Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 29

message: *claps and tips hat to writers and contributers.*  This is one of the the most concise and coherent articles i've seen on wikipedia.  great job.
however, I did not find the section on specified complexity to be very clear; perhaps some more analogies would be helpful? (unsigned comment of 09:48, 3 April 2006 by Ghaleon)
:The second paragraph of Specified complexity does seem to give a more coherent explanation, and the first three sentences of that paragraph could be substituted for all but the first sentence of the first paragraph here. Though of course Dembski's concept may be an unguided collection of theological fragments thrown together by chance rather than an intelligently designed concept ;) ...dave souza, talk 11:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  great article.  but maybe a little attention to specified complexity 

message: re evolution •Jim62sch• 22:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting news article

message: Wow, shock of all shocks, anyone care to guess where this IP is from?  It's easy.
IP Address 220.239.211.252; AUSTRALIA.  And the funny thing is, I've had these arguments with someone from Down Under before.  Hmmm.  •Jim62sch• 00:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sarfati and AA? One word: Spite. FeloniousMonk 04:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Somehow I doubt that irony counts as "soapboxing". •Jim62sch• 20:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 220.239.211.252

message: hello all - I've popped up a couple of times here, and once or twice made a couple of changes. Returned recently kind of exepecting some reference to the arch bish. saying basically ID shouldn't be in schools - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4828238.stm - any ideas where it might fit?
Also - and this is a sincere, personal plea - could I ask regular editors their opinion as to the quality of the first three paragraphs as an introduction to this difficult subject. My feeling is that  readability and clarity must be improved. Perhaps the archbish quote could somehow be included in a re-written second or third paragraph? - cheers, Petesmiles 08:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ta for the link, it refers to a Guardian interview which is already cited in Theistic evolution#Anglicanism. I'll add the link to the Creation and evolution in public education page. ..dave souza, talk 16:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Arch-Bish of Canterbury / ideas for Intro 

message: I do not think this article particularly the summary helps to explain an standard definition of what Intelligent Design is, I feel that it is very hard to understand, I don’t think I’m asking to much if you at least attempt to dumb it down a little into lumens terms, also the references in the summary(beginning/introduction) should be deleted they are not helping any, I think most people will agree that it is articles like these that give wikipedia the reputation of being unreadable. Jamie-planetx 00:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems ok to me as a definition of a shifty subject, and is the outcome of a lot of argument between interested parties. However, here's an informal simplification. ID is the claim to have found a scientific theory or scientific evidence showing complexity or improbability in nature that can only be explained by intelligent supernatural intervention. Said designer need not be God, but fits His job description. As "science" it is unusual in undertaking no research or peer reviewed publication, but confines itself to websites, press releases and books. 99% or more of scientists dismiss it as pseudoscience, and a judge's detailed legal assessment of it is that it is not science, and cannot disentangle itself from its creationist roots. Its leading biologist accepts evolution by natural selection for all but certain features which he's not bothered to keep up with scientific research on. but a lot of creationists seem to think it's a decisive refutation of evolution. Coming soon to a movie near you. ...dave souza, talk 23:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That sums it up for me. Pasado 05:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ok so, upon evidence that there is so many things science can't yet or can never explain, is prove that that god/a larger being exists and is the creator of him/her/itself, ADDED upon further research:- and to think all i had to do was look at the main definition in urban dictionary. Jamie-planetx 22:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: OK.  Am I the only YEC that is patently offended by this "intelligent design" nonsense?  Seriously, "Said designer need not be God, but fits His job description."  I know that accurately describes what many ID proponents believe, but I can't figure out why they feel the need to go through all this circumlocution.  Why not just say it how it is?  "God the Father created the universe and designed everything."  What's all the fuss about? El Cubano 22:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering many of us are not Young Earth Creationists, and they you guys are wrong, probably.  In fact, I'm kind of guessing that there aren't many YECs here.  Izuko 23:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  Perhaps a less confrontational phrasing of the question would be, "Is ID supposed to have a pseudo-secular feel to it?  Doesn't this offend other believers as sort of denying God's role in order to sneak this in somewhere?"  I guess it is just a bit of a philosophical question. El Cubano 23:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not supposed to be pseudo-secular.  It's supposed to be secular.  Yes, most of its adherents are religious, but the idea is that the theory, itself, not be.  Izuko 23:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying. El Cubano 00:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm still clueless

message: The following weird stuff was added by 86.141.113.40 
:Nevertheless pointing out the 'unlikelihood' of a scenario does not makes the 'unlikelihood 'argument meaningless. To sum up we can not forget that a theory is scientific unless is falsiable and can not be an absolute theory is if it's discredited, so evolution theory has  evolved a lot since Darwin's days. The question is whether an alternative view of origins is acceptable? In all possible answers to this question one can not logically rule out the question in itself simple because is evolution is a better proved view. According to Karl Popper's method one scientific theory is never definitive, especially ehen is falsified.
The whole section doesn't seem up to the usual standard, and this certainly doesn't add clarity..dave souza, talk 00:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch - what was he on at the time? Sophia Gilraen of Dorthonion 13:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Improbably enough...

message: Sorry for ranting, but this is a very Middle Age type theory. I mean, this is theology, it is neither philosophy nor empirical science. Evolution in no way denies god, if you believe in god of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mailrobot (talk • contribs) 
:Quite right, many evangelicals clearly want to drag everyone into the Middle Ages, and a new reality in which Roman Catholics are atheists. Welcome! ..dave souza, talk 08:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  !!! 

message: The last of the see also links is Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District et. al. memorandum, which doesn't appear to lead to anything. Perhaps someone familiar with the document might be able to correct the link? — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorted. ..dave souza, talk 22:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken wiki-link 

message: Meant to say in edit summary that Category:ID is a subcat of Category:Pseudoscience, which itself is overcrowded, so in accordance with guidelines ID shouldn't have Category:Pseudoscience applied to the individual article as well. But pressed the wrong button and saved the page first. Well, everyone please note anyway. ..dave souza, talk 08:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Pseudoscience

message: Is intelligent design a concept in countries outside the U.S.? If so, it'd be interesting to have a section discussing how people in other countries respond to it. --Whitenoise101 17:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Countries 

message: FWIW, in reverse order of recent anon edits to this article:
#, aka the md.comcast.net anon near Bel Air, MD; added NPOV flag without explanation.
#, aka the Indiana Higher Education Telecommunication System anon possibly near Richmond, IN; added silly editorial.
#, aka the Oneonta Road Runner anon possibly near Oneonta, NY; weird deletion.
#, aka the dpspxy3.detroit.k12.mi.us anon, apparently near Livonia, MI; mass deletion.
#, aka the Rhode Island Network for Educational Technology anon, apparently near Providence, RI; added silly editorial (and deleted the ip anon user talk page someone added!).
#, aka the Westminster Road Runner anon possibly near Westminster, CA; silly addition.
#, aka the Penn state anon in State College, PA; probably acceptable edit (but it was reverted regardless).
This seems consistent with more extensive surveys suggesting that the ratio inappropriate to useful anon edits run at something like five to one, or even higher. ---CH 22:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent anon edits

message: Old intro:
:Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
My proposed version:
:Intelligent design (ID), as defined by the Discovery Institute, is an idea which "holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." (See Argument from design.)
As corrected by Kim:
:Intelligent design (ID), as defined by the Discovery Institute, is an idea which "holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." (See Argument from design.)
Main difference is that I'm attributing this particular definition to one source, namely, the Discovery Institute. There may be other definitions. We should be clear exactly whose definition it is, which this article describes in each case. 
I also took out all the links, because I'm not sure that each of them goes to articles whose topics are about exactly what the words in the definition mean. Okay, "universe" is not too bad - but in general a crucial quote should not be studded with links. I don't know why "living things" needs a link to the Life article. 
And I completely disagree with the idea of having "intelligent cause" link to Argument from design. Rather, it should link to whatever cause ID supporters like the D.I. posit for the designer. If they don't posit one, then the link is misleading on that score alone. I preserved the link as a "see"-type link, in parenthesis, because it will be interesting for readers to compare the two concepts: (1) Intelligent Design Theory, and (2) Argument from design. I think we all know that there are significant differences between the two and significant similarities. Let's not blur the distinctions or exaggerate the similarities, okay? --Uncle Ed 20:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "There may be other definitions" Find one related to the subject at hand. •Jim62sch• 23:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Humm, I am not so sure about uncontroversial, but that is more about the to many different definitions that are used by scientists who depending in their own background can mean very different things with it.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean that the concept is uncontroversial - 45% of Americans flatly deny it, on religious grounds. I mean only that there is no significant disagreement about the definition of the term. --Uncle Ed 20:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How many of public that believes in it is irrelevant. ID claims to be a scientific theory. It is in the realm of science and science education that ID is controversial, but there is also no shortage of controversy in the courts as well. This has already been settled, Ed, read the archives before resurrecting previously settled issues. FeloniousMonk 21:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, have a look at the talk page of Natural selection, there is actually, which made the rewrite of the article so difficult. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Um, no. What part of all leading ID proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute don't you understand? There are no other prominent proponents with alternate definitions of ID that are notable enough to warrant a change to the intro.  The long-standing intro is accurate and well-supported as it is and there's been no recent developments to justify changing it. FeloniousMonk 20:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One day, I'm sure I'll figure out why this needs to be rehashed every few months.  For the nonce, rather than ascribing motive (which is "bad"), I'll just assume a general diminution or absence of cognitive and comprehension-related attributes. •Jim62sch• 23:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discovery Institute POV

message: No comments having been made on my changes other than "has been debated", I have continued to revise the intro. I haven't seen any vote whose result said that the intro must no longer be revised. 
I welcome discussion on these further changes. --Uncle Ed 16:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think we first have to discuss the changes you just made as I think they are not an improvement. So, why did you make specific changes? WOuld you care to explain them? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Which change(s) do you object to? --Uncle Ed 16:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have rewritten it so completly that it is difficult for me to point out the many differences, but lets start with why it had to be rewritten in the first place? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  I'm puzzled by your (i.e. Ed Poor's) opening sentence Intelligent design (ID), as defined by the Discovery Institute, is an idea... What about intelligent design as defined by Joan Schmone? This is a very strange way of starting an article. --CSTAR 16:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why was something that had no reason to be rewritten, rewritten?  One would need to ascribe motives to answer that, and, as we all know, ascribing motives is baaaad.  •Jim62sch• 20:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well then how about Joe Schmoe? And if there are no other definitions, Joe Schmoe or Joan Schmone than why do attribute it to the DI? --CSTAR 17:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard that John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt has one.  •Jim62sch• 20:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revising the intro

message: For the third time, user:FeloniousMonk reverted changes to his preferred version:
*ignoring my request to give reasons on the talk page
*deleting additional changes made since his previous revert
I've created an extra section for this, so I don't cause an edit conflict here on the talk page, in case FeloniousMonk is busy describing the reasons for his revert.
In the edit summary he wrote:
:rv No consensus. Discuss and make your case for changes first, then make your changes
I don't know what this means, especially in light of three reverts by FeloniousMonk without making a case for them before *or* after. Surely this is not an assertion that he "owns the page". Is it perhaps a claim that no one may edit the intro, no matter how small the change, without gaining consensus beforehand? I didn't see any such notice in the article or on the discussion page. --Uncle Ed 16:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Ed it's the accurate, consensus version .— Dunc|☺ 17:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, I do not see the changes made by Ed as an improvement as well. As far as I can see, nobody except Ed are in favour of the changes, so the indication of FeloniousMonk in the edit summary of no consensus for the change is accurate as far as I can see. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That's not the reason people object to Ed's prose. The objection is based on making sweeping generalities and are of limited utility for an article which is very clear in making specific distinctions. --ScienceApologist 17:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Then there's also the issue of his method, shoot first, edit war later, discuss only if forced. FeloniousMonk 17:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...otherwise known as 'editing a wiki.' — goethean ॐ 17:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that's called being disruptive. A distinction lost on some. FeloniousMonk 17:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit warring – which takes two opposing sides in order to take place – can legitimately be called disruptive. Editing is still allowed on most articles without being threatened with disciplinary action. — goethean ॐ 18:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Responding to chronic troublemakers by restoring improperly removed long-standing, accurate content that enjoys both first-rate cites and strong support is a response to disruption, not disruption itself, and supported by policy and convention. Claiming a response to disruption is disruption is like claiming treatment of cancer is itself a disease. FeloniousMonk 18:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition to being name-calling, that doesn't resemble what I claimed. It is you who throws out the disruption charge whenever you encounter something you don't like. — goethean ॐ 18:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the edit history of Ed in this article. It has the features FM describes. I don't think that it is a carelessly-applied charge since the editor in question has a history of disruption. --ScienceApologist 18:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "disruption" is being bandied about so much around here, it has lost all meaning. I'll just assume that it means "things you dont like". — goethean ॐ 18:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Goethean, we consider it to be a disruptive activity because many of the editors of this article have already debated this and consider the current article to be appropriate.  By making major changes without first discussing them, Ed is ignoring the bulk of the major editors and their compromise. Ladlergo 19:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it does, Cyde (look like fun).  ;)  The purpose, of course, is merely to get the proposed sentence into the article.   Somewhere. Anywhere.  Coherence be damned.  •Jim62sch• 20:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: No, 1) it's primarily not in English, and what english is present is attrocious, 2) Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig is not one of the more notable ID proponents. We agreed long ago the article is bloated as it is, and will cover only notable viewpoints, per WP:NPOV, 3) Many of those on the list he compiled in no way supported ID, Richard Feynman for example. This list contains a lot of quote mining, and so is of dubious value, it's an attempt at matching the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity Nobel Laureates Initiative. The link added nothing to the article. Also, I'd appreciate it if you would not question my motives moving forward. FeloniousMonk 04:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FeloniousMonk Revert 

message: The following change was made to the lead:
:Current: Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." 
and it was changed to:
:Proposed: Intelligent design (ID) is the assertion that an intelligent designer designed and then created the universe, including the ancestors of the organisms that currently inhabit Earth. Some proponents of intelligent design hold the opinion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
I reverted the addition because it reads to me more as a definition of old earth creationism or Progressive creationism and not as intelligent design perse. Furthermore, they way it was worded , it was widening the definition towards theistic evolution, in which "certain features of the universe and of living things are not nessecarily best explained by an intelligent cause" allows that everything can be explained by evolution, only that it was guided. If I was wrong in doing this, please let me know. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You did the right thing.  We've spent a lot of time to get that intro the way it is.  Thanks Kim.  •Jim62sch• 11:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A recent addition I reverted 

message: One element I find key in distinguishing something that is designed from something that isn't, is that something designed can be ruined or corrupted in a sense that something that wasn't designed cannot. Has there been any research that trys to establish one pattern as the design and other patterns as the corruption of the design? For example, so far intelligent design has been painted as if to say where a body produces insulin, that is part of one design, and where a body isn't producing insulin properly, that is part of another design, as opposed to a corruption of the insulin plan. Or even further, the "with insulin" situation is still corrupted, but lack as much corruption as the "no insulin" situation. 
Introducing this into the model allows for better scientific processes, because you can see where you are merely compensating for a flaw in a design, as opposed to restoring the design. Also, one can then construct a vector of corruption where if something is less corrupt than another, following the vector should lead to a perfected design. If this is possible, this would also be a test of the validity of intelligent design. Hackwrench 22:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: huh?  •Jim62sch• 00:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corruption. 

message: Re: The recent insistence on the language "many" leading proponents rather than "all" in the introduction section of the article:  The question whether all notable ID proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute has come up several times and been repeatedly hashed over by the various editors.  Please review the archived discussions.  Not one notable proponent was identified in two years of discussion who was not affiliated with the Discovery Institute... Kenosis 03:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gitt is not a particularly notable ID proponent, at least not compared to Dembski, Behe, Meyer, Johnson, and Wells. FeloniousMonk 23:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Are all leading ID proponents affiliated with Discovery Institute?

message: :Re Nnp's change
No, belief isn't the best way to describe this.  It's an idea, and it exists whether people believe it to be true or not.  Which isn't to say that it's a belief for some portion of the people who support it.  But calling it a "belief" isn't the best choice.
As for the archives - it's no easier for me to dig through them than it is for you.  Sorry, you'll have to do your won digging.  Guettarda 13:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belief 

message: The version I placed today (Monday morning) has 56 out of 237 words (a) defining ID briefly, (b) identifying its proponents and (c) their point of view about the concept. The remaining 75% of the intro is against ID.
I don't mind dedicating the majority of the intro to the anti-ID point of view, as long as the pro-ID point of view gets at least some of the space. --Uncle Ed 14:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As Stephen Colbert would say ... don't be upset at the intro because reality has a well-known anti-creationism bias.  --Cyde↔Weys 14:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That bit of cynicism gave me a sideways smile. ;-) --Uncle Ed 14:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Balance in the intro

message: Dr. Roy Spencer wrote:
:Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as "fact," I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college.
Perhaps we should mention Spencer's views in the article. --Uncle Ed 20:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has he published any research on evolution?  If not, why should we include him? I wouldn't consider him a notable figure outside of satellite-based research on climate change. Ladlergo 20:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not him, his views. Obviously, we'd have to pick a different source. Spencer's article was only a popular treatment. --Uncle Ed 20:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This viewpoint is already covered sufficiently in the aritcle. He's just regurgitating the Discovery Institute line: "Many intelligent design followers believe that "Scientism" is itself a religion that promotes secularism and materialism in an attempt to erase theism from public life" It isn't surprising, since Spencer and the DI have been citing each other for some time now since a good number of DI fellows are also global warming skeptics like Spencer. FeloniousMonk 23:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientific or religious

message: then i think there shouldn't be any trouble pointing out that ID has at least that as much, if not more merit, then the gap filled "darwin"istic theology--F.O.E. 12:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for sharing.  I like your "evilutionist" photo on your userpage, very "live and let live".  I think we know where you're coming from.  Cheers, --Plumbago 13:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the trolling.  Please edit constructively in the future. (I thought we were allowed to edit talk pages to remove trolling/vandalism that was posted to start a flamewar.  Is there policy on this somewhere?) Ladlergo 13:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Ed, it's posts like these that remind me that the exchanges with you are more about miscommunication than POV-pushing.  I appreciate that you're trying to flesh out the article more, even if you've stepped on a bunch of toes. Ladlergo 13:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ed's participation here has brought disruption, not quality. This was a good, stable article until he decided to "fix" it. FeloniousMonk 16:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good and stable, yes, but it can always be better. I suggest that he's overly bold, rather than trolling. Ladlergo 17:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. His history of being "bold" at creationism-related articles that got him into hot water in the past. I'd like to think that Ed has learned something from those experiences but it doesn't look like it. 17:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  if evolutionism is the standard for calling something science fact

message: I started to fix up the "Designer Identity" section, but it's more complex than I thought at first. I'd like to work in this quote from Dembski:
:The who-designed-the-designer question invites a regress that is readily declined. The reason this regress can be declined is because such a regress arises whenever scientists introduce a novel theoretical entity. For instance, when Ludwig Boltzman introduced his kinetic theory of heat back in the late 1800s and invoked the motion of unobservable particles (what we now call atoms and molecules) to explain heat, one might just as well have argued that such unobservable particles do not explain anything because they themselves need to be explained.
What would be the best way of using this quote? --Uncle Ed 16:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is complex, and it's clear you have a poor understanding of the topic. It was also accurate and complete prior to your "fix." What's there to fix? I've restored the original, long-standing content. Please stop disrupting this article Ed. FeloniousMonk 16:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's no help. It's not complete because it leaves out the reason Dembski wants to dodge the who-designed-the-designer question. All we have now are reasons (from the anti-ID side) why the question shouldn't be dodged. --Uncle Ed 17:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: the authoritative description of intelligent design"The theory of Intelligent Design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Discovery Institute. What is Intelligent Design? Questions About Intelligent Design  explicitly states that the universe displays features of having been designed. Acknowledging the paradox
This bit of text seems to label as a "paradox" the idea that intelligent design is based on the argument that the universe displays features of having been designed. I think this is only a wording issue, sloppy grammar maybe. Can someone explain what the passage was trying to say, fix it, and then put it back? --Uncle Ed 18:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, what exactly is it you object to? The project's goal is accurate, stable articles. Articles shouldn't be subjected to extensive rewrites for no good reason, particularly by those who are not well-read on the topic, Ed. So before you go making further misguided edits and we let them stand, tell us exactly why this particular needs editing, or to be "fixed" as you claim. FeloniousMonk 18:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identity of the designer 

message: In this section it is stated: "[I]ntelligent design proponents have set up their own journals with "peer review" that consists entirely of intelligent design supporters which lack rigor."  How do they know that the supporters lack rigor? Dan Watts 17:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having your buddies review your work is not a form of critical, neutral scrutiny, and not how PR works. FeloniousMonk 18:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it not be how PR works if your peers were your buddies? I can understand that in some sad situations some individual's peers might not find the individual likeable. Dan Watts 20:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually my question concerned whether the which in "which lack rigor" is related to supporters or (perhaps) "peer review". Dan Watts 20:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: FM wrote in an edit summary:
:rv. removal of accurate, long-standing content. Discuss your changes first, Ed. You need to start seeking consensus for your edits & accepting it when there is none
This sounds like a claim that everyone must get your permission first, before making efforts, or you will personally revert each contributor's edits to your chosen version. I see nothing on this talk page indicating an agreement to give you this authority. 
I would you prefer you discuss edits you disgree with, rather than doing mass reverts. Mine is not the only work you are discarding. --Uncle Ed 18:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are right. In so doing I also revert the work of others fixing your edits, which are neither accurate nor improvements over the orignal, long-standing content. Which I'll add you have yet to explain why it needs "fixing" in the first place. Discuss your changes first, Ed. You need to start seeking consensus for your edits & accepting it when there is none. FeloniousMonk 18:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: In case it isn't yet clear, FM isn't the only one reverting your edits. You've been reverted by something like 6 or 7 editors in the past two days alone. And as far as I can tell, nobody except you has ever reverted back to restore your edits. It seems fairly clear that you're the one with the "rogue viewpoint" here. This is in no way a bad thing, but it does mean that you're the one who should justify his edits, and engage in consensus-building. Just my two cents, anyway. --Ashenai 18:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clear enough: you and FM both are doing this in concert, as I wrote further below. Kind of a tag-team 3RR violation, isn't it? --Uncle Ed 18:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ed, come on there's no conspiracy here - just a lot of people who see this in a different manner than do you.  Guettarda 18:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Please read WP:3RR; you'll note that it specifically does not apply to groups. So unless you're accusing me of being FM's sock, that dog won't hunt. Sorry :) --Ashenai 18:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, one way to look at it is that there is a name for a conspiracy by a majority of users to keep things a certain way: that's called consensus, or sometimes democracy. =) --Ramdrake 18:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add my to the 'tag-team' if you like. I'm only sorry that two editors had to spend so much time fixing the problem and were diverted from more useful tasks. Ed, have you now read the archival material on this subject? --Davril2020 21:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass reverts 

message: Intelligent design is an assertion about "certain features of the universe and of living things".  Those "certain features" are never specified.  This lack of specificity is intended to conceal the fact that intelligent design is about the entire universe, including all "living things."
"Certain features" includes electrons, protons, neutrons, atoms, stars, planets, galaxies, me and you.  The designers of intelligent design do not want to admit this simple fact but it is true and they will not deny it!  
The designers of intelligent design want to spark a debate that will, like a silly dog, chase its own tail around and around and around...  They thereby create an endless whirlpool that sucks in weak-minded people who can be easily reprogrammed to believe whatever brand of supernaturalistic mumbo-jumbo the designers of intelligent design have to offer.
I challenge the designers of intelligent design to specify the "certain features" that their so-called theory is about.  By their silence, they will expose themselves as shameless propagandists.
Scott G. Beach 18:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scott, talk pages are not forums for discussing the subject of the article.  If you wish to debate IDists, I suggest you find a proper message board. Ladlergo 18:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Scott, please read the actual article to see what's already mentioned and why ID is not considered scientific. Ladlergo 01:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Certain Features: Intelligent Design Decoded

message: Niall Shanks is a recently created fact-filled, NPOV masterpiece about an ID critic cited in this article. Guess who wrote it? FeloniousMonk 19:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What? Are you stalking me now? It's a stub. And it's no more one-sided than the current ID article. It contains two criticisms. To balance it, why not add some praise? Or some personal details about the author? Or a summary of the author's views? This is a wiki, you don't need "consensus" from me or Hateless to edit the article! --Uncle Ed 19:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Small world. Al 19:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting related article 

message: For anyone who has become frustrated with Ed Poor's edit warring and giving fruitless responses to Ed Poor's tendentious participation on this page, there's: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ed_Poor_(2) FeloniousMonk 20:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC 

message: I saw "Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism" at a book store. The movie "Unlocking the Mysteries of Life" states the intelligent design movement's claims such as a mouse trap is irreducible. This book basically goes step by step and disscusses each claim. I think it is important, because the ID movement bases their claims on complexity. Timothy Clemans 02:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The book "Why Intelligent Design Fails"

message: I have made anonymous wikipedia changes in the past on technical computer security subjects, so didn't realize I was walking into a maelstrom when I made a one-word change. JoshuaZ explained that I shouldn't edit this particular page directly without going through an extra talk page process to get consensus.  Reading history it looks like everyone is a bit touchy. 
In "Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute..." can I get agreement to change the word "all" to "many?"  I wouldn't put in in the article, but my references are:
Bush:  www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201686.html 
Boehner: (not a very good link, sorry, but you get the drift) http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=1331575&ct=1964567
Thanks,
Skye
:Bush and Boehner are notable ID advocates, but not ID's leading proponents. The fact remains that all of ID's leading proponents, i.e.; Dembski, Behe, Johnson, Meyers, Wells, are indeed affiliated with the Discovery Institute. FeloniousMonk 03:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A "leading proponent" is one who actively leads a "field". Neither of your examples serve particularly well as ID leaders. -ScienceApologist 12:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Good god. Your logical rationale is flawed, go to a repair shop and get it fixed. You can certainly say Bush is a leading political leader and advocate of ID. But why those facts make him a leading advocate or proponent of ID is beyond my understanding and that of anyone with a grain of logical reasoning in their brain. Go forth, learn some logic and rational reasoning and then by all means contribute to this page--LexCorp 23:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The Washington Post said that, not Bush. If you read the article you'll find that Schonborn is also cited as a "leading proponent", when both were being led into making remarks that echoed the "teach the controversy" wedge strategy enough for them to be interpreted as giving it support. Next, Bush is a leading proponent of motherhood and apple pie. ...dave souza, talk 04:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: What about "artificers" --LexCorp 12:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Also artificer- 3. Someone who is the first to think of or make something. --LexCorp 00:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And your point is? Luna Santin 19:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that if you don't like "proponents" you can use "artificers" as an alternative. I rather prefer "proponents" myself but "artificers" will also fit nicely as a group of people who are the first to think of something, say a concept, say ID.--LexCorp 22:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. =3 To me, at least, "artificers" is more charged, I guess it seems to imply that the idea itself is fabricated. At least that's my feel, if others disagree that's fine. Good suggestion, though. I think I also like "proponents," which seems confusing, because I'm not sure anymore if there's anybody here who doesn't. Luna Santin 22:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Have you read the archives on this subject? We went through a discussion of how to look at this. The "leading advocate" sobriquet simply refers to the standard bearers of the subject. This means that 1) They support the concept of "intelligent design", 2) they are consistently pointed to as such, and 3) they are the developers, promoters, and proselytizers of the idea (all three simultaneously). There really are only a dozen or so leading advocates: Johnson, Behe, Dembski, and a few others. They're all affiliated with DI. --ScienceApologist 23:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One-word change 

message: Haha, just kidding.   ⇔    | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 08:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's too bad that you are scared of it and want it banned. rossnixon 10:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that it's bad science, but Wikipedia is about the free sharing of information. The belief is notable and well-deserving of an article. Our job is to present facts and let others decide based on those facts. If factual analysis demonstrates the impossibility or improbability of ID, why isn't that something we'd want to share? Silencing an argument proves nothing, it's far better to publicly and effectively refute it. Luna Santin 19:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ID is designed to be vague enough that it is impossible to disprove.  That is the main reason why is it bad science.  Guettarda 19:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ID isn't bad science, it is just different 

message: I removed "neo-Creationist"  pending consensus that ID should be associatied with Neo-Creationism.
I also added a 4-word transitional sentence:
:Scientists and jurists disagree. 
I note that Joshua did not wait for discussion but immediately reverted this sentence, with the following Edit Summary: 
:rem unsourced and overgeneral statement "Scientists and jourists disagree." 
I think these are small changes, but I welcome discussion on them. --Uncle Ed 13:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any sources that show that scientists and jurists disagree? --ScienceApologist 13:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not for the "and jurists" part, so I shortened it to "Scientists disagree."  --Uncle Ed 13:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: "Scientists disagree" is not commentary; it is a transitional sentence. It introduces the next paragraph, which describes the disagreement. --Uncle Ed 13:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you think a transition is necessary? This is an introduction which adheres to Wikipedia:Summary style. As with many introductions, abrupt transitions are par for the course. Besides, adding this statement is almost begging for some syncophant to swoop in, add the qualifier "some" or "many" to your sentence, and then argue for a megabyte about what qualifies someone as a "scientist" who "agrees" or "disagrees" with the characterizations of the first paragraph. This is an unnecessary statement, so let's just not use it okay? --ScienceApologist 16:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The long-standing intro was accurate and balanced, both syntactically and content-wise, before your edits, which are no improvement. FeloniousMonk 14:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I can see where you're coming from. If I understand it right, the removal had less to do with that aspect, though, and more to do with this particular article being the Wikipedia equivalent of WW2; if there's no consensus that an association should be made, it might be best to build that consensus, first. That said, I don't see a problem with the association. Luna Santin 19:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I put neo-creationist back in.  I think Ed needs to read about ID elsewhere (including the Kitzmiller decision).  ID is neo-creationism, arguing that it isn't is like saying "feces" and "shit" aren't synonymous. •Jim62sch• 23:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Heh-heh.  Since SA decided to wander to the dark-side, I thought I'd try it.  ;)  •Jim62sch• 23:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on in! The water's fine. --ScienceApologist 00:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro tweaks

message: Rossnixon just made the change: . I agree with it. The previous sentence provides enough context for people to come to their own conclusions. It's dubious to judge that the intellectual rigor is diminished by not having outside sources and while the impartiality is obviously affected, that definitely goes without saying. I say, let's leave this clause out of the article. --ScienceApologist 22:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. We can't expect lay readers to know the implications of having peer review conducted by cronies as opposed to impartial panels. Noting the specific issues that arise therein is warranted. I'll attribute it a specific critic and cite it if necessary, but just leaving it out imparts undue weight in the form of legitimacy. FeloniousMonk 23:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do attribute it. The part about "intellectual rigor" is especially distressing to me as peer review is really only a checkpoint and doesn't really say anything about whether something is intellectually rigorous or not. Of course, if you're going to lack intellectual rigor, having your convivants review your article is a good way to go about it, but it is fallacious to claim that simply because the situation has exploitable potential that it is necessarily exploited in such regard. A technicality, perhaps, but we should strive for accuracy. I put in the citation needed tag to request a fuller attribution which I think may actually put this whole matter to rest. --ScienceApologist 23:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's the cause of the confusion. "Intellectual rigor" was a recent addition. Previous to recent edits for months it only said: "that intelligent design proponents have set up their own journals with "peer review" that consists entirely of intelligent design supporters which lack rigor" which is accuracte. It's the peer review process of ID proponents that lacks rigor, not their intellect (no comments). I'll restore the original language and we'll avoid the issue altogether. This confusion is just the sort of nonsense that arises from editing for editing sake destablizing perfectly fine articles. FeloniousMonk 23:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, I've changed "intellectual rigor" to the original "rigor" and added a cite. FeloniousMonk 23:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I agree with this change

message: This article is already large (76 kilobytes of text) and fits a lot of information on the page. Is it really adding much quality by including these two additional images? I'm not sure they add enough value to offset the pushing of content further below the fold. FeloniousMonk 00:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove whatever images you like. I'm just trying to be bold and putting some in as options. It was mentioned in some of the FA discussions that more images in this article would be nice. (By the way, size restrictions seem to be less-and-less of a concern these days.) --ScienceApologist 00:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Not everyone in the world has broadband. In fact, most don't outside the US. The page was already slow with dial-up. FeloniousMonk 00:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but isn't the recommendation to use text-only when using dialup? --ScienceApologist 00:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Most of the US university biology departments I've seen in the last ten years are largely Asian with a large portion being foreign-born. I wonder what they think of all that? FeloniousMonk 00:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In keeping with my visitation to the Dark Side, I was thinking we could use even more pix; for example: Darwin, TH Huxley, Dumbski, Behe, e-coli and its flagellum, scaffolding, God (preferably stuck in a gap), an alien Johnny Appleseed, a bible, Jesus, Cardinal Schonborn, the SETI logo, William of Ockham, etc.  •Jim62sch• 11:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Escherichia coli seems rather short on flagella: anyone know of a pic of a beastie that has one? ..dave souza, talk 22:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: IMHO pics are good but I think we should use only those that relate to the subject. So the personality pics should go really as well as the starlfield. --LexCorp 11:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you'd like to see "Of Pandas" included? --ScienceApologist 12:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh but it has such a nice cover of a Panda driven to almost extintion because his mad creator made him with an appetite for a very limited diet. Seriously I think that particular pic makes better sense in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District or Teach the Controversy.--LexCorp 12:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Addendum: I thought just came to me. A Mad Intelligent Designer could indeed look like a Unrational Designer which in turn produces somewhat the same results that you get with evolution. Most definitely there is something to be said about the theory of MID (Mad Intelligent Design). That I believe this MID fits to a tee with the Flying Spaghetti Monster should not be used to claim my theory is unscientific. After all MID could also be a really nutty alien from outer-space.--LexCorp 12:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So the Gods must be crazy?  :)  Fwiw I've often entertained the notion that maybe god just has a nutty sense of humor and we're his idea of slapstick comedy.  But in scientific terms, a difference which makes no difference is no difference.  Kasreyn 17:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paley, Pandas, Hubble, Meyers, Jones and Johnson images 

message: In the ID article, I see that there is a section entitled "Arguments from Ignorance".  I would like readers to also consider the statements made by the opponents of ID from a mathematical paradigm.
Geometry makes use of something called indirect proofs; that is, it attempts to prove a math statement by assuming the opposite it correct.  So, by some calling the ID movement's methodology of using a similar technique "ignorant" is a misguided conclusion.  --MEGOP
*You are comparing apples to oranges. --Rtc 23:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right, Rtc. Arguments from ignorance look something like: "if x were true then y, but we have no evidence y is true, therefore not x" whereas arguments of the type you outline look like this: "if x were true then y, but y is false, therefore, not x" (otherwise known reductio ad absurdum). Of course, there is another fallacy in many intelligent design articles: that if evolution is not true, then intelligent design is (this is, in fact, the other kind of argument from ignorance). To say that ID arguments are "arguments from ignorance" is not to say that are "ignorant", but rather to say they are logically fallacious. Many ID arguments in fact take the form "if x were true then y, but there is no evidence of y, therefore z". See the problem? iggytalk 00:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Megop, you are aware that "argument from ignorance" is specific terminology describing a well-known logical fallacy, not a personal attack or claim that ID supporters themselves are "ignorant", right?  Kasreyn 00:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Megop, Maths is not science. Comparation is irrelevant.--LexCorp 12:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The comments that have been made seem to make sense, and I agree to some extent.  However, it seems to me that any questions posed by ID towards what others have understood evolution to suggest should be greeted by organizations whose existence has not been compromised (i.e. the National Science Teacher's Association, the U.S. National Academy of Science, et cetera).--MEGOP  18:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't get you at all. Maybe my fault as english is not my native language. Can you explain what do you mean?--LexCorp 19:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Command of English isn't the issue - I don't understand what he means either.  Guettarda 20:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Beats me.  And Lex, your English is fine.  •Jim62sch• 20:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments from Ignorance 

message: I notice in the section on "irreducible complexity" that Behe's example of the mousetrap is outlined.  Would it be worthwhile to include a note on John H. McDonald's reducibly complex mousetrap?  Before you argue that McDonald's mousetrap isn't notable, please note that Behe himself has published a rebuttal of McDonald's illustration.  Opinions?  Kasreyn 07:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: McDonald's argument certainly warrants its mention on Irreducible complexity, but it is really a quite specific instance of the point that the article attributes to "critics". It might be helpful to add this link as a reference for that paragraph, however. iggytalk 16:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh!  I didn't realize there was an article on Irreducible Complexity.  Thanks!  Kasreyn 17:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mousetrap