Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 18

message: Okay, we've got some good feedback.  Here is an updated structure suggestion (abandoning the idea of separate articles for now):
*Intelligent Design (intro)
:*Summary
:*Origins of the concept
*Key terms
:*Methodological naturalism
:*Irreducible complexity
:*Specified complexity 
*Intelligent Design and Philosophy of Science 
:*Exclusion of supernatural causes
:*Scientific method
:*Falsifiability
*Intelligent Design and Cosmology 
:*Examples
::*Anthropic principle
::*Finely-tuned universe
::*Cosmogony
:*Criticism of ID in Cosmology
*Intelligent Design and Biology 
:*Examples
::*Bacterial Flagellum
::*Blood Clotting
::*DNA
::*Origin of life
:*Criticism of ID in Biology
*Defining information and intelligence
*Intelligent Design Debate
:*ID as a movement -- shorten considerably and refer to the separate article
:*Religion and leading ID proponents
*Additional criticisms
The examples sections could be quite short, particularly if they have references to other articles which discuss them in depth.  The information and intelligence section just came to mind.  As always, more feedback is appreciated.  What's useful or not useful about this structure?  What's missing in the categories?  Thanks.--Gandalf2000 21:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I see no pressing need to refactor the current article. I do see though a number of pro-ID editors who want to mitigate content they feel casts ID in an unfavorable light. FeloniousMonk 21:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a matter of favorable v. unfavorable.  It's a matter of clearly understanding the propositions and rebuttals.--Gandalf2000 02:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What "positions"? There does not seem to be a monolithic ID position on any one of these subjects. This is because ID does not represent a research program in the natural sciences. In other words, rather than being representative of how ID is applied in these sciences, these "positions" are simply endorsements of the idea that ID has legitimacy that supercedes the commentary it makes on the individual subjects we present in the article (e.g. cosmology is somehow informed by ID through its disparate accusations involving fine-tuning, goldilocks unierse, the anthropic principle, etc). The article as it now stands is much better because it states things in NPOV fashion. What the article currently does is describe the positions as "there exists arguments made by ID proponents involving the following points from these disparate parts of science". Since ID doesn't represent a research program, a paradigm, or a theory, all we have is a collection of unrelated arguments that function as many different attempts to throw ID at science in the hopes that somewhere, somehow, some point will stick. So far they've been unsuccessful. If they had been successful, I'd be inclined to agree that ID represents positions within the disciplines as your arrangement implies, but as it stands this arrangement violates the policy of NPOV, in my book. Joshuaschroeder 13:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what you are getting at. Are you claiming that ID helps in providing evidence for evolution? Joshuaschroeder 13:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you being sarcastic? I am not claiming "ID helps in providing evidence for evolution." That would be completely absurd. I am saying criticisms against evidence for evolution should go on the evidence for evolution page. --Ben 10:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: When it comes to integrating intelligent design with current science curricula, it's important to understand that intelligent design departs from these curricula principally over the origin of biological complexity. True, intelligent design also takes up design in cosmology. But arguing for design at the level of cosmology does not contradict any of the theories currently held by cosmologists (for instance, Big Bang and inflationary cosmologies can be interpreted as consistent with intelligent design). Arguing for design in biology, on the other hand, does squarely challenge Darwinian theory and more generally all purely naturalistic accounts of biological complexity. But that's about all intelligent design challenges. Thus one can be quite conservative in adapting intelligent design to a science curriculum. There's no need, for instance, to alter our understanding of cosmology or geology regarding the formation of the universe, galaxies, our solar system, or the earth. Nor for that matter is there any need to challenge the standard chronologies scientists have assigned to these events (e.g., 12 or so billion years for the age of the universe and 4.5 billion years for the age of the earth). 
This is how the ID debate is being framed, and the criticisms of ID are likewise organized along these lines.--Gandalf2000 17:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks. This is actually very useful in understanding what ID claims to be and how the article should be structured, leaving out the stuff regarding cosmology and the like. I would also say that the emphasis on biology is what makes ID a religious idea. Why does the designer have any more desire to influence atoms that lead to life, particulary human life, than rocks? This seems to indicate Christian theological bias, or at least Abhrahamic theology. But thanks again, there is an FAQ at the Discovery Institute website and also explains that IDists claims ID is really well. I'll dig that up. --JPotter 18:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand your reading.  Dembski's key point (in that quote) seems to be that ID is compatible with key tenets and observations of mainstream cosmology, where the controversies and propositions are much more philosophical; but it directly challenges the key tenets of mainstream biology.  Therefore, the challenge to evolutionary biology is where ID is so controversial.--Gandalf2000 22:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand these points. Mine are that the ID focus on biology highlights its identity with Judeo-Christian-Islamic theology. --JPotter 18:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Restructure for additional clarity

message: I think it is worth examining the relationship of Deism and Intelligent Design. 
Similarities:
*Believe in God
*Reason, not faith, should be the basis of that belief
*Often use cosmological and teleological argument
Differences:
IDers:
*Believe they have, or actively pursue, reasoned proof of the existence of God
*Believe evolutionary theory is incorrect
*Strong ties to evangelicalism and Christianity
*Proselytize
Deists:
*Do not believe they have reasoned proof, nor do they actively pursue it.
*Believe evolutionary theory is scientifically sound.
*Reject Christianity as absurd
*Do not proselytize
In the most important aspects it seems they are very similar. However, they do not exactly work together. In fact, as I noted somewhere on this page,  on the Deism.org page it says "Intelligent Design Theory" is so-called "Creation Science" masquerading as Deism. Which at least shows that people often get the two mixed up. 
Feel free to add to these if you can think of anything else. If you think one is incorrect use   to strike out the incorrect one and add your correction. --Ben 23:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are many prominent ID proponents deists? Not really. One, maybe two. Deism is not central to ID or crucial to understanding it. A footnote at best. FeloniousMonk 01:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Call themselves or are? Which one are you talking about? I'm talking about examining where ID fits into the taxonomy of religion. Not "are they Deist", but "are their beliefs Deist?" Look up comparative religion. I think it's a good idea to examine if ID can be classified as something else. Such as a type of Deism. It has nothing to do with "ID proponents." I'm hoping the actual religious parts can be teased out of the science, philosophy, and pseudoscience and it will make the article more coherent and less controversial. Lay it all out for people and let them decide. If you do it as accurately as you can, you will hardly get any criticism. For example, if instead of saying "Advocates are trying to teach intelligent design in schools" you say "Advocates are trying to teach teleology in schools" look how much it defuses it. No one in their right mind will think "Teleology there's a good thing to teach in schools" They'll think "Teleowhatlogy? What kind of subject is that for a 3rd grader?" Maybe they'll look it up and say "This isn't a subject, it's just an argument." At least, that's what I think. No matter how advocates try, because teleology is so old, and so densely philosophical, they won't be able to trick people into thinking that what they wish to teach is a subject for biology class. Heck, maybe they'll advocate "at least teach one class about the argument" but who will teach it? It's not really appropriate for a biology class. Even if they do teach it, I'd rather a biology teacher explain it fully to kids than have a minister explain it and use it as propaganda. --Ben 06:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I respect your opinion on the matter, but this formulation you are proposing strikes me as a lot of original reserach. If you can find a citation to someone who claims what you do, this can be included in the article, but I don't think we can recast the reporting of a controversial subject like this entirely as such a perspective. Joshuaschroeder 12:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do you get the idea I am proposing something? I was hoping to have a discussion about ID  and how it compares to other religions and religious ideas. What exactly do you mean? --Ben 07:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

text: A good point that totally slipped past us. FeloniousMonk 03:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ID and Deism

message: The giant discussion about some blog and their users should be archived as it has nothing to do with improving the article. --Ben 10:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it does. - RoyBoy 800 11:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are entitled to your opinion. --Ben 22:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you noticed my declarative statement was an opinion; because I noticed the same thing about yours. It's problematic when someone does that, isn't it? - RoyBoy 800 00:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: FeloniousMonk's "uncommondescent" conspiracy theory

message: In the interests of full disclosure, I'd like to point out that User:FeloniousMonk is a Wikipedia administrator (though he fails to mention so on his user page). See Wikipedia:List_of_administrators. --Ben 10:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In the interest of curiosity, why is that important? - RoyBoy 800 11:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: FeloniousMonk is a Wikipedia admin

message: In the interests of full disclosure, I'd like to point out that User:RoyBoy is also a Wikipedia administrator. See Wikipedia:List_of_administrators. --Ben 22:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, a good one. You're just a lowly troll. Dunc|☺ 23:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RoyBoy is a Wikipedia admin

message: In the interests of full disclosure, I'd like to point out that User:Duncharris is also a Wikipedia administrator (though he fails to mention so on his user page). See Wikipedia:List_of_administrators. --Ben 23:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Duncharris is a Wikipedia admin

message: In the interests of full disclosure, I'd like to point out that User:Guettarda is also a Wikipedia administrator. See Wikipedia:List_of_administrators. --Ben 23:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Guettarda is a Wikipedia admin

message: * this is a good article. i see really only one problem: it is long. on that point, in what looks like an attempt to conserve space, the attribution of claims is often separated by long stretches of text. this doesn't seem to violate npov, but if a reader picked up in the middle of the text, they might miss the attributions. not much can be done about this problem. --Rikurzhen 06:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Verbosity is the reason I suggested removing the ID as a movement section, since it's covered elsewhere.  A couple of paragraphs introducing the key players, and wikilinks would be sufficient.--Gandalf2000 18:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a question.  Is user:Benapgar the same user as user:bensaccount and "Ben"?  Their editing style and topic interest seem similar.  Just trying to keep the editors straight here. Synaptidude 19:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, no that is a different person. Somewhat similar interests though, I can see why you might think that (especially considering his interest in both religion and taxonomy). I wouldn't add the word ignorant in the creation science article though, that's obviously trolling. Come to think of it though, I haven't read it yet, but all things considered I might see it and want to break it all up and redirect a lot of it to evidence of evolution and teleology. Or rename it to "creationism science." But at least people are not all confused if you say "creation science." You try telling someone you "believe in intelligent design" and they'll have no idea if you are talking about God, Dembski's complexity theories, Christian creationism, evolution, teleological argument, or various combinations of the above. :P --Ben 22:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC - comments 

message: Trollderella 20:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great... On which show? Was it mentioned favorably, or critically... plugged or panned? FeloniousMonk 20:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk of the Nation - Jimmy Wales is being interviewed, along with some college professor. Pretty positive. Trollderella 20:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Outstanding. We'll have to watch more closely for vandalism, natch... KillerChihuahua 20:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ...We're doomed. I'm still shell-shocked from the last round. FeloniousMonk 20:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick, write a fake article, put it up, and we can revert to the real version after the masses have moved on. :-)  Guettarda 20:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks. What's NPR? -- Ec5618 02:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: National Public Radio FeloniousMonk 03:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Perhaps an aggressive archive of the talk page is in order. - RoyBoy 800 02:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree. Lets make some room. -- Ec5618 02:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There we go, not as short as I'd like, but tried to leave November threads untouched. Its at least presentable; I somehow doubt we will get  into POV-wars with NPR listeners. :"D - RoyBoy 800 06:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What was the purpose of the aggressive edit of the talk page?  It made in more difficult for me to review the RfC that was filed against Benapgar.  Robert McClenon 17:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article was just mentioned on NPR, so expect a few more hits!