you.  I get 3 edits a day, you outnumber me so there is no chance I have to place my POV tag because it will be promptly removed each time (as it has been) followed  by IP ban threats.  So…yes I lost.  Maybe that will make many of you happy.  
Here is a model article I'd like this wiki one to adapt:  http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html
I honestly didn't realize NPOV: Undue weight meant no weight.
I dispute the neutrality of this article, even though you wont allow me to.
Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto  Tom Haws 21:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: This is a straw poll on the NPOV status of this article. Please cast your vote by signing with ~~~~ four tildes.
====Article does not meet WP:NPOV====
# Marshill 14:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Strawpoll

message: # Marshill 14:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article does ''not'' meet [[WP:NPOV]]

message: # FeloniousMonk 01:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article ''does'' meet [[WP:NPOV]]

message: # Tom Haws 19:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Not sure

message: ID claims it can explain things that evolution cannot, for example complex structure such as the bacterial flagellum or the human eye, thus, the claim of superiority over evolution. --JPotter 01:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I read wikipedia's page on the scientific community, where it states that "it is the scientific community that recognizes and supports the current consensus within the field".  It further states that "historical and present-day scientists have used a variety of methods for determining who was inside or outside the scientific community, which is often required for determining what fields of investigation at all are labeled as being 'science'. Fields of knowledge which purport to be scientific, but are judged to be outside the norms of the scientific community, are labeled as 'pseudoscience'."  The intro is clear that not all scientists reject ID.  It states that the scientific community, meaning the vast majority of scientists who have reached a consensus regarding ID's lack of validity, have decided that ID is pseudoscience.  The sentence neither says nor implies that no true scientist would embrace ID, but rather that the community as a whole has rejected it, with few exceptions. -Parallel or Together? 04:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Agreed re the comments of both PoT? and Guettarda.  Jim62sch 15:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to SECTION ONE: “Intelligent design in summary”

message: 1. Putative purpose - if, after 15-20 years you have yet to show even the beginnings of a research programme, and if you have not bothered to apply for grants offered to do research into ID, then "putative" is accurate.  
2. Unfriendly “claim that they look” ….”of what they call” “design” - as above, claim they look is accurate, as above.  Using the phrase what they call "design" is necessary if we are to not endorse their POV.  We cannot say that what they are looking for is design, because that assertion is contested by mainstream science.  Their "evidence for design" is disputed in every of which I am aware.
3. Unfriendly - -> “believe” ' “which they infer” - infer is not unfriendly - inference is central to science.  Believe is reasonable; irreducible complexity cannot (has not) been experimentally supported (or even tested).  In addition, ID seems to work from the assumption that it exists.  So believe is reasonable.  Would you propose a more "friendly" term?
4. Criticism “this stands in opposition to mainstream science” - this is a simply a factual statement.  
5. - I don't understand your point here.
* "Evidence for ID" - is there any?  ID presents negative arguments - essentially, that there are things which are too complex to be explained by chance.  I could see adding another sentance explaining what IC and SC are.  
* "Unfriendly to ID" - irrelevant.  We do not write from a "sympathetic POV".  Guettarda 15:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to SECTION TWO: “Origins of the concept” (correctly "Intelligent design in summary")

message: Since the article has been reorganised, hoe much relevance do they above points still have? More than a few section headers have been moved, and some of the points have been addressed or rebutted. Even the value of the straw poll could be debated. Could somone make a new list of objections, in some form of numbered list for easy reference? I'm assuming there are still objections, of course.
We might even consider considering archiving this page, and moving any relevant discussion to the main Talk page. -- Ec5618 11:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance