Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 39

message: Right. the old version was of a kind of awkward format for working our way forward, so, in order to try and move us forwards, I've set up a new voting scheme to try and get as much consensus as possible. Then we can work on the points that are more strongly disputed. Adam Cuerden talk 05:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New vote on lead 

message: In these two options, anything in italics is part of a vote below this. Just choose which of the two formats you prefer. I've stripped references, rest assured that everything is, in fact, referenced.
===I===
[Opening sentences: Intelligent design is (definition) and (god-related) or vice-versa.]
[[Proponents sentence: Its leading/primary proponent(s), all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute/the Discovery institute ] believe the designer to be [the Abrahamic God/the Judeo-Christian God/the Christian God] and claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.]
[Second paragraph: The scientific community states unequivocally that intelligent design is not science; the U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. Public statements by scientists have described it as a pseudoscience or junk science, the former of which was also used by the U.S. National Science Teachers Association.] In 2005, intelligent design advocate Michael Behe testified under oath that no scientific evidence in support of the intelligent design hypothesis has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Despite the limits of the proposition, the Discovery Institute's primary members, as well as leaked internal documents, have shown a strong bias towards identifying [the Abrahamic God/the Judeo-Christian God/the Christian God] as the designer. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.
===II===
[Opening sentences: Intelligent design is (definition) and (god-related) or vice-versa.]
[Proponents sentence: Its leading/primary proponent(s), [all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute/the Discovery institute]] believe the designer to be [the Abrahamic God/the Judeo-Christian God/the Christian God] and claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.
[Second paragraph: The scientific community states unequivocally that intelligent design is not science; the U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. Public statements by scientists have described it as a pseudoscience or junk science, the former of which was also used by the U.S. National Science Teachers Association.]
In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature. During the trial, intelligent design advocate Michael Behe testified under oath that no scientific evidence in support of the intelligent design hypothesis has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
===Voting on format===
* I prefer II, could live with I, but find it a bit disorganised. Adam Cuerden talk 05:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Format: Choose your prefered format

message: * I prefer II, could live with I, but find it a bit disorganised. Adam Cuerden talk 05:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting on format

message: * I like 3 best, followed by 1 and 2.  I don't like 4 or 5. 4's second half seems misleading. Adam Cuerden talk 05:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting on opening sentences

message: The major points are that it's in opposition to evolution and biology (to a lesser extent astrophysics, geology, etc) and it claims that some aspects of life and so on are too complex, or designed-looking, or finely tuned, or what have you to have arised from natural processes without the guidance of a designer. I don't think the current quote is very well-chosen; by its nature as a DI propoganda piece it has outright mischaracterisations - "undirected", for instance, can mean "left to go on their own without outside guidance" but it also means "fluctuating randomly", or "without any direction of movement" - both of which are flat out wrong, as natural selection is deterministic by definition - all the forces that are not deterministic are defined as genetic drift.  Adam Cuerden talk 03:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Err. "deterministic" definitely isn't the right word to use in this sort of context, and many prominent scientists (Gould, most famously) have claimed that natural selection is indeed random and directionless; this view, of course, is by no means universal.  "Natural" would be good in isolation, but I don't think "natural processes such as natural selection" is acceptable from a stylistic point of view, and "natural processes" on its own doesn't bring out the specific attack made by ID on evolutionary biology.  And, if we can't get away with "teleological", we're definitely not going to get away with "stochastic" or any similar technical term.  Furthermore, any differences between a paraphrase of the DI's definition and the definition itself are going to be seized on as "misreprentation" by the pro-ID editors.  That's not to say that we _can't_ put together a paraphrase, but it'll need to have _exactly_ the same meaning as the DI definition. Tevildo 08:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's deterministic so far that you can model natural selection mathematically so long as you know the selection pressures on each allele and have a population of sufficiently large size so as to dampen down genetic drift. However, which solution it adopts is random, as it depends on what's available, and random mutations and genetic drift there play a strong role. So, yes, the solution is unpredictable, but the selection itself is deterministic at large populations and smaller time scales. Adam Cuerden talk 00:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you're saying, but "deterministic" is a word that, IMO, should be confined to metaphysics and not allowed to intrude into any sort of scientific discussion.  If we're going to explain this point in the article, we need to find another word - "predictable", perhaps?  ("Nomological" is presumably out of the running, although that's a more appropriate technical term). Tevildo 20:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: *1. Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute...
*2. Its leading proponent, the Discovery Institute....
*3. Its primary proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute...
*4. Its primary proponent, the Discovery Institute....
*5. Its primary proponents, many of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute...
*6. Its original proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute...
*7. Its original proponents, the Discovery Institute...
*8. The Discovery Institute...
===Voting on proponents sentence===
* I like 2 or 4, but don't care much either way. Adam Cuerden talk 05:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: there are a lot of scientists that are theist or deist.  many of these scientists write books.  some even write books about the topic at hand, or at least touch it.  probably less that 1% of scientists that believe in God and think that God had something to do with creation, while still accepting the findings of modern cosmology or biology/palentology, are affiliated with the DI.  you need some proof there for the word "all" and you won't get it since all i need is one who is not.  (and you guys wonder why critics attack this article for bias?) r b-j 13:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can name a leading and/or primary advocate of ID who isn't affilliated with the Discovery Institute (with appropriate references to back up your claim, of course), we'd be more than delighted to change the sentence.  Until you (or someone else) does, though, it should stay - it's adequately referenced and, to the best of our knowledge, factually correct.  And, this shouldn't need saying, but just to make it clear - stating a belief in God is _not_ advocation of ID, any more than it's advocation of Young Earth Creationism. Tevildo 17:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  well, since you seem to control the judgement of who is "leading" or "primary" (nothing subjective in that!), i will never be able to satisfy it.  but i have named one author, a Harvard prof no less, several times (you can look it up in the archives).  another author that i haven't yet mentioned is John Polkinghorne. another might be Freeman Dyson.  i know for sure that Polkinghorne supports a theistic concept of design that would fit the un-crapped up definition of ID and has nothing to do with nor approves of the DI.  and i suspect the same for Dyson.  and, along with Gingrich, they write books.  what else is needed to make them "primary" or "leading"?  do they have to favor fucking up science education in the public schools to qualify as a being a proponent of ID?  if that is required, then they fail the test. r b-j 18:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just the "living things" (as in, "and of living things" from the current definition) aspect would be enough.  Polkinghorne and Dyson are indeed scientists that advocate the teleological argument.  They only apply it to the universe as a whole, and are more than happy to name The Designer as God. Tevildo 18:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  looks like we're in agreement about the facts.  i just do not know how, given these facts, that you justify that "all the primary proponents of ID are affiliated with DI" unless you do so axiomatically.  is being affiliated with DI a requirement to be considered a "primary proponent" of ID?  if you say "yes", then what about the meaning and historical use of the term ID in the years before there ever was a DI?  if DI acts to appropriate a term and does all this PR and political bullshit to associate the term with a movement to put Of Pandas and People into classrooms, if DI does that, do we grant to DI that they own the term? r b-j 01:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The trouble is that intelligent design isn't really all that different from creationism. There's two ways to seperate people into ID supporters and creationists: 1. Whether they use the term intelligent design (which largely limits it to the DI), or 2. Whether they pussyfoot around the nature of the designer in a vague effort to appear not to be advocating a specific religion, and thus to make themselves acceptable in science classes. This also seems to lead back to the DI, even if it started out away from them, as that sort of underhanded work requires sharp-line division off from the rest of the creationists for it to work in the first place, and thus goes right back to 1. Adam Cuerden talk 00:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thus, my proposal: #9: "It's leading proponents, all of whom are closely affiliated with the Discovery Institute . . ." , #10:"It's principal proponents, all of whom are closely affiliated with the Discovery Institute..." , or even an option #11: "It's principal proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute..."  Whether any of these are acceptable or not, no doubt the choices can be narrowed down significantly at some reasonable point in the discussion that is already underway here.  Kenosis 01:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Come to think of it, I just had an opportunity to think about the issues here in somewhat more detail, and it now seems to me that the words "leading proponents" express both "original proponents" and "principal" or "primary" proponents in a way that includes both of these attributes of those proponents.  The first such attribute is that they came first with a significant and clearly identifiable gap in time, at least several years, between their presentations of their POV and the presentation of those who followed starting in about 2001 or so and continuing through at least Ann Coulter's book in 2006.  The second such attribute is the relatively minor level of  book sales and hence influence on the issues involved in the topic of intelligent design between primary proponents such as Johnson, Behe, Dembski along with the facilitative influence of other participants such as Meyer, Thaxton, Chapman, etc., as compared ot others who weighed in after the unveiling of the teach the controversy campaign starting in 1999. Thus, the earlier language "leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, maintain that intellgent design is a scientific...",.or variation thereof, was and still is a quite reasonable way of stating the information to the reader interested in attempting to understand the topic. ... Kenosis 04:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Coulter might be a candidate for RBJ's counterexample.  She's (arguably) a "leading proponent" - certainly, she advocates ID (although for explicitly religious reasons), and lots of people have read her book; and, although she cites Behe and Dembski as sources, I don't think she's _personally_ associated with the DI.  My preference is still for "original". Tevildo 06:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes there is indeed an argument to be made there, and Coulter was brought up and discussed extensively in this context.  I'll try to find it and put a link here if I can.  The talk-page discussion(s) of Coulter concluded quite convincingly that she is not only not a leading proponent, but is not even adequately familiar with the topic to have written about it without going to the Discovery Institute for her information.  She is a commentator, a political pundit, who wrote Godless as a sweeping socio-political commentary, decrying all manner of destruction of the moral and intellectual fabric of the United States perpetrated by liberals and secular humanists.  It's an interesting read, if one cares to look into popular modern conservatism in America.  In short, no one else even comes close to the amount of influence and to the timing of the "leading" proponents, Johnson, Meyer, Dembski, Behe, etc.  Personally I don't think "original" captures this quite strongly enough.  Perhaps there's yet another way of stating this fundamental point about the class of persons who are fundamentally responsible for intelligent design. ... Kenosis 14:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 2 or 4 for this one. 7 would be okay, but suffers from a slight accuracy problem in that the phrase ID does predate (albeit in a very minor way) the DI. Tomandlu 10:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "Leading" might be regarded as slightly musteline.  I'll agree with RBJ insofar as there's a risk of defining "leading" as "being associated with the DI" and begging the question. "Original", if not perfectly objective, does give us a narrower target containing the same individuals. Tevildo 19:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What consitututes "a leading proponent" is already well defined and understood, as seen in the archives. Odd nature 21:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't use the archives as a source.  If "leading" is actually _defined_, we need to include the definition somewhere in the article.  If, as I suspect, it isn't, I think we should try and find a word that both covers the individuals in question accurately and doesn't provoke edit wars. Tevildo 22:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, but with the observation that failure to mention the Discovery Institute connection in the lead is not acceptable to some editors.  Back in about December we had something along the lines of "Its leading proponents are all associated with the Discovery Insitute; they claim...", but that didn't survive for long, and I don't think there's any point in suggesting it again. Tevildo 08:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But what reason is there for saying that only its leading/primary/original proponents claim that ID is a scientific theory? Surely that should be just a generic "proponents", with the DI mentioned seperately. Adam Cuerden talk 00:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason is that certain editors aren't happy with any version that doesn't have the "leading proponents/Discovery Institue" connection as the very first thing we say about ID proponents.  I don't think this is necessary, but my opinion is only one among many. Tevildo 10:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but just because it looks like it makes sense at first glance doesn't mean the combination actually makes sense. We can do better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs) 13:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Am I going nuts or do I see this section twice?  Orangemarlin 05:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is for the "Leading proponents" sentence, not the opening paragraph. Tevildo 08:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, thanks for the correction on that. Late last night, I made that mistake. And thanks, Adam, for immediately correcting my erroneous edit to this section. ... Kenosis 14:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry. I saw Orangemarlin's comment, and realised what had happened. It was an easy mistake to make if you didn't realise there were two charts. Adam Cuerden talk 00:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It was late, and I must have been smoking pot when I read it.  Orangemarlin
14:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proponents sentence

message: * I like 2 or 4, but don't care much either way. Adam Cuerden talk 05:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: there are a lot of scientists that are theist or deist.  many of these scientists write books.  some even write books about the topic at hand, or at least touch it.  probably less that 1% of scientists that believe in God and think that God had something to do with creation, while still accepting the findings of modern cosmology or biology/palentology, are affiliated with the DI.  you need some proof there for the word "all" and you won't get it since all i need is one who is not.  (and you guys wonder why critics attack this article for bias?) r b-j 13:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can name a leading and/or primary advocate of ID who isn't affilliated with the Discovery Institute (with appropriate references to back up your claim, of course), we'd be more than delighted to change the sentence.  Until you (or someone else) does, though, it should stay - it's adequately referenced and, to the best of our knowledge, factually correct.  And, this shouldn't need saying, but just to make it clear - stating a belief in God is _not_ advocation of ID, any more than it's advocation of Young Earth Creationism. Tevildo 17:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  well, since you seem to control the judgement of who is "leading" or "primary" (nothing subjective in that!), i will never be able to satisfy it.  but i have named one author, a Harvard prof no less, several times (you can look it up in the archives).  another author that i haven't yet mentioned is John Polkinghorne. another might be Freeman Dyson.  i know for sure that Polkinghorne supports a theistic concept of design that would fit the un-crapped up definition of ID and has nothing to do with nor approves of the DI.  and i suspect the same for Dyson.  and, along with Gingrich, they write books.  what else is needed to make them "primary" or "leading"?  do they have to favor fucking up science education in the public schools to qualify as a being a proponent of ID?  if that is required, then they fail the test. r b-j 18:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just the "living things" (as in, "and of living things" from the current definition) aspect would be enough.  Polkinghorne and Dyson are indeed scientists that advocate the teleological argument.  They only apply it to the universe as a whole, and are more than happy to name The Designer as God. Tevildo 18:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  looks like we're in agreement about the facts.  i just do not know how, given these facts, that you justify that "all the primary proponents of ID are affiliated with DI" unless you do so axiomatically.  is being affiliated with DI a requirement to be considered a "primary proponent" of ID?  if you say "yes", then what about the meaning and historical use of the term ID in the years before there ever was a DI?  if DI acts to appropriate a term and does all this PR and political bullshit to associate the term with a movement to put Of Pandas and People into classrooms, if DI does that, do we grant to DI that they own the term? r b-j 01:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The trouble is that intelligent design isn't really all that different from creationism. There's two ways to seperate people into ID supporters and creationists: 1. Whether they use the term intelligent design (which largely limits it to the DI), or 2. Whether they pussyfoot around the nature of the designer in a vague effort to appear not to be advocating a specific religion, and thus to make themselves acceptable in science classes. This also seems to lead back to the DI, even if it started out away from them, as that sort of underhanded work requires sharp-line division off from the rest of the creationists for it to work in the first place, and thus goes right back to 1. Adam Cuerden talk 00:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thus, my proposal: #9: "It's leading proponents, all of whom are closely affiliated with the Discovery Institute . . ." , #10:"It's principal proponents, all of whom are closely affiliated with the Discovery Institute..." , or even an option #11: "It's principal proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute..."  Whether any of these are acceptable or not, no doubt the choices can be narrowed down significantly at some reasonable point in the discussion that is already underway here.  Kenosis 01:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Come to think of it, I just had an opportunity to think about the issues here in somewhat more detail, and it now seems to me that the words "leading proponents" express both "original proponents" and "principal" or "primary" proponents in a way that includes both of these attributes of those proponents.  The first such attribute is that they came first with a significant and clearly identifiable gap in time, at least several years, between their presentations of their POV and the presentation of those who followed starting in about 2001 or so and continuing through at least Ann Coulter's book in 2006.  The second such attribute is the relatively minor level of  book sales and hence influence on the issues involved in the topic of intelligent design between primary proponents such as Johnson, Behe, Dembski along with the facilitative influence of other participants such as Meyer, Thaxton, Chapman, etc., as compared ot others who weighed in after the unveiling of the teach the controversy campaign starting in 1999. Thus, the earlier language "leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, maintain that intellgent design is a scientific...",.or variation thereof, was and still is a quite reasonable way of stating the information to the reader interested in attempting to understand the topic. ... Kenosis 04:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Coulter might be a candidate for RBJ's counterexample.  She's (arguably) a "leading proponent" - certainly, she advocates ID (although for explicitly religious reasons), and lots of people have read her book; and, although she cites Behe and Dembski as sources, I don't think she's _personally_ associated with the DI.  My preference is still for "original". Tevildo 06:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes there is indeed an argument to be made there, and Coulter was brought up and discussed extensively in this context.  I'll try to find it and put a link here if I can.  The talk-page discussion(s) of Coulter concluded quite convincingly that she is not only not a leading proponent, but is not even adequately familiar with the topic to have written about it without going to the Discovery Institute for her information.  She is a commentator, a political pundit, who wrote Godless as a sweeping socio-political commentary, decrying all manner of destruction of the moral and intellectual fabric of the United States perpetrated by liberals and secular humanists.  It's an interesting read, if one cares to look into popular modern conservatism in America.  In short, no one else even comes close to the amount of influence and to the timing of the "leading" proponents, Johnson, Meyer, Dembski, Behe, etc.  Personally I don't think "original" captures this quite strongly enough.  Perhaps there's yet another way of stating this fundamental point about the class of persons who are fundamentally responsible for intelligent design. ... Kenosis 14:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 2 or 4 for this one. 7 would be okay, but suffers from a slight accuracy problem in that the phrase ID does predate (albeit in a very minor way) the DI. Tomandlu 10:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "Leading" might be regarded as slightly musteline.  I'll agree with RBJ insofar as there's a risk of defining "leading" as "being associated with the DI" and begging the question. "Original", if not perfectly objective, does give us a narrower target containing the same individuals. Tevildo 19:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What consitututes "a leading proponent" is already well defined and understood, as seen in the archives. Odd nature 21:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't use the archives as a source.  If "leading" is actually _defined_, we need to include the definition somewhere in the article.  If, as I suspect, it isn't, I think we should try and find a word that both covers the individuals in question accurately and doesn't provoke edit wars. Tevildo 22:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, but with the observation that failure to mention the Discovery Institute connection in the lead is not acceptable to some editors.  Back in about December we had something along the lines of "Its leading proponents are all associated with the Discovery Insitute; they claim...", but that didn't survive for long, and I don't think there's any point in suggesting it again. Tevildo 08:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But what reason is there for saying that only its leading/primary/original proponents claim that ID is a scientific theory? Surely that should be just a generic "proponents", with the DI mentioned seperately. Adam Cuerden talk 00:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason is that certain editors aren't happy with any version that doesn't have the "leading proponents/Discovery Institue" connection as the very first thing we say about ID proponents.  I don't think this is necessary, but my opinion is only one among many. Tevildo 10:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but just because it looks like it makes sense at first glance doesn't mean the combination actually makes sense. We can do better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs) 13:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting on proponents sentence

message: Support    Abstain    Oppose	Support    Abstain    Oppose	Support    Abstain    Oppose	Support    Abstain    Oppose	Support    Abstain    Oppose	Support    Abstain    Oppose	Support    Abstain    Oppose	Support    Abstain    Oppose	Support    Abstain    Oppose	Support    Abstain    Oppose
Username                              	1                                     	2                                     	3                                     	4                                     	5                                     	6                                     	7                                     	8                                     	Comments
                                      	                                      	                                      	                                      	                                      	                                 	                                 	                                 	                                 	I like 2 or 4, but don't care much either way.
                                      	                                      	                                 	                                      	                                 	                                 	                                      	                                 	                                 	I think that only 1 or 3 are reasonable, with a slight preference for 1 -  my preference would now be for 6
                                      	                                 	                                 	                                 	                                 	                                 	                                      	                                 	                                 	I vote for 6. Both "leading" and "primary" are subjective and require an arbitrary distinction to be made.
                                      	                                      	                                      	                                      	                                      	                                      	                                      	                                      	                                      	8,7,6,2,4 - My order... I agree with SheffieldSteel on the terms used.
                                      	                                      	                                 	                                      	                                 	                                      	                                 	                                 	                                 	... you need some proof there for the word "all" and you won't get it since ...
                                      	                                 	                                      	                                 	                                      	                                 	                                 	                                      	                                 	2 or 4 for this one. 7 would be okay
                                      	                                      	                                 	                                 	                                 	                                 	                                 	                                 	                                 	Support 1 only
                                      	                                      	                                 	                                 	                                 	                                 	                                 	                                 	                                 	Support 1 for lack of a clear improvement among currently available options
                                      	                                      	                                      	                                      	                                      	                                      	                                      	                                      	                                      	Any of the first four are clear and to the point.  2, 4 are my favorites.
                                      	                                      	                                 	                                      	                                 	                                 	                                 	                                 	                                 	1 preferred and is well supported, 3 is also ok
Created another chart as it gets very difficult to see where people are at just looking at the text.  Please fix if I misrepresented your vote. Morphh  (talk) 3:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I going nuts or do I see this section twice?  Orangemarlin 05:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is for the "Leading proponents" sentence, not the opening paragraph. Tevildo 08:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, thanks for the correction on that. Late last night, I made that mistake. And thanks, Adam, for immediately correcting my erroneous edit to this section. ... Kenosis 14:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry. I saw Orangemarlin's comment, and realised what had happened. It was an easy mistake to make if you didn't realise there were two charts. Adam Cuerden talk 00:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was late, and I must have been smoking pot when I read it.  Orangemarlin
14:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote chart on proponents sentence

message: Should he be described as...
* 1. the Abrahamic God
* 2. the Judeo-Christian God
* 3. the Christian God
* 4. God
* 5. the God of Christianity (source's term)
===Voting on the nature of God===
* I like 2, 5, 1, 3, and 4, in that order. Adam Cuerden talk 05:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  is it attributed to that source?  is there any factual cause to differentiale the Christian God from any other God?  indeed from Abrahamic religion: " All three religions worship one God [...]. Indeed, there exists among their followers a general understanding that they worship the same God."  why make the article look stupid? r b-j 13:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem with 4 is that it relies on our readers appreciating the subtle difference between "God" and "a god", which is by no means an uncontentious issue.  We need to make it clear which god they believe in. Tevildo 20:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why there's wikilinks. Odd nature 21:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was held to be inadequate for "teleological" - we had to put "argument for the existence of God" in explicitly, which I'm sure didn't help the controversy.  However, I don't have particularly strong views on this specific point. Tevildo 22:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with God or whatever else. Best section heading ever, by the way. SheffieldSteel 22:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with wikilinking the term God to something more specific. Morphh  (talk) 3:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 'God' with a link. Tomandlu 13:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The identity of God

message: * I like 2, 5, 1, 3, and 4, in that order. Adam Cuerden talk 05:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  is it attributed to that source?  is there any factual cause to differentiale the Christian God from any other God?  indeed from Abrahamic religion: " All three religions worship one God [...]. Indeed, there exists among their followers a general understanding that they worship the same God."  why make the article look stupid? r b-j 13:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem with 4 is that it relies on our readers appreciating the subtle difference between "God" and "a god", which is by no means an uncontentious issue.  We need to make it clear which god they believe in. Tevildo 20:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why there's wikilinks. Odd nature 21:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was held to be inadequate for "teleological" - we had to put "argument for the existence of God" in explicitly, which I'm sure didn't help the controversy.  However, I don't have particularly strong views on this specific point. Tevildo 22:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with God or whatever else. Best section heading ever, by the way. SheffieldSteel 22:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with wikilinking the term God to something more specific. Morphh  (talk) 3:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 'God' with a link. Tomandlu 13:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting on the nature of God

message: The current version is  "The scientific community states unequivocally that intelligent design is not science; the U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. A public statement by the U.S. National Science Teachers Association described it as a pseudoscience, other public statements have agreed or called it junk science." - can this be improved? Adam Cuerden talk 05:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and more recently there have been complaints that the scientific community as a whole cannot "state" anything, but that the WP editors should use some other characterization of what the scientific community as a whole unequivocally asserts.  (It may seem a quibble now, but Adam Cuerden was not here to dfend this language at the time.  Look it up in the archives, if I may be pardoned for saying that.)  I certainly recognize this is an extremely difficult topic, in large part because it is inherently deceptive, on account of its fundamental objective to avoid running afoul of the US Supreme Court while advocating teaching creation-based biology ("creation science") to school children under the auspices of "science". ... Kenosis 06:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: May I suggest "have stated" or "have asserted"? Tevildo 06:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: who cares what the NAS says?  Are they the authority on what is science?  2000 members....uh ok.  That is hardly representitive of the "scientific community".  So if an organization that has a pitiful 2000 members states X about something pertaining to science, does that equivocate to fact?  But overall, the article is a nice infidels.org article.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.18.108.5 (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly there are other ways of stating the point in the article text than the way it's currently stated.  Presently, the footnote contains a summary of many of the major organizations' position on the issue of "inteligent design" asserted by its proponents to be scientific and therefore eligible for inclusion in public school science curricula.  The NAS, incidentally, is a major advisory body in the US, not just a happenstance assembly of a couple thousand scientists. ... Kenosis 15:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To the anonymous user who couldn't sign their name--the National Academy of Sciences is one of the premier scientific groups in the world.  You must be at the top of your field of study to even be considered a member.  When I was in college, to be taught physics, chemistry or biology by a faculty member who was in the NAS was considered very special.  My Physical Chemistry course was taught by one of the elder statesmen of Physics and Chemistry--and he was an elder of the Mormon Church.  If they say something, it has critical meaning and is representative of all of the scientists in the United States.  Orangemarlin 18:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Is there anything useful in my suggestions (now archived) - e.g. Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive37#Just_the_facts_1.31? Many editors liked 'em, but in the end, they were shot down with insults rather than constructive comment that might have allowed me to address the concerns. I realise they suffer from the problem of the scientific community "asserting", but that's a minor issue IMHO. Tomandlu 10:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Towards pursuing a more global perspective here, I do think it is useful to explore making clear that ID is a legal strategy driven by US law, specifically by the Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Aguilard.  There's adequate discussion of this in the trial transcripts of Kitzmiller v. Dover to fulfill WP:Attribution and WP:Reliable sources in my opinion.  What I most appreciated in Tomandlu's proposal was "Use of the term is almost exclusively linked with the Discovery Institute, a U.S.-based ... think tank..." , because it makes clear that it is primarily a U.S.-based issue.  Perhaps there are yet other ways of making this point within the current proposals, without ripping it up and starting from scratch on the format of the lead.  Currently the lead has three short paragraphs, (1) an introduction of the concept/proposition and who are the principal or leading advocates, (2) the response of the scientific community, and (3) its present legal status.  ... Kenosis 15:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Would it be acceptable to change "The scientific community states unequivocally that..." to "The [overwhelming] scientific consensus is that..."? This gets around the obvious problems of there being no 'office of science' to issue such statements. SheffieldSteel 20:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be OK - probably without "overwhelming", which is (a) emotive (b) not strictly necessary. Tevildo 20:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "unequivocal consensus" might work, come to think of it. Tevildo 20:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "Overwhelming" is accurate and verifiable via the Dover ruling. We will just quote the ruling on the matter if necessary. Odd nature 21:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Overwhelming consensus" I can live with.  I think it's better than "states unequivocally", at least. Tevildo 22:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me. At least we can all agree on one part of the lead =) Adam Cuerden talk 03:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Second paragraph

message: Could you add a link in the Pro-ID section to the Wiki site: ResearchID.org--Jdavid2008 03:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i don't think it's a good idea to unprotect at the moment.  we don't need another pro-ID link at the moment.  the anti-ID crowd will likely use the opportuninty to change the article for the worse, then it gets reprotected.  and unfortunately the rule seems to be "90% of the law is possession" at the moment.  when there are signs that these guys aren't gonna just railroad another variant of their favorite flagrantly biased lead and they start to recognize how unnecessarily biased in tone it was, then it would be a good idea to unprotect. r b-j 04:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever.  And I removed the obtrusive template.  This article will be unlocked when we agree on a lead.  Orangemarlin 05:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Add Link

message: And we haven't gotten anywhere.  Orangemarlin 00:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article is still locked 

message: Should this article have a few words about the logical fallacy that many people commit when trying to refute ID, i.e. the "appeal to people," or in Latin the argumentum ad populum? A common example of this fallacy can be found in the 2nd paragraph of this article: "The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science."
The gist of an appeal to people is that we should accept a belief as true because it is widely held or believed by certain people. As the WP article says, "[An ad populum argument] is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely held is not necessarily a guarantee that the belief is correct; if the belief of any individual can be wrong, then the belief held by multiple persons can also be wrong."
I think this information should be included on this page in order to increase its neutrality and to reduce the fallacious implication that ID is false because most scientists say so. --Rockymountains 00:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I personally could care less is ID is false or not (OK, I do care).  What's more important is the issue that the Discover Institute is engaged in a deceptive, and what I have to believe is also a cynical, process to show it is scientific and not inherently religious, so it get taught in schools.  So far, they have failed miserably.  Orangemarlin 01:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not commenting about the deeds and motives of the Discovery Institute. Back to my original question, I would like to see some consensus (for WP sake) on whether or not we should include a differing view for the ad populum argument that is committed in this article. --Rockymountains 01:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia should not be making an argument in the first place.  That would violate WP:NPOV.  Pointing out something that might be used in a fallacious argument is not the same as using said argument.  i kan reed 01:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, a bunch of the editors believe that the Discovery Institute has attempted to set up a facetious argument that it is science and not religion.  Some editors think that the NPOV is that we parrot what DI is saying about itself, which is really a POV statement.  There are another group of editors who believe that court rulings (Kitzmiller), evidence (the Wedge Document and teach the controversy), statements in court by DI officials, the AAAS and other scientist's description of ID as being junk science, etc. etc. is sufficient to state that ID is in fact a religious argument for the existence of G_d.  We're getting nowhere.  Orangemarlin 01:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way i kan, what argument would violate NPOV?  Orangemarlin 01:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any.  Presenting an argument without noting first that it's an argument given by person or group X, is a violation of NPOV.  By arguing for anything, including the most sensible thing in the world, reflects a point of view to one extent or another.  The point was if the overwhelming majority of the scientific community supports evolution, then stating that fact is not POV.  Using that statement to assert anything whatsoever is POV and probably a violation of OR too. i kan reed 04:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not making an argument. Therefore it is not utilising a logical fallacy. (Did I create a fallacy there). --aside--Fallacies are easy to point out, but not everything that resembles a fallacy is wrong, nor innapropriate to use.--ZayZayEM 02:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia simply presents what the most notable views are on a topic, not their worth or validity. Nor is there any requirement for counterbalancing the various views. FeloniousMonk 03:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  dunno what FM means by that.  of course WP:NPOV requires that we "represent fairly and without bias all significant views".  that is fundamental.  if that does not have anything to do with balancing or counterbalancing the various views, then FM and i have a semantic difference over the meaning of such words. r b-j 04:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: r b-j, which parts of "significant" and WP:A don't you understand? ... dave souza, talk 06:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  none. r b-j 16:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *In other words: science is not a democracy.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 12:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fortunately, the article has never equated the two. Simões (talk/contribs) 05:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issues of "ad populum", in my opinion, have a lot to do with "scientific consensus", as differentiated from popular opinion.  Without getting into details at the moment, if popular opinion equals "science", then what is, if I may ask, the usefulness of the word "science"?  Or, to put it a bit differently for the present, what is the point of exhausing one's self researching matters at hand, when any opinion will do?  Just a thought, for consideration of those presently involved in paricipicating in the discusssion on this page... Kenosis 06:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Argumentum ad populum]] 

message: In reference to this previous thread.
While 68.109.234.155 (why don't anon IPs get an account?) and I obviously disagree on this topic, he does make a valid point insofar as there is a certain ID-like approach which may be considered legitimate scientific speculation.  Such an approach, call it Speculative ID (SID), might be motived by the directed panspermia hypothesis as suggested by Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel.
Here is a sufficient (but not necessary) condition which would thrust SID from speculation into full acceptance.  Someone finds an algorithm which takes DNA strands as input and produces mathematical expressions as output.  It is a relatively simple algorithm, and may be freely examined by anyone interested.  Furthermore, when we feed any sort of DNA into this algorithm, we obtain Maxwell's Equations, the Dirac Equation, and an additional set of partial differential equations (and corresponding Hermitian operators) which we do not recognize.  After years of hard work, physicists discover that the latter equations are a peculiar generalization of Quantum Electrodynamics which admits General Relativity, QCD, and EWI as special cases — an apparent Grand Unified Theory.  Later, experiments are carried out which verify this new theory.
It might be fun to consider other sufficient conditions.  Perhaps a decoding algorithm which produces the Torah, matching nearly exactly to the oldest sources we have.  Or, like Carl Sagan's Contact, gives us a blueprint for wormhole-based technology.
Now what are the chances that SID could produce these kinds of results?  Or, failing that, even something remotely useful?  Highly unlikely, I presume most people would say.  While SID seems like a complete waste of time to me, I can't rule it out a priori; after all, the other origin of life hypotheses are speculative as well (though clearly more plausible, in my opinion).
These scenarios are concocted as extreme examples of what would indisputably take the "speculative" out of Speculative ID.  In other words, SID could in principle produce scientific results.  So what would be a not-so-extreme example?  Has there been any evidence which might be considered sufficient?  Nothing of which I am aware.
Needless to say, ID as promoted by the Discovery Institute et al is not the Speculative ID as discussed above.  Namely, proponents of Speculative ID would fully understand and acknowledge its speculative nature (hence the name), and would never pretend otherwise.  This attitude is entirely opposite to the approach taken by the Discovery Institute, in nearly every way I can imagine.
Every ID proponent I've read is intent on changing the rules of evidence or the rules of science in order to compensate for the amazing lack of evidence.  If one day ID produces something useful (a verified GUT being the extreme case), do you think ID proponents would for a single moment bother with trying to change the definition of science or accusing scientists of dogmatism?  No, they wouldn't; if they had the evidence, then the evidence would speak for itself.
We need to differentiate ID with SID, if only for practical reasons on this talk page.  Speculative ID arguments pop up sporadically whenever ID is discussed, and this totally confuses the issue.  We need to identify those arguments and say, "No, that's not what we are talking about here."  In other words, can we explicitly agree to talk about Discovery-Institute-ID, if only to remove these SID red herrings from the conversation?  Or if we mention SID, to be careful not to conflate it with DI-ID?
As for the article, are there any notable persons who are honestly engaged in something like Speculative ID?  And if so, do they deserve mention, given that the ID as promulgated by the Discovery Institute produces 99.9% of the noise?
Xerxesnine 07:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I recall, Margaret Thatcher's government used the slogan "Ask Sid" on billboards when selling off state assets, "Sid" symbolising a dodgy dealer advising you to buy the shares. Any notable persons engaged on such as pursuit don't call it ID, which is why this article is about the DI version. The nearest equivalent I can think of is SETI, which gets dragged out every now and again but, as its proponents have stated, is very different from ID. As always, a WP:V verifiable source explicitly making the connection with ID would be needed. ... dave souza, talk 07:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Creating an entity known as "SID" (or anything) as a wikipedia article without any third party references to back up it as a genuine terminology for a genuine phenenomenom violates WP:NOR.--ZayZayEM 11:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may have misunderstood my intention.  The only reason I gave SID a name is so that we can agree not to trot out that canard here, for the purposes of this talk page.  Despite the agreement that the article should be about the Discovery Institute's ID, there are still other kinds of ID arguments being made here, which is a distraction.  Xerxesnine 13:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculative ID 

message: As one can see from the section above, I have two more sources for the claim that the the major proponents are from the DI. I believe that these sources should be added because they are a new form of source for the claim: fellows of the DI. Would anyone object to the addition of these two sources? JoshuaZ 03:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but I have to say that, as I said above, the conflation of that information with the rest of the sentence's information is so awkward that we really ought to move that part. Adam Cuerden talk 16:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  Does it make for a complex sentence?  Yes.  And? •Jim62sch• 13:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet more sourcing. Wee! 

message: It is Raelian Movement an Intelligent Design position?
They adfirm that the life on Earth was enginereed by intelligent beings.
So they are literlly a form of creationist (relatively life on Earth).
In this case, they have to be enlisted in the page about ID.
If not, the exclusion would need an explanation (for instance, that ID needs a theological, non-material demiurge).
(Anonymous) --80.183.134.210 08:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're covered by the link at the top of the page to Intelligent design (disambiguation). They'd only get more coverage in this article if verifiable sources show sufficient use of the term Intelligent Design in referring to them to meet the requirements of WP:NPOV regarding undue weight. ,, dave souza, talk 09:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if the ID POV pushers actually believe in their propaganda, then we ought to throw in little green aliens being a part of ID.  In fact, let's throw in Zeus, Thor, and Starfleet's Genesis Device.  That's how absurd this "theory" is.  If they want to deny that they have anything to with G_d, I then say throw in everything including the kitchen sink!Orangemarlin 17:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I must admit to being partial to Odin. •Jim62sch• 20:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, for NPOV and undue weight purposes, we can throw in Odin.  Thank you for the suggestion.  Orangemarlin 21:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Mange takk!  ;) •Jim62sch• 13:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anything about Raelian Movement? 

message: Please read the instructions at WP:FAR, and re-approach FAR if issues aren't resolved by May 23.  I've removed Wikipedia:Featured article review/Intelligent design.  Regards,  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR archived 

message: The comment about DI being virtually unknown outside America has gone off into other issues, so let me try again. Here in Australia, if you asked me who to go to for material on Intelligent Design, I'd say Answers in Geneis - guys like Jonathan Sarfati and Ken Ham. Is there some reason - apart from the fact that they're perhaps not as well known in America - that they're not considered 'leading proponents' of ID? From my perspective here, I'd hear at least as much if not more about them than Michael Behe and so on. This is why I was suggesting that if you want to say DI has the leading proponents, it should be the leading proponents in America, not leading proponents full stop. NigelCunningham 23:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AiG and Ham are explicitly creationist, and from memory I think you'll find them commenting on ID as a rival, not something they're leading. There's a group promoting ID in Britain which was suggested as non-DI leaders, but on investigation it was found that what they were doing was sending out to schools information packs and DVDs made by the DI. There are sources in the article for the statement, and we can't start saying it's untrue unless we've a reliable source explicitly describing people not associated with the DI as leaders of ID. .. dave souza, talk 06:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We also need to bear in mind that proponent as used in this article has two concurrent definitions, with the first being the primary: 1. a person who makes a proposal or proposition, and 2. a person who espouses or supports a cause, etc.  Thus the definers of ID, the "theory" (I use that term very loosely), the strategy, the volksaufklärung, etc., are truly leading proponents while mere jumpers-on-the-bandwagon are not.  •Jim62sch• 13:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Answers In Genesis 

message: Here is the way wiki was intended.  Not all the spins on "undue weight" that the infidels.org atheists have done here, but this is how to write a neutral article on pseudoscience and still uphold the undue weight principle (as it was meant to be)
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Its biased articles like this wikipedia entry strictly controlled by a small band of atheists who are on a dogmatic mission that caused the founder of wiki to create citizendium.  Citizendium is proof of the terrible flaws on this site.
I am very happy with the stunning neutrality of this article:  http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Intelligent_design  It is amazing how much better something can be when it is actually written NPOV, rather than a bogus claim to NPOV with massive spin.  You could learn alot from reading citizendium articles.  Note how the ID article there opens.  It simply states the ID claim, mentions the scientific communitie's objections, and presents a neutral, unbiased article.  You can't do that, can you my atheist friends?  It is so hard, far beyond your capability.
I am also very happy that agenda-driven atheists like those here have no control over citizendium.  Its a great work over there, and one day will supplant this chaos at wiki.  So you hawks here who hover over your precious little "intelligent design" article which has the #1 google spot, you have your day now, yes, but it won't last.  Real NPOV cannot be stopped.  You cannot suppress NPOV, the internet is too large for that, in the end, you will fail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by  24.18.108.5 (talk) 20:10, May 4, 2007
:I am sorely tempted to feed this troll, but I am all out of troll food.  Can't this comment be deleted?  Orangemarlin 05:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the author is deviating from the official party line here.  Wikipedia is a place where a diversity of views may be found.  So to prove it, we should block him and remove the post before someone might read it. 70.105.16.153 13:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this Larry Sanger doing some advertising? ;) Joke, joke, just don't feed this troll. .. dave souza, talk 06:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL.  I forgot to mention that the Atheist Society is meeting over at Darwin Hall this evening.  Dave you were in charge of the sacrifice of a vestal virgin.  Please don't forget.  Orangemarlin 06:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The natural objection is of course that citizendium  treats intelligent design as much like academic nonsense as the wikipedia article does.  Objections about the nature of NPOV should probably be brought up in Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view rather than here.  The rest of you guys, assume good faith, and treat this person's post as ignorance and not intentional trolling. i kan reed 06:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've been doing this long enough to know when someone is trolling.  When someone starts the sentence by describing editors as a "small band of atheists", you can probably move right away to assuming bad faith.  This is a troll.  Orangemarlin 07:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup.  I'll be back in a bit to archive the useless yet uninteresting post by the anon. •Jim62sch• 13:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Come to think of it, maybe this little diversion should just continue as before.  Among other things, it gives an opportunity for our fellow participants overseas to get an idea what the socio-political atmosphere is really like in the U.S. these days.  Shall we call it "more than occasionally putrid, with a thin veneer of civility and religiosity"?  I particularly appreciated the "agenda-driven atheists" comment above,  This, of course, is the sort of thing that happens when political forces co-opt the language of faith.  It's something our friends in the UK have been through before, and they may not fully understand that significant and influential segments of the populace in the US do not equally well grasp the importance of making certain the king doesn't also get to serve as the director of religious education, and of making sure that the director of religious education doesn't also get to serve as the director of science education.  So far, this separation of duties has managed to remain somewhat intact, though as can be seen, it's not without vigorous controversy.  ... Kenosis 14:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I don't appreciate the language, I did appreciate the pointer. As a proponent of creationism/ID, I don't have any problems with that article. I think it clearly describes what ID and the objections to it without going overboard in either direction. What, if anything, do others find problematic with it? If we can agree it's a good article, perhaps it gives us a better idea of what to work towards.NigelCunningham 23:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Citizendium article is grappling with this issue of how to state the issues too, as evidenced on the talk page for it's article on intelligent design.  Thus far they have opted to avoid stating verifed facts that might be subject to criticism, and have not been anywhere near as thorough as the WP article. My own point is mainly that the debate in the US, perhaps unlike that in Australia and the UK, has been quite vocal, politically charged, and not infrequently quite negative or even vicious in tone, and that this kind of manifestation of the controversy is reflective of certain aspects of the contemporary socio-political climate in the US, with which many persons overseas may not be as familiar as persons living in the US. ... Kenosis 23:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fair enough, but I don't think it's an acceptable excuse for Wikipedia article itself adopting a quite negative or vicious tone. The Citizendium article is much better precisely (IMHO) because it avoids those problems.NigelCunningham 06:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The Citizendium article is great. but if you compare the length of the two articles you7d notice that the wikipedia wiki contains far more information (and far more wikilinks, w00t). With a longer article, comes a longer (and more complex) lead.--ZayZayEM 01:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Difference in length are fine by me. I'm more concerned with the difference in tone. NigelCunningham 06:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you missed one of Kenosis' key points: "Thus far they have opted to avoid stating verifed facts that might be subject to criticism".  •Jim62sch• 16:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I saw absolutely zero difference in tone. All I noticed was citizendium was a lot less specific, which could be an accusation of weasel words, but probably more comes down to that they don't have an article entitled Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. As I can see from the tone/direction of the citizendium article, if it had the resources (i.e. wikilinks) that wikipedia have it would be practically identical.--ZayZayEM 02:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased Atheists:  Learn from the new wiki