Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 33

message: See Intelligent Design Archive 32 Overview Natural Causation for extensive discussion. The following sentence is proposed to replace the second sentence under Overview for a more balanced contrast to ID overview.
* By contrast, conventional biological science, relies exclusively on natural explanations for abiogenesis and macroevolution through processes such as mutation and natural selection, starting from the Big bang. DLH 20:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Natural Causation

message: the following unsourced sentence: "Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to natural explanations for evolution. Intelligent design stands in opposition to conventional biological science, which relies on the scientific method to explain life through observed physical processes such as mutation and natural selection." per WP:VERIFY DLH 22:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed unsourced overview sentence

message: So nobody can decide what a leading proponent is. If we changed "leading proponents" to "leading theorists," would that help? (It would rule out Brendan Nelson for a start).PiCo 03:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted in Talk:Intelligent design/Archive32, this has its own problem of suddenly rendering the sentence unsourced (the given source does not speak of leading theorists, only leading proponents). At any rate, Nelson has already been eliminated by virtue of no longer being the Education Minister (and therefore no longer leading on the issue even in Australia). Simões (talk/contribs) 03:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: "Theorists..." No doubt ID's proponents would prefer that, the problem is ID is not a proper theory, so theorist would be a misnomer and misleading. FeloniousMonk 03:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go postmodern, put "theorists" in inverted commas :). But I accept Simoes' point. PiCo 04:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Theory. --ScienceApologist 11:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "So nobody can decide what a leading proponent is" Actually there is a great deal of consensus here over what constitutes a leading proponent as well as what the evidence for such an individual is.  The rare exception may be quite vocal and even disruptive but their notions do not negate the overwhelming editorial consensus on this matter.  Mr Christopher 15:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an application of the 'Teach the Controversy' method. Raise a specious objection, then point at the heated responses to it as evidence of lack of consensus, something in the article that needs to be fixed, controversy that needs to be included, etc. Of course a contrived, nonexistent controversy is not going to pass scrutiny of anyone looking at the issue objectively and critically, though. FeloniousMonk 17:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: There is a big difference in the English language between a "theorist" (someone who theorises) and a "proponent of a theory" (someone who believes and supports a theory).  The people who invented/created/developed ID are "theorists".  People who believe and support ID (eg George W. Bush?) are "proponents".  In general, theorists and proponents are two overlapping groups (it is even possible to be a theorist without actually being a proponent of your own theories, eg the guy who invented Pastafarianism).  Or am I barking mad? Leeborkman 10:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case, all of the theorists are also proponents (i.e., they are actively engaged in the promotion of the theory, and the drafting and dissemination of various proposals that ID be taught in school).  As for Bush, I doubt he even understands the concept (a man who used the word caliphate to describe the terrorists in Iraq probably has a few comprehension problems...but I digress), and it is likely that his answer was merely to assure he keeps the Christian Right affiliated with his party (throw'em a bone works well in American politics), thus calling him a proponent is quite a stretch. •Jim62sch• 13:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Jim.  I'm not particularly familiar with the gory details (that's why I put a question mark after George W., but surely the relevant members of the School Board that wanted ID on the curriculum were proponents without ever claiming to be theorists.  Isn't that right?  Anyway, I need to read up on all of this some more.  So far, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the real highlight for me. See ya. Leeborkman 13:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Since the FSM, I can never look at a meatball without feeling that it's looking back at me.  ;)  •Jim62sch• 14:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: And in the minds of its advocates, those who devised ID are "theorists". ;)  In any case, SA raises a good point why "theorists" is semantically improper. •Jim62sch• 15:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't agree with you there.  ID is certainly a "theory" in the common English usage of the word. The debate is whether ID is a scientifc "Theory" (with a capital T), and if it is a scientific Theory, then is it a good Theory or a bad Theory.  (This is in fact much the same debate that has been argued about Darwinian Evolution for many many years, hinging around the notion of falsifiability or tautology).  It's pretty clear that ID is non-falsifiable, and that makes it a poor Scientfic Theory, or if you are hard-line about these things, then it is not a Scientific Theory at all.  But don't get all Science-chauvinist and say that the only kind of theory is a Scientific Theory.  For example, I have a theory that Britney Spears' taste in clothing is the direct result of wearing Mickey Mouse ears as a child.  It's not much of a theory, and it's sure not science, but it's my theory and I'm sticking to it.  I am the world's leading Britney Spears Mouse Ears theorist. Leeborkman 22:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Intelligent_design#Notes_to_editors "This article uses scientific terminology, and as such, the use of the word 'theory' to refer to anything outside of a recognised scientific theory is ambiguous." FeloniousMonk 23:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, okay, you are using Theory in the sense of "an hypothesis that has gained widespread acceptance by virtue of its demonstrated explanatory and predictive power".  As ID has zero predictive power and dubious explanatory power (relying on something more complex than the phenomena that it seeks to explain), ID does not rate the title "Theory".  Is that the sense of Theory that this article is using?  NOTE: You have to be careful here, because Darwin's Theory is also susceptible to claims about predictive power.  Anyway, I should point out that it is strange to use the word "theorist" to apply only to those people who put forward accepted, Scientific Theories with demonstrated explanatory and predictive power - even in strict scientfic terms, a "theorist" is surely someone who puts forward an hypothesis as a candidate for Theory-hood.  Otherwise you have a big hole in your terminology -- if someone who creates an hypothesis isn't a "theorist" then what are they?  Or are you saying that ID is not even an lowly hypothesis?  Thanks. Leeborkman 00:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change proponents to theorists? 

message: The weak anthropic principle is a tautology (or it can plausibly be asserted that it is), but the strong anthropic principle actually makes a claim that is not true by definition.  in fact, that claim is quite debatable and many people (including scientists) dispute it.  There is no reason that "The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history."  it just so happens that the universe did take on those properties (which is the WAP).  to assert that the universe must have those properties, that it is impossible that the universe could have taken on different properties (that might not allow for life to develop) is not a tautology.  it is actually a controversial statement that makes a claim that is not necessarily true by definition. r b-j 01:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All forms of the anthropic principle are in part truisms, since any valid cosmology arrived at by observation must be consistent with the existence of those making the observations. Do you have a specific point here in relation to the article? FeloniousMonk 02:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, OK, I see you made an edit. At first I did not agree with you, as I've seldom read that  distinction between SAP and WAP being made in regards to tautologies, but I've found some notable sources for the latter being more recognized as the tautology between the two, so I've reinserted your edit and added the sources. FeloniousMonk 03:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  just read the words, Felonious.  while it might not be obvious that the WAP is a tautology (i think it is) but it cannot be disputed that the stronger forms of the anthropic principle simply are not tautologies.  the SAP and FAP (and, to make a point, the CRAP) are statements that actually say something that is not the premise or definition.  they, in fact, say something that is controversial and such cannot be a tautology.  in fact, i cannot see how "some critics" see Intelligent Design as a tautology.  it says that there is an Intelligent Designer (although they try not to admit they mean God) and that does not follow trivially from the observation of order in the universe and in biology.  just because such order is accepted as a premise does not mean that an intelligent designer put it in place.  but the WAP is a tautology for sure: "conditions that are observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist." it's true, but it doesn't say very much. r b-j 03:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "strong form" of the [[anthropic principle]] is not a [[Tautology (logic)|tautology]]. 

message: I feel after a brief read-over that the way this article is presented leans heavily towards one side of the argument. There is little "neutrality"- even the order of the arguments shows this (the intelligent design is presented, followed by a rebuttal). The intelligent design argument seems to be put constantly in the critical light. Compare this article to the one on evolution? Look, even, at the section of evolution related to controversies. From a relatively neutral perspective, it does not look at though this entry allows intelligent design very fair treatment for those who might be looking for a balanced review of it. Rather, this comes across like a page in a book intended to refute rather than explore the subject.
If that is the case, than name this article "Criticism of Intelligent Design" rather than "Intelligent Design".
-Patrick
:If you have issues with the article, please address specific items, along with sources that meet WP:RS to illustrate why the current article is incorrect. Also take care to note WP:NPOV and in particular the clause on undue weight; there is not a requirement to give minority views as much space as majority views. --Davril2020 15:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Davril is correct. Like it says in the "Please read before starting" note at the top of this page: "A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents ID in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of ID is too extensive or violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that shape this article are: NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions, NPOV: Giving "equal validity"." When read in light of the specific provisions of policy that apply to it, the article is well within the bounds called for by the NPOV policy. FeloniousMonk 15:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding bias in article

message: At the top of the article, it is explained that ID refers to "Intelligent Design". Then throughout the article, both terms are used. Isn't this a waste of space? Why not just use ID for all further mentions. The only exception should be a literal quote; or a publication title. Comments? rossnixon 00:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was long ago agreed to not use ID, and also to leave "intelligent design" without capital letters. ... Kenosis 00:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I should think that the first reference in a section should be to intelligent design, the remaining to ID.  •Jim62sch• 01:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree with Jim. Makes it easier if someone jumps to a section to know what we are talking about. JoshuaZ 01:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We got ripped for doing just that a year or two as 'ID' was "jargon." We should follow the guidelines. What does the MoS or the FA and GA guidelines say on the matter? FeloniousMonk 01:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article uses ID or Intelligent Design randomly

message: It is sufficient to say that the majority of the scientific community does not see intelligent design as scientific. It is not necessary for the purposes of this article to split the scientific community up into three groups. Hackwrench 01:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also doing so would harmonize it with Argument from evolutionHackwrench 02:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key Issues. 

message: As written, the paragraph:
Dembski defines complex specified information as anything with a less than 1 in 10150 chance of occurring by (natural) chance. Critics say that this renders the argument a tautology: Complex specified information (CSI) cannot occur naturally because Dembski has defined it thus, so the real question becomes whether or not CSI actually exists in nature.
reads as to equate natural chance with nature. It seems to say that chance is the central process of nature, and that CSI happens so rarely that the question is whether it is a part of nature. Hackwrench 02:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equating "natural chance" with nature 

message: First start with the premise that God knows everything he ever knew, (weaker than omniscience, but as strong as we need here). In the process of design, one starts with a lack of knowledge and works to knowtedge of the designed object. We have already said that the God described above can never have more knowledge than he possesed to begin with. Therefore, such a God does not design. Hackwrench 15:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That sounds to me a bit like Zeno's paradox. That reasoning applied to mankind: cars can't exist because mankind started without the knowledge how to make cars and nobody taught mankind how to make cars. :-) Anyway, almost certainly such a premise isn't part of ID. Which paper are you referring to? Harald88 18:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This article discusses a specific case, wherein the words "intelligent design" were given widespread attention, in an ideologically based socio-political context, with certain organized group(s) using a particular modern formulation of teleological argument as a wedgie in an attempt to bring discussion of God into the public school science classrooms.  That context is its only notability in today's world.  It is not a theoretical exercise in itself, as that would be original research, which is not permitted in Wikipedia.  Many of the editors have, though, taken liberty to speculate about these things in much broader context on the talk page, which is quite permissible within reasonable limits. ... Kenosis 17:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My purpose in placing this here is to address the question pertinent to this article of how the people who constructed such an argument and got it notable despite the simplicity of this analysis refuting it using terms they and their primary audience would be more familiar with. In other words, how did they pull a fast one on "Christians"? Hackwrench 23:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What? Mr Christopher 23:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There is quite a bit to the ID political movement that is considered questionable by critics--your question is more properly for the movement, rather than the theory. However, Wikipedia is not here to debate the merits of the theory or the movement--we are merely here to report on the theory and the movement, mentioning notable objections. Wikipedia policies forbid including original research, such as your challenge, to our articles. Thanks. Justin Eiler 23:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Argument from omniscient God against intelligent design

message: Will someone who knows the source please look at the middle of note 80? It says, "Their third weakness is that they are their refusal to come clean on the age of the earth." This is incoherent. It looks like a vestige of an incompletely removed change. Surely the original doesn't say that?
Cognita 03:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The grammatical error is an accurate rendering of the cited text.  I've replaced the words "that they are" with " ... " . ... Kenosis 03:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspected misquote of source 

message: Thanks, Kenosis!
Today my talk page has this unsigned message: "Claiming that the removal of an entire section is "more small grammatical stuff" [1] is vandalism see WP:VAND."
This is harsh. I'm not a vandal, and I certainly didn't mean to remove any sections. I was making tiny changes to clean up the presentation--nothing that would alter the meaning. The page I was directed to shows that what I submitted ends in the middle of a word. I don't know how the text that followed it disappeared.
A real vandal who wanted to delete a section would have done it more neatly. I've seen a guideline "Assume good faith," but it wasn't followed in this case.
Cognita 17:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, it did appear to be inadvertent, judging by your other edits.  I hope I didn't inadvertently imply intentionality on your part, as I was specifically noting "inadvertent deletion" in the edit summary. ... Kenosis 17:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks again. Evidently someone thought the deletion was intentional, though. I only hope an accusation of vandalism doesn't go on some sort of permanent record and mark me as a bad citizen here. Perhaps it will be balanced by my having removed and reported an instance of real vandalism (a gratuitous obscenity) the other day.
Cognita 20:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP is a very imperfect place, in that respect not unlike the rest of the world. Same basic challenges as everwhere; the more controversial the article or subject area, the more likely these things are to happen. I wouldn't worry about it in the least, Cognita.  I feel safe in saying that the vast majority of WP users appreciate grammatical fixes such as you just implemented, and understand that mistakes happen all the time. ... Kenosis 20:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cognita -- given your comments above, I've retracted the vandalism notice as, having looked over your edits, I'm sure it was just accidental.  Kenosis raises a good point though -- this article has been beseiged lately by editors seeking to disrupt the article, a factor that led me to jump to contusions.  ;)  •Jim62sch• 00:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused 

message: Maybe move "controversial topic" and "Please read before starting" to top?
Cognita 22:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems reasonable. Any objections? JoshuaZ 22:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On box added and removed today 

message: Edit here with edit summary "Implementing a suggestion I made on the talk page that received no opposing comments" I have looked, and cannot find this suggested. Please re-state your argument here, thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, I would recommend that Hackwrench review the archives first.  This issue was parsed, re-parsed, re-parsed again, then microparsed by numerous editors.  The longstanding version is accurate. ... Kenosis 03:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Copied from Key Issues further up. Couldn't you have just used the browser's "Find" function to have done a search on my name? Hackwrench 06:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It is sufficient to say that the majority of the scientific community does not see intelligent design as scientific. It is not necessary for the purposes of this article to split the scientific community up into three groups. Hackwrench 01:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Moving from easier searches to slightly harder ones, what strategies do you recommend to find the relevant topic in the archives? Hackwrench 06:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive26 says something about bringing up matters similar to this later Hackwrench 06:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did search, and saw that, and I did NOT see, either before or now, your proposed edits. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh' the section titled Key issues, still on this main talk page Hackwrench 22:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I read your posts.  I'd suggest you spend a bit of time reading the footnotes, you might gain insight. •Jim62sch• 01:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the footnotes attached to the three breaks and don't see how they demonstrate a need for readers of the page to have it broken up into three groups. While those words are used in the connected footnotes, one would have to be awfully pedantic to come to the conclusion that they were doing anything other than expressing the same sentiment in their colloquialism of choice. Hackwrench 05:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits by Hackwrench

message: Someone added a generic Dawkins link which was reverted (and quite rightly so) asking for a more specific reason to include and citing non-notable. This non-notable bit seemed odd. Looking at the article there is a reference to a Dawkins book and another indirect link but not a direct link to his position regarding what he has in comparision to the ideas of ID. Web links are useful so I've added a more direct link under the non-ID perspective section. I think notability WRT Dawkins and ID is a given. Though I'd love to argue that. Ttiotsw 21:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More focused web link to Dawkins views in contrast to ID view. 

message: The overview section is woefully lacking in citations. I'll try find citations when I have time, but it really should be cited better. (or is everything there cited later? Some of it seems to be, but other elements don't seem to be).  JoshuaZ 20:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree JoshuaZ. I would suggest a short line of reasoning also. The last line says that ID is of a religious nature. It may be worth while saying "why" in a brief way. (eg, because it does not answer scientific questions, it doesn't tell us anything, and is supported mostly by religious advocates etc).  I understand we can't place all the detailed reasoning in the opening, but I'm sure there is a good brief line in quotes somewhere.Liontherock 04:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations in the overview 

message: Recently it emerged that a pro-ID group relying upon DI material was mass-mailing schools in the UK with free teaching pack containing pro-ID information. They reported about 60 schools responded favourably (I believe this is less than 1% of all schools). The bit that might be relevent to this article is that UK government officials have announced that the teaching of ID is to be outright banned and have categorically stated it is not scientific. First article Second article. Do you think the comments are appropriate, or notable in the context of discussing whether ID is or is not science? --Davril2020 06:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it seems not very relevant to the question of whether ID is science but it would make sense to note it in possibly the Intelligent design movement article.JoshuaZ 07:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for calling this to our attention, Davril. Agreed that it is more relevant to the IDM article. ... Kenosis 16:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further thanks, I've added a tactful mention to Creation and evolution in public education#United Kingdom. .. dave souza, talk 19:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intelligent Design in the UK 

message: I just realized I have an issue with this sentence "Intelligent design does not conceptually require the identification of a specific agent of creation..." and I'm trying to figure out why.  First of all the fact that design "theoriest" do not identify or even provide a coherant theory about the make up of the intelligent designer is a cop out.  They know it's god, we know they mean god, so their little "I don't have to stoop to your pathetic level of detail" is an admission that their "theory" has no scientific clothes.  So for us to say "Intelligent design does not conceptually require the identification of a specific..." is perpetuating the anti-scientific propaganda put forth by ID advocates.  In legit science, you DO have to provide a pathetic level of detail about your theories and if you say such and such did this then you DO have to provide a coherant theory about such and such.  To say ID theory conceptually does not require a defined intelligent designer sounds like something Dembski would write.  Science sure as heck requires it, but for obvious reasons ID advocates do not require it because it gives them free rein to side step scientific principles.  And who are we to say what intelligent design theory conceptually "requires" or doesn't require?  I think instead we should simply say something like "Although intelligent design does not identify the intelligent designer..." and then merge that with the existing piece (that all IDers in private admit the designer is God).  So I am suggesting we go with:
:Although intelligent design theory does not define who or what the intelligent designer is, the personal view of many proponents is that the designer is the Christian god.Dembski: "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory,..."
 
Am I making sense?  Mr Christopher 17:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What design "theory" requires

message: Strunk and White say that "All of" as an adjective should be omitted because nouns in English are all-inclusive without modifiers. Since this has been a particularly contentous sentence, I thought I'd mention it here just so people realize it is purely a stylistic change. --ScienceApologist 13:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Strunk and White and "all of"

message: Does asking a (rhetorical) question in a subheader (Is intelligent design scientific?) comply with the manual of style? Mr Christopher 15:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was discussion in the past, and the decision was to not use questions as headers in this article.  More to the point though, this header pretty much destroys the lead section, which is supposed to summarise the article as a whole.  Guettarda 15:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:LEAD requires that "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article." .. dave souza, talk 15:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the lead is suppossed to act as an overview, why does the article have a seperate overview section?  Perhaps the overview section should be moved to the lead.-Psychohistorian 15:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: concise. .. dave souza, talk 15:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Back to basics: There are only three things in WP that are not negotiable to change by consensus: WP:NPOV, WP:VER and WP:NOR.  Everything in this article has been finely parsed and a consensus hashed out on numerous points both broad and fine, repeatedly, by many editors both familiar and unfamiliar with the subject matter per se.  The MOS was followed wherever feasible.  Using the section title "overview" is a very minor departure from the general recommendations of the MOS and was consensused.  Lacking a clear improvement of some kind or significant changes in the verifiable facts of the subject, there's no reason it shouldn't remain organized as it presently is, in my estimation of it. ... Kenosis 16:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Defending the article againt change by arguing, in effect, "that's the way it was in the past, so that's how it needs to be from now on"  won't be accepted.  No article on Wikipedia is meant to be fossilized.-Psychohistorian 02:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True that the work is never really done in WP.  It is, though, acknowledged within WP that there is such a thing as a "stable article".  Such an article, having been subject to a substantial amount of work by multiple editors who have become familiar both with the subject matter and the discussion and consensus process in arriving at a stable state, requires a stronger showing of merit for proposed changes than would an article that is still being developed.  A subject as complex and controversial as this one, having been the subject of well over 2megabytes of talk page content and about 7000 edits to the article itself, having reached a stable state for some months now, and with no appreciable recent changes in the facts the article presents, is an example of such an article. ... Kenosis 04:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well I am the one who raised the issue so I might as well weigh in.  I don't feel the change you made improved the article. I am biased against posing a question in a header and then offering the content as an answer to that question.  It seems rhetorical if not leading to me.  Nothing personal or edit "warrish", I simply raised the issue because I felt it did not make a positive contribution to the article and could set an precedent we probably want to avoid.  I doubt the article will become fossilized anytime soon though the formatting and style will probably remain somewhat stagant, which I think is a good thing.  If we make formatting or stylistic changes they should be well planned and with editorial consent.  Otherwise we open the door to changing header titles (etc) on a whim and then having to endlessly defend reverting (or keeping) them.  The subject matter itself comes with enormous baggage and controversy, so we'd be wise to narrow the scope of what's worth arguing over. Finally, your original question is it scientific? is a good one that I think the reader will already ask themselves as they weigh the evidence and competing ideas in the article and come to their own conclusion.  Cheers, Mr Christopher 04:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent subheading changes?

message: Am I allowed to post my opinion on the NPOV of any part of this article? 
And if someone removes this can they tell me why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raspor (talk • contribs) 15:23, 27 December 2006  (UTC)
:no you are not. Also, when adding a comment to the talk page, please don't delete other people's comments, just add yours to the bottom.  --Bachrach44 15:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (afer edit conflict) Yes, you are allowed to post your opinion on this article, on NPOV or any other concern. I don't know what Bachrach is talking about. Please do not remove other's posts when you add a post, as you have now done twice on this page and once on my talk page  . Also, please sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~). KillerChihuahua?!? 15:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the question differently - I thought he was asking if he could post his opinion in the article. --Bachrach44 15:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, mystery solved. :) KillerChihuahua?!? 15:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Permission  

message: <subsection header inserted post-archive>
::Reproducing a couple of earlier comments here for convenience: This intelligent design article is not a theoretical exercise in discussing the various possible applications for a term such as "intelligent design". The entire article on the teleological argument has gotten less traffic in its entire history than this article gets in a couple of weeks. The reason for that is this: ID is a synthetic term incorporating a set of particular concepts, made and disseminated into popular consciousness today, particularly in the US, by affiliates of the Discovery Institute. As said before in now-archived talk-page discussion, this term would be a minor theological curiosity were it not for the wedge strategy and the peculiar synthesis of ideas having been maneuvered into public view in the context of the culture wars in the US, an ideological, socio-political gambit for power, in part by attempting to shape the hearts and minds of the next generation so as not to produce future generations of godless "materialists", but instead to have them grow up knowing a "science consonant with theistic convictions".
::The talk page for the teleological argument is 32kB long for its entire history, including Plato's Timaeus, Augustine's City of God, Aquinas' Five ways, the various watchmaker arguments including Cicero, Voltaire, Robert Hooke, Paley, and "intelligent design."  The talk page for the article on intelligent design, by contrast, has well over 2mB (2000kB) over its three year history (with about 7000 namespace edits on the article itself).  Treating it as if it was on a par with uses of the term "intelligent design" independently of its ideological socio-political application by the Intelligent design movement would be a mockery of rationality.  It is the attempt to pass this particular set of teleological arguments packaged as science by the Discovery Insitute affiliates that is the only noteworthy concern of the present article -- i.e., the attempt to get a wedge into the public schools. 
::In sum, there is only one "intelligent design" worth discussing in an article, which is the formulation disseminated by the Discovery Institute affiliates.  The article states this formulation, then proceeds to present what the issues are.  Proponents claim it's a valid scientific theory competitive with evolution.  The scientific community says it isn't.  The US federal court decision says it's creationism in disguise and not to tamper with the science textbooks or make official statements to students that evolution is somehow controversial among scientists.  After that, the article presents what the other issues are. It's a form of teleological argument, merged with the words "intelligent design", heard at a conference in 1988. The Foundation for Thought and Ethics got involved in pushing the idea of teaching creationism and Christian values in the public schools, and in 1989, Charles Thaxton changed the word "creationism" to "intelligent design" in the textbook Of Pandas and People.  In the 1990s, Johnson, Behe, Dembski, Meyer and others got together on the project under the umbrella of the Discovery Institute, formulated the wedge strategy, proceeded to make their arguments to the public, et cetera, et cetera. The article explains what the controversy is about and what the basic arguments are, linking to numerous related topic forks as needed. The WP article presents all this consistently with WP:NPOV, WP:VER, and WP:CON.. ... Kenosis 23:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can refer to it in the 'Points that have already been discussed' section of the archives. -- Ec5618 23:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the first idea as proposed by Mr Christopher, we should sticky it. Look at what one would have to wade through in this section to get to this. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously, that is the best 3 paragraph summary I have ever read. We'd be wise to frame it somehow and put it at the top of the talk page and not bury it in an archive.  I don't see how it could possibly be made more simple and easy to follow and understand. If someone doesn't get it after reading that then they never will.  Mr Christopher 03:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I can no longer assume good faith on your part.  This is now getting tiresome.  Your concerns and objections have been heard and addressed in detail.  We have no obligation to feed trolls.  Mr Christopher 00:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. How many times must we explain that this article isn't about the beliefs of the Raelians, but about the concept of intelligent design as propounded by the discovery institute. The article makes no claims about Raelian beliefs, just as the article on astrology does not mention toothpaste. The above posts go into more detail. Free to re-read them. -- Ec5618 00:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is the article trying to equate ID with Christian Creationism and the Discovery Institute too much?

message: Folks - re-reading the above, its pretty clear to me that raspor is an intelligent, considerate editor - and if you take a look above you guys have been more than a little short in dealing with him. As you're aware, this article has a reputation for being somewhat 'don't touch' - which is a shame, and a failure of the wiki-process. Raspor is not an idiot, not are his arguments idiotic, and although its hard patiently explaining the same things over and over again, that's what this page is always going to be about.
I see raspor's point about a circular argument - it does feel to me that the tone of this article has ID = DI = ID etc. 
The problem i have with this may well be cultural (raspor's strongest argument in my opinion) - because I have been aware of Intelligent Design all my adult life - initially through Paley, and then somewhat ironically through Richard Dawkins' book. ie. none of my exposure to this concept came through the DI. 
I see what the DI has done as taking the concept, and making a particular argument from it - it is this argument which can be consistently proven to be linked back to the DI, not the concept itself.
That's why i suggest we make it clear straight up that what we are talking about is actually a particular argument, ie. Intelligent design (ID) is a teleological argument based on the concept that etc. etc.
Cheers, Petesmiles 01:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please cool it, and be nice! 

message: I looked at it again and it is almost humorous:
ID is this and that and this and that ALL whose proponents are from the BAD organization (see our many citations)
and scientsts dont belive in it and COURTS hae condemed it and the UK condemns it
*** now  ****
let me tell you what it is....
should not the concept be defined first and then all the 'its so, so, evil ' stuff come later?
even the holocaust deniers are treated more courteously. 
what is this all about? it really seems to me that there is an agenda. well i think most of the readers can see that also. they arent that stupid. it reeks of bias.
and why is the DI so evil? they have an agenda: yes. is that not allowed here in the US? 
raspor 01:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Among the various [possibly predisposed] judgments and complaints being rendered somewhat shotgun-style at the moment, I see many conclusions such as "embarrasment", "not objective", etc., and little or no fact-based, verifiable evidence with respect to the material the article presents to the reader. After some 7000 edits, a massive research effort, and over 2mb of talk-page discussion, one fact is plain: every time the editors analyze the evidence, it is clear that in fact yes, as Raspor puts it, ID = DI.  The DI affiliates put their heads together, came up with the forumla, and disseminated it to the public in keeping with the wedge strategy written by the DI.  The scientific community has since responded, and so has the US federal court.  Only six citations are provided for the issue of, as Raspor says, ID = DI; although it would be readily possible to provide at least dozens of independent, credible sources for this one fact.  I do recognize it is somewhat counterintuitive (a bit difficult to believe at first) the fact that one organization, one coordinated effort, caused all this stir, and long-time editors here will recall, perhaps with a bit of a smirk, my own initial insistence on inserting into the article the words "many of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute" rather than "all of whom are affiliated..."  Yet a detailed analysis of the evidence leads to only one conclusion, which is that, in fact, ID = DI. The manner in which the article represents this to the readers is not "bias", but rather is presenting, as Raspor requests, "just the facts maam' [sic]". ... Kenosis 14:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Raspor has raised no new points that have not already been dealt with here in the past, I suggest he read the archives. We're not going to rehash repeated flawed objections time and again. He also needs to get a better understanding of our WP:NPOV policy, specifically WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience, and WP:NPOVFAQ#Giving_.22equal_validity.22 and how the three clauses relate to one another before raising such objections here again. Until he has a demonstrably better grasp of not only how differing points of view are dealt with at Wikipedia, but how majority v. minority views are dealt with there is little point in addressing such objections other than to direct him to the relevant policy and hope he reads and understands it. FeloniousMonk 18:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Um, please start by reading and understanding our core policy, WP:NPOV, and specifically  the clauses that apply directly to this article: WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience, and WP:NPOVFAQ#Giving_.22equal_validity.22 FeloniousMonk 18:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No one controls the article; its content is shaped by consensus (WP:CON) and WP:NPOV. Anyone can edit and anyone can and will revert untoward changes to the article. Unfortunately your proposed changes do not stand up well when viewed in light of the WP:NPOV policy and those clauses which apply to this article specifically. That explains the lack of traction and interest your proposed changes are getting. Were I you I'd carefully reread those parts of the policy and consider how they apply to your suggested changes. FeloniousMonk 19:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Raspor, there is a maximum number of reverts that any editor can make in a 24 hour time period (see 3RR).  This is a policy which is taken very seriously on Wikipedia.  With it, "consensus" gets turned into "most popular view among editors".  Since the majority of editors disagree with your current tactics, I suggest that you figure out a way to compromise with them so that both you and the other editors are happy.  Don't get into an edit war - it always goes badly.-Psychohistorian 21:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You asked for a link to the 3RR.  I gave you that link.  Where is "or asking and not getting answers" coming from?-Psychohistorian 23:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have been asked repeatedly to provide sources for your position.  Instead of doing so, you've accussed people who have provided sources which you disagree with "foolish" and "puer" (was that suppossed to be "puerile"?)  And now you ask where have you been abrassive?  You say that it seems like this article has been controlled by "4 of you", but I've contributed very little to this article, so who exactly is the "you" in that?  "Fairness" and "balance" never take a back seat to Verifiability - never.  So, again, as have others who have already done so repeatedly, I'll ask you to provide sources for your claims because your opinions have no value here.  As for asking people to help newbies out, I'm happy to provide whatever I can and have time for, but you need to read the policies - just click the "help" on the left hand side of your screen.-Psychohistorian 00:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, while I agree with the US National Academy of Science regarding the scientific merit of ID, I also believe that rational oppossition is productive.  Without sources, however, what you are doing isn't providing rational oppossition, its just eating up bandwidth.-Psychohistorian 00:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You've identified yourself as a newbie who wants to learn how to work with editors on Wikipedia.  But there's one thing that you've been told and that you are ignoring.
You wrote, "the text is puer and foolish as far as i am concerned, many others in the archives have said its a joke etc.".  To make sure you don't skim over this, I'll put it in caps.  IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT PEOPLES' OPINIONS ARE IF THEY VIOLATE POLICY.  There are sources which state that all the leading proponents of ID are of the DI.  It isn't up to me or you to say whether those sources are right or wrong all we can say is whether they are reliable sources (which they are) and report what they say.  Read policy.  By the way, thank you for the new word "puer", though I have absolutely no idea what geomancy has to do with this.-Psychohistorian 01:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Article Format