Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 17

message: Archiving. While I realise that some of these discussions might have still been commented on, I don't believe they were useful, or were going to be. I have linked to often discussed topics abve. If any of these topics need to be discussed, feel free. Please start fresh. -- Ec5618 10:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While I completely agree, not your decision to make; nor was archiving anything from October necessary. - RoyBoy 800 22:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

message: I think we should have a section about how young earth creationism is disgusted by and seeks to separate itself from intelligent design as its bastard child.  For example: ID and President Bush—the deeper issues, AiG’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement, and The god of an old earth  David Bergan 21:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This may warrant a passing mention in the ID article, perhaps in the section on the distinction between ID and creation science; but details belong in the article on young earthism, or maybe more specifically in an article about AIG.  (In terms of distinction, one group seeks to reconcile theism with science; the other promotes a specific biblical interpretation regardless of science.)  Having recently attended an AIG conference session, I can confirm their focus was on "millions of years" as the root of all cultural decline.  I'm not sure they would even want to call ID a "bastard child", as they explicitly list evolution, theistic evolution, progressive creation, gap theory, day-age theory, as all being in the "enemy" camp.--Gandalf2000 22:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Answers In Genesis represents only one YEC pov. Plenty of other YECs have responded positively by getting behind the ID movement. The topic would be better placed at Intelligent design movement. That article already covers the fact that the movement has been selling ID as a 'big tent' to YECs, and that doing so is a specifically listed item in the movement's strategy. FeloniousMonk 00:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.--Gandalf2000 01:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: YEC's view of ID

message: Despite the common claim that this 'debate' is only going on in the United States, I feel obligated to point out that such an argument is flawed, as the debate is mostly ignored inside the United States as well, and is far more popular on the internet than anywhere else, as well as the occasional suburb or farmbelt, but for the most part (other than select internet trolls and politicians) we ignore them too, so carry on--NY101 16:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bright enough to court the "values" voter. No wait, that's Karl Rove's doing... my bad. :"D - RoyBoy 800 04:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just to Defend America's Honor 

message: Why is this section on the bottom of the article? Doesn't make sense to me. - RoyBoy 800 23:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you follow the links?  Mostly science fiction that contains ID concepts (wittingly or unwittingly).  Seemed appropriate to me, at least for entertainment value.--Gandalf2000 16:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While humourous, it doesn't seem to add anything to the article, does it? It does seem to be in line with the origins of the concept section, as it too tries to tell the reader that the concept of ID is well established. But it should probably go. -- Ec5618 17:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I find the section entirely appropriate; it should be moved to at least before See also. - RoyBoy 800 21:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Oops, missed that this had been done already. — goethean ॐ 22:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ID in fiction 

message: The following statement has no attribution:  ID "...has been categorized by the mainstream scientific community as creationist pseudoscience or junk science..."
For this harshly-worded critique to be attributed to the "mainstream scientific community", there should be authoritative quotes from a representative body of the scientific community, using the terms "pseudoscience" and "junk science".  (NCSE doesn't count.) --Gandalf2000 09:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll agree a source would be nice. For now though, note that pseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, or practice that is erroneously regarded as scientific. The reference does state that "Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.". So, in effect, the source does state ID is pseudoscience. The 'junk science' label was added recently, and I'll remove it, as it might have been offensive without a source. -- Ec5618 11:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote is fine.  But it would still be useful to see the loaded term "pseudoscience" being used by a representative body of science, since that is the specific claim in the article.--Gandalf2000 05:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Why doesn't the NCSE count? --JPotter 16:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: NCSE is focused on this specific debate and could be considered partisan, rather than being an organization that represents the scientific community in general.  Such a source preferably has a history preceeding the controversy, like AAAS or NAS.--Gandalf2000 05:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So what if the NCSE is focused on this specific debate? Who considers them partisan? Other partisans? The real question should be is if any nonpartisans in the scientific community have voiced their concerns about whether the organization should be seen as representing the community in general. The onus is on you to give that citation. Joshuaschroeder 06:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly NCSE has a place within the scientific community, but there is a specific definition for that term, and it's broader than NCSE.  In any case, the point is not whether some people within the scientific community have called ID "pseudoscience" and "junk science"; it's whether an authoritative body representing the scientific community has used such words, as that's the (disputed) point in the article.--Gandalf2000 16:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Claiming NCSE isn't an "authoritative body" doesn't make sense to me. Do you have a citation that shows that NCSE is not an authorative body? Joshuaschroeder 04:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I understand your concerns, and made a more modest edit this time.  Thanks.--Gandalf2000 17:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

text: BTW, some folks at the core of the ID movement are also hesitant to call it a theory just yet, realizing that ID needs to prove its usefulness quite a bit more.  But they do claim it's a reasonable and promising line of inquiry.  But not being a valid theory (yet?) is different than being pseudoscience.--Gandalf2000 17:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All three points you make are true. FeloniousMonk 18:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you're at least having fun, Gandalf2000, because you aren't going to get your edits into this article.  You believe you're arguing with people who will listen to reason and that's plainly not the case.  You're arguing with close-minded ideologues and they have the adminstrative controls to enforce what they want.  I'm interested in how long it will take before you concede that I'm right. --DaveScot 66.68.73.149 18:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Substantiation for Criticism, [[User:Stuckerj|Gandalf2000's]] edit 

message: The following passage, at the end of the Intelligent_design#ID_as_a_movement section, appears to have been mangled. I'd fix it, but I don't know what it said originally.
:Despite a consensus in the scientific community that ID lacks merit and ID proponents have yet to propose an actual scientific hypothesis. These campaigns and cases are discussed in depth in the Intelligent design movement article.
— goethean ॐ 21:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ID as a movement