Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 43

message: The article quality seems in general to be okay...but I follwed up the quote 'Behe himself has since confessed to "sloppy prose", and that his "argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof."[70]'; he does say this, but he does qualify this statement by saying straight after that "No argument that rests on empirical observations can have such force. "  I think it might be better to remove that second quote because of that.  134.226.81.3 03:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably so. Ironically, creationists use the same kind of fallacy against evolution: "You can't prove it." --FOo 03:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The quote is accurate, not used out of context. Behe's caveat falls under unverifiable personal opinion, whereas the quote given does not. I don't see an issue with it. FeloniousMonk 04:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is that it's true of anything that one might say about the natural world.  I think that one might be able to 'confess to "sloppy prose"' in some meaningful way, but it's meaningless and misleading, I think, to say that he *confessed* to not giving a logical proof to an (at least partially) naturalistic hypothesis.  You're right that his talk of its force of effect can't be quoted  here as it would require some additional interpretation, but the sense of it is quite reasonable, and does, I think, make the quotation a little bit out-of-context. 134.226.81.3 14:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dodgy quote 

message: I propose to change the third sentence of the lead slightly such that it reads as follows:
Intelligent design is the claim 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] It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer.[4][5][6] Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute,[7][8][9][10][11][12][13] believe the designer to be God.[14] Intelligent design's advocates claim it is a scientific theory,[15] and also seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.[16][17][18][19][20]. [wikilinks not shown here other than the presently relevant one]
As of this posting, the sentence reads: Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute,[7][8][9][10][11][12][13] believe the designer to be the Abrahamic God.[14].
As can be seen, the word "God" in the body text links to Abrahamic God in this proposal.  I think this is more parsimonious than the last consensused version of this sentence, and says exactly the same thing.  Because the relevant clause here reads "...believe the designer to be . . .", it's completely obvious which "God" we're talking about, and for any readers with questions, there's the link to "Abrahamic God".  Hopefully this does not require a complete rehashing of the last round of debates about the article lead, which took over a month and might have raised the stock prices of manufacturers of headache remedies and alcohol distilleries a bit.  Reasonable? Yes? No? maybe? ... Kenosis 02:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL - It works for me. Morphh  (talk) 2:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Reads better to me. Pasado 04:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, after reading DGG's tirade on the FAR page, perhaps we should look at using reference lists.  The article would look better with no more than one reference tag per sentence. Pasado 06:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: My preference is still for "God of Christianity", as that's the phrase used in the source, but I can't see any objection to either "God" or "Abrahamic God".  Agree with the suggestion to combine the references, incidentally. Tevildo 06:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, saying "...believe the designer to be the God of Christianity." is better if that's what the cite uses. Pasado 06:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Since this is the lead, the more concise "God" works best for me. The detailed point about the source saying "the God of Christianity" belongs in the body of the article, together with the point that the DI claim to include a Jewish protagonist and have Islamic supporters. .. dave souza, talk 07:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tentatively, then, accepting (1) that Orangemarlin and Tevildo have expressed reservations about the form of the word "God", but (2) that everybody in the modern world knows what the heck we mean here despite occasional protests, and (3) that the phrase uses the words "believe the designer to be...", a belief verified by statements of proponents and the Kitzmiller decision, I'll go ahead and make the edit.  I leave aside, for now, the issue of "God of Christianity" because other sources have shown that the Discovery Institute and it's Center for Science and Culture has one or more fellows who are Islamic, hence "Abrahamic God", which is inclusive of "God of Christianity" [Pasado's last point also noted].  Here goes with the next cautious little step. ... Kenosis 15:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that it has the benefit of accuracy, I see no problems with the edit.  Why is this even a conversation?  The only difference between the "God of Christianity" and Yahweh/Allah, is that the "God of Christianity" actively compresses polytheism into a form of monotheism (e.g., the triune nature of God.)  And that, is utterly irrelevant to this article.  Let's move on. Jim62sch 16:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third sentence of the lead

message: In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, (2005) a US federal court ruled that requiring biology teachers to note availability of intelligent design materials as an alternative "explanation of the origin of life" violated the religion Establishment Clause of the US Constitution.
DLH 05:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See above. .. dave souza, talk 08:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Boy, talk slanted. I understand you're trying to put the best face on it, but can you at least attribute the Discover Institute's spin to the Discovery Institute please? Odd nature 16:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The excessive length of the intro was one the critiques raised in the review. There is a long discussion of the legal status in the lead with little in the main text. Thus the editorial effort to summarize the intro and put full detail in main text.DLH 02:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am agreeable to moving more of the legal stuff into the main article (Kitzmiller really ought to have its own section), but emphatically disagree with the proposed summary at the top of this section, as I feel that it does not provide an unbiased summary of the case. Hrafn42 03:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction legal summary:

message: '   For more details on this topic see: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District et al.
In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, (2005) a group of parents of high-school students challenged a public school district requirement for teachers to mention availability of intelligent design materials in biology classes as an alternative "explanation of the origin of life". U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and concluded that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the religion Establishment Clause] of the US Constitution. Legal reviews have critiqued that judgement.David K. DeWolf, John G. West & Casey Luskin, Intelligent Design will survive Kitzmiller v. Dover.DLH 05:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that all three of the authors of this article are DI members (and thus highly partisan), and two of them have no significant legal experience, I do not think that this article's opinions have any real credibility. Even its title indicates that its true purpose is rallying the disheartened troops, rather than any serious legal analysis. I do not therefore consider it to be an appropriate citation for a section on the "Legal Status" of ID. Hrafn42 06:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Montana Law Review gave a major focus on the Kitzmiller v Dover case with an editorial summary of the case history and providing legal reviews with Irons giving the prosecution's side and DeWolf the defense side. Citing these three articles give Showing all three These together give the balanced review. I'm happy to explicitly include these four references. Here are the original links to the Montana Law review:
* Editor, Editors' Note: Intelligent Design Articles Kitzmiller Chronology, 68 Montana Law Review pp 1-6, (2007)
* David K. DeWolf, John G. West, Casey Luskin Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover 68 Montana Law Review pp 7-57, (2007) 
* Peter Irons Disaster in Dover: The Trials (and Tribulations) of Intelligent Design 68 Montana Law Review pp 59-87 (2007)
* David K. DeWolf, John G. West & Casey Luskin, Rebuttal to Irons, 68 Montana Law Review 89 (2007).
DLH 02:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal Status

message: I don't see that the FAR needs to continue in general, but I notice that many of the refs aren't formatted, particularly toward the end. Could this be done and then we get rid of the headache? (I post this here rather than there, because of the acrimony.) I'll do the refs...but damn, there's a 185 of them. Marskell 10:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I noted on the FAR page, we have of course tried different formats. The reason we settled on that one is to endow each of our statements and claims with a sense of  overwhelming gravitas. Although this format might look unreadable and ugly, part of the goal is to hit the reader over the head with a hammer. It says, "hey buddy, you might not like this, but a LOT of people view it this way and it is well documented in a lot of reliable sources." If you can think of another format that has that kind of impact, but looks a bit prettier, then tell us what it might be.--Filll 10:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My thought is we apply as many of the refs to the citation templates as possible.  I don't care for the refs that just seem to discuss the view in more detail (seems like a self reference with no verifiability). It seems they should reference something external for the source of the information, even if we don't elaborate on the thought in the note itself - the reader can verify it.  I would think we could reduce footnotes for a statement if we attributed more statements to a particular person or group, even if multiple groups make the statement.  I certainly think we could reduce the footnotes in the lead.  The lead is only a summary of the article, so the data can be more heavily referenced in the body.  Troll objections can then be referred to the body content for in depth verifiability of the statements.  I understand some of the refs look like that for a reason and perhaps some need to stay as they are.  Though many don't have access dates, proper publisher information, etc..  I'm not bashing anyones hard work here.. just offering some constructive thoughts to help address some of the concerns raised.  Morphh  (talk) 13:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Morphh.  There is a small group of them in "Defining as science", for instance, that consists of extra little explanations which have the benefit of avoiding unnecessary clogging of the body text.  But we should ideally find external citations for these. The citations are out there, but fairly obscure, and just need to be found and placed into those notes. IMO, though, I wouldn't go so far as to say they need to be removed. Incidentally, I hate those citation templates with a passion; but if we're going to use them, by all means let's begin to standardize cite-web, cite-book, etc.  But please don't ditch the extra explanations unless there's something plainly wrong or superfluous about the explanations. And please, please don't give a "ref name" to citations that involve references to different locations within a document, particularly Kitzmiller, and particularly books, articles and websites that involve different pages for different citations. We ran into a problem with that before, when a number of them needed to be carefully re-separated so as to refer to the specific locations within the sources. ... Kenosis 14:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ref name tagging has improved in the past year.  It use to be that the main name tag had to be the first instance.  This is no longer a requirement, so you can move text around without fear of blanking out the ref in the notes section.  So long as one of the name refs has the content, it will display correctly.  Not sure if this was your concern or not from your statement.. but it was a new feature so I thought I would mention it.  Without using name tags, you run into having the same ref repeated muliple times in the notes section.  Seems to be the common thing to do and effective on articles with similar length.  Morphh  (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Offhand, seems like a bit of a step forward, so long as it allows separate page refs and avoids the trap of having one footnote # with different page references within, repeated with ^a, ^b, ^c, ^d, etc.  For my own part, I also still think it looks absurd to see footnote #1 following footnote #121 and such, though I recognize how this came to be. ... Kenosis 15:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Just so I'm not misunderstood, Filll, I did not mean the placement or volume of refs, but the lack of info provided. Some are simply weblinks with a title. Author, publisher, and date are also needed. The cite templates are one way to do that. You don't have to use them, but the way in which they break out info provides a useful template. (As I say, I'll help.) Marskell 13:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Just for information, there are two approaches given in Wikipedia:Citation templates: the "cite book", "cite web" etc. templates are tailored to each king of cite, but don't have the option of cite footnotes in a "Citations" section linking on to a main "References" section. The other approach uses a standard all-purpose Template:Citation which is simpler as a basic template, and gives the option of this extra functionality when used with inline Harvard templates. This would simplify multiple references to the same document with the "Citations", for example, being Jones 2005 p.34 and the "p 34" giving a link to the exact page. More info on request, but it's a choice to make before starting to redo all the citations. This article was at the forefront of citations in linked footnotes, and it's already been through a few versions of that feature. .. dave souza, talk 17:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hah! ;-) So, less than two years ago the article was at the forefront of the WP citation movement, and now it's possibly becoming a dinosaur.  Ah'swear, sometimes I want to be a Slowsky, and live like here ... Kenosis 18:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref formatting 

message: I have started formatting the refs. As I have not yet received my citation implant, this takes a bloody long time. I am using :Template:Cite web. I know some people don't like the templates, but on a page with dozens of editors they are the best means of ensuring consistency. I have started from the bottom; someone else might go from the top. Marskell 17:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: It begins

message: I tried to edit this article and I couldn't. What happened to the 'edit this page' tab?
}
'of God' in the lead to 'of a god'. 86.137.57.73 17:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover and other reliable sources including quoted statements made by the notable ID proponents, all of them do not believe the designer is "a god", but that the designer is "God" in the sense in which virtually everbody immediately understands it, even children.  The link to Abrahamic God clarifies this further.  The Kitzmiller decision stated that on the evidence, a reasonable person would conclude that the "designer" in ID is the "God of Christianity". In light of this, it would appear there's no overriding reason to mince words in the article. If there is one, kindly call it to the participants' attention.  Thanks. ... Kenosis 18:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ID limits statements to what can be inferred from observable evidence, not to personal beliefs of its proponents. ID's methodology can be applied to indentifying intelligent causation whether by SETI, in historic, or for origin theories. DLH 04:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Editprotected

message: "...other religious beliefs within the scientific framework of scientific theories as established bodies of scientific knowledge...".  Can we lose at least one of those 'scientific's?  I would suggest "within the framework of scientific theories as established bodies of knowledge". Tevildo 12:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced it with "standard framework of scientific theories"...I too hate redundancy. •Jim62sch• 15:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  International status 

message: Minor edit just made to the last sentence of the first paragraph, so it now reads:
*Intelligent design's advocates claim it is a scientific theory,[15] and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.[16][17][18][19][20]
Previously it read:
* Intelligent design's advocates claim it is a scientific theory,[15] and also seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.[16][17][18][19][20]
The original reason for the insertion of the "also" was in response to those arguing on the talk page that either advocates claim it's a scientific theory under existing criteria, or are trying to change the definitiion of science to accommodate it, but that advocates can't logically have it both ways.  In fact, according to the reliable sources, advocates assert it's a scientific theory in order to meet the criteria set in Edwards v. Aguilard quoted in the first paragraph of the "Overview" section in the article, which is 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".  The claim that ID is a scientific theory seeks to meet the standard set by the Supreme Court's language, and has been said by various proponents to be justified on multiple grounds, that it's a scientific theory under existing criteria, and the assertion has been made that science must be redefined to allow theistic and/or supernatural aspects.  Claims have also made that ID's a scientific theory but that the scientific community has unfairly excluded it, that its main competitor biology is not science but speculation, and that the court's interpretation that ID is not science in Kitzmiller v. Dover is the biased product of an activist judge, as well as on other grounds. All told, though, the words "and also" in the first lead paragaph does nothing more to explain the details of this to the reader than does the word "and", so I removed the "also". ... Kenosis 15:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last sentence of first paragraph 

message: Minor edit just made to the first sentence of the third paragraph, so it now reads:
*"Intelligent design" originated in response to a 1987 United States Supreme Court ruling involving constitutional separation of church and state[30]
The qualification The term", previously at the beginning of the third lead paragraph, was redundant with the first paragraph of the "Overview" that summarizes the issue a bit more explicitly, which begins with "The term "intelligent design"...". Thus the words were unnecessary and superfluous in the third lead paragraph, since the whole affair began after Edwards v. Aguilard.  If there are any remaining doubts among readers whether this refers specifically to the term or to the set of concepts, or both, they may proceed to read the article to learn the specifics of how the term came to be utilized by intelligent design advocates. 
Hopefully this addresses part of the "redundancies" referred to by one of the commentators at the FA review. ... Kenosis 17:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks to me like an improvement. Both the term and the "concepts" of "intelligent design" originated post Edwards, though of course the concepts are essentially the same as certain versions of creation science. The sentence isn't very informative in the use of "involving", and by replacing that word with "that teaching "creation science" in public schools violated" the context is made a lot clearer. It also allows the sentences after it to be tightened up, shortening the paragraph overall. More on that later. .. dave souza, talk 22:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please look at over the article in making these assessments.  That is almost verbatim what the first sentence of the fourth paragraph (first paragraph of the Overview) says. ... Kenosis 02:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But much condensed, as befits the lead. That paragraph was introduced into the overview, introducing a brief and incomplete mention of origins before going onto the "overview" which mixes fragments of history with current concepts and claims. In my opinion Edwards is important enough to justify that position, but the whole "overview" section would benefit from splitting with, firstly, a history/origins of the intelligent design concept section which would include the present "origins of the concept" subsection redefined as "previous teleological arguments" or predecessors, and "previous use of the phrase" rather than "origins of the term. The second section on "Concepts" would include all but the first paragraph of the present "overview" bit, and the "Irreducible complexity" subsection onwards. Judging by this, the overall meaning of theistic realism also merits prime mention. The history of the concept(s) from the 1960s to the present needs clarified, while the history of the movement in the ID movement article also needs straightened out, and the timeline is still only a start. So much to do.. ..dave souza, talk 11:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the comments in the FA review described it as a "forest through the trees" issue. Before taking serious aim at a reformatting of the whole article, the participants will need to look at the whole article carefully and be familiar with where every bit of content is presently placed.  Though I don't necessarily object, it would require a lot of work.  Another thing to keep a heads-up for here, IMO, is that history and substantive concepts are deeply intertwined on this topic. ... Kenosis 12:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fully agree, which is why it's easier to tweak the lead. For very valid reasons a lot of the closely argued content predates Kitzmiller, and could benefit from reviewing and simplifying in the light of recent knowledge. For example, in the Defining as science section, footnotes 144 – 148 provide essays rather than citations, and it should be possible to cite these points. In the meantime I'll try to pull together the timeline to get to grips with the history. .. dave souza, talk 14:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First sentence of third paragraph

message: The following introduction statement only states the criticism, not the ID position: 
* It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer.[4][5][6] 
As an article on ID, this should instead summarize the ID position:
Intelligent design tests for evidence of intelligent causation.  It is an empirical form the teleological argument for the existence of God.[4][5][6] DLH 05:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See NPOV: Undue weight. You cite a pro-ID wiki - not a RS. ID has no tests for evidence of intelligent causation, and is no more empirical than any other teleological argument: see Kitzmiller.  ... dave souza, talk 08:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are just making an assertion. See Dembski's filter etc.DLH 04:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: See, for example, Astrology, where the subject of the article is primarily being described instead of criticized, even though all the "not science" objections raised against ID could be applied equally there.  Gnixon 14:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apples and rocks.  •Jim62sch• 21:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Astrology is not being used by the Christian right in their efforts to overthrow science and the First Amendment to the US Constitution in an attempt to establish theocracy.  ID is.  Tevildo 00:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That may motivate some of us to rail against ID in our personal (or professional) lives, while dismissing Astrology as harmless, but those emotions shouldn't affect the tone of Wikipedia's coverage.    Gnixon 01:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything, be it ID or astrology, that poisons the intellect and stunts the growth of "the little grey cells" is dangerous.  But that's hardly why this article is concerned with undue weight.  ID is pseudoscience and as such, falls under WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience.  •Jim62sch• 22:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: And Marxists put all who disagreed with them in "reeducation camps." Please avoid the red herrings.
* The proposed sentence states the ID case. If you want to add the critics, then add:
"Critics claim ID avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer." DLH 04:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Red herrings and Marxists...ROFL. •Jim62sch• 20:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence for intelligent causation

message: Similarly this section begins by stating the critics position, not the ID position:
*"Intelligent design arguments are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid identifying the intelligent agent they posit."
ID and critics' positions should be balanced. e.g. by stating:
*Intelligent design limits its statements on the nature or identity of the designer to what can be inferred from evaluating empirical evidence. Critics claim it intentionally avoids identifying the posited intelligent agent. DLH 05:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Proponents also state this – for example, see numerous statements by Johnson such as "the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion. ...This is not to say that the biblical issues are unimportant; the point is rather that the time to address them will be after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact."  .. .. dave souza, talk 08:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DLH's point here is also correct, and follows from a simple reading of WP:NPOV.  I find it incredibly revealing that an editor of this article would disqualify a statement because an ID proponent might say it.  Gnixon 15:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it incredibly revealing that an editor would deliberately misunderstand another editor's statement as "disqualifying...because an ID proponent might say it." The simple fact is, ID proponents state what the article already says: that ID arguments intentionally avoid identifying the intelligent agent. DLH's point is incorrect by proposing to add a claim that only critics say this. That's not NPOV. -Amatulic 21:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies to DS for misreading his comment.  Gnixon 01:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intelligent Designer

message: I find this article missleading with numerous false or contradictory statements regarding the origins of Intelligent Design, the first ID publication and the ID movement. The statements relating to origins, first use, first publication etc. need to be harmonized with facts to justify FA. 
e.g. at least with those listed in the following articles and compilations:
* Timeline of intelligent design
The Origin of Intelligent Design: A brief history of the scientific theory of intelligent design, Jonathan Witt, Design Institute,
Reference should be given to much more detailed comprehensive compilations of references to "intelligent design". e.g. to: 
*Intelligent design timeline Intelligent Design Timeline ResearchID
e.g. the following statement in the introduction is false and missleading:
* "Intelligent design" originated in response to a 1987 United States Supreme Court ruling involving constitutional separation of church and state.[30]"
"Intelligent design" was used by advocates and critics from the 19th through the 20th century before 1987. 
"Separation of church and state" is not in the constitution and Chief Justice Rhenquist recommended against using this phrase.
The following introduction statement is similarly missleading:
* "Its first significant published use was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes.[31]"
The Overview similarly incorrectly states:
*"The term "intelligent design" came into published use after the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard that to require the teaching of "creation science" alongside evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause, which prohibits state aid to religion."
e.g., Following are some of the significant books and articles prior to 1989:
1986 John Barrow & Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Oxford University Press.
1985 July 26-29: Walter R. Thorson presents "intelligent design" at an Oxford conference,  PSCF 39 (June 1987): 75-87
1984 Charles B. Thaxton et al. The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories ()
1983 Raymond G. Boblin and Kerby Anderson, The Straw God of Stephen Gould (JASA 35 (March 1983): 42-44)
1982 Hoyle, Fred, Evolution from Space, Omni Lecture, Royal Institution, London, January 12, 1982; Evolution from Space (1982) pp 27-28 ISBN: 0894900838;
1979 James Horigan's book Chance or Design refers to "intelligent design".
* Recommend the following statement in the introduction:
Intelligent design principles were presented in early publications by Horigan (1979), Thaxton et al. (1984, 1989), Barrow & Tipler (1985), Thorson (1985), Johnson (1991) and Behe (1996).
with respective references to:
Thaxton, Bradley & Olsen The Mystery of Life's Origin(1984), Barrow & Tipler The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1986), Pandas and People (1989), Johnson Darwin on Trial and Michael Behe Darwin's Black Box (1996).DLH 05:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This topic of earlier teleological arguments and previous uses of the phrase is fully covered in the article. Use of the phrase as a term began with Pandas, and as its publisher Jon Buell has more recently stated this was "the first place where the phrase 'intelligent design' appeared in its present use." . .  dave souza, talk 08:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Intelligent design" as a descriptive phrase does have the long history claimed. What was different with its deployment in 1987 in drafts of "Of Pandas and People" was that "intelligent design" was there said to be, itself, a scientific field of endeavor and human inquiry, and not merely a descriptive phrase of no particular significance. The weak and flabby "intelligent design principles" stuff is obfuscation; the real issue concerns when "intelligent design" was touted to be a thing unto itself, and not just a means of describing some other concept. We have the date for that, established and verifiable in the trial record of Kitzmiller v. DASD as 1987, and its locus as drafts of "Of Pandas and People". The article should clearly reflect this. --Wesley R. Elsberry 12:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ID Origins, First use, First ID Publication vs ID movement

message: This section is one sided against ID. e.g.:
*"Intelligent design has received little support outside of the U.S."
Some editors refuse to allow counter evidence. Recommend adding:
*"Yet, by 2007 ID events had been held in Canada, Czech Republic, Norway, and the UK, with growing international interest. ID conferences, debates and other events DLH 05:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment DLH's many objections here are a textbook example of the sort of the policy- and guideline-devoid disengenous objections from ID promotors long term contributors to this article have had to contend with. Before anyone cries foul I'll point out that User:DLH has in his 1.5 year at Wikipedia yet to make any meaningful contribution to an ID related article but has an established history of using Wikipedia articles to promote ID views and rhetoric while discounting the mainstream view and ignoring WP:NPOV, as well as link spamming ID-related articles to his pet project, an ID wiki researchintelligentdesign.org: . FeloniousMonk 05:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very curious. I seem to recall having tried to make numerous editorial improvements, particularly to balance the discussion, many of which were systematically reverted by one FeloniousMonk. How is it that critics are free to criticize, but efforts to actually state ID positions or balanced statements are reverted? DLH 06:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your "improvements" of late have consisted of original research on flimsy evidence: above, you seem to be citing your pro-ID wiki. A few "events" and "origin courses including intelligent design" hardly constitute much support, but evidence from reliable sources can be considered in context. .. dave souza, talk 08:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ad hominems from FM and DS, directed at DLH, are entirely inappropriate, especially considering that he has raised several legitimate issues in good faith and a civil manner.  Gnixon 15:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid that you might have a very bizarre concept of ad homs.  Ad homs criticise the person only, not their actions.  If you'll not, both FM and Dave were criticising the user's actions and contributions.  I assume that we understand each other. •Jim62sch• 21:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FM calling DLH's objections "disingenuous" is equivalent to the ad hominem of calling DLH "disingenuous."  "DLH has yet in 1.5 years to make any meaningful contribution" is, likewise, essentially an ad hominem.  I apologize to DS if I misunderstood his tone, which came off as a personal attack when I read it after FM's comments.  Gnixon 01:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:SPADE.  And get off the ad hom kick, will you, you see attacks where none exist.  In other words, when the sky really does fall, no one is going to believe you. •Jim62sch• 22:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Look at the bottom of page 24 and top of page 25. . Pasado 05:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DLH, a little advice: thoroughly read the refs before making meritless accusations.  •Jim62sch• 21:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: International status

message: *Harmonize outline structure. It makes no sense to have this a lonely subsection. It should be moved up to the same outline structure as surrounding sections.DLH 06:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There being no response, I moved orphan "Peer Review" up on level in outline to match others.DLH 05:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lonely? Orphan? This rightly belongs with its siblings, under mummy question of whether ID is science. .. dave souza, talk 09:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: This section appears biased, pushing Foresters argument on creationism. This should be deleted. If it is kept, it needs to be condensed and balanced with corresponding evidence for agnostics and moslems advocating ID. 
For it to be kept, a corresponding section should be placed under Evolution emphasizing the number of atheists including Dawkins who advocate evolution. Recommend adding the following:
*ID proponents include Moslems, agnostics, and former atheists (e.g.,  Mustafa Akyol Mustafa Akyol Why Moslems Should Support Intelligent Design, David Berlinski Interview with David Berlinski, Andrew Flew Flew wins Johnson award) 
DLH 07:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Kitzmiller. Also note "leading" proponents: Akyol appears to be a creationist making some references to ID, and Flew may be a proponent but has hardly "led". ,,, dave souza, talk 09:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DLH, that is a great vomitous spew you have favored us with, but the more you write, the more obvious it is to me that you will only be happy if this article is written in the same style as the articles on that other wiki, and is essentially an advertisement for the Intelligent Design position. Now ask yourself, seriously, how likely is this to happen? --Filll 12:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Filll, characterizing DLH's comments as "a great vomitous spew" is extremely uncivil and an extremely inappropriate response to his/her polite comments.  It seems to me that DLH favors ID, but that in no way disqualifies him/her from helping to improve this article---in fact, his/her knowledge of the subject and interest in it is a strong qualifier.  DLH's comments, in my opinion, are far from suggesting that s/he wants to turn this article into an advertisement for ID.  For the most part, his/her comments amount to simply suggesting that Intelligent Design is presented in the same style as, say, Astrology.  The latter is hardly an advertisement, in my opinion.  Gnixon 15:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gnixon, once you and DLH have basically discredited yourselves, you create a certain image of yourselves and your suggestions. And frankly, I think "intelligent design" is presented the way I would like to see "astrology" presented, especially if there was a dishonest, lying and cheating bunch of intolerant jerks pushing for it to be introduced as science in the classroom. In that case, sure, present them the same way. Why not? But to do that, lets not lighten up on intelligent design, but instead crack down on pseudoscience and assorted horse puckey like astrology even harder.--Filll 18:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's important to remember that it's not the mission of Wikipedia to shoot down Intelligent Design and Astrology.  Gnixon 20:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth. .. dave souza, talk 21:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody is saying "give equal validity to minority views."  I just don't understand why most so much of the article should be about debunking ID instead of describing it.  WP:UNDUE isn't about making all of Wikipedia's articles about pseudoscience topics turn into debunkings.  It's okay to indicate the strength of moral repugnance many scientists may feel toward ID, but it's not okay for the article to adopt that POV.  Our readers are intelligent enough to decide whose perspective to accept.  Gnixon 01:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately many proponents of ID, while doubtless very intelligent, seem to spread misunderstandings about science which this article has to try to clarify for those looking for information. It's understandable that those who want science to comply with their faith might find that a debunking, but this article has to inform readers rather than support faith. .. dave souza, talk 21:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't appreciate your insinuation that my statement has something to do with some religion I might follow----I've never offered any information about my personal beliefs, and I haven't tried to guess yours when evaluating your comments.  My point about "debunking" was simply that every statement or paragraph about ID is followed by a statement or paragraph about the position of its critics.  That's a straightforward observation, from which follows my opinion that it ruins the flow of the article and makes it read like it's going out of its way to emphasize the position of ID's critics.  Regarding your comment, I don't agree that this article is compelled to correct the supposed ignorance or gullibility of its readers on the basics of science, which are not the subject of the article.  More generally, it's obvious that the positions of scientists, federal courts, etc., must be presented at some point, but why turn the entire article into a long list of point-counterpoint?  Gnixon 06:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've not commented on your religion, or indeed my religion. Your concern about the flow of the article suggests you'd like the views of non-proponents to be separated away from the points they're discussing – that's actually a lot harder to follow than fully discussing each point as it arises. .. dave souza, talk 12:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand it would be awkward to try and address each point in some separate section, but why is it important that this article addresses each point?  ID is generally the argument that nature shows signs of a designer.  I think a section on the scientific/social reception could generally indicate that scientists disagree.  Another issue is that much of ID is about attacking the basis of evolution.  I think a section on scientific reception could simply give a couple examples of why scientists think the objections are baseless, then link to Objections to Evolution, where they are appropriately addressed point-by-point.  I really think a couple examples would serve to get across the positions of scientists, then readers could link to Objections for more detail if they wanted it.  I think that layout would drastically improve the readability of the article.  Gnixon 16:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: These objections and proposals appear to turn WP:NPOV on it's head, giving the minority viewpoint precendence over the majority view and treating the ID movement's spin of the facts as fact. DLH, have you even read WP:NPOV? Because until you acknowledge that the scientific community (which has dismissed ID as not science alonside the courts) is the majority view there's nothing here to dicuss. This huge list of complaints about the article reads just like a Discovery Institute press release. Literally. Odd nature 22:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, OddNature, GNixon is reknowned throughout the land for misunderstanding NPOV, then yelling long and hard (of course, throw in the filing of ANI's against anyone who might stand up to his POV warrior attitude) when he doesn't get his way.  He ignores the undue weight clause, because, well I wish I knew why???  Orangemarlin 04:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I could swear we went through all this before.  I could swear we went through all this before. •Jim62sch• 22:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Which is a more reliable source on the beliefs of ID advocates: statements made by those advocates, or interpretations of those statements made by opponents? It seems to me that the best possible source for a claim such as "Joe Foo believes proposition X" is a reliably-sourced assertion by Joe Foo that asserts proposition X ... not an assertion by some third party that "the wicked and treacherous Joe Foo claims to believe proposition X". --FOo 22:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a proper categorization of what an opponent is.  When objective reliable sources such as numerous scientific organizations overwhelmingly agree "that's a bunch of bunk; it's not science" and other objective, reliable sources say "it's philosophy or theology or religion", and a federal court admonishes the advocates for their dishonesty, etc., etc., that doesn't mean WP editors must assume all these  are "opponents" and that we're thus obliged to strike some kind of balance between the proponents' preferred version of events and that of the many published commentators and analysts of the situation. But, I had been wondering if this sort of opinion might be FOo's position with respect to this article.  Thanks for helping to clarify. ... Kenosis 23:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking exactly the same thing. Foo, I have your number now. It ALL starts to become VERY CLEAR. Thanks so much for your honesty and forthrightness. --Filll 23:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Argument from Fascism: FeloniousMonk apparently wishes everyone to accept his POV or his interpretation of the majority position without question and thus establish fascism (contrary to the First Amendment.) Are the courts so infallible that he would have us bow to the Dred Scott decision? I am afraid that the skepticism essential to science,  engineering, and democracy prevents me from so "bowing the knee". Perhaps FM would care to ponder on the ancient proverbs: "The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him." Proverbs 18:17; "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." Proverbs 27:17. DLH 04:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Godwin's Law and WP:V. ... dave souza, talk 07:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Here we go again. Evolution is part of science. It is a scientific theory supported by scientific evidence gathered, rather surprisingly, by scientists. It has nothing to do with religion or philosophy. One can be of any belief system yet understand evolution. That it negates some aspects of some belief systems may be unfortunate, but neither here or there as far as those studying evolution are concerned. ID claims to be science. This claim is not supported by the scientific community and ID was ruled in a US court not to be science but rather an attempt to import religion into the teaching of science. One of the most notable things about ID is that it is not what it claims to be. Therefore the motives of those who make the claim are of interest. To better understand those motives, their religious backgrounds are important. The religious backgrounds of those who work on evolution are not important because their work has nothing to do with religion. --Michael Johnson 04:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Johnson, You are avoiding the logical fallacy and revealing how little you have read on the issue. If you address motives of ID proponents, then you equally need to address presuppositions and motives of evolutionists. THose are the two opposing origin theories based on opposing metaphysical presupupositions. Since science cannot prove that intelligent causation does not exist, it is logical to allow that it might and test for it. Again evaluating presuppositions and motives of both should go on a separate page addressing those issues.DLH 05:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm well that post really shows your POV, and clearly indicates you have very little understanding of either evolution or how science works. Science cannot prove that little green jellybabies are not running the universe, but the complete lack of any evidence would indicate that further investigation is unlikely be productive. OTOH substantial evidence supports evolution. But what, pray tell, are the motives of scientists, other than to better understand the natural world? But hey, given what you have written, there really does not seem to be much point in furthering the discussion. --Michael Johnson 05:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And here I thought it was little blue jellybabies, oh well.  Bottom line that DLH and other POV-warriors fail to comprehend is that evolution is mute on the existennce or non-existence of a deity or deities; it's simply irrelevant to the theory and thus to the discussion. •Jim62sch• 10:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: DLH: The problem is that there's a wide variety of presuppositions that might lead one to accept Methodological Naturalism, Science and Evolutionary Biology, including a disbelief in God and a belief in a God that generally allows the universe to proceed via consistent and determinable natural laws (as well as a wide variety of other equivalent presuppositional positions based on agnosticism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc). On the other hand the presuppositions that lead to promoting ID (and rejecting Methodological Naturalism) are much narrower, more onerous, and thus more directly topical. Science is under no obligation to test for every wild speculation. If ID-ers want their speculations to be tested (and eventually accepted), then it is up to them to formulate, perform and publish these tests for themselves. Hrafn42 11:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd add that since this is an article about ID, the motivations of its proponents are much more relevant than the motivations of those who accept evolution.  Gnixon 19:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I might note that in every case where tests have been proposed, such as those by Dembski and Behe, the tests have been attempted and ID has failed the tests so far. So even if it is claimed that this possibility must be accepted and tested for, the result has been negative. So...do you have any tests for green jelly babies?--Filll 12:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion and leading proponents

message: Sheesh, this page is (was) 439 KiB long! Archiving, anyone? Reinistalk 12:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At first glance, everything before #Cardinal Schoenborg does not support ID could be archived without losing anything currently under discussion. Think that's a good cut off point? .. dave souza, talk 12:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may wish to consider something like miszabot for archival.  It's very easy to set up and it's pretty flexible.  Gnixon 15:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed, archive away! Maury 18:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -Amatulic 21:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive size 

message: :: Moved to Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review#FAR_closure.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FAR closure

message: Some say it is still open. Some say it is closed. Some say it has to stay open for another couple of weeks at least or else people will complain. Someone offered to keep it open for a year. I am confused. Is it closed now, officially? Should the material from the FAR talk page be moved here to discuss different versions of the lead and a possible introductory "fork" of this article? Or should we just drop it?--Filll 18:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A little more investigation just revealed to me that this FAR was indeed closed on July 20 by User:BozMo: . Unfortunately, the notice at the top of this page has not been updated accordingly.--Filll 18:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That closure appears to be disputed, unfortunately.  I suggest that we keep all discussion here (on the talk page, in case this gets moved) until the FAR process owners make their decision. Tevildo 20:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also found out that even though it was closed, they have decided to keep it open, but at its FAR archive page, which is not really an archive page, found here.--Filll 20:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently it was just closed again. Who knows if they will reopen it?--Filll 04:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/Intelligent design/archive2|FAR]] 

message: A rough translation of the vaunted German article LEAD, as stated above, is:
I would ask the critics to demonstrate how this LEAD is superior to our current article LEAD? Instead of vague complaints, I want to know exactly why our present LEAD is so terrible, compared to these purportedly "better" LEADs? Could these hold up to criticism by POV critics? Are they as complete? As accurate? As detailed? --Filll 16:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would certainly be in favour of adopting the German lead.  Most importantly, it says up-front that ID is creationism, without the digression we currently have regarding the teleological argument; one major point of contention we have is the word "teleological" itself, and the German approach eliminates this problem.  (I appreciate that we might have a similar controversy over "neocreationist" as opposed to, say, "progressive creationist", but the basic message of the statement wouldn't change).  The US-centric nature of ID is emphasised by the frequent use of "American" - indeed, if all the leading proponents are American as well as affiliated with the DI, we should include that in our article, even if we don't make any more fundamental changes.  The rest of the lead is essentially the same as ours, but simplified and cut down considerably, which I think is a positive feature.  The German lead _isn't_ as complete and detailed as ours (I won't comment on "accurate", but I can't see anything wrong with it on that front), but I think that makes it superior, _as a lead_.  The place to be complete and detailed is the main body of the article. Tevildo 17:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, I simply don't see the German version being any improvement on what we already have. In fact, it's less complete and less accurate. Odd nature 21:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you agree, at least, that (a) "Neocreationist position" (with appropriate reservations about the "neo") is better than "claim" as the key word(s) in the definition of ID, and/or (b) the nationality as well as the religions beliefs of the "leading ID proponents" is a significant ommission from our version? Tevildo 21:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, the German version was copped from an older version of this page.  We've alread had that argument regarding Neocreationist position.  I don't get point b. •Jim62sch• 21:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guess point b. would make it "all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute in the U.S." something on those lines. The US centric nature of ID is indicated by paragraph 3, but not made explicit in the lead. .. dave souza, talk 21:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd just leave it alone.  We have a link there anyway (besides, if we wanted to specify, "US-based" would be better). •Jim62sch• 22:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the German version has an idea worthy of adoption.  A defining characteristic of ID is that it is some type of creationism.  They state this obvious fact up front without any weasel words.  Is there some way we could do something like this?  I’d like to think so.  Here’s my shot:
Intelligent design is the creationist claim 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."
Does this sentence not better meet WP:LEAD requirements?  Pasado 03:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that ID is an updated version of creationism, we already had this debate and ran into significant objections to the use of crerationist or neocreationist in the lead.  The German version likely did not as ID is a curiostity in Germany not a battleground.  In fact, that is what both the French and German leads fail to convey, the level of controversy ID generates.  If the ID flacks who've attacked this article had a clue how to read German or French then those articles would become very contested. •Jim62sch• 10:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is not noticed by most of the people in love with the French or the German LEADs is that these are similar to LEADs that once existed here in this article. The pro-ID, pro-DI POV warriors forced most of the changes on the current LEAD. One change that was not from them was the use of teleology I think. I personally did not favor using the word teleology in the LEAD, but eventually after weeks and months of fighting, consensus headed in another direction (basically, one side gives up in exhaustion). That is how things work on WP, as everyone knows). However, the fact that the French and German versions are able to survive is evidence that the DI's claims that they have legions of supporters outside the US appears to be completely false.--Filll 12:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly, the Spanish lead does cast ID as a teleological argument, "como una justificación a posteriori de la creencia en un creador determinado " •Jim62sch• 10:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: German version

message: These versions are quite blunt as well, especially the Catalan: , .  If you need them translated, I'll get to it later (note that the Catalan version is an expansion on the Spanish version). •Jim62sch• 10:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spanish and Catalan

message: Besides this English article, the only other ID article to get a special "distinguished" rating appears to be the Swedish article: , and so maybe it merits special attention. As I look through these, some of them do not have ANY citations whatsoever. Their talk pages are also essentially empty of any comments, particularly compared to this one. As Jim says, in most other countries this is just a curiousity.--Filll 12:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Swedish

message: Several other LEADs in other languages do not have any citations. I have not found any with much in the way of talk pages. The Italian version of the article itself appears to be even longer than the English version, and has only 70-80 citations. However, there are still very few posts on the talk page of the Italian version. A systematic survey of all the versions in all the languages might be interesting, but perhaps not particularly relevant. The environment this article must survive in is brutal.
:I admit I like the Italian terms for "junk science" better, "("scienza rottame" o "scienza spazzatura")" (literally "scrap iron science" and "trash science" respectively). •Jim62sch• 10:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They also cleverly work in teleology, "I sostenitori del disegno intelligente considerano tali critiche errate e dovute a un pregiudizio naturalistico che vorrebbe negare a priori uno status scientifico a qualsiasi ipotesi o teoria teleologica". •Jim62sch• 10:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Others

message: I think that User:SandyGeorgia and User:SlimVirgin and other outside admins and editors were somewhat surprised to discover that, surprise surprise, what was reputed to be a controversial and contentious subject, in fact, actually was a controversial and contentious subject. To this end, there appeared on the FAR talk page no less than 4 POV-pushers, including one who had to be banned, one who paraphrased other's comments and edited the discussion to slant it in his direction, one who was sufficiently irritating that an RfC was lodged against him (and which required incredible efforts to defend him against, wasting the time of all concerned), and one who brought the action and was revealed to have been completely misleading everyone as to his real intent and purpose, and began to act in a petulant fashion. One edited a closed page repeatedly, ignoring all the warning signs and page color. One posted huge long screeds and puerile diatribes that had to be repeatedly removed as inappropriate. This all contributed to making it a uniquely unpleasant and unproductive experience.
In addition, this episode was connected with internal FA dissension, and controversy over the closing of the FAR, which might have negative consequences for some of those involved eventually. These POV pushers, who shall remain unnamed but are well known to all, can thank themselves for getting the FAR closed. They made things so unpleasant and so difficult and so fractious, and their complaints were revealed to be so biased and so baseless that the entire reason for the FAR evaporated, compared to the heat generated by their biased attacks. As near as I can tell, this was just an exercise in producing a platform on which the DI and its supporters could parade around various malcontents and scream about unfairness, throwing public tantrums. As they say, by their fruits ye shall know them...--Filll 13:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, that sums it up nicely. Thanks for taking the time to do the analysis and put it all down for the record. Now, what to do about the remaining POV pusher? He's still more than a little disruptive, preventing discussion on more relevant issues by resurrecting old issues long settled and misrepresenting sources, or ignoring them outright. Reading WP:DE I suggest bring this to WP:CN. Odd nature 16:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FAR comment

message: Following some confusion about whether or not the featured article review had in fact been closed, I have decided to close it. This article remains a featured article. Raul654 13:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. The review had difficulties, as Filll says above, but also brought in some useful editing help. We'll update those citation templates yet! ... dave souza, talk 14:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If I counted correctly, 15 users advocated keeping as FA, with about five or six users that had miscellaneous complants about it, but who did not agree among themselves as to what thing(s) would constitute proper reason(s) to do anything other than keep as an FA.  Personally, I say thank you to Marskell, Dave Souza, and others who had a hand in there, for digging in on some of the hard work of updating the citation templates, along with everybody else who made improvements.  Geez, will we ever get all of those footnote templates done? ;-) ... Kenosis 16:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FAR closed

message: Now that the FAR is close it's time archive FAR related debates so we can get down to actually improving the article as opposed to dealing with sniping criticisms and the same old tendentious objections taking advantage of the FAR, using it as a pretense to weaken the article. Odd nature 16:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Time archive FAR related debates

message: *American Psychological Association: APA Council of Representatives Resolution Rejecting Intelligent Design As Scientific And Reaffirming Support For Evolutionary Theory Here's the PDF version:  
*Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology: FASEB Opposes Using Science Classes to Teach Intelligent Design, Creationism, and other Non-Scientific Beliefs The Federation represents 22 professional societies and 84,000 scientists. 
Odd nature 18:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Psychology doesn't seem relevant to me, but the second ref looks OK. •Jim62sch• 10:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, because these days experimental psychology uses animal models and new technologies like FMRI and EEG and genetics and tools of neuroscience, etc, I believe that psychology is relevant.--Filll 12:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New sources 

message: What SallyForth123 seems to be doing is going around articles that have been semi-protected, but not tagged as semi-protected, and tagging them. A reasonable action, but likely to have been far more effective if she'd explained her actions in an edit summary. Unless the article is in fact not semi-protected, I would suggest letting the tag stand. Some system whereby tag & reality were automatically aligned would be a good long-term idea. Hrafn42 07:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed as to everything Hrafn42 said here. The lock insignia for "sprotect2" is visible but discreet with a hovering tab and a link to WP:PROTECT, Unregistered IPs or new users who attempt to implement an edit are notified at the top of the edit-box page what their options are. If the article's long-term sprotect2 involved a mssive template display, it might arguably be excessive to constantly display it, which I'd suppose was discussed in arriving at the lock icon the way it presently is designed.  Sallyforth123, I agree, did the right thing.  As to justifications given for long-term or indefinite sprotect2, please see Wikipedia Talk:Protection_policy, e.g. the thread currently at the top of the page.  ... Kenosis 13:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm, I think you misunderstood me on my final point. I was not recommending that this article get "long-term" semi-protection, rather that having the protection/unprotection of an article automatically cause the tag to be applied/removed (e.g. via a bot) would avoid confusion due to misalignment of tag versus reality and might be a good long-term idea. Hrafn42 14:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No real need for the extra "Ummm", IMO, but NP either.  My last sentence was referring to the practice of having had a long-term semiprotect in place, as this article has done for some time now. I was merely making an additional note that the practice is reasonable and has been well justified and supported to alleviate unnecessary work and disruption of content in articles where there are many "drive-by" edits by anon IPs that do not serve to help the article in question. And yes, a bot would be a reasonable approach to matching the page to the actual protection status. ... Kenosis 16:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I've seen bots go around and remove tags from pages that are no longer protected. I'll see if I can track down one and recommend to the owner to set it up to also add them to pages that are portected and don't have the tags. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 15:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put up a request for such a bot at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Automatically adding protection templates. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 13:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: ::: A reminder, this page is for improving the article, not debating ID or such. JoshuaZ 03:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite correct. Therefore, I am removing the material above to the User:Dogrun81 talk page.--Filll 11:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence for Designer 

message: As Raul has pointed out, copyrighted images have to be under a free license if they're used on the main page. Of Pandas and People introduced intelligent design as a new term and began the campaign for its use in schools, as well as being central in the Kitzmiller case. It uses a pic of a panda on its cover, and made the panda into an icon of ID. We don't have to use the book cover to convey that icon, and have plenty of images of Giant Pandas available for free use on the Commons. This picture is particularly bold and graphic, and in my opinion would work well on the article. It would be possible to make "fair use" of the book cover on an article which directly discusses and criticises the book, so that may be arguable but it's hardly the main function of the article. Copyright and care over licences works well for Wikipedia, and we have to take care in respect of other people's licences. .. dave souza, talk 11:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. I understand now.  Thanks Dave, for clarifying the distinction for me.  Anyone care to go to Seattle and snap a photo of the Discovery Institute? Then publish it as free? Sure, I suppose a laughing Panda ought to hit it big with the NPOV police. How about a more demure Panda maybe? ... Kenosis 13:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are some additional options at the commons,  ... Kenosis 14:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the image suggested by dave is the nicest, and in anycase closest to the cover image of pandas and people. ornis (t) 14:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps TIME magazine will allow the use of their cover? I am not sure what can be done, if the pocketwatch is not good, and the Pandas are too obscure for most people, and the book covers are not available and the main players in the controversy are not suitable or recognizable. There is of course the 747 gambit, but this again is too obscure. Maybe a picture of Darwin? I am not sure. A picture of the Beagle? The tree of life? Maybe a picture of the flagellum tha that is supposed to be irreducibly complex? A picture of DNA to indicate genetic information that ID claims cannot be produced?--Filll 14:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a picture of a brain pickled in alcohol?  ;) •Jim62sch• 20:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would prefer this. Much higher artistic pedigree. :-) Abecedare 20:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Free image

message: at British Center for Science Education--Filll 22:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Difficulty appears to have passed, at least for the moment.--Filll 23:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assistance needed

message: Note that this section is an out of date copy of the discussion going on at Talk:Intelligent_design/Yqbd%27s_peer-review_arguments. You may wish to contribute on that page. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 06:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer-reviewed journals, publications 2