Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 6

message: The article is getting a bit long, maybe we put "Intelligent Design Movement" into a seperate article? Also, this discussion page is pretty long too, does anyone know how to archive the older comments and trim it down?
--Brendanfox 01:25, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a bad idea to separate the movement from ID--I wrote something about this, above.  (Basically, they aren't separate, at least not at this point in their history.) I agree the article is too long; it seems to me that the answer is to focus on offering a concise outline of the main figures, claims, and counterclaims here (plus links to outside sources), and move all of the more detailed descriptions and secondary arguments to the linked articles, like irreducible complexity. Some parts, like the "broader view" should just be cut, in my opinion. --BTfromLA 05:30, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. I'd think about combing the IC and SC pro-and-con arguments into one heading, to avoid duplication. I think the pro- IC description is actually fairly concise now, and as the main argument, it's worth spending some space on that. Specified Complexity seems too long, and I think there could be fewer of the "additional" arguments that happen lower in the article. I've cut the "broader view" already. --BTfromLA 18:11, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Size 

message: The current draft of the article says the term "intelligent design" was "popularized" by Phillip Johnson, but appeared earlier (than 1991) in "creationist literature."  Is there a citation for this? Does the Discovery Institute make a claim about where the term, in its current meaning, was coined?
:The term "intelligent design" can be found widely used in the 1989 creationist textbook Of Pandas and People.  That's probably the first place in which the term was used as a replacement for "creation".  But earlier creationist books use the term (and derivations of it) as well,  Examples I know of include  R.B. Bliss (1988), Origins:  Creation or Evolution; and Lester & Bohlin (1984), The Natural Limits to Biological Change.    --Theyeti 21:12, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the term "Intelligent Design"? 

message: At what point do we drop the "disputed flag for this article? --BTfromLA 18:11, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: this point sounds good to me:).  Ungtss 18:17, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed Article 

message: perhaps more needs to be reverted, if others believe that information and hard work are being thrown away or destroy much as a bull in a china shop.  Any such major reorganization, should be done in a way which shows respect for the work of the community.  I will support reversions deeper into the past, if that will provide more material significant to preserving this community's synthesis as the starting point for a more respectful reorganization.--Silverback 09:04, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Guess that makes me the bull. Consistent with recent talk, I attempted to cut the article down to manageable size, to organize the info more clearly, to eliminate redundant and digressive sections, and to offload sections of some long descriptions (such as specified complexity) into their own entries. Certainly no intention to disrespect the collective work here--rather, an attempt to address what I thought was generally percieved as an unwealdy article. While that job required making cuts, I did my best to retain everything that seemed relevant to the topic, in the interest of clarifying the main arguments. I'd really appreciate it if folks here would read through my most recent version, then add anything important that is missing or make other changes on an as-needed basis, rather than reverting whole-hog. I believe this will result in a better article. --BTfromLA 15:53, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that Silverback didn't revert as far back as the title above indicates (thank you).  So, is the crux of your problem with the edit my cut of the "ID and Biblically literal creationism" section? --BTfromLA 16:15, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think the omnipotent, ominiscient point is important.  Many who support ID for religious purposes have not considered the implications.--Silverback 18:55, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: My thought was--still is--that this point about the evidentiary burdens imposed on various strands of creationist belief is much better suited to entries like creationism and scientific creationism.  Including a line somewhere that states that the ID proponents do not cite or necessarily accept Biblical accounts (or even the existence of a creator god) seems to me enough to describe the difference between ID and fundamentalist creationists. Anybody else care to weigh in? --BTfromLA 19:20, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  I only reverted to 18:23 dec 12 

message: In response to comments from Noisy and Silverback, I propose the following as a replacement for the present "ID and Biblical Literalism" and "Other ID criticisms of evolutionary theory" sections:
"ID in relation to Bible-based creationism
Although the Intelligent Design movement is often portrayed as a variant of Bible-based Creationism, ID arguments are formed in secular terms; they do not cite Biblical evidence of creation, nor do they require that their adherents accept the Bible’s accounts or even the existence of a creator god. ID makes no claims about the identity of the designer, the mechanism of the design process, or the moment in history at which the designer’s intervention occurred. Thus, the conclusions from the key arguments in favor of ID are so broad that they can be adopted by any number of communities that seek an alternative to evolutionary thought, including those that support non-theistic models of creation.  For example, the notion of an “intelligent designer” is fully compatible with the materialistic hypotheses that life on Earth was introduced by an alien species, or that it emerged as a result of panspermia."
How's that? --BTfromLA 20:51, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Each instance or piece of evidence that is pointed to as evidence of intelligent design, presumes a designer intelligent enough and capable enough to account for the circumstances, and the way ID is currently conducted, it is as if they assume they have a blank check for designer availability and capability at whatever the place and time it was needed.  If they ignore the required characteristics and possible methods of the designer, then ID is not an independent theory it is just an disingenuous criticism of evolution.  The one key defensible ID result, barring evidence of the actual designer or designers, is likely to be, that whatever remarkable characteristics the designer(s) must have to account for the evidence, it is certain the designer was not ominipotent and omniscient.  This result would be arrived at outside of any reference to creationism, although it would be probably most disturbing to those creationists that have hopes of some kind for ID.  Can you suggest some other place in the framework you have put forward that is more appropriate than this one you want to eliminate?--Silverback 22:50, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that I understand your point, Silverback.  Are you saying that the article is granting too much credibility to ID if it doesn't include your analysis of ID's troublesome relation to the concept of designer omnipotence?  Again, it seems to me that questions about the powers of a supernatural creator are probably better handled within an article about theology, or perhaps in one that is devoted to comparison of various creation hypotheses.  If you can find a credible source for this line of criticism of ID, perhaps it could be summarized among the criticisms of ID. But if I understand you correctly, you are arguing with those who are looking for a flawless, omnipotent creator--since ID arguments make no such claims, I have a hard time underatanding why that discussion belongs in an article that describing the ID movement and its arguments (although I'll grant that you many of its supporters probably do hold that view of the creator). --BTfromLA 23:39, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: We are talking about cause and effect here.  ID theorists see effects, such as apparently irreducable complexity, they posit a cause, "intelligent designer".  There should be sections on the theories about that designer, are there some theories that the designer is local to this solar system?  If not, the designer must be capable of interstellar travel or interstellar "seeding".  When would the designer have had to be here or when would his design have arrived?  One time or many times?  Guided evolution for instance might require omnipresence.  If you don't ask questions, and elicit theories about the designer, then you fall into a disinformation trap, of "explaining" effects blindly without seeing if the arey confirmed by other evidence of the cause.--Silverback 11:15, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't appropriate for us to declare what the ID movement should address--unless the ID proponents propose theories about the nature of the designer (far as I know, they don't) or unless there are substantial printed resources that critique ID based on its failure to address designer omnipotence, I can't see a justification for including stuff about the characteristics of the designer in the encyclopedia entry.  If the fact that ID doesn't address the designer leads you to conclude "ID is not an independent theory it is just an disingenuous criticism of evolution," well, yeah--many, including most scientists, conclude exactly that. But this isn't the place for our personal conclusions or spelling out the reasoning behind them.  At least that's my view--I'd be pleased if someone else would weigh in here...  --BTfromLA 16:24, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Scientific criticism often comes from outside the field being criticised.  Electrochemists heard from the physicists when the thought they had discovered cold fusion, and physicists immediately found flaws in their calourimetry, even though the electrochemists were suppose to be the experts in it and had been publishing peer reviewed results based on the techniques for decades.  Great scientists often contribute to many fields and infant fields are often the easiest for even mediocre scientists to make contributions to, because there is a lot of low hanging fruit and basic organization to be done.  Biology often has to yield to chemistry and chemistry to physics.  So ID proponents don't have to be the ones to propose the theories.  They posit a designer and it is natural to ask who? where? when?  And ID theories do address the nature of the designer, recall the designer is characterized as "intelligent".  Physicists can definitely help, even if they are unfamiliar with biology, for instance, if an ID theory points to the designer being active on earth say 4000 years ago, then even if the designer left right away, it couldn't be more than 4000 light years away, and probably is much closer.--Silverback 21:14, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be appropriate to ask these questions of ID, if you consider it a theory worthy of refining.  But the place for that is your own essay, not an enyclopedia entry.  At least, not as I understand it.  (Again, I invite others to jump in to this discussion). An encylopedia confines itself to describing established knowledge; it isn't the place for original arguments.  So unless your arguments have become part of the printed record of debates surrounding ID, and are equivalently widespread as the criticisms listed in the summary, I don't think they belong here, no matter how legitimate.  You have to make your voice heard within the primary discussions of ID before your point gets to be recorded here, in this secondary review of the topic. --BTfromLA 23:12, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have heard the arguments raised at an ID conference where Behe was presenting.  I don't think the examples were the same, it is easy enough to think of those yourself.--Silverback 02:02, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  ID in relation to Bible-based creationism 

message: After reading the above comments (a very interesting discussion), I started wondering: The intelligent designer, as a supreme being, is irreducibly complex (or indeed even infinitely complex) by definition, therefore, if irreducible complexity must lead to the conclusion of intelligent design, does it mean that the intelligent designer must have been designed by another one? I assume that it doesn't, because otherwise it would lead to nonsense. But if it doesn't, and the designer herself didn't have to be designed, why the apparent irreducible complexity, even if true, must lead to the conclusion of the existance of a designer in the first place? Isn't it a question-begging reasoning, petitio principii, and a particularly fallacious at that? I would really appreciate if someone smarter than me could kindly explain this question. Thanks!! 83.31.15.11 13:29, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.
Thus, complexity is defined in terms of "a system composed of several interacting parts". By that way of defining complexity, God is not infinitely complex, but rather infinitely simple. God is not a system, and is certainly not "composed of several interacting parts", even in Trinitarian theology, properly understood. By this definition, our conceiving of God is complex. God's own self, however, is not complex. I hope this helps. -Rholton 16:03, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Some of the "who created the creator" questions were discussed recently--look in the archive for something like "recursive design flaw." --BTfromLA 16:14, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Irreducibly complex intelligent designer

message: I've restored some of my (non-controversial, thusfar) earlier changes that had been reverted, plus I added my proposed new paragraph in response to Noisy's concerns, and I left in Silverback's paragraph, though I remain dubious that the stuff about the omnisience of the designer belongs here for reasons noted above.  It still needs work--I hope you agree that this version is a good basis for that further revision. --BTfromLA 20:49, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Latest version (Dec 14)