Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 30

message: The following material listed in "Peer Review" appears to cover research. Propose moving this to after "Peer review" with its own new subheading "Research Program" DLH 01:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We hear an awful lot about peer review and the so called conspiracy to keep ID out of legitimate science journals.  What articles have Dembski, Behe, et al submitted to legitimate, peer reviewed science journals that have been rejected? Has Dembski/et al ever said "I submitted X to J only to have it rejected?  I know Dembski has fgone on record saying he has no desire to submit anything for peer review and I know Behe said under oath that doing any actual testing of his own theories would not be fruitful, so he has never induleged in any actual testing of ID theory.  Have the IDists EVER done any testing or made any attempt to submit their ID related works to a legitimate, peer reviewed science journal?  Mr Christopher 17:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How could one test for the supernatural? •Jim62sch• 17:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple answer:  no scientist would.  See methodological naturalism.  Science explicitly denies the possibility of supernatural causes for natural phenomena.  If a person advocates a theory involving supernatural forces, fine, good for them.  But it is by definition not scientific.  Kasreyn 22:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Peer review is what is being discussed; research, such as it is, is what gets reviewed in peer review. FeloniousMonk 01:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Research Program

message: Added See also link to Universal probability bound that provides a mathematical basis for addressing the Improbable versus impossible events issues and is a core ID argument.DLH 02:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that that link may have gotten caught in the morass of changes and reverts.  I personally will not oppose its inclusion.  Disclaimer: Opinions of other editors may differ depending on your location in the minefield. ... Kenosis 22:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm...I'd have to think a spell...actually, though, DLH, given that Dembski defined it to support his forgone conclusion, it doesn't "prove" anything, it's just bad math...but, since ID is bad science (or really, no science at all), maybe it should be joined by bad math.  Maybe.  Hmmmm...  •Jim62sch• 23:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only marginally relevant here. Better placed at specified complexity if it's not there already. FeloniousMonk 23:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Improbable versus impossible events

message: Here at the evolution conference, there was a whole day symposium on the Dover case, and I asked one of the expert witnesses of the case about notable proponents not affiliated with the disco institute, and the answer by him was negative. There are not-affiliated proponents, but they have far less visibilty than the affiliated proponents. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So there remains an arguable demarcation problem in delineating what is a "leading" proponent?  What else is new. Suppose I were to say all the DI affilates were merely getting out in front of an already 2500-year-old position?  Any real difference?  I think not.  Fact is, the DI affiliates merely latched onto an old idea, plopped a new name on it and added some additional pseudoscientific speculations that couldn't possibly be objectivly double-checked, then secretly agreed to a political plan to change the heart and minds of the next generation to protect them from, god forbid, METHODLOGICAL NATURALISM!. ... Kenosis 04:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, like, yeah. ;)  •Jim62sch• 22:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ID proponents and Disco instutite 

message: is still a one-sided propagandaistic mess, good going folks--F.O.E. 04:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the standard of John 14:6, ID gets an "F".  If you go by WWJD, at least be straight-up about Matthew 22:21, ID gets an "F".  By the standard of methodological naturalism ID gets an "F".  All these are POV's.  Which standard(s) [choose one, or all of the above, or none of the above, or a write-in vote____________] is F.O.E. going by?  Excuse me, I'm a bit PO'd right now. ... Kenosis 04:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose the propganda would be better if it merely said, "God created everything, and Behe and Dumbski broke the Bible code that proves it".  •Jim62sch• 22:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article

message: Thanks for the help, Jim! I appreciate your recent edits, such as the wording fix at User:Silence/ID. However, I must respectfully disagree with your rationale for removing the two new images from the page.
The Thomas Aquinas image is relevant to the "history of the concept" section, because Aquinas was arguably the most important popularizer of the argument from design, which forms the core intellectual basis (such as it is..) for the entire concept of intelligent design. Additionally, on an aesthetic—yet still practical—level (I am both a wikignome and a wikifairy, you'll find), the image (or at least some image—I'd object much less to your replacing the image with a better one than with simply removing it altogether) is extremely useful for helping break up a long stretch of undifferentiated text, and thus helping draw readers into the article more, making it much more likely that semi-interested users will take the time to read further into the article and become more interested. On that ground, at least, one could argue that we should have an image there unless there's a good reason not to include it on the page, since if it does no harm and helps liven up a boring expanse of text a little for the sake of our readers, it's a win-win situation. And since the image is free-use, there cannot be any concerns about it ever being legally problematic, unlike the Time photo (I've seen similar photos removed from several pages on the basis that we can only use such covers if the article is discussing the cover itself, not using the cover to demonstrate or illustrate some idea) and the Phillip Johnson pic (which is less problematic than the Time image, despite also being fair-use).
As for the photo, I see no justification whatsoever for not including it (or (and/or?) something similar, like another major figure or a DI or CfSaC logo) in the article. The argument that "it's already included in his article, which we link to" is an exceedingly weak one; by the same logic, our Scientology article should refrain from including any image of L. Ron Hubbard in it because it already links to the article for L. Ron Hubbard! Putting a face to one of the key figures in the history of ID and the ID movement is an immensely practical and useful thing to do, not least because it allows people who have seen our article to recognize him. Also, the aesthetic benefits I mentioned above apply here as well (though less dramatically, since it's later in the article and since the Time image comes soon after). -Silence 10:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've discussed additional images here several times previously, each time there was consensus that they were unnecessary and added little, most recently last month. Please read the archives. The article is already large - way past the ideal article size, at something like 88 kb. This makes it slow to load for those with dial up. Including additional images which add little value only makes it worse. Instead of wasting that bandwidth on PJ, the cover of Pandas, the Hubble Deep Field or the like, something like a Design timeline or concept map would actually add value. FeloniousMonk 15:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is actually really not that large. Many Featured Articles are much longer. Evolution, for example, is 80kb long, and has no less than 13 images. History of Poland (1945–1989), another FA, demonstrates the upper-limit of how image-heavy an article can be while still easy maintaining Featured quality: it has 30 images (and used to have several more, before the Time magazine covers were removed because they only fall under fair-use when the magazine itself is the subject of the article). The overwhelming majority of Wikipedia users will have no problem whatsoever with a 77kb-long article, and no problem with one that has 2–3 images rather than just 1. An image of the man considered the "founder" of ID is, in any case, surely much more germaine than an image of a random Time magazine cover that is never once even discussed in the actual article. Likewise, even Aquinas is discussed at one point in the article. If we're trying to cleanse this article of images for some bizarre reason, why be so inconsistent and arbitrary settle on a Time cover while ignoring both more concretely relevant images (e.g. the photo of Philip E. Johnson) and images of less dubious, fair-use provenance (e.g. the painting of Aquinas)? The current image selection seems arbitrary, and the decision to forever ban images from this article seems similarly arbitrary. Only an exceedingly number of readers will be noticeably inconvenienced if we add another image or two to the article, whereas almost every reader will be inconvenienced if we don't make the article's large amount of text more accessible by illustrating it with a few relevant images. It's more important, not less, to add images to longer articles! -Silence 15:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether it actually is more important to add images to longer articles is debatable. I've not seen any guideline to that effect. I'm not saying we can't have more images. I'm saying that if we do, because of the size of the article, they should add some value, be more than just smiling faces. FeloniousMonk 16:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And you haven't cited any guideline saying not to use images in long articles, so I guess that tact is irrelevant. I thought it was just common sense, but maybe that's my background in page layout and design talking; not everyone is as familiar with the principles of a well-balanced page that incorporates both images and text. Regardless, the two images I suggested are not "just smiling faces", they are a photograph of the ID movement's "father" (arguably even more important than the picture of Charles Darwin on evolution is, since evolutionary theory has changed significantly since Darwin's day, but ID is still PEJ's clearly baby) and a painting of the scholar who formalized the argument from design ("the universe exhibits design, ergo there must be a designer") upon which Intelligent Design is based. I'll agree that we could find better images to illustrate ID with, but contend that these two are certainly better than nothing, and furthermore would point out that they're much more clearly relevant to and appropriate for the article than the Time magazine cover is. Aquinas and Johnson (especially Jonhson!) are both discussed in the article at various points, but the Time cover is not (nor should it probably be, but I'm just pointing out how arbitrary the image selection seems to be). -Silence 16:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I shouldn't have to, you've been around long enough to be familiar with policy. We simply do not agree, and this will be decided by consensus. FeloniousMonk 20:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I see no reason for the pics of Aquinas and Johnson.  If we add any pics to this article, they'd best be explaining something, not fluff.  •Jim62sch• 21:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man --FloNight talk 22:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very cute.  I have acrophobia by the way...seeing that picture has scarred me for life.  ;)  •Jim62sch• 22:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This talk page scares me! FloNight talk 22:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its terrified braver puppies than I. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Come on, Flo... worse than the Zhu articles and Webex? You cut your teeth at wikipedia debating tough subjects, I saw to that. Jump on in... the vitriol is fine. FeloniousMonk 23:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL. It's true, I learned the fine art of Wikipedia consensus editing by skirmishing with (self-described) pedantic blowhard Larvatus and the living legend FeloniousMonk. ; - ) FloNight talk 03:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FeloniousMonk has improved since becoming an admin. WAS 4.250 03:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Important content dispute reminder

message: 202.173.128.90 has posted the following on my talk page.  I am placing it here for open discussion in the appropriate forum. ... Kenosis 07:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Mr.or Ms. Jones:  Actually your edits had already been removed by two other editors.  I reverted to the last known consensused version, then re-implemented an edit that Dave Souza apparently considered reasonable.  I believe your edits started here and went through here, then were sequentially reverted by Scienceman123 and Dave Souza. I might speculate that the content you added was reverted because the framework of evolution does not necessarily address the question of abiogenesis, just as, for example, the study of expansion_of_the_cosmos might not directly address the question of the dynamics of the Big bang. But I would prefer to hear from Scienceman and Dave Souza to know better about their reasons.  If I had noticed it, though, I too would have reverted the changes you made.  Regards, and thank you for the note. ... Kenosis 07:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've responded at inordinate length to a similar comment on my talk page, and have no particular problem with "conventional" instead of "mainstream". dave souza, talk 08:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are, of course, semantic differences between the two words, but probably not significant enough to raise a major ruckus over.  Abiogenesis is, however, a separate issue. •Jim62sch• 09:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of edits 

message: These changes deal with the end of the first paragraph (and with defining logos near its beginning, which I forget to mention earlier):
*5. For the same reason as Heraclitus and Plato, remove "(c. 384–322 BCE)" after Aristotle's name is mentioned (replace with "In the 4th century," before Plato and Aristotle are mentioned, to put in historical context) and remove "(c. 106–c. 43 BCE)" after Cicero's name is mentioned (replace with a simple note of when On the Nature of the Gods was published, 45 BC).
*6. Add quotation marks to translated title, "de Natura Deorum ("On the Nature of the Gods")".
*7. From what I can tell, Cicero's quotation is not a full sentence in the original text, but one clause of a much larger statement. As such, it should not be treated here as a complete sentence: replace "stated," with "stated that", ""The" with ""the", and "nature."" with "nature".".
*8. Clarify what logos is—"an inherent order and rationality to the universe", put simply—so readers will understand its relevance to a discussion of ID.
-Silence 18:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Silence, I'm just going to go ahead and implement this version you presented on the right-hand side of the table above.  If I'm wrong, I'll get reverted and/or corrected.  I will leave out the words "and rationality" because the idea of the "word" (logos) does not necessarily equate with rationality-- too debatable I would think. ... Kenosis 18:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The logos article itself speaks of "Logos as the inherent rationality of the universe", and I think the implication of rationality is carried over in derivatives like logic, but if you think this is inaccurate or disputed, feel free to remove that bit. If you're planning to implement the rest of the changes to the first and early second paragraph now, then I'd better list the next few changes here as well so they can also be looked over and discussed. -Silence 19:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was raised fundamentalist Christian and the word logos was primarily identified, as indicated in our article on the subject In Christianity, the prologue of the Gospel of John calls Jesus "the Logos" (usually translated as "the Word" in English bibles such as the KJV) and played a central role in establishing the doctrine of Jesus' divinity and the Trinity. (See Christology.) The opening verse in the KJV reads: "In the beginning was the Word [Logos], and the Word [Logos] was with God, and the Word [Logos] was God." Since this whole issue is the entire world view of people who have this as a main association with logos versus others who do not, I do not recommend we get into telling people what logos means, as it means different things to different peple in a way that is significant in the context of this article. WAS 4.250 21:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If anything, that is a reason to explain all the common meanings of logos, not to explain none. If a complicated topic is relevant, then we shouldn't ignore it, we should explain it so that readers are not confused. For example, if we don't explain what Heraclitus originally meant by logos (or at least how it was taken by the ancient philosophers we go on to discuss), then readers who come from a heavily Christian background, like you, might mistakenly assume that Heraclitus was speaking of the Christian form of the concept, not the classical one. That's part of the reason it's so important to define the term in this context. The other reason is that many people will have no idea at all of what logos means in this context, and will need its significance explained. If logos is significant in its modern Christian context, not just in its ancient Greek philosophical context, to this article, then explain both meanings of the term here. Don't cause unnecessary ambiguity by shirking the topic altogether. -Silence 22:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is certainly one approach. I have heard hundreds of sermons dealing with logos as Christ; especially in the context of the question "who goes to heaven when only those who accept Christ go to heaven". This Bible passage is used to show that Christ revealed himself as "logos" to ancient Greeks and those who accepted logos accepted Christ and are now in heaven. Even now, decades later, even as an atheist, I can't see "logos" without my mind partly equating it to "Christ". Indoctrination of the youth is powerful. My concern is that by the time we adequately bridge the culture barrier on the word logos we will have changed the subject. I feel it's a road best left untraveled; perhaps by leaving out the word logos altogether. Then again, reiterating the content of logos is indeed another possibility. WAS 4.250 13:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would object less to removing the word altogether than to leaving it undefined. There are valid grounds to not address that topic at all on the ID page, as its specific relevance is debatable. However, if we do include it, we should certainly define it. It is our encyclopedic duty to keep readers informed, and not leave deliberate ambiguities in the text just because it's "easier". -Silence 16:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes 5-8 (3)

message: These changes deal with the beginning of the second paragraph:
*9. Replace awkward and inconsistent "(thirteenth century)," from after Aquinas' ref with "in the 13th century" before "by Thomas...".
*10. Then move the comma to before the ref: "in his Summa Theologiae,<ref>".
*11. Add "by" before "William Paley" for grammatical consistency.
*12. After the mentioning of the watchmaker analogy, clarify and tidy up the wording of "which is still used in intelligent design arguments." to "an argument still used by intelligent design proponents today."
-Silence 19:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't do #12. ... Kenosis 19:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Do you think we should? (Sooner or later, that is.) -Silence 19:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the need to mention proponents here.  "...which is still used in intelligent design arguments" is adequate in my opinion. ... Kenosis 22:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your version is more ambiguous than mine, and I don't see any reason to be ambiguous here. Intelligent design isn't what's making the argument; ID is an idea, not an arguer (or even an argument, per se). Rather, ID proponents (or advocates, or Believers, or whatever other word you prefer) use arguments based on the watchmaker analogy. I agree that the difference is not a huge deal, but I also don't see any advantages of the original wording over the proposed wording. In context, it's grammatically simpler and more clear. -Silence 15:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not ambiguous nor is it anthropomorphizing ID, as the present version states "in" not "by".  Re "still used ... today" -- the today is rendundant: given that we're in present tense, the only when to which still can refer is today. •Jim62sch• 17:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with removing "today" from the end of my version. -Silence 17:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes 9-12 (3)

message: These changes deal with the end of the second paragraph:
*13. Add comma after "In the early 19th century".
*14. Uncapitalize "Natural theology" to "natural theology".
*15. Replace bizarre word choice "search" with "way" or "means" in "the study of biology as a search to understand".
*16. Replace "Darwin's" with "Charles Darwin's"; there's no reason not to state his full name here, after we've stated the full names (as they're used in their Wikipedia article, anyway) of the other people mentioned in the history, like William Paley.
-Silence 15:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes 13-16 (3)