Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 37

message: Is the current dispute about the lead only that it uses the word "God"?
Please try and keep your answer to simple 'Yes' or 'No' about your personal dispute, and if you aren't disputing the lead's current wording maybe put something like 'Undisputing'. I think a lot of editors are confused about what the current editors disputes are, and (maybe with good reason) are failing to assume good faith.--ZayZayEM 01:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are disputing the current lead, are you only disputing the use of "God" (capitalised)?--ZayZayEM 11:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well stated - If this change were made, it would satisfy my objection.  Morphh  (talk) 2:50, 04 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I noticed that design argument redirects to Teleological argument which opens by saying 'A teleological argument (or a design argument) is an argument for the existence of God or a creator based on perceived evidence of order,' - i favour the current wording because in my opinion it's a way of saying the same thing in clearer english - would you also drop your objections if we added 'or creator' after God to match the Teleological argument wording? - Petesmiles 04:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See my paragraph why any descriptive noun describing the designer as God, a god, a deity, a creator, force, alien or "... or something" really produces uneeded ambigiouty about the subject. Issues with teh wording of teleological argument page are not relevant here. Wiki should not rely on wording of other pages to word pages (that's being self referential).--ZayZayEM 04:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just about use of "God"? 

message: The use of "God" with a capital G is misleading way of defining ID - it is term most identified with the Jude-Christian monotheistic god, Ywh. Whether or not individuals (even collectively) support the viewpoint that any "designer" is so obviously Ywh in all his supreme great benelovence and infallibility - can be further explained later in the article. As ID proponents, even if possibly ina  duplicitious manner, have conceded or put forth that ID doesn't necessarily mean Ywh was the designer, the initial defnition of ID should reflect this.
"Design argument" solves this problem of incorrectly identifying the designer and misleading the reader towards a POV, because, like ID it doesn't implicate any specific entity in the design process.
The use of the word "god" should be avoided as it specific refers to deities. "god" is preloaded word with a specific religious and spiritual meaning for a worshipped being of great power. "creator" should be avoided as it refers to a being of specific role: i.e. someone who creates, a cosmic engineer, the entity in question may actually play extra roles beyond creation; and additionally through virtue of being a "designer" may not actually be involved in the engineering or manufacturing process and therefore the term "creator" would still be much a misnomer.
ID is bunk pseudoscience that provides a thin veil for religious doctrine pushed forward by tiny minded people with even tinier attitudes - and this article accurately portrays this. As much as we find ID a stupid, nonsensical, petty, ridiculuous and/or dangerous idea, when writing a neutral encyclopedic article on the subject we still have to be serious about how we go about it.
This means that we can't let ID proponents define ID for us (especially when they aren't clear), but we also shouldn't define ID for them. We have to be a neutral source. ID has been neutrally identified as specifically a teleological argument, this is it's defining point. However leaping from there to being about "God" and other specifically identified beings is adding individual synthesis.
Discover Institute fellows are the ones identifying the designer, why should we trust them on that one. ID opponents are identifying the designer, why should we be pushing an opposing peoples viewpoint as fact? What does our neutral source identify the designer as? (AFAIK it doesn't identify any - it does what we should do - it identifies what individuals identify the designer to be, which about 99/100 times is Ywh)
Neutral stance: totally an unambigiously avoid implicating any specific entity in creation. That's what ID does. "Intelligent design is a design argument..."
</rant>
Whew.--ZayZayEM 01:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well stated - If this change were made, it would satisfy my objection.  Morphh  (talk) 2:50, 04 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I noticed that design argument redirects to Teleological argument which opens by saying 'A teleological argument (or a design argument) is an argument for the existence of God or a creator based on perceived evidence of order,' - i favour the current wording because in my opinion it's a way of saying the same thing in clearer english - would you also drop your objections if we added 'or creator' after God to match the Teleological argument wording? - Petesmiles 04:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See my paragraph why any descriptive noun describing the designer as God, a god, a deity, a creator, force, alien or "... or something" really produces uneeded ambigiouty about the subject. Issues with teh wording of teleological argument page are not relevant here. Wiki should not rely on wording of other pages to word pages (that's being self referential).--ZayZayEM 04:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Using "God" (and other terms) is not being clear, it's actually misleading

message: In my opinion it's a fair point that the intro doesn't fully show that ID’s “official position” does not acknowledge that the designer is God, though its proponents believe the designer to be God and, in claiming that ID and science cannot address the nature or identity of the designer as that must be left to religion and philosophy, explicitly concede that the intelligent designer works outside the laws of nature and science.pages 24 - 26 It's a complex point to pack into the intro, and the present opening paragraph is accurate and concise though it begins with the ID movement's description of ID as a religious argument rather than their protestations that it isn't one. ... dave souza, talk 08:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinion

message: just a few thoughts on the current discussion......
rbj objects because he argues that for us to define ID as an argument for the existence of God is moving too far into original research, and that we should start out with a sourced non-contraversial definition of ID, not what he feels is a derived conclusion.
My feeling is that others have been less consistent than rbj in their arguments (but that might just be me not getting it) - i'm afraid i feel that some here are rather annoyed by a good encyclopedia article on ID, they will just always feel that it's somehow not fair / shouldn't be allowed - it's hard to engage everyone usefully with this as a backdrop.
I think the article is good as it is, with few of the suggested alternatives offering much useful improvement. I wouldn't object to the 'argument for the existence of God' moving a little - and thought rbj's proposal was worth thinking about constructively - I also seem to remember Felonius way way back proposing an intro that was really 'just the facts' - p'raps someone cleverer with the archives than me could find it...?
anyways - everyone should have a nice evening. That's an order.
Petesmiles 08:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...and mine 

message: If you look at the context of the quote text used to source the lead here 
We initially note that John Haught, a theologian who testified as an expert witness for Plaintiffs and who has written extensively on the subject of evolution and religion, succinctly explained to the Court that the argument for ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer. (Trial Tr. vol. 9, Haught Test., 7-8, Sept. 30, 2005). Dr. Haught testified that Aquinas was explicit that this intelligent designer “everyone understands to be God.” Id. The syllogism described by Dr. Haught is essentially the same argument for ID as presented by defense expert witnesses Professors Behe and Minnich who employ the phrase “purposeful arrangement of parts.”
The currently used quoted text is not the words of the judgement. It is the words of John Haught being quoted by the judgement. This is a form of quote mining.
Wouldn't it be better to use or add  "The syllogism described by Dr. Haught is essentially the same argument for ID" This is a statement by the decisors agreeing with Dr Haught's assessment. Dr Haught's assessment should not be utilised as neutral, but the judgement's agreement can.--ZayZayEM 05:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quote mining? I doubt it very much.  Here's the entire relevant quote from Kitzmiller v. Dover: Kenosis 09:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unintentional (?) Quote mining in lead 

message: I noticed that Morphh raised this discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy. Since part of the argument is that ID proponents portray it as science rather than religion, I've added it to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology#Biology and related. ... dave souza, talk 10:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea to post it both places.  Gnixon 13:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  agree. r b-j 16:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion or science?

message: More polling--ZayZayEM 13:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, polls are evil; second, the answer is no.  The term intelligent design has been coopted by the DI. •Jim62sch• 13:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Note, if you go to Encyclopedia Britannica, their ID article is about ID as described in this article  •Jim62sch• 13:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: One other note: a brief stroll through the net shows that less than 1% of all hits for "intellgent design" are on a topic other than DI's ID, thus they would be tiny minority positions that really needn't be addressed. •Jim62sch• 13:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, more significantly, shouldn't be addressed as that would contravene WP:NPOV#Undue weight. The generic idea is the teleological argument, and variations on the theme are already covered there.. dave souza, talk 14:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with dave and Jim.  Also, I second that polls are evil.  Gnixon 15:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, polling is too easily gamed by simply get a majority and no guarantee of neutral articles. 151.151.73.167 16:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree. Perhaps intelligent design (disambiguation) should reflect that some people do occasionally use the term to mean a generic teleological argument, rather than DI's specific one. This is usually how politicians (and school boards) get conned into siding with the DI. Or perhaps the initial dablink at the head of this article should make it clearer this is about DI's coopted use of the term.--ZayZayEM 02:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: One more point the generic idea of intelligent design is not explicitly the same a teleological argument. Intelligent design assumes intelligence (and usually purpose) on behalf of the designer. (Though I think most teleological arguments do, which is why science usually reject them)--ZayZayEM 02:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What "generic intelligent design arguments" would that be? There is no ID other than that has been promoted by the Discovery Institute. 151.151.73.167 16:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What term would you used to describe the assertion that a superintelligent being designed life? 68.109.234.155 16:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, creationism. 151.151.73.167 16:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Really, then the Pope would be a creationist according to your terminology. And in the wiki definition is says that creationists believe that the creator was 'supernatural' To me it seem the terms creationist and evolution here are used in several different ways which makes the converstaions confusing. To me an 'intelligent designist' would believe that life was at least guided by an intelligent entity without knowing who that designer is. I think many times here people use the term creationist when they really mean a bible literalist. 69.211.150.60 13:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: see: teleological argument
I imagine that when people are searching through wikipedia for the term "intelligent design", they're looking for the DI's version.  Other design arguments should be in the "see also" section. --Kgroover 17:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If you look at the history, this has been debated to death hundreds if not thousands of times. The basic bottom line is, if I ask 100 people on the street about intelligent design, at least 99 of them will know the term because of the efforts of the DI. So the article, at this time, in English, should be about the ID that the DI has promoted. Fifty years ago, it could have been about something else (if it even was worthy of an article then). One hundred years from now, it could be about something else. But right now, in English, the dominant meaning associated with the phrase is the one that the DI has given it. It might be unfair that the DI has appropriated the concept and the phrase, but that is reality. If someone wants a broader and more scholarly perspective on the entire issue, there is always the teleological argument article and many others.--Filll 20:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember polling is evil.  However, I beg to differ.  I bet 99 out of 100 people wouldn't have a clue what ID is.  OK, maybe 75 out of 100 wouldn't.  Orangemarlin 20:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think most people know.  Gnixon 22:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd hesitate that while probably 75% would know ID. I don't think that a lot of them would know that it is a term "coopted" by the DI. I think that is a good thing about this article. It lets people know that is how it is being used today.--ZayZayEM 02:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the term has become too politicized and too attached to one group to be unobjectionably used by another group, but the fact remains that there is no good term for non-Christian versions of ID – and teleological argument doesn't work because not all of them fall into that category... the Raelians for instance don't take the "fact" that humanity designed as evidence for anything at all, and their claims are among the most scientific of all (though still absurd, IMHO) because they claim that life on Earth (but not in the universe in general) was artificially constructed by space aliens that evolved somewhere else via the natural mechanism.  To my understanding, they never use their version of ID to argue for the existence of those alien genetic engineers, so they're not making any sort of teleological argument.  The "Matrix world" version (which may not have any organized groups of supporters, though it's been mentioned in many books) is even less arguably teleological.  These theories that all bear a structural relationship to the "official version" of ID need to go by some name, and though I agree now it shouldn't be "Intelligent design" it needs to be called something, and should probably be linked to from this page (perhaps just in "See also") but I don't think it would be a good idea to discuss those other versions here as that would be seen as taking sides in the DI debate.  --Sapphic 15:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But those ideas (Rael, Matrix etc.) aren't call intelligent design by anyone. Even though they arguing for design of life from intelligence - they aren't termed "intelligent design" arguments anywhere. --ZayZayEM 01:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this article be about generic intelligent design arguments? 

message: Request administrative assistance in adding  tag to this article.  This debate over NPOV policy has been ongoing for some time.  The page has been protected as a direct result of the dispute.  We owe our readers an announcement that the neutrality of the article is disputed.  I hope the dispute can be resolved quickly and the tag removed.  Gnixon 04:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The  or  on the first sentence or  for the lead may be a bit more specific then tagging the entire article.  Just a thought... Morphh  (talk) 4:21, 07 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unnecessary, in my opinion. It has  already, which alerts people that editors are in disagreement over this article. Sandstein 13:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  The pp-dispute tag gives absolutely no indication that there is a POV dispute.  This debate has involved a number of editors on both sides, so clearly the POV tag is applicable.  Readers deserve to know that without having to go to the talk page.  Gnixon 18:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page has been unprotected, no editprotected tag is needed. CMummert · talk 03:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit protected request tag

message: Wikipedia requires a neutral point of view. Not a 'correct' point of view, a 'scientific' point of view, or a 'court' point of view... a neutral point of view. There were US federal court rulings which held that abortion was the illegal killing of a human being. That would not have been grounds for an intro stating, "Abortion is the murder of an unborn child"... because it was the opinion of a court as to which of two partisan sides was 'correct' - rather than a NEUTRAL statement of the issue. Some courts in the US have held that two people of the same gender must be allowed to marry if they choose... other US courts have said the opposite... courts in various other countries have similarly split on the issue. NONE of those rulings is grounds for a 'neutral' statement on the 'same sex marriage' debate. Likewise the Dover ruling here... that ruling states that the 'ID is repackaged creationism' view is 'correct' as a matter of law. Another court might find differently, but in truth it just doesn't matter... because Wikipedia isn't written to reflect the 'point of view' of any court system. There are people in the world who insist that ID is a scientific theory... virtually all of them then take the tiny step to, 'and if ID is correct then the designer must be God', but the argument that ID is a scientific, rather than religious, theory exists. Saying that argument is false, 'because a court agreed with us' is absolutely NOT 'neutral'. We should certainly cite the view that ID isn't really a scientific theory... and that a court held that to be the case, but having >Wikipedia< state it as fact is precisely what the NPOV policy is meant to prevent. We aren't supposed to take sides in such debates... and this page currently does. --CBD 17:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, except you've left out the fact that we have available to us sources from all sides of the issue, both ID proponents and scientific organizations, stating the same thing as the court's conclusion, that ID is an argument for God. Do I need to post them all? We can add them to the article alongside the Dover cite. FeloniousMonk 17:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't require anything more than simple logic to understand that ID itself is not an argument for God.  The fact that it is used to further an argument for God, or that all its proponents have the ulterior motivation of proving God, is logically distinct.  Everything CBD says is right on.  Gnixon 18:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you cite such for every single person who subscribes to the ID theory? Our article on Scientology doesn't start off, "Scientology is a cult designed to dupe gullible people out of their finances"... despite the fact that quotations of past and present members, and even founder L. Ron Hubbard himself, exist to support that view. Because it isn't neutral. There are a sizable number of people who would dispute it. The same principle applies here. Even if you are SURE that every single person who says ID is a scientific rather than religious theory is 'lying', and can quote various of them saying things which support that belief, it isn't NPOV to have Wikipedia come down on one side of the dispute. That's not our job. We can quote the seemingly contradictory statements (provided they are reliably sourced of course)... and should do so, but we should not say 'this is the truth and the people who believe/say otherwise are wrong'. Put yourself in the other guy's shoes. You are an ID proponent reading the current intro. Can you tell me they are not going to consider it biased? --CBD 18:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the Wedge Strategy and you'll see the light. •Jim62sch• 18:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the article should quote the Wedge Strategy so that our readers can see the light as well.  Our job here at Wikipedia isn't to hit our readers over the head with the light.  As WP:NPOV says, "Readers are left to form their own opinions." -- Cat Whisperer 19:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It does, read a little further and the light will whack you on the head Intelligent_design#Overview •Jim62sch• 19:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then that should be sufficient to prevent the article from being a unquestioning endorsement of the pro-ID viewpoint.  So why the need to present one side of the debate as fact in the lead sentence? -- Cat Whisperer 19:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's sad that you feel that the current intro presents as fact in the lead sentence the one side of the debate taken by Phillip Johnson when he speaks of "intelligent design, which really means the reality of God", a side affirmed by other leading proponents of ID. However, as that's a primary source we have to be careful about using it, and fortunately we have a detailed impartial analysis by a third party in a reliable secondary source which describes ID and notes that it is claimed that ID does not identify the designer, a point well covered in proposal No. 2 above. Several editors have given opinions here about what ID is or what unnamed ID proponents believe – a reliable secondary source is required if we are to give any credence to these opinions. ... dave souza, talk 20:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you acknowledge a reliable secondary source noting the claim that ID does not identify the designer, that alone should be sufficient to see the NPOV violation in any article sentence which states, as a matter of fact, that the intelligent designer is really God.  -- Cat Whisperer 22:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See No. 2. ..... dave souza, talk 22:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Is this the old Goon Show line about "he walked out of the darkness into the light <clang!>" ? .. dave souza, talk 19:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might as well be. •Jim62sch• 20:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Court point of view

message: http://novaspivack.typepad.com/nova_spivacks_weblog/2007/03/scientists_enco.html
Japanese scientists have developed a technique that can encode 100-bit messages into the DNA of common bacteria. The bacteria replicate and pass the message down from generation to generation for at least thousands of years.
:Please use this page only for discussing improvements to the article.  Gnixon 17:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this is important information on how just allowing the assumption that life was designed opens up new areas of research. Humans will probably be designing life soon. I think creative thoughts on 'intelligent design' should be included in the article. 68.109.234.155 17:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is discussion underway to address such issues in a different article.  The big issue right now is figuring out what to call it, since "Intelligent design" and related phrases are all too politicized to serve as generic terms.  Suggestions are welcome, particularly from people with an interest in this page, since the name for the new article should be such as to distance itself from (and not be used as a pawn or scapegoat by) the various groups involved in the debate over the better-known, very specific version of ID discussed in this article.  --Sapphic 18:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes some sort of 'generic' intelligent design. Not-supernatural ID. It is such a mind opening concept. It's a shame it is so politicized. 68.109.234.155 18:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Who knows, there may already be an article on wikipedia documenting the concept that genetic material may be susceptible to engineering of some kind.   SheffieldSteel 22:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Off topic. This isn't the place for this. FeloniousMonk 17:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.  Gnixon 18:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encoding message into DNA 

message: The WP:LEAD length would do well with a third paragraph.  Can we summarize the rest of the article in a final paragraph?  This would fix it up for any 2a issues. Morphh  (talk) 15:36, 09 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third paragraph

message: Ok, this has become a morass of threading and irrelevant commentary. I have tried to restore the most supported version, if I have not, I apologise. I am beginning to think it would be best to restore the intro from the FA version until this is resolved. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I'm afraid the version that was good enough to pass FA will still not placate the pro- Id and DI POV pushers who created this mess. 151.151.21.105 22:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how you concluded there was consensus for #2 after that long and ongoing discussion.  Edit-warring is not the way to solve this problem.  151, it would be helpful if you logged in.  Gnixon 22:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: possibly because FM and i were both tepidly supporting #2.  anyay 151 (and others, including Gn), i am not, nor have i ever been, a pro-ID or pro-DI partisan or advocate.  don't think, for a second, that i want to let DI off the hook for promulgating some pretty bad "science" (as well as bad theology).  if anyone on any side thinks that i came here to "create this mess" (i prefer to think of it as throwing bombs) because i am somehow a pro-creationist or pro-ID supporter, that person is sorely mistaken. the so-called "good enuf to pass FA" version did not "pass" FA without ignoring some strident objection from critics.  any "judgement" that there was essential consensus was either completely deaf to the criticism or was biased sufficiently to ignore such criticism. r b-j 23:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Why's that? 151.151.21.105 22:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GNixon, please do not show IP bigotry. There should be no onus on non-registered contributors. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hostilities aside, it seems a shame that what looked like a consensus version (8e or a variant) got steamrollered in a mass revert. I'd just like to say that, as things stand, I have a problem with certain features of the lead sentence.  SheffieldSteel 03:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any objection to 8e's first paragraph? If there's consensus,  let's swap it in. (24 hour pause to assess objections) Adam Cuerden talk 07:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro, take 47

message: The earliest use of the term cited in the article is 1847, but there is an even earlier one here. I just happened to come across it, so it's very likely there is an even earlier use of the term. --JianLi 18:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that's interesting. It's possible that the term is an artefact of translation, worth exploring. The usage seems mainly to relate to Newton's ideas of intelligent falling which have been written about by the DI's Stephen C. Meyer. ... dave souza, talk 19:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Intelligent_design#Origins_of_the_term]] 

message: Okay - here's V1.1, which incorporates most of the above suggestions and restores the references (I've kept one paragraph break to separate the basic statement of ID from the rest of the commentary - Roland Deschain suggested fusing all 3)
 
Intelligent design is the proposition that certain features of the universe and of living things can be better explained by an intelligent cause than by natural processes such as selection.Discovery Institute, Center for Science and Culture. Questions about Intelligent Design: What is the theory 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."• Primer: Intelligent Design Theory in a Nutshell Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA)• Intelligent Design Intelligent Design network.  It is a modern form of the teleological argument (an argument for the existence of God), but does not specify the nature or identity of the designer."ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer.""this argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley" (the teleological argument) "The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID’s 'official position' does not acknowledge that the designer is God." Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, December, 2005<Br>"intelligent design does not address metaphysical and religious questions such as the nature or identity of the designer." "the nature, moral character and purposes of this intelligence lie beyond the competence of science and must be left to religion and philosophy.", Discovery Institute Truth Sheet # 09-05 Does intelligent design postulate a “supernatural creator?” (pdf)
Use of the term is almost exclusively linked with the Discovery Institute,"Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement? A. Yes, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes." Barbara Forrest, 2005, testifying in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. Kitzmiller Dove Testimony, Barbara Forrest• "The Discovery Institute is the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country." Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive Jodi Wilgoren. The New York Times, August 21 2005.• Who is behind the ID movement? Frequently Asked Questions About "Intelligent Design", American Civil Liberties Union.• "Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank established in 1991. The institute, which promotes a conservative public-policy agenda, has occupied a lead role in the ID movement recently, most notably through its Center for Science and Culture, which boasts a number of leading ID proponents among its fellows and advisers." The Evolution of George Gilder Joseph P. Kahn. The Boston Globe, July 27 2005.• "Who's Who of Intelligent Design Proponents," Science & Religion Guide Science and Theology News. November 2005. (PDF file)• "The engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute." Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134–1138 (2006). doi:10.1172/JCI28449. A publication of the American Society for Clinical Investigation.Intelligent Design and Peer Review American Association for the Advancement of Science. a U.S. organisation that promotes the claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.Stephen C. Meyer, 2005. Ignatius Press. The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories. See also Darwin's Black Box.  Despite the limits of the proposition, the Discovery Institute's primary members, as well as leaked internal documents, have shown a strong bias towards identifying the Abrahamic God as the designer."the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, December, 2005
The scientific community states unequivocally that intelligent design is not science;See: 1) List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design 2)  Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83. 3) The Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism petition begun in 2001 has been signed by "over 600 scientists" as of August 20, 2006. A four day A Scientific Support for Darwinism petition gained 7733 signatories from scientists opposing ID. The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects ID.  More than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators condemn teaching of intelligent design in school science classes. List of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism. many scientists and at least one major organization of science teachers have also termed it pseudoscience,"for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience." Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design David Mu. Harvard Science Review, Volume 19, Issue 1, Fall 2005.• National Science Teachers Association, a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators in a 2005 press release: "We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science.…It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom." National Science Teachers Association Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush National Science Teachers Association Press Release August 3 2005 • Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134–1138 American Society for Clinical Investigation, 2006. and some have termed it junk science."Biologists aren’t alarmed by intelligent design's arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they’re alarmed because intelligent design is junk science." H. Allen Orr. Annals of Science. New Yorker May 2005.Devolution—Why intelligent design isn't.  • Also, Robert T. Pennock Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism. • Junk science Mark Bergin. World Magazine, Vol. 21, No. 8 February 25 2006.
  The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. National Academy of Sciences, 1999 Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition 
 
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 intelligent design as 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.Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Case No. 04cv2688. December 20 2005 During the trial, intelligent design advocate Michael Behe testified under oath that no scientific evidence in support of the intelligent design hypothesis has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 4: whether ID is sciencePieret, John, The Quote Mine Project: Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines, TalkOrigins Archive. (A response to a criticism of Jones' decision)
Tomandlu 09:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (UPDATED)Hmm, the refs have turned into a right dog's dinner - it's just related to them being on the talk page, rather than the article... (they're fine if I preview this version on he article page)Tomandlu 11:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The scientific side comes in far too late. WP:LEAD says the first paragraph should work self-contained. By waiting two paragraphs to present the majority view, undue weight is being given. Adam Cuerden talk 12:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not correct.  WP:LEAD says that the lead in its entirety should stand alone, not just the first paragraph of it.  Devoting over half of the lead to objections to the article's subject is plenty of weight, no matter what the article is.  Again, this is an article about intelligent design, not about whether intelligent design is true.  Gnixon 13:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We could swap the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs if required - would that be better? (edit - IMHO the current proposed version makes more sense) Tomandlu 13:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it makes more sense to begin introducing scientific objections in the 3rd paragraph, after the relationship of the IDM's position and goals to science is fully explained.  Others may disagree.  Gnixon 15:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could also possibly take out the 2nd sentence in the 2nd paragraph and replace it with the third paragraph (to make paragraph 2).  Then take the old 2nd sentence and make it the first sentence in the new third paragraph.  This would start with the definition, go into the scientific aspects, then go into the religious aspects.  As oppose to definition, proponent aspects, opponent aspects.  Morphh  (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That could work well.  Gnixon 17:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm, I'm wondering if we really need the last sentence of the last paragraph ("During the trial, intelligent design advocate.."). It looks like a specific detail best covered in the main article, rather than the lead, but I'm not that bothered one way or the other. (UPDATED) Or, to put it more metaphorically, I've nothing against hammering nails into ID's coffin, I just don't want to split the wood... :) Tomandlu 14:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point (and love your analogy), but my first thought is that the sentence has a lot of value here since editors often insist on this page that ID has lots of peer-reviewed publications (there's that famous list).  An attributed statement from an ID supporter right in the lead clears up the misconception pretty definitively.  Gnixon 16:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Just the facts 1.1

message: Latest version (was on article page, but got reverted). Some changes are cosmetic, but more contentious is removing some of the body of the lead (but not the refs). I just wanted to remove what I felt was superfluous detail better left in the main article, rather than the lead. Tomandlu 10:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Just the facts 1.3

message: Hooray collaborative editing.
But just what happened to move from this to a totally different this (Yes I'm referring back to the last version by me, its obviously the last one I was happy with, thoughsome of the edits just after it make some sense).
Bullet points by me--ZayZayEM 01:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - the new version is terrible. I've reverted back to the old versoin. Raul654 02:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is: "We are now associating ID with DI in the first line.  Bad - this is what Di wants, complete control over the term" (my emph).  If you don't think that reveals strong bias, then I'm stunned.  And I don't mean bias as in ID<>science; it's not.  I mean it sounds like a bloody talking points memo from a government war room.  {WP:What_the_Di_wants} shouldn't blatantly shape an article or motivate its writing.  It's POV.  The article's not the battle.  If you're not interested in removing where the bias has crept in, then it's not a neutral article; it's a tool you're using to counter ID. Joevanisland 03:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. My point is that it is pushing a DI POV of ID.--ZayZayEM 09:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for rolling it back Raul. Much better. FeloniousMonk 15:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really wish you wouldn't roll back without at least saying why in an edit summary, or directing to the talk page. If you don't like the mention of the DI, fine, but there's a lot of other changes and wording improvements,  you reverted without comment just to remove a single clause. Adam Cuerden talk 16:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading both over, I can live with either version. FeloniousMonk 16:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened... 

message: *1986: To this date, no notable use of the words "intelligent design" such that it would even merit its own article in Wikipedia without being subject to deletion in an AfD
*1987: Edwards v. Aguilard, a US case which ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools whenever evolution was taught was unconstitutional, because the law was specifically intended to advance a religion. In the Edwards case, the Supreme Court also ruled that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."
*1988: Charles Thaxton of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics mentions the words "intelligent design" at a conference attended by Stephen Meyer
*1989: Over a hundred instances of the word "creationism" or variations thereof such as "creation science" have been changed to "intelligent design" in the book Of Pandas and People], specifically targeted for public school biology classes.  The book's publisher is the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, with which Mr. Thaxton is either directly involved or very closely affiliated.
*1990-1991: The Discovery Institute is formed by Bruce Chapman, Stephen Meyer and others. 
*1991: The book Darwin on Trial is published.
*1992: "The movement we now call the wedge made its public debut at a conference of scientists and philosophers held at Southern Methodist University in March 1992, following the publication of my book Darwin on Trial [1991]. The conference brought together as speakers some key wedge figures, particularly Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, and myself." (Quote of Phillip E. Johnson).
*1993-1995: Stephen C. Meyer and George Gilder formulate a plan for a think tank opposed to materialism. Bruce Chapman secured money in the form of a grant from Howard Ahmanson, Jr. and the MacLellan Foundation. Meyer had previously tutored Ahmanson's son in science and Meyer recalls being asked by Ahmanson "What could you do if you had some financial backing?" They initially received $750,000 over three years from the Ahmansons and a smaller grant from the conservative Christian MacLellan Foundation, which they used to further develop the Wedge Strategy and found the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture.  The Discovery Institute and its offshoots would subsequently receive tens of millions of dollars from the Ahmansons and others.
*1996: The Discovery Institute's Center_for_Science_and_Culture is formed, originally as Center_for_the_Renewal_of_Science_and_Culture. The Center for Science and Culture serves as the hub of the intelligent design movement. Nearly all of the luminaries of intelligent design are either CSC advisors, officers, or fellows. Charles Thaxton, "Academic Editor" of Of Pandas and People, is a fellow. Stephen C. Meyer, a founder of the Discovery Institute and CSC serves as Senior Fellow and Vice President. Phillip E. Johnson, the author of Darwin on Trial, is its Program Advisor. Johnson is considered the movement's "father" and architect of the center's Wedge strategy and "Teach the Controversy" campaign, as well as the Santorum Amendment.  Also in 1996, Darwin's Black Box, by Michael Behe is published.  Behe is considered a "senior fellow" of the CSC.  The CSC begins to offer fellowship grants to fund projects consistent with its objectives. 
*1997: Phillip E. Johnson's book, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds is published. 
*1998: William A. Dembski publishes The Design Inference: Eliminating chance through small probabilities ( (Dembski is a fellow of the Discovery Institute and also is an "Academic Editor" of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics.)
*1999: The Teach the Controversy campaign is set into motion, and the press begins to take note of the intelligent design movement in increasingly visible articles and commentary.  William A. Dembski and Michael J. Behe, coauthor Intelligent design: The bridge between science and theology,
*2001: The International Society for Complexity, Information and Design is co-founded by William Dembski.  Notable among its fellows are fellows of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, including Dembski, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, William Lane Craig, and Henry F. Schaefer.
:And so on and so forth. ... ...Kenosis 04:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Kenosis.  Gnixon 13:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very welcome. Thanks for saying that.  ... Kenosis 03:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Seemed pretty good at 4PM, too. •Jim62sch• 21:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Basic review of the timeline of the words "intelligent design"

message: It's a concern that the claim is stated in the lead without much indication of the reasoning behind the claim, so here's the first sentence expanded by the nine italicised words to show the argument:
In my opinion this is a worthwhile clarification. .... dave souza, talk 12:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That change would replace properly sourced content with an unsourced synthesis, which we cannot do according to policy. 151.151.73.169 15:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could do it if we hve a source. It's not a synthesis as long as we don't make new claims through the combination. If source A says it's X, and source B says it's Y, it's fine to say it's "X and Y" or "X or Y" (dependant), but not to draw new conclusion Z. As the old part is describing the overall definition, and the new text the arguements used, they are not incompatible, though we still need a source saying that that's an accurate summary of the type of arguements used in favour of ID. That said, the phrasing of the addition is a little awkward. Adam Cuerden talk 19:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The interesting thing about the proposed change (for me) is that it shifts the emphasis of the definition. It is no longer "certain features..." which are better explained by ID, but "complexity or improbability" instead. Perhaps this is a better definition of ID, but it may be original research (or arguably synthesis). In any case, it would need a good cite. SheffieldSteel 20:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Not just one, or any source mind you, but souces as notable as the three given, the Discovery Institute, IDEA, and IDNet. That's a tall order considering those sources are three of the four leading ID organizations (the fourth being ISCID) who all use the exact same definition of ID. Add to that that the judge in the Dover trial also relied on the very same def, and you can see that the definition given is simply representative of the most notable opinions on the topic, from both sides. There's no way a synthesis or a lesser opinion will do per policy. FeloniousMonk 05:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, those sources repeat the same formula, then get very opaque when giving further explanations, essentially saying "design" is "detectable". Something similar to my suggestion might summarise the main arguments put forward, but it's not the definition they use and so is inappropriate. .. dave souza, talk 22:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarify claim

message: I don't think so. That's a broad-brush statement that simply is not justified by the sources provided. Jinxmchue 15:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "These proponents" refers to "primary proponents" as stated in the previous sentence: the references show that all leading proponents are associated with the DI, as discussed previously – see Talk:Intelligent design/all leading proponents and Talk:Intelligent design/Archive32#conflation of ID Concept and ID Movement (& its arguments) on to the end. .. dave souza, talk 16:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: All of the leaders of the ID movement are associated with the Discovery Institute, yes. Read the souces in the article. 151.151.21.104 16:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  but the question is about all proponents of ID.  and the fact is that there are several proponents of something that ostensibly appears to be ID (as originally defined) that want nothing to do with the DI.  that might become the next issue (ID=DI) to clean up regarding the article. r b-j 17:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "...As originally defined..."  you mean people who advocate something other than what this article is about?  Why would we want to confuse our readers?  Is there a benefit to confusing readers that I am not aware of?  And just for fun can you name a few leading, noteworthy ID advocates (who advocate what this article is about) who are not associated with, or lapdogs of, the Discovery Institute?  Mr Christopher 20:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "as originally defined" i mean as the term was used before there ever was a Discovery Institute.  the term has a history that precedes the DI. r b-j 17:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which advocates of ID are associated with the DI and which ones are 'lapdogs' in your estimation? 68.109.234.155 22:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: And yet another idea might be to simply name the leading advocates, this could also help neutralize the ongoing debate of who is a leading advocate, or at least remove the ambiguity.  Something like, "The most prominant ID advocates include William Dembski, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, and Philip Johnson who have all written books and articles on intelligent design and are all fellows of the Discovery Instiutute". Did I leave any leading ID (as defined in this article) advocates out?  Mr Christopher 21:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: When one looks at the evidence thoroughly (something many of the editors of this WP article have done before, discussion of which is repeatedly visible in the talk page archives), only one reasonable conclusion emerges, which can be stated in a number of ways.  Examples are: "it's leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute..." ; "the principal proponents of intelligent design, all of whom are associated with each other and share common funding sources, most typically in the form of fellowship grants from the Discovery Institute and it's offshoots"; "primary proponents are all part-and-parcel of the Discovery Institute and it's Center for Science and Culture"; "all of the leaders of the intelligent design movement are closely involved with the Discovery Institute"; "all in the same boat as opposed to being comprised of independent researchers operating from independent funding sources"; or "the leading proponents are all part of the same kit-n-kaboodle, specifically the Discovery Institute and its direct offspring the Center for Science and Culture and the ISCID".  One of the cited sources already used in the WP article states this as "The Discovery Institute is the engine behind the intelligent design movement", and five or six others of the cited sources in the article say the same basic thing in different ways. The WP editors didn't invent this characterization of ID; rather, it's what the reliable sources say about the issue of where "intelligent design" came from.  And the current language of the article is about the most concise and accurate way the WP editors have found to date to express this issue to the readers of the article. ... Kenosis 17:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  What Kenosis said. If you can find a reliable source that disagrees with the assesment then fine, but until then there's no reason to change it. JoshuaZ 18:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've had issues with this wording myself as it uses what I consider broad use of terms.  If I were to try and find a source, how do you define "primary proponent"? Ann Coulter wrote a chapter on her last book discussing and supporting ID. Proponent - yes.. Primary - ? Also, how is "associated with the Discovery Institute" defined? Do they get a paycheck, just work with them, just hired by them, or part of the organization leadership? IMO, the sentence uses an exclusive statement with terms that could be considered vague.  The statement doesn't bother me too much but it reads to me as having bias tone and absoluteness that I think could be phrased better and less off-putting.  It certainly seems to be a continued issue for new readers.  I've read several versions on this talk that I think fix the issue without loosing the point. Morphh  (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has everything to do with who started this mess.  First off, there's nearly a ten year gap between when the leading proponents got together and when the secondary commentators and writers started weighing in on the topic after the unveiling of the teach the controversy campaign in 1999.  The secondary literature and other published use of the term also involves a major gap in the amount of influence and sales of books.  There are clearly identifiable leaders of this movement, some more up front as authors and others a bit more in the background, and all of the notable participants in this affair are verifiably affiiliated with the Discovery Institute in a clearly identifiable way. This we've all gone over before, and it's all in the archives.  I sure hope we do not need to go over the entire thing bit by bit. ... Kenosis 04:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand and don't disagree with the statement.  I was just saying that it might be something worth rewording, even if it is completely accurate and varifiable.  Readers should not have to go back into the archives of a talk to understand the points of why a statement is true.  The phrasing of the sentences seems to make new readers object.  I don't feel the information is incorrect but I think it is a failure on our part that such wording creates controversy and the perception of bias.  I think other examples of this sentence (presented in the talk) have addressed this without loosing the points you've made.  Like I said.. It doesn't bother me too much.  I just agree that it could be worded better. Morphh  (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ALL proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute? 

message: Re: The scientific community unequivocally states... wording: The scientific community is able to "state" nothing. There is no way for the community to state anything because the community is not monolithic nor is it hierarchical nor is it represented by spokespersons appointed or elected. The scientific community makes considerations through scientific consensus which can be judged and weighed in a variety of ways, but the community does not "state" as there is no mouthpiece through which this can be accomplished. --ScienceApologist 21:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right: how about "The overwhelming consensus in the  scientific community is that intelligent design is not science;" .... dave souza, talk 21:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dave, I think your suggestion is more accurate and addresses SceinceApologist's concern. Mr Christopher 01:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the edit, in spite of the nutty html/comments behind the article.  Again, this was a good suggestion.  Mr Christopher 01:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that ScienceApologist and Dave Souza's recommendation is better language for this part of the article lead.  It's more accurate, and equally succinct as would be appropriate for the article lead. ... Kenosis 03:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for improving my edit, Kenosis. Mr Christopher 03:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome, Mr. Christopher.... Kenosis 04:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, if anyone wants a cite for it, "overwhelming" was the term used by Judge Jones. :) ... dave souza, talk 13:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The cite already has a link to page 83 "we initially note that an overwhelming number of scientists, as reflected by every scientific association that has spoken on the matter, have rejected the ID proponents’ challenge to evolution", and in the conclusion he writes "Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator." .... dave souza, talk 15:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No mouthpiece of the scientific community