Talk:Intelligent design/Coolasclyde objections

message: An overwhelming majority[4] of the scientific community views intelligent design as pseudoscience[5][6] or junk science.[7] 
This is a biased statement that cannot be substantiated.  How can one use say overwhelming majority unless one has defined scientific community, versed everyone in the scientific community on ID by an expert of ID theory, and asked them for their viewpoint?  This has not been done.  How can this be an unbiased and neutral point of view when ID is described as pseudoscience or junk science?  This text should be under the subheading “Criticisms of Intelligent Design Theory”Coolasclyde 22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try reading the archivesdesign/Archive26 KillerChihuahua?!? 23:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: he scientific community both implicitly and explicitly endorse evolution over ID. We use the definition from DI because they are the leading ID promoters. If you have a better definition of ID, let's hear it. I've been searching for one for quite some time now. JPotter 23:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am afraid you are wrong.  Look up the Dissent From Darwin List on the Discovery Institutes website.  Thanks!  Coolasclyde 23:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Dissent From Darwin List is not new evidence and is already covered in the article. The number of signees to the Dissent From Darwin List is vanishingly small compared to those who have endorsed condemnations of ID, see article's footnote. Also, please read the archives, starting with Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive27#Support_among_scientists FeloniousMonk 23:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am afraid your rationale is incorrect again.  The Dissent From Darwin list is of actual people not from a handful of a board of committee members representing members of a society or organization like that of those whom you speak of and cite above.  Again, I have read the archives and re-reading them is not grounds for dismissing my suggestions without consideration.  This game of referring people to the archives is frightening.  It provides an escape goat to thwart attempts of needed revisions when the grounds for such revisions are clearly essential.  I am beginning to lose my respect for this administration and website.  I graciously ask you to seriously consider the suggestions made herein.  Thank you sir!  Coolasclyde 00:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're frightened of reading archives? KillerChihuahua?!? 00:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What? And relying upon the six hundred or so signees of a partisan think tank's manifesto is a better rationale? The DI's managed to drum up 600 signees (many of whom are not biologists). Big deal. 70,000 Australian scientists and educators signed a petition against intelligent design in school science classes:  Every single significant scientific professional organization, over 65, have issued policy statements declaiming ID. The National Academy of Science has come down hard against it. The Dover trial ruling specifically stated "To the contrary, evolution is the dominant scientific theory of origin accepted by the majority of scientists."  That the majority of the scientific community rejects ID as legitimate science is so well established as to be in the realm of fact - a given. Please don't continue to waste your time and ours with that objection. FeloniousMonk 00:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Its perfectly legitimate to say that the overwhelming majority of scientsts, because that is accurate. The ID movement recongizes this, they constantly blame "mainstream" science for not letting their frige view into peer reviewed journals. Consider this, 600 or so signees signed the petition. Now, how many of them are trained in the life or earth sciences? Vs. the 500,000 or so practiicing life and earth scientists, in the US alone. Again, this isn't assailing ID on its merits, it's just stating fact. JPotter 01:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14% 5 However, the American public thinks very differently. I assume there are more life and earth scientists in the US today than there were in 1987. So one can reasonably say there are about 500,000 life and earth scientists, in the US; vs. the number of signees to the aforementioned petition. Again, these aren't ludicrous claims, they are well sourced and verifiable. Plus ID researchers readily they admit they are a minority. Still waiting for that definition of ID by the way. JPotter 03:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: So a tiny list of a few hundred scientists, many of whom have nothing to do with biology, who signed a statement that doesn't even mention ID, somehow compares to the vast majority of biolgists and other scientists represented by the myriad of scientific associations which have condemned ID and/or endorsed evolution? JoshuaZ 03:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, this is clearly trolling. Game over. FeloniousMonk 03:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Majority of the scientific community 

message: 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 that intelligent design is 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.[9]  
The above text should be under the subheading “Criticisms of Intelligent Design Theory”Coolasclyde 22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? KillerChihuahua?!? 23:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, this suggestion violates NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Giving "equal validity", Wikipedia:Criticism#Criticism_in_a_.22Criticism.22_section, Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structures_which_can_imply_a_view and several other policies and guidelines. FeloniousMonk 23:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, if you cannot see how this text is persuasive then you should consult a high school english literature teacher.  This is clearly, in violation of NPOV.  Thank you sir!  Coolasclyde 00:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you cannot understand NPOV then you should re-read the policy. Thank you sir! KillerChihuahua?!? 00:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, if he cannot understand NPOV then he has no business here. FeloniousMonk 00:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: We've reviewed your suggestions and they have been rejected. Now move along and find a more productive way to contribute to the project. FeloniousMonk 03:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dover 

message: Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to natural explanations for evolution. This stands in opposition to conventional biological science, which relies on experimentation to explain the natural world through observed physical processes such as mutation and natural selection. 
The above text is an attempt to persuade the reader and discredit ID.  There is no reason why ID cannot be tested under the same scientific method that evolutionary theory uses to credit its theoretical construct.  This text should be under the subheading "Criticisms of Intelligent Design Theory"Coolasclyde 22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No reason except that it is unfalsifiable, which makes it not testable. You are clearly not a scientist. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I would appreciate it if you would stop calling me sir. I did not insult you. And you are now trolling. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You're objection is factually incorrect. The Dover ruling specifically stated that ID relies upon a supernatural explanation:  "We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community." FeloniousMonk 23:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, are you aware, or more importantly, has the reader been made aware that the definition of science caters toward a "naturalistic" interpretation?  This supercedes any discussion of Kitzmiller vs. Dover.  Please acknowledge the revisions and make the appropriate changes.  Thank you sir! Coolasclyde 00:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As opposed to supernatural, as in Gods and Demons and Aliens from another dimension? Superman and Wonder Woman and all that? Ghosts and Tarot cards? KillerChihuahua?!? 00:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I am afraid that is your interpretation KC.  Thank you!  Coolasclyde 01:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that was a question, hence the question mark. Please answer. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: One I happen to agree with as well. FeloniousMonk 01:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: What part of "Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It ... does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory..."  or "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly."  is unclear to you? Those are parts of Wikipedia's cornerstone policy, WP:NPOV, which is "absolute and non-negotiable." Learn it, love it. If that's something that doesn't work for you, you my find the pro-ID wiki researchintelligentdesign.org more to your liking. FeloniousMonk 00:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Now I know you're trolling us. Please find a more productive way to contribute to the project. FeloniousMonk 03:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The use of "sir" "please" and "thank you" does not make one intrinsically polite. However, it is nice to see that you've stopped with the conspiracy allegations. This is a good thing. JoshuaZ 04:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Words are not the sole indicator of attitude. If you have ever seen the British parliment you would easily understand this. An MP can say something like "I am curious, did the right honorable gentleman who constructed this excellent proposal consider that it has flaws that would be seen by most school children?" The phrasing is polite but the content is not. And accusing people of conspiracy is never civil no matter the words used to do so. JoshuaZ 04:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ID vs evo 

message: For millennia, philosophers have argued that the complexity of nature indicates the existence of a purposeful natural or supernatural designer/creator. The first recorded arguments for a natural designer come from Greek philosophy. The philosophical concept of the Logos, an inherent ordering in the universe, is typically credited to Heraclitus in the 5th century BC, and is briefly explained in his extant fragments.[12] In the 4th century BC, Plato posited a natural "demiurge" of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the creator of the cosmos in his work Timaeus. Aristotle also developed the idea of a natural creator of the cosmos, often referred to as the "Prime Mover", in his work Metaphysics. In his de Natura Deorum, or "On the Nature of the Gods" (45 BC), Cicero stated that "the divine power is to be found in a principle of reason which pervades the whole of nature".[13]
The use of this line of reasoning as applied to a supernatural designer has come to be known as the teleological argument for the existence of God. The most notable forms of this argument were expressed in the 13th century by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae,[14] design being the fifth of Aquinas' five proofs for God's existence, and by William Paley in his book Natural Theology (1802),[15] where he uses the watchmaker analogy, which is still used in intelligent design arguments. In the early 19th century such arguments led to the development of what was called Natural theology, the study of biology as a search to understand the "mind of God". This movement fueled the passion for collecting fossils and other biological specimens that ultimately led to Darwin's theory of the origin of species. Similar reasoning postulating a divine designer is embraced today by many believers in theistic evolution, who consider modern science and the theory of evolution to be fully compatible with the concept of a supernatural designer.
Intelligent design in the late 20th century can be seen as a modern reframing of natural theology seeking to change the basis of science and undermine evolution theory. 
This persuasive and biased text above should be under the subheading “Criticisms of Intelligent Design Theory”Coolasclyde 22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you explain what is biased about this text? JoshuaZ 04:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm, so a well researched, well sourced section suggests that ID has religious origins and this makes it biased? Sorry, but I've got some news for you: ID does have religious origins. You may want to read some of the sources cited in the above paragraphs. JoshuaZ 04:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins of the concept

message: The intelligent design movement arose out of an organized neocreationist campaign directed by the Discovery Institute to promote a religious agenda[37] calling for broad social, academic and political changes employing intelligent design arguments in the public sphere, primarily in the United States. 
The statement above is persuasive and at best, hearsay evidence.  It is unfair to lump the entire movement into one organization to promote a religious agenda.  This text should be under the subheading “Criticisms of Intelligent Design Theory”Coolasclyde 22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it shouldn't, please reread the relevant policies about article organization. Also, please note that it is all sourced, and to be blunt, your claim that the DI is not a very useful indicator of what ID is about is laughable. They created ID, they were talking about ID before almost everyone. Dembski, Behe, all of them are DI affiliates. The DI or its affiliates have been involved in Ohio, Dover, Kansas, every single location where this has come up. JoshuaZ 04:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As the article says. Note that Thaxton is mentioned, and the part about the DI is the present tense. JoshuaZ 04:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, and I don't see how it applies here. You claimed that ID was a term used early on by Thaxton. This is true, and it is mentioned. No claim is made anywhere in the article that the DI came up with the term themselves, so what is your complaint? Are you saying that since they didn't invent the term we can't get any information about how it is used from them? JoshuaZ 04:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: And so...? I find it ironic that you seem to be actually commiting your favorite fallacy since no one has claimed that it was started by the DI. JoshuaZ 04:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movement 

message: Coolascyde, before we devote time to addressing any of your objections, most of your objections appear to have already been discussed previously and unless you introduce new evidence are unlikely to be considered much result in change, so please read the Archives and remove any objections above of yours that do not bring new evidence. FeloniousMonk 23:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read the archives.  Asking me to read the archives is not grounds for dismissing my suggestions.  Please address the points sir.  Thank you!
Coolasclyde 23:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. Every point so far has been covered, exhaustively, in the archives. We're not here to do nothing but reanswer objections to suit your personal demands. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't answereed anything thus far sir.  You have only referred me to the archived of which I have read and re-read.  This is an interesting ploy I believe to prevent any actual revisions.  Thank you for your time and help sir.  Please acknowledge my suggestions.  Coolasclyde 00:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a matter of opinion - your's. If you continue to raise frivolous or specious objections, policy and guideline provides for them to be dismissed. We've bent over backwards to accomodate you here so far, but so far you've only come up with vague objections over specific passages that do not violate policy. There's a point when raising flawed objections, no matter how well intentioned, becomes disruptive. And when it does, the project provides for ways of minimizing that disruption. FeloniousMonk 01:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please read the archives 

message: Isn't being persuasive a good thing???? WAS 4.250 00:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. (The Princess Bride (film) quote) KillerChihuahua?!? 00:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No, not if you are to state only the facts as encyclopedias are created to do.  Otherwise, you might as well be reading a romance novel to find truth.  Coolasclyde 00:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being persuasive is not a legitimate criticism of article content. Either come up with legitimate criticisms or find another way to contribute to the project. FeloniousMonk 01:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You need to stop lecturing people. Now. WAS is with in his rights and abilities to delete the content if he feels doing so is justified. That is the nature of a wiki. You'd better get used to it. FeloniousMonk 04:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Please see WP:POINT. Also, please see WP:V. Wikipedia cares about verifiability, not truth. JoshuaZ 04:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It depends for what purposes. People don't often agree on what is "truth" but they are much more able to agree on what is verifiable. I assure you, if I thought this article should be about truth, it would be very different. In any event, WP:V is a fundamental wikipedia policy, so whether you like it or not, you can't ignore it while you are here. JoshuaZ 04:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  persuasive

message: It's become clear to a number of the credible, long-term contributors here that Coolasclyde has shown himself on this page to be utterly impervious to evidence or reason, dismissive of policy and bent only on lessening critical viewpoints of ID or removing them altogether. Either he's being wilfully tendentious or we're being trolled. Either way, it's clear these discussions are bound to be fruitless so there's little point in continuing with them. Comments? FeloniousMonk 03:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have reviewed them. Multiple times. None of them are particularly new. And FYI, for at least two of your suggestions, when I first came to this page, I had similar notions, so I have some idea where you are coming from. The fact is, however, that this article has been discussed and rehashed tens of times now, and none of your suggestions are substantially new. JoshuaZ 04:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Joshua is right, we've gone over nearly half of them already today and not one has stood up to evidence or policy. And your willingness to dismiss both and continue to hammer away indicates that your interest is tendentious, wholly partisan. Not to mention your accusations accross the project that editors here are conducting a conspiracy... I see little point in continuing, but we'll see what others have to say. FeloniousMonk 04:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You're right, there's no need to smear you. My opinion is that you do not understand the topic and our policies, and how the former relates to, and is shaped by the latter. Until you do you are wasting your time and ours. You've been contributing less than 24 hours to Wikipedia and have already disrupted one of what many believe is its better articles. So please find a better way to get started at the project and learn our policies and guidelines. Once you've been here a few months then consider bringing objections here. FeloniousMonk 04:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Truth is indeed subordinate to verifiability here. There are 3 overarching policies here: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. WP:NPOV states that because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. FeloniousMonk 05:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, good or bad, that's the rule here.  "NPOV is non-negotiable".  If you can't work within that constraint, then as much as we appreciate your interest, we've reached a dead end.  Thanks for dropping by.  Guettarda 06:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing discussion