Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 24

message: I'm protecting the article for 15 minutes while I get the footnotes in the correct order from the recent reorg. Again, if your going to make substantial changes, editing the article's body is only half the job. You need to make sure your changes are reflected in the footnotes as well. FeloniousMonk 17:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn, I though I'd caught them all. -- Ec5618 17:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. No problem. FeloniousMonk 17:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locking the article for 15 minutes 

message: "In the recent trial, a lawyer grilled an intelligent design proponent on why a textbook the witness helped to write substituted "intelligent design" for "creationism" in a later edition and with "sudden emergence theory" in a draft of a future edition. "We won't be back in a couple of years for the sudden emergence trial, will we?" the lawyer asked. To which Judge Jones interjected, "Not on my docket.""  WAS 4.250 18:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thus proving that ____ by another name is still ____.  (It doesn't matter what you put in the blanks). Jim62sch 18:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I suppose they should start working on a name to replace "sudden emergence theory".  Jim62sch 21:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: sudden emergence theory

message: i´ll describe this junk with 1 sentence, and it is
hahahhahahahahahahahahahahahaha
honestly get a life, realise that we humans arent uniqie, when ure dead ure dead and wont exist again. its cruel but u cant change it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.208.244.194 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 19 December 2005   (UTC)
You're right Mr. IP adress. Let's add that to the article, or better yet, let's just delete the article. It's total BS. --chad 05:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Be sure to read the decision handed down today in federal court.  I'm sure you'll enjoy it.  Jim62sch 17:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ID? 

message: I've got to chime in and say that the current version of the article is a tremendous improvement over what I first saw weeks ago.  I want to complement everyone involved on the hard work of getting this reorganized for clarity.  Also, it seems now the material is organized so that detail can be added much more easily.  The issues and objections are so much easier to follow.  Kudos, folks.--Gandalf2000 21:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: wow... thanks, although I personally didn't do much, the credit goes to other editors - but thank you so much for taking the time to post something positive. It is much appreciated. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Great improvement, everyone

message: I've just been reverted. Out of interest, why are we detailing the ID debate before we explain the concepts behind ID? How can you understand a debate about a topic without first understanding what is actually being debated?! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, revert was reverted again :-) Ta bu shi da yu 02:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm coming in here late 

message: ::A proposal for how to handle the designer sections:
::*Start off by saying that ID intentionally leaves the designer's identity ambiguous.
::*Show examples where they accidentally said that they think the designer is God.
::*Briefly talk about why God is considered a more likely designer than alternatives like aliens.
::*Brief summary of the criticism from both sections, summarizing the block quotes rather than quoting them
::*A link to a longer daughter article (possibly called criticism of intelligent design or hypothesized intelligent designers or the intelligent designer or something) that looks roughly like what the current version of these sections, and possibly including other criticism, dependin on what we decide to do.
::Sound good to anybody? Dave (talk) 07:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this sounds like a good start. I do have a bit of a concern about having an article strictly about criticism of ID, however we've had other articles that seem to do OK so it might be worthwhile making one. I think, however, that the best solution is to make one daughter article called The intelligent designer (or should this be Intelligent designer?) and then work from there. If further daughter articles need to be created from this, then we should do that also. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, we already have an article Intelligent designer. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfect.  Let's do that then. Dave (talk) 07:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I've shortened it substantially and lost very little.  There was a lot of repetition.  Dave (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Designer 

message: I don't wish to cause offense, but wish to alert everyone to a problem of systemic bias in this article. ID has been gaining a foothold in Australia lately, and I think it probably needs to be documented. Currently I can only read things about America. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we do mention the recent 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers who issued a statement declaiming intelligent design as science. FeloniousMonk 05:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's mention of Oz in Creationism#The western world outside the United States and something similar might be appropriate in intelligent design movement. ...dave souza 06:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Since this article is primarily about the "science" of ID and the ID movement, any information about the movement should be included, whether detrimental to the movement or otherwise. To do otherwise would suggest that there is an attempt at hiding information. --Optimus 16:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I have an intermediate knowledge of French. If you can be more specific as to what needs translation, or point me to the archive, I can make the atempt. --Optimus 16:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad idea, just be careful -- translating the sense of what is being said is harder than just translating the words.  In addition, the French prefer the Cartesian method, which has certain "rules/guidelines" regarding content, phrasing, logic, etc.  Jim62sch 18:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Australia 

message: To all of you who worked on making very constructive and excellent changes to the article during the night (through which I had the nerve to sleep), I thank you for a job well-done.  Jim62sch 11:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Froglais in the headings? – steady on Jim! Moi, je parle seulement Écossais. Anyway, article's looking good, particular thanks to FM not least for refs sorting and an excellent elegant trimming of the third paragraph of the intro. It may miss nuances that there's more than one Fed court ruling, and that the Kitzmüller judge's conclusion reads as though teaching of ID in public school science is unconstitutional, not just district requirements for that, but these can properly be explored elsewhere. Jolly good show. ...dave souza 15:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I slept, I awoke and voilá! 

message: "[T]he writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." (page 26) "ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." (page 43) Judge's decision based on sworn expert testimony WAS 4.250 17:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Use best source in intro

message: At the end of "What (or who) designed the designer?" section, it reads:
:Thus these attempts to patch the intelligent design hypothesis appear to either result in logical contradiction or reduces it to a belief in religious creationism. Intelligent design then ceases to be a falsifiable theory and loses its ability to claim to be a scientific theory.
Can someone attribute this to a source? Otherwise it reads as a conclusion made by an editor. Thanks. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 17:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a very common of fisking of ID's logic. As a merely descriptive statement, it shouln't need an attribution. FeloniousMonk 18:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworded it. FeloniousMonk 19:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That works. Thanks. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 19:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone attribute this? 

message: This section includes recurring arguments and counter-arguments already made previously in the article. We have three options:
# moving all counter-arguments and counter-counter arguments in the previous section, to this section;
#merging the contents of this section onto the previous section(s); or
#keeping it as as, for a long and quite tedious repetitive reading of same arguments. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 19:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, FM, but I do not follow. This article is not about the theory of evolution. It is about intelligent design. In an artile about the theory of evolution,  undue weight cannot be given to ID. But this is not an article on the theory of evolution. You also fail to address the question on why do we need duplication of material. Thanks. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 21:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Also note that this section is not about the debate (maybe the first few sentences are). But about the critics viewpoint only. As such it needs to be properly labelled. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 22:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intelligent design debate 

message: ...are a bad idea, IMO.  The "Who (or what) designed the designer" is overly long as is.  Making it longer seems like a very bad idea to me.  Guettarda 19:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overly lengthy headers 

message: The links from TA don't seem very relevant: how about changing the footnote to this quote from the Dover trial conclusion p24:
: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.
:Looks more informative to me. ....dave souza 21:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Works por moi, I mean, for me.  :)  Jim62sch 22:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Thomas Aquinas

message: Here's my idea.  I think that both the "criticism" sections (is ID science, is intelligence observable, etc.) and the "concepts" section (specified complexity et al.) should be under the "debate" section.  The article would then look something like this:
*Intro
*Summary
:*origins sections
*movement
:*religion
*Debate (possibly renamed "evaluating ID")
:*Is ID science
:*stuff about complexity and observability of intelligence and the argument from ignorance
:*stuff about the designer
The various complexity arguments and the observability of intelligence and the argument from ignorance all address the same issue.
Let me know what you think before I mangle the article any more.  Dave (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Where are you putting the IC and SC sections?  Guettarda 05:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I included that as "stuff about complexity."  The idea would be that IDers could say what it is and why it matters, and then scientists could say why it doesn't matter or is misleading.  Dave (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the current layout. Let's give it a chance for a while. Two major reorgs in a week are enough. FeloniousMonk 07:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds very reasonable. I'll drop it. Dave (talk) 07:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A radical layout idea 

message: Sorry, Intelligent designer is linked in the first infobox, not the first sentence. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad edit summary

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design/EncephalonSeven
:Why the reversion? --JPotter 02:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived discussion 

message: This paper is a very interesting one about the constitutionality of including ID in the public school curriculum. In particular I found its argument that Behe's "irreducible complexity" is not falsifiable to be cogent. It makes many of the points that have been made here and claimed by the ID side to be original research. This paper removes the argument from the original research category and puts it firmly in the realm that can be used in the main article. Bill Jefferys 13:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent paper, thanks Bill -- I think it merits inclusion on the main page as a resource article.  Anyone else feel that way? Jim62sch 13:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think it deserves linking.  However, I'm not sure where it would best serve the article.  Is the Irreducible Complexity section weak?  We need to present this link as the work of an ID opponent, so as not to bias the reader.  Great find, Bill.--ghost 14:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Falsifiability of irreducible complexity

message: Several anon edits were made this morning without discussion.  They were reverted.  This is a controversial subject.  Any anonymous editors are more than welcome to join the discussions here.  If we understand the intent, we're more likely to embrace the edits rather than revert them.
BTW, guys.  An anon edit campain is usually a sign that we need to review the appearence of bais...--ghost 16:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't think that will be easy.  ID is like a laughingstock right now.Lovecoconuts 17:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think anon edit campains mean anything more than some fringe ID proponents will stoop to whatever means necessary to attempt to render this article one-sided. FeloniousMonk 17:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, I agree with FM.  Experience over the last month or so has shown that to be the case in an overwhelming majority of the cases. Jim62sch 17:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, the last anonymous edit by 65.209.120.238 was a perfect case-in-point.  Jim62sch 17:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anonymous edits