Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 38

message: What is all the html and comment garbage in the article?  It's making editing a nightmare.Mr Christopher 01:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a couple of comments about this issue not far above on this talk page.  Pursuant to the play-it-as-it-goes, consensus-based method of doing things-in-the-world, this looks like the new way of doing things on the wiki for now.  Text appears to  be separated from references and both are identified as such for the purpose of discerning what's article text and what's a reference.  Hope that helps to figure it out ... Kenosis 04:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still an editing nightmare in abundantly sourced articles. It should be easy to solve in the software though, by adding a type of named references that are not displayed in the rendered article so that they can be anywhere in the article source (preferably in the references section). Changes of this type have apparently been proposed here. AvB ÷ talk 11:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I use WikEd.  It has a great feature for semi-hiding refs.  Morphh  (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, trying it now. AvB ÷ talk 14:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  if it were me, i would just take that crap out. r b-j 17:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WTF?

message: Jan Michl: Without a godlike designer no designerlike God. "Design and Evolution" conference, Delft University of Technology and the Henri Baudet Institute, Delft, Holland, 31 August - 2 September 2006.  
I found this paper on David Miller's home page as his "This month's recommendation". The paper tries to bang creationists' and their opponents' heads together. Perhaps it can be considered as an unconventional position to be described in the article. --Rtc 21:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please point out where he states an "unconventional position."  His conclusion, though long and wordy, states, "Let me conclude. I submit that both Paley and ID proponents succeed in making their case for a designer-like G_d only to the extent they succeed in making the human designer look godlike. In other words, without the godlike designer, no designer-like G_d."  Banging heads together?  It reads like any other criticism of ID, it requires some godlike supernatural being, which is outside of the purview of science.  Orangemarlin 21:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have failed completely to understand what the paper is saying Michl argues that the ID argument is wrong, not that it is outside of the purview of science. --Rtc 21:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not in the mood to be treated in an uncivil manner.  I did read the article.  I made the point that ID requires a godlike supernatural being and IS outside the purview of science, not the article.  Orangemarlin 21:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, by definition, ID does not require a supernatural being. By defintion. Do you understand that concept? 68.109.234.155 22:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this is a bit misleading.  it is the fact (recognized by the three references i repeatedly quoted weeks ago) that the definition of ID does not include "supernatural" and such a word should not be include in the lead defining sentence.  but the definition of ID does not and cannot exclude the possibility that the designer is supernatural.  that the "intelligent agent" cannot be supernatural is not true by axiom and might even be an inescapable consequence of the premise of ID.  r b-j 03:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the assertion that ID does not require a supernatural being is misleadiing, and the article already deals with this in a way that's properly attributed.  The question "who designed the designers?", something even a ten-year-old child is familiar with, leads to an infinite regress. ... Kenosis 09:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  but Kenosis, both sides have this same problem with infinite regress.  the theists have always had this problem with the notion of God (and who or what created God) and the materialists have the same problem with simply the question of existance.  even if the material explanation is true (unguided natural processes developing everything that exists in the universe), there is still no explanation for why the universe (or multiverse, if you want to step back) should bother to exist.  for every explanation of a causal agent, you then ask what caused that?  the philosophical problem of infinite regress affects both sides and it seems to me to be a little unfair to portray it as a problem for only one side. r b-j 19:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any position at all from the justificationist metacontext has the problem of the Munchhausen-Trilemma. --Rtc 20:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's safe to assume the points RBJ raises do not reflect any notable views on the topic since no sources are being given. Again, nothing presented in this section is relevant or notable enough to be included in the article. 151.151.21.103 21:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The paper has been published at a conference; that already makes it notable. The amount of people that hold a viewpoint is irrelevant. --Rtc 21:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NPOV says "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all" meaning the number of people that hold the viewpoint is absolutely relevant.  151.151.21.103 21:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So Dembski and Behe are a tiny-minority lesser than Michl and Miller? --Rtc 21:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Then what does your point have to do with the paper? --Rtc 22:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Unless it's a viewpoint held by substantially more people than Michl and Miller, I can't see how it would be notable enough to warrant adding to the article. 151.151.73.164 21:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An unconventional position 

message: I'm willing to live with the tag for the section, to avoid an edit war until we reach a broad consensus.  Orangemarlin 23:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the tag, as it amounted to a personal statement that the WP user who placed it disagrees with the article.  I also have no complaints with Morphh's last edit.  In my opinion, the two most recent variations that are currently vying for the article lead, both of which are claimed by different participants to have achieved consensus, more-or-less equally tend to express a reasonable summary of the article's content, based as it is on WP:Reliable sources and the basic WP principles of WP:NPOV and proper attribution. ... Kenosis 02:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure that it is anyones favorite but of all the versions presented for compromise, I believe this one recieved the broadest support, with most agreeing it to be acceptable.  Versions of 2 and 8 tried to improve on prose and compromised language but have not yet recieved as much support.  There is certainly no current consensus for the past lead, which was argued by many to be in violation of NPOV policy.  At this time, this lead has the most support and complies with policy.  Ongoing process ... Morphh  (talk) 2:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hah! Sure, until the next go'round of disagreements, I suppose.  Well, hopefully you're right and it'll gradually become a more stable situation.  A lot of the verified facts about ID are, upon first encounter, quite counterintuitive and seem to me to have an inherent tendency to draw complaints no matter how they're stated. ... Kenosis 03:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:NPOV]]

message: This is getting ridiculous. Everybody's revert-happy and claiming consensus. I've protected the page. Adam Cuerden talk 02:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war 

message: The very recent implementing of complete edit protection unfortunately has caused the article to presently be suffering from a very basic error that would, I think, be difficult to justify in general.  A sentence in the lead currently reads: "The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science;[7] The National Science Teachers Association and others have termed it pseudoscience,[8] and some have termed it junk science.[9] "  Note that two sentences are separated by a colon.  Perhaps it could be unprotected for long enough to resolve this third-grade-level issue and then return to the natural (or is it supernatural?) business as usual. ... Kenosis 02:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: One minor thing 

message: After the discussions and arguments in early April of 2007, several weeks ago and easily viewable in the most recent archive, the article text reads like this: 
:Intelligent design is the proposition that certain features of the universe and of living things can be better explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural processes such as natural selection.[1] It is a modern form of the teleological argument (an argument for the existence of God), framed in such a way that it does not specify the nature or identity of the designer.[2] Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute,[3][4] believe the designer to be the Abrahamic God,[5] and 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.[6]
:The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science;[7] The National Science Teachers Association and others have termed it pseudoscience,[8] and some have termed it junk science.[9] 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.[10]
: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.[11] 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.[12]
Previously the article lead was as follows:
:Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God,[1] based on the premise 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."[2] Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[3][4][5] 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.[6]
:The scientific community states unequivocally that intelligent design is not science;[7] many scientists and at least one major organization of science teachers have also termed it pseudoscience,[8] and some have termed it junk science.[9] 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.[10]
: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.[11] 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.[12]
It may be appropriate at this point to review how it read before, presented here in chronological order at three month intervals, all "post-Kitzmiller".  The decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover was published in early December of 2005.  In late December of 2005, the article lead was as follows:
:Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection."[1] Proponents say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the origin of life.[2]
:An overwhelming majority[3] of the scientific community views intelligent design not as a valid scientific theory but as pseudoscience or junk science.[4] 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.[5]
:United States federal courts have ruled as unconstitutional a public school district requirement endorsing intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in science classes, on the grounds that its inclusion violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005) United States federal court judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.
In late March of 2006, the article lead was as follows:
:Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1] Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute[2] , say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the origin of life.[3]
:An overwhelming majority[4] of the scientific community views intelligent design not as a valid scientific theory but as pseudoscience[5] or junk science.[6] 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.[7]
:A United States federal court recently 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 United States Constitution. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), United States District Judge John E. Jones III also ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.
In late June of 2006, the article lead was as follows:
:Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1] Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[2] say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the origin of life.[3]
:An overwhelming majority[4] of the scientific community views intelligent design as pseudoscience[5] or junk science.[6] 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.[7]
:A United States federal court recently 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. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), United States District Judge John E. Jones III also ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.[8]
In late September of 2006, the article lead was as follows:
:Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1] Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[2] say 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.[3]
:An overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design as unscientific,[4] as pseudoscience[5][6] or as junk science.[7][8] 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.[9]
: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.[10]
In late December of 2006, the article lead was as follows:
:Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2][3] Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[4][5][6][7][8][9] assert 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.[10]
:The scientific community views intelligent design as unscientific,[11] as pseudoscience[12][13][14] or as junk science.[15][16] 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.[17]
: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.[18] 
And it has taken a lot of talk and arguing, some two megabytes in the past year-and-a-half or so, since long prior to my own participation in WP, to get from point A (immediately post-Kitzmiller) to point B (today).  Note that numerous options were just put forward in the period from about the beginning of April of this year, and especially about April 9 through April 14 or so in which neither myself nor most of the other earlier editors who are intimately familiar with this topic participated substantially if at all, and still the present version is remarkably similar to the one that emerged very soon after the Kitzmiller decision. Surely this should demonstrate some level of viability of the consensus process by which WP editors arrived at the current expression of WP:NPOV and WP:Attribution in this article... Kenosis 03:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish I had the time to do this kind of analysis.  Outstanding information.  It's funny that after reading this, the current lead sounds "not so bad", though I still prefer the lead previous to the current one.  I might be persuaded to go along with the current lead, even though it is a bit weasely (is that a word?).  Orangemarlin 18:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparisons of the article lead since the publication of the decision in [[Kitzmiller v. Dover]] 

message: As I see it, there's four options?
# Resume the discussion, starting with the three or four versions competing for the lead.
# WP:RfC
# Give up, let the edit wars recommence.
# Give up, let the article sit in uneditability forever  Adam Cuerden talk 15:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1 sounds reasonable - now let's start arguing about which 3 or 4 versions to put forward for consideration... :) Tomandlu 15:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We already did #2 (RFC) here but it could go higher in the dispute resolution process (Mediation or Arbitration).  I think #1 along with the next step of #2 is the way to go.  #3 may result in 1(e) FAR - combine that with challenges of 1(d), 2(a), and the FAC self nom - the article might lose FA status IMO.  Not sure #4 is an option and should go all the way up to Arbitration before such happens. Morphh  (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 3 & 4 are bad alternatives.  I say 2, since Consensus was, I contend, no change to the original lead.  Orangemarlin 18:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable. And, obviously, I'm being a bit facetious with 3 and 4. Right, let's dig out the versions, try 1, and if that fails, go with RfC or Mediation. (I'm pretty sure arbitration isn't really appropriate unless we end up with a complete breakdown of civility, which hasn't really happened: I think we all want to work together, with one or two exceptions, but have differing opinions.) Adam Cuerden talk 18:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds promising. SheffieldSteel 19:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, we were doing quite well before until the edit protection went off before consensus had emerged, and it turned into a bit of a free-for-all. As long as we get consensus first, we'll probably be alright. Adam Cuerden talk 21:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to end the edit war?