Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 25

This is an archive of past discussions about Intelligent design. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

thanks to FeloniusMonk who created this page for me.

The following was done simply to be able to place a POV tag on this article, which is being removed at every attempt to do so. This article needs to be POV tagged because its neutrality is contested (note: POV tags do not equivocate to POV, only that its in dispute, which it is)

1 Unfriendly definition. The definition contains a misquote of the term “superior to” as the sourced article does not define it as such. The definition itself is not representative of ID proponents, no ID article I have ever read defines ID in this way. To define ID, it does not make sense to do so in a manner espoused by the enemy. A friendly definition is needed here.

“The scientific community views intelligent design not as a valid” Really?

Yes.WolfKeeper 02:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Is that all scientists?

No. However the scientific method is a formal system. When you run the formal system, and stick in ID concepts as well as evolution concepts, the formal system rejects ID. So it's not scientists that find ID not valid, it's Ockham's razor cutting away God as a theory with insufficient evidence. I'm sure you can find some scientists who are trying to remove Ockham's razor from science, or prove the existence of God, but they've failed so far.WolfKeeper 02:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

ID is a bit like trying to do maths starting with 1+1=3. You can actually come up with maths based on that (I'm not making that up, it's modulo arithmetic), but it doesn't work very well when you try to add up your checkbook! Most people in the biological sciences need a theory that matches the evidence in the real world; nobody has managed to do that with ID well enough to make it useable.WolfKeeper 02:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Reading the definition for scientific community, and then the claim that they hold ID as not valid, implies as the ole’ Scottsman would say “No True Scientist would embrace ID”. This is a clear POV slant. One that is not warranted. Rephrase to “many in the scientific community” So for section one, other than the first sentence, every thing that follows is unfriendly.

Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Here, where Intelligent Design is supposed to be summarized, one would expect to find a friendly explanation of it. Instead, it’s a bed of criticism. 1. ”putative purpose” . Footnotes for this sentence further criticize. This is a criticism and unfriendly to ID.

2. Unfriendly “claim that they look” ….”of what they call” ' “design” is in quotations indicating subtle ridicule.

3. Unfriendly - -> “believe” ' “which they infer” use of faith-based terminology in regards to identifying intelligence (even SETI has criteria for intelligence that does not include faith). This sentence is unfriendly to ID.

4. Criticism “this stands in opposition to mainstream science”

5. Criticism “However, modern developments….” This sentence completely counters the previous one, inserting a criticism against the prior sentence.

MISSING: What is some of the evidence for ID, from an ID perspective? Let ID speak for itself. What are ID’s main arguments in a summary form? (simply stating include irreducible complexity, information mechanisms, and specified complexity as terms without any support or clarification is not friendly to ID) We are looking for a friendly argument here. At no point in section two is ID given a chance to present itself *as it is* without a backlash of criticism.

SUMMARY FOR SECTION TWO: Unfriendly to ID. Section two is entirely a criticism and at no point is ID presented fairly. This is the one section in this article where a wiki reader would expect ID to presented in full, on its own, as explained by its proponents. Not being able to resist the temptation to insert a criticism at *every single* opportunity speaks loud of bias and fear. One who is too afraid to let ID present itself without interruption is someone who is insecure about something. I prefer the model of presenting ID uninterrupted, followed by criticism so that people can make up their own mind, rather than it being made up for them. This section is titled “Summary of ID”. So why isn’t ID being summarized? Why is it criticized at every opportunity?

Please rename this section to “Summary Criticisms of ID”

Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Missing a lot of references here. “Intelligent design in the late 20th century can be seen as a modern reframing of Paley's doctrines” is opinion. Many people do not see it that way. Who sees it that way? Atheists? Honestly, I don’t know. No reference is cited. How about a statement that says “Some see it this way, while others see it this way” and reference both. The last paragraph, especially, is a nice little way to de-xianize ID and turn ID around against them. Its subtle, but effective. Make ID a greek-borrowed concept, and you undermine the Christianity of ID. No references here, but it’s a nice underhanded tactic. Most definitely opinion. And one that speaks of an agenda. Aside from the final paragraph where a clear /POV has been inserted, and a couple of unfounded assumptions missing references, I am willing to go along with this section.

Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

This is informative. This is a neutral section, the only one that I do not dispute. .

Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

ID proponents see ID as “even more scientific than evolution” is a clear slant and the authors opinion. Its not cited and its just plain false. Many ID proponents put them on equal ground as valid theories for life. “this presents a demarcation problem” Ha! The beautiful setup of that strawman in the first sentence and then the subsequent knock down was a great piece of work. Good job guys.

“For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a couple or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word” This is unreferenced. “in any meaningful sense of the word” is a bit overdone here, speaks of a serious emotional connection to the material.

Now that we have clearly stated how utterly unscientific anything can be if it doesn’t live up to this 8 item list, lets see how ID does against the list. (we are then told how ID fails ALL CRITERIA except one.) So what happened here, for those that missed it…is we are first prepped about how something that doesn’t meet criteria cannot be called science “in any meaningful sense of the word”. And then, once we are prepped, its time to drop the bomb on ID. “In light of its failure to adhere to these standards” – a very strong criticism, obviously.

MISSING FROM SECTION 5: What do ID proponents say about the criteria? I would like to see how an ID proponent answers each of those criteria for ID. Another thing missing is ID having any chance to present itself, not a single ID friendly statement in this entire section.

The entire section is a criticism. Please rename it to “Criticism against ID as a science”

Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

“organized neocreationist campaign to promote a religious agenda” unreferenced and clearly, obviously unfriendly. “unofficial spokesman” who said this? I never said this. I don’t know of anyone who has. I don’t follow this person, and most ID proponents I know don’t either. He’s not my leader or spokesman for that matter. “The conflicting statements of leading intelligent design proponents” “obfuscating its agenda” ' “follows its wedge strategy” “proponents allege” .Must I waste my time explaining each of these? Unfriendly remarks and connotations are dispersed throughout this entire section. This section is clearly loaded. I can summarize this section after reading it: “ID is a religious agenda led by one organization and one man to undermine true science and replace it with christian fundamentalism”. Sound good? And you think this is NPOV, do you?

Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The opening sentence of this section: “A key strategy of the intelligent design movement is in convincing the general public that there is a debate…scientifically there is no debate whatsoever.” Wow! Talk about giving ID a fair shake. And we aren’t even at the criticism section yet. Supposedly, we are still being neutral and teaching people about ID. Before even reading through the first paragraph we are told “it’s a done deal folks. You may read on if you like, but we’ll just come out and state it for you” “The intelligent design debate centers on three issues:” Who says that? I see no references. I don’t know of any ID proponents that say that. Is that from talk.origins? “instances of so-called irreducible complexity” Let me guess, more NPOV right? This is a poisoning the well fallacy. Quoting from the page Poisoning the well

The so-called 'Theory' of Evolution

We now examine the theory of evolution...

which has already "poisoned the well" to a balanced argument."

Use of the term “So-called” obviously, a little insertion by the author(s) to undermine something before the reader is even allowed to make up his/her own mind.

“Finally, supporters hold that religious neutrality requires the teaching of both evolution and intelligent design in schools, because teaching only evolution unfairly discriminates against those holding Creationist beliefs.”

Who says that? No references. I’ve read supporters of ID who want it taught simply to give an option as an alternative theory, but not because of discrimination.

“According to critics of intelligent design…it has not even presented a case worth taking seriously.” Well that is quite obvious, I can tell the author of this article feels that way very strongly.

“grossly misunderstanding the issue, and indeed misunderstand…science itself” A very passionate section this has become.

“While Christian fundamentalists may think their God” Oh finally! Yes! We Finally get to the truth of the matter! Its all about those fundie xians. The author just couldn’t hold it back any longer. It literally spilled out of his fingers as he typed. I can imagine the frustration and emotion that welled up inside this author as it finally flowed out like a mighty river. Hmmm..somewhere I read something about Wiki’s policies on using the term “fundamentalist”…but oh well, this is a neutral article, one I can’t even dispute.

“promotion of intelligent design as a way to return religion to a central role in education” woah! Really? Such an unsourced comment is quite bold. I know many ID proponents have no goal like that whatsoever. ] Ok I’m getting weary with the overflow of emotion and POV in this section. Need I continue?

This section can be renamed to “Defeating the so-called ‘Intelligent Design Debate’”

Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

'“The following are summaries of key concepts of intelligent design, followed by summaries of criticisms” For the first time in this article, we are told to expect criticism.

The good news here is that at least I am expecting a criticism to be SEPARATE from the key concept. Hopefully (for once) I will read a concept uninterrupted. So, I’m happy and optimistic at this point that I will finally get some neutrality.

Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

“GST lost many of its adherents” “Systems theory remained popular among social sciences long after its demise in the physical and biological sciences” Well, before I even get to the criticism section, I’m already learning how defunct IC is turning out to be.

“Michael Behe does not recount the history of his irreducible complexity argument, but rather gives…”

Mistakes and mishaps by Behe are being highlited here. That clumsy Behe! Oh wait, I’m not at the criticism section yet. I’m supposed to be in an ID-friendly section. “Intelligent design advocates claim that Intelligent design advocates claim that Can’t we just present IC as it is rather than all this “THEY claim this” and “THEY argue that”. This is slanted. Since I am told in advance that this section follows the model of Friendly, followed by Critique then please get rid of all the “they claim” and “they argue” statements. Those statements are not used in criticisms clearly indicating the author is on the side of the critics.

“Critism”

Oh finally, I’m at the first formal “criticism” section in this article. I guess I know what to expect so I’ll skip it.

Again, in section 8, I am expecting to read a friendly section followed by a critique section. So here is where I get to learn about Specified complexity without interruption. At least that’s what I expect….. “he states” “he argues” “he argues” “he argues” “proponents…argue” C’mon. Simply state what SC teaches. Let me help you here. To be neutral and give SC a fair shake, consider this quote from the article: “He argues that CSI cannot be generated by the only known natural mechanisms of physical law and chance, or by their combination. He argues that this is so because laws can only shift around or lose in” This can be rewritten to a more neutral: “CSI cannot be generated by the only known natural mechanisms of physical law and chance, or by their combination. This is because laws can only shift around or lose in” Continuingly using phrases like “claim” or “argue” in ID friendly section is slanted. I know there will be criticism to follow, so what is so hard about just presenting the concept as it is?! This is the place where ID should present itself not as “THEY” but simply as it is. here is a great example of a neutral article. it is written by a an author and site opposed to ID. Yet its vastly more fair than this wiki one. Note how, when ID is presented, the excessive use of "they argue"..."they claim"..."proponents state"...etc. http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html read this anti-ID article, this is how I'd like the wiki one to be balanced.

“Critism”

This section contains 4 paragraphs. The SC “friendly” section contained 2 paragraphs. The criticism section is double the friendly section. And the friendly section wasn’t very friendly.

Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I am expecting to learn about this argument in a fair way. I know a criticism section will follow as defined in the beginning of section 8. So hopefully, I’ll learn about FTU uninterrupted; what it teaches, and what are its criticisms. “They propose that the natural emergence of a universe with all the features necessary for life is wildly improbable.”

Not a friendly statement! Use of colorful language “wildly” not necessary. MISSING: why do they claim this? What is the support for FTU? Why must it be FTU? Not a single reference here. We get only 2 paragraphs here for FTU, but nothing to be referenced! And the second paragraph isn’t even about FTU, it is clarifying what the “mainstream” adheres to and defines a different term.

“The strong form is a distinctly minority position and is highly controversial” Is this a rebuttal to the first paragraph? Seems that way. Well, I’ve read the FTU section and still haven’t learned anything *really* about FTU. I've read nothing about FTU's arguments or its strengths. I have a feeling, though, that as I get to the criticism section, I’m going to learn all about its weaknesses.

“Critism” Well lookie here! We get 4 paragraphs of criticism. FTU got only 1 paragraph (the second FTU paragraph wasn’t even defining FTU). So once again, criticism doubles…in this case, triples content for the original idea. All justified by the NPOV: Undue weight rule, I’m sure.

Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

C’mon people. Do I REALLY need this section of “general criticism?” Its not like I haven’t read any yet!

The next 3,212 words of this article are devoted entirely to criticism.

Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

At the end of the article, I am still waiting for a friendly presentation of ID. In the end, I have read an article that would be an excellent addition to Jeffrey J. Lowder’s secular web at www.infidels.org. If this is a neutral article, I’m sure that’s a neutral site as well. It’s a shame that on wiki, something like this is forced on people. It is forced because those who guard this page do not even permit a POV tag. Remember that a POV tag does not equivocate to POV, it merely states that its in dispute. I can understand, from an atheist/agnostic/naturalist/skeptic perspective why this is a great article. I can understand why someone like that would feel so strongly that this is NPOV. I can understand why this article is so fiercely protected and defended from dispute. I’m sure it’s a losing battle for me. Who am I, but just a wiki reader who enjoys this site like all of you. Saddened? Yes I am. I am saddened that good topics get corrupted by agendas. I am saddened that individuals here wont even permit a dispute tag on an article that is supposed to be neutral. I am saddened that this article does not allow one to make up their own mind about ID, but that it makes it up for them.

Someone accused me here of “storming” in. Yes, I did. Why? Because I am a wiki-reader. I loved the creationism page, the evolution page, the homosexuality page, the arguments for and against God pages. All these hot topics, presented so well and fair. I was impressed. Then I came here and was utterly shocked how biased and slanted it is. I couldn’t believe highly educated people such as yourselves would be so overtly biased and then hide behind a set of Wiki NPOV rules. I know I will lose here, there’s only one of me and many of you. I get 3 edits a day, you outnumber me so there is no chance I have to place my POV tag because it will be promptly removed each time (as it has been) followed by IP ban threats. So…yes I lost. Maybe that will make many of you happy.

Here is a model article I'd like this wiki one to adapt: http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

I honestly didn't realize NPOV: Undue weight meant no weight.

I dispute the neutrality of this article, even though you wont allow me to. Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Ditto Tom Haws 21:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Marshill, it is interesting that you should have chosen something from the infidels.org site [1], and claimed that it was neutral. It is a site primarily supporting naturalism, and while never exactly admitting to atheism, that is precisely the audience for which it was designed (note this sentence from the “Agora” section, “This is an informal place to gather and read what others have to say on topics of interest to nonbelievers.” Jim62sch 16:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

---

This is a straw poll on the NPOV status of this article. Please cast your vote by signing with ~~~~ four tildes.

1. Marshill 14:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC) Adding my own vote, of course. This article is grossly slanted. This page is proof that the article's neutrality *is* *in* *dispute*. Thus, meeting the requirements of an NPOV template until repairs can be made
2. Endomion: Article is written from a relentlessly one-sided POV. Any edits from the other side are immediately reverted, even if they cite sources. Most pre-existing statements from the other side in the article are answered in the same paragraph rather than gathering all objections in a consolidated criticism section at the end of the article as is de rigeur. The article's information about intelligent design is almost lost in a blizzard of information about the intelligent design controversy. Few articles on Wikipedia are formatted in this way. The overall impression is of an improper use of Wikipedia as a political soapbox. The article should retain a POV banner until it has at least begun to implement the recommendations of a previously-conducted peer-review. Endomion 01:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Trilemma 01:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Gandalf2000 02:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC) Article has a strong POV, due to the passionate participation of editors and administrators with anti-ID perspectives, and who just as passionately assert they are presenting the information in a neutral fashion, because ID is disingenuous pseudoscience peddled by opportunistic hucksters and deserves to be slammed at every opportunity, and those who consider writing anything to the contrary better watch themselves or they shall be banned for being inflammatory.
   1. The problem, for your POV, is that ID is easily demonstrated to be disingenuous pseudoscience peddled by opportunistic hucksters. (Have you read the Dover trial transcripts?) The historical problem with this article is that anytime anyone posts the simple refutations of ID some True Beliver comes along and removes them. – B.Bryant 10:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Markepp 06:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)This is a disgrace that Wiki will be hurt my this intense POV. It is disengenuous of the anti-ID crowd to do as they are doing. _{This is the 4th edit for this user.--JPotter 08:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)}
6. there's much to improve to reach the quality of other, more established WP articles on controversial topics. -- nyenyec ☎ 07:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
7. Ben. This user is currently banned and unable to vote himself, so I'm relaying the vote. See Ben's talk page. Ec5618 09:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
8. ant 13:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC) To a small degree. I speak as a new Wiki member and only looking at the ID page which has piqued my interest.
9. We have failed to accurately and fairly describe the phenomenon of ID from the perspective of the ID advocate. In my opinion, the sympethetic portrayal of ideas is the whole point of Wikipedia. This failure is in no small part due to one particular editor's obsessive policing of the article to conform to his POV. — goethean ॐ 16:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
   1. Surely you realize that "from the perspective of an advocate" is pretty much the definition of 'POV". – B.Bryant 10:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
10. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC) The very obvious political implications of this subject, means that the article has suffered tremendously by a lack of genuine collaboration between pro and anti ID factions. The NPOV tag needs to remain for a lot longer and until this artice reads more as an encyclopedic article, and less as a political pamphlet. The article is also way to long, cumbersome and tedious to read, and its structure convoluted. So much so that a {{cleanup}} is also needed. One possibility, would be to have an article that describe the basic concepts of Intelligent Design, and a separate article that describes the controversy, where pro and anti can splurge on arguments and counterarguments to their heart content. Given the enormous amount of material, that would not be a POV fork, but rather the start of a series of articles on this fascinating and controversial subject.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    1. That sounds like a good idea in principle, but if we start creating articles that simply state the claims of various pseudoscience and propaganda movements we will leave some readers with the false impression that they are legitimate claims. Surely you don't think the article on N-rays should just present the claims in raw form. – B.Bryant 11:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
11. Wade A. Tisthammer 18:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC) Even in pseudoscience articles, it is Wikipedia policy to represent the minority view as the minority view. Sadly, the minority view here is often distorted before attacked. Such misrepresentation of the minority view violates Wikipedia's NPOV#Pseudoscience policy.
12. David Bergan 21:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
13. Lsommerer 22:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC) It reads more like the "Why ID is false" article than the "What ID is" article (which I would expect to include a host of critisisms).
14. --chad 05:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC) Definitely agree. Although I don't agree with all of Marshill's comments, I certainly agree that the word "claim" is used way too much; that the article would be more aptly titled "Criticisms of 'intelligent "design"'".
15. Bevan A. Findlay 03:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC): I came to this article expecting to find something outlining what the belief entitled "intelligent design" states, with the usual "most scientists disagree" caveat. Instead, I found what comes across as a very subtle but cutting portrayal of why ID is false. (By the way, I work in television - I know what a slanted viewpoint looks like ;-)
16. Tschel 21:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC) The problem can be summed up in the opening section of the article, which, rather than simply introducing the reader to the concept of ID, openly criticises the movement. This attitude accurately characterizes the tone of the entire article. The Wikipedia NPOV policy describes the treatment of controversial issues thus: "Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in." (WP:NPOV) Clearly, this policy is not respected by many of the major contributors to this article. (See B. Bryant's comment on NPOV)

1. FeloniousMonk 01:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
2. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Bill Jefferys 01:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Jim62sch 01:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Guettarda 01:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Ec5618 01:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC): Not perfect, but certainly not POV.
7. ScienceApologist 02:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Parallel or Together? 02:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC): Agree with Ec5618 - there are ways to make it better, but that doesn't make it POV. Add whatever non-biased, sourced information that you feel is lacking to the talk page.
9. Cyberdenizen 04:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
10. Willmcw 05:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC). Though I suggest removing "controversial" from the lead sentence as it spoon-feeds the readers. Otherwise it appears to show all viewpoints.
11. — Dunc|☺ 12:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC) we try our best but little things might need clearing up, but it's not out of step with WP:NPOV#pseudoscience.
12. Plumbago 14:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC) Second Willmcw's note about "controversial" though; also, the statement about "equal footing with, or superior to" doesn't ring true - I've read some fairly outlandish statements by ID fans, but not this one (of course, I may have just not been reading long enough ...).
13. Alienus 16:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC) It's a necessarily controversial topic, because ID is stealth creationism, but it looks like all the people claiming NPOV are religious advocates, so I see their disapproval as an indication that we're doing our jobs right.
14. Rasmus (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC) For a subject that invokes strong feelings on both sides, the article does reasonably well in explaining the subject.
15. siafu 22:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
16. --JPotter 01:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
17. I think they have a point with it being *in dispute*. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
18. --Davril2020 17:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC) I believe it meets standards.
19. dave souza 11:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC) - not that it can't be improved: ID movement clarification welcome subject to critical analysis.
20. B.Bryant 11:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC) A quick skim shows that this is far nearer NPOV than it was back when I gave up trying to fight the True Believers on it. If the article does not point out that ID is pseudoscientific propaganda then the article just becomes an aid to the propaganda machine ID was 'designed' to be.
21. Dave (talk) 09:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
22. 63.228.4.70 02:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Tom Haws 19:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC) Tentatively no based on the gratuitous presence of "controversial" and "claim" in the first paragraph. As the saying goes about Hitler, "we won't even have to say he was evil. We will just let the facts speak for themselves." But I need to think and talk about it a little more. Could the article simply be made more respectful in its tone, perhaps?
2. --JPotter 01:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC) Surely, something must be wrong as ALL the ID opponents are on one side, and ALL ID proponents are on another. Perhaps a workshop can be done where we write for the enemy. --JPotter 02:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
3. User:Noisy | Talk 17:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC) I don't necessarily think that the article is POV, but there are a couple of improvements that are needed. As with other commentators, I also think that "controversial" is the wrong word to use in the introduction: I suggest "superstitious" instead, for accuracy. Also, ID is normally posited as an alternative for abiogenesis, rather than evolution: it's just that because it is a creationist concept, the two concepts are mixed up and that's not a mistake that the article should make.
4. As a Roman Catholic, I support ID in cosmology (as a modern expression of one of Aquinas' Five Ways) but I do not support ID as biological science (Catholic schools do teach evolution). I support a dispassionate NPOV in Wikipedia and I find the ID article to be too biased (as I indicate above). I also do not believe in wasting my breath. I made my points on the talk page, sometimes "writing for the enemy" with cites but was refuted at every point by a majority of editors using their own personal views of what words meant. So I have abandoned my efforts here. Educational experience, however. Endomion 17:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments are welcome. Please post comments below so that the source above is not interrupted. Thank you. Marshill 22:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: "We have failed to accurately and fairly describe the phenomenon of ID from the perspective of the ID advocate. In my opinion, the sympethetic portrayal of ideas is the whole point of Wikipedia. This failure is in no small part due to one particular editor's obsessive policing of the article to conform to his POV. — goethean ॐ 16:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)"

Goethean, if you are going to be so bold as to make such a statement, it is incumbent on you to STATE who this particular editor is. THUS, I am requesting that you provide the alias (name) of this editor so that he/she may address your concerns, and so that the two of you can engage in a diologue. Otherwise, you are engaging in an unsubstantiated and vague ad hom. Name the person, gothean, or withdraw your comment. Jim62sch 13:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that Goethan should not specifically mention any individual, because it could be misconstrued as a personal attack rather than observation of POV editing. If he is wrong, none of us will have any idea of what he is talking about and can disregard it. If on the other hand he is right and there is such a problem, we can deal with it theoretically without making the individual(s) feel attacked. ant 16:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks, even oblique, vague ones, do not need to be suffered unchallenged. Goethean can either step up to clarify what he means or expect to have it removed along with the other two he made here. FeloniousMonk 19:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Well said FM. Ant, there is no way anyone could rightfully say that one particular editor's obsessive policing of the article to conform to his POV. is not a personal attack. Sorry, but there is no way to logically defend that as a mere statement of concern on Gothean's part. Additionally, while I understand the philosophy behind your reasoning, and admit that in a perfect world your aims would be admirable, but in a perfect world, there would be no ad homs. Jim62sch 01:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I meant that as long as no-one is mentioned, if the shoe doesn't fit, no-one will have to wear it: if Goethan is wrong, no-one is being attacked until and unless he mentions anyone. And Goethan is entitled to mention it in the context of this page as it is disruptive POV behaviour. We can all go back an check it out and see if we think he's right. In fact, it'd help if we all came up with the same answer without knowing any names.

However, more importantly, I don't think it's a good idea to tackle an issue like this in the general forum. It'd be better for Goethan to discuss it quietly with the individual concerned, and if he gets no joy, to follow a confidential mediation/arbitration path in case he is wrong. ant 12:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Interestingly, your statement that "no-one is being attacked until and unless he mentions anyone" is similar to the concepts of "Sum over paths," "Wigner's friend" and "Decoherence" all of which state that an object does not exist until it is observed. Yet, to me, those concepts are fallacies, thus I cannot support your proposition. As I said earlier, I find your approach to be admirable in that it is the personification of the "turn the other cheek philosophy", but as I also noted that only applies to as perfect world. Jim62sch 16:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, Jim, I see your point, but as final note, my statement was conditional upon Goethan being wrong. ant 17:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Whether he is right or wrong is irrelevant to it being a personal attack, based on the wording alone it can be nothing else. The only difference between right and wrong would be that if he were correct it would not be a libelous statement, if he were incorrect it would most certainly be libelous. Jim62sch 19:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Libelous certainly, but of nobody 81.131.91.69 00:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

So long as gothean exhibits timidity in his methodology. Jim62sch 00:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Refering to Endomion's vote: political soapbox -- what politics would this be? -- ScienceApologist 02:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

So the sentence is a tautology stating that those scientists who reject pseudo-sciences (which includes ID) reject ID as pseudo-science (which is why ID is included). -- It is incorrect to claim that ID is viewed as a pseudoscience simply because the scientific community is tautologically exclusive. It is rather shown to be a pseudoscience by members of the scientific community for reasons outlined in the linked references and in the criticism sections of this very article. That the scientific community includes the caveat that advocates of pseudoscience are not included is not a tautology, it is rather a point of order. If there was no separate definition pseudoscience then you would have a point, but the fact is that pseudoscience is defined from the perspective of criteria which those in the scientific community have used (in the context of current events outside of the scientific community) in their discussions of the legitimacy of ID. You can disagree with the national academies and the academic institutions that have made this sentence possible, but this disagreement is not what separates members of the scientific community from those that aren't members. --ScienceApologist 14:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

<moved from voting area> Overall the article is excellent and I have no problems with the frequency and placement of criticisms. However I feel that certain extremely significant points being strenuously held are misrepresentative and because these are so critically relevant to the understanding of the ID position their effect is to generate an overall feeling of anti-ID POV and incorrectly colour the entire article and all criticism as hostile. Example from opening sentence which states that the scientific community rejects ID as a pseudo-science. The term 'scientific community' is defined in Wikipedia as excluding 'scientists' who find a pseudo-science credible. So the sentence is a tautology stating that those scientists who reject pseudo-sciences (which includes ID) reject ID as pseudo-science (which is why ID is included). In a reader's initial understanding a scientist is more likely to be seen as someone with scientific qualifications being employed in a research capacity using those qualifications and would tend to read the sentence this way instead of as a pointless tautology. By the qualification and employment definition there are some scientists who reject other pseudo-sciences and yet find ID credible. This small group of scientists is being inadvertently hidden by the opening sentence. Even one scientifically qualified person finding ID credible speaks volumes. So this is a critically significant point for understanding the position of ID fairly. I've tried to pursue points like this but often my participation in a discussion ends with a logical counter-argument of mine being ignored but no action taken. I guess either I'm wrong or my points are not being understood, possibly due to different points of view or bad communication from my side. Sometimes action gets taken (for a while the article qualified the term scientific community with the word largely) but then it gets reverted, often without discussion as far as I can see. --ant 13:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Even one scientifically qualified person finding ID credible speaks volumes. So this is a critically significant point for understanding the position of ID fairly. -- Not according to undue weight. An extreme minority view such as ID does not trump the academic consensus of the scientific community. To claim otherwise is inherently biased against the scientific community as an entity. The fair way to portray it is that the scientific community rejects ID as pseudoscience. --ScienceApologist 17:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

found yet another gem to show how slanted this article is. Go to this page Poisoning the well and note that this is a fallacy. Then look at the last example of the fallacy. now go to this page: Intelligent Design and do a search (CTRL-F) for "so-called". You'll enjoy it. Marshill 16:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

This example is hardly a gem. More of a confusing comparison of terminology. The novelty of "IC" and "SC" demand that when refering to them by name, we include some qualifier that let's the reader know that they are invented terms. Do your same game on the Physics page and let me know if you think the author is not presenting the Standard Model in an unslanted fashion. --ScienceApologist 17:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course, I'm not surprised that the fallacies of this article are defended as "neutral". Otherwise, I wouldn't even need to be here. So your defense of this article's fallacies are expected. -- Marshill

Note that the statement regarding the use of "so-called" is rather specific: "an inappropriate heading to a section or chapter". Jim62sch 01:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Using the term "so-called" is not automatically poisoning the well. This is seen on the Physics page. That is the sense "so-called" is used here. It is to indicate novelty only. --ScienceApologist 17:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

While it may not be automatically poisoning the well, I was bold and removed it. Please discuss on ID talk if you feel there are compelling reasons for keeping this qualifier. Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

A qualifer is needed, otherwise the statement assumes IC/SC's validity. I added 'apparent.' FeloniousMonk 17:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I editted further. The evidence is claimed to exist, and that is disputed. It's worse than being apparent, it's perspective-based. --ScienceApologist

A qualifier is most definitely needed due to ID's pretence to science. Jim62sch 01:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Plumbago-- about comment above that the article's "statement about "equal footing with, or superior to" doesn't ring true." Stephen C. Meyer makes the claim in The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories [2]. There he argues that design is equal to evolutionary theory not on the strength of design but on the weakness of evolutionary theory (which he terms "descent") claiming both are unable to "meet the standards of testability that require strict verifiability." He then later argues that design is superior to evolutionary theory in that it does not rule out supernatural causes, which he claims science does arbitrarily as a matter of course. It's an interesting read. FeloniousMonk 17:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

You have my admiration for managing to read it all, it's heavy going: anyway, in promoting the equality/superiority of ID it seems to be arguing the validity of theology based science. ...dave souza 17:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

To Alienus moved from Poll section:

You may want to glance at the article itself, rather than just the votes, before making your mind up. — goethean ॐ 16:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

goethean: You state "This failure is in no small part due to one particular editor's obsessive policing of the article to conform to his POV" - vague accusations are uncivil. If you have a concern that an editor has made a POV edit, or incorrectly interpreted NPOV, please address the issue do not make accusations against unnamed editors. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The fair way to portray it is that the scientific community rejects ID as pseudoscience.

I have no problem with that and agree with it. My point is that the scientific community is defined by Wikipedia as rejecting ID as pseudoscience. If we translate that into the sentence we get:

All scientists who reject ID as pseudoscience reject ID as pseudoscience.

That's true, and fair, and inarguable. So the 1st statement must be so too.

My concern is that using the ID-exclusive definition of scientific community here to point out their rejection of ID here is inadvertently misleading. It could imply all scientists to the average reader. After all, there is not much point to it otherwise.

Wouldn't it be clear to say something like 'nearly all scientists' instead? ant 12:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

As I pointed out elsewhere (see also Dunc's equation below), even "nearly all" does not capture the infinitesimally small percentage of qualified scientists who support ID. Thus, the only way to capture that factoid would be to state, "while an infinitesimally small percentage of qualified scientists support ID, the science community as a statistical whole rejects ID as pseudo-science." If anything, that would likely be seen as even more anti-ID than the current sentence -- even though it would reflect the current standing of ID with complete accuracy. Jim62sch 01:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The scientific community consists of more than just people. It includes the peer-reviewed journals that the ID creationists fail to publish in, the conferences that the ID creationists do not attend and the research programmes that the ID creationists are not conducting because ID creationism a God of the Gaps fallacy, explains nothing.

If we are generous we might let Behe and a couple of the physicists (Gonzalez and Snoke) into the scientific community, but with the size it is N-3=~N to all accounts and purposes. Historians universally reject holocaust denial, except for David Irving and a handful of friends but I wouldn't call them historians. The same goes for the holocaust deniers as the science deniers. — Dunc|☺ 13:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that there are only 3 scientists who support ID? And what is the definition of scientist? ant 13:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Dunc was noting that by adding those three (as a subset) to the total set of the science community, the variation in the percentage of scientists supporting ID would be minimal. Jim62sch 15:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Jim, I understood Dunc's point, but not the support of it. I.e., is the number 3 definitely right, and (in anticipation of a yes answer expected from his reasoning) how do we define scientist. Somewhere here I have a different understanding from him and I'm trying to find it.ant 16:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The number three was the (Behe, Gonzalez, Snopes) subset; thus, given the size of the set, the addition or subtraction of the subset would have no statistically valid difference in the numbers. Jim62sch 02:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

As I have pointed out, the scientific community in any subject is defined by those that publish on the subject in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. There is no scientific debate outside that literature. So far there is ONE publication in an obscure journal that has been repudiated by the editors of that journal, and ONE publication in a more reputable journal by Behe and Snoke which does not mention ID. I conclude that there is no scientific community publishing significant research on ID.

There is a scientific community in general that publishes in the peer-reviewed litereature. This consists of a very large number (hundreds of thousands) of individuals in the U.S. and more worldwide. The Discovery Institute now boasts on their webpage that they have gotten some number, less than 500, of individuals with some sort of credentials, who "doubt Darwinism". Some of these individuals have repudiated their listing there. This is after over four years of effort on the DI's part. In four days, over 7000 scientists signed a petition supporting evolution. And NCSE (the National Center for Science Education), over less time than the Discovery Institute has been collecting signatures, has obtained (as of the latest tally) 684 signatures of scientists who are named Steve (to honor Steve Gould) who support evolution. People named 'Steve' are about 1% of the population.

I am not eligible to sign the NCSE statement. I am not named Steve.

So: It is reasonable to conclude that whereas there are some scientists who support ID, it is an extraordinarily small proportion. It is less than 1%, and probably much less. Bill Jefferys 03:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The actual percentage is fifteen-one-hundredths of a percent; if we remove those scientists not actively working in a field related to biology, the number drops to less than one-tenth of one percent. To say that the number of scientists supporting ID is small would be an understatement. Jim62sch 03:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean that 'scientific community' in this context is the community of scientists which has published peer-reviewed articles on ID? ant 12:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know precisely what Jim meant, but if we use that criteria (as given by ant: scientists who have published peer-reviewed articles on ID) there will be no scientific community. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I was quoting Dunc in explaining his equation. Jim62sch 19:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

It was actually given by Bill just above: "the scientific community in any subject is defined by those that publish on the subject in the peer-reviewed scientific literature"

I agree that this leads to your conclusion. Which makes the ID statement nonsencially read 'no-one rejects ID'. So I don't think Bill's definition can be correct? ant 13:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe the "subject" is how living species came to exist (or some variation of phrasing thereof.) Papers published on Evolution, Lamarkian theories, (sp?) and ID would all fall under that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Bill however says "So far there is ... ONE publication in a more reputable journal by Behe and Snoke which does not mention ID. I conclude that there is no scientific community publishing significant research on ID"

If we define the publishing subject as ID the article's community term encompasses no-one. If we define the subject more broadly, it includes some scientists who accept ID. ant 16:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

That was the paper criticised by Lynch, to which Behe and Snoke's replied that: "We subscribe neither to triumphant views in some circles that our paper disproved Darwinism, nor to overwrought ones that it supports some grand anti-science conspiracy." To clarify the point a footnote could cite the DI's >500 against a figure for the total equally qualified community if that number is available. ...dave souza 17:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Marshill. I'm going to do my best here to address these and shed some light on why the article's content contains what it does, but your list here is quite long, so please bear with me.

To begin with though, any objection you raise to content being "unfriendly" will not be addressed, as providing a sympathetic article does not trump accuracy and the response of the scientific community to ID has been overwhelmingly negative, or unfriendly if you will. That leaves matters of accuracy and balance, which I will address over the coming days. FeloniousMonk 00:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

ID claims it can explain things that evolution cannot, for example complex structure such as the bacterial flagellum or the human eye, thus, the claim of superiority over evolution. --JPotter 01:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Reading the definition for scientific community, and then the claim that they hold ID as not valid, implies as the ole’ Scottsman would say “No True Scientist would embrace ID”. This is a clear POV slant.

I read wikipedia's page on the scientific community, where it states that "it is the scientific community that recognizes and supports the current consensus within the field". It further states that "historical and present-day scientists have used a variety of methods for determining who was inside or outside the scientific community, which is often required for determining what fields of investigation at all are labeled as being 'science'. Fields of knowledge which purport to be scientific, but are judged to be outside the norms of the scientific community, are labeled as 'pseudoscience'." The intro is clear that not all scientists reject ID. It states that the scientific community, meaning the vast majority of scientists who have reached a consensus regarding ID's lack of validity, have decided that ID is pseudoscience. The sentence neither says nor implies that no true scientist would embrace ID, but rather that the community as a whole has rejected it, with few exceptions. -Parallel or Together? 04:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

As for the accusation of "unfriendliness" - there is no need to be friendly, just to be accurate. I believe we are accurate in our portrayal. Guettarda 15:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed re the comments of both PoT? and Guettarda. Jim62sch 15:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Putative purpose - if, after 15-20 years you have yet to show even the beginnings of a research programme, and if you have not bothered to apply for grants offered to do research into ID, then "putative" is accurate.

2. Unfriendly “claim that they look” ….”of what they call” “design” - as above, claim they look is accurate, as above. Using the phrase what they call "design" is necessary if we are to not endorse their POV. We cannot say that what they are looking for is design, because that assertion is contested by mainstream science. Their "evidence for design" is disputed in every of which I am aware.

3. Unfriendly - -> “believe” ' “which they infer” - infer is not unfriendly - inference is central to science. Believe is reasonable; irreducible complexity cannot (has not) been experimentally supported (or even tested). In addition, ID seems to work from the assumption that it exists. So believe is reasonable. Would you propose a more "friendly" term?

4. Criticism “this stands in opposition to mainstream science” - this is a simply a factual statement.

5. - I don't understand your point here.

• "Evidence for ID" - is there any? ID presents negative arguments - essentially, that there are things which are too complex to be explained by chance. I could see adding another sentance explaining what IC and SC are.
• "Unfriendly to ID" - irrelevant. We do not write from a "sympathetic POV". Guettarda 15:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

If I recall, a majority of this section was written by an ID proponent. Also:

Design theory—also called design or the design argument—is the view that nature shows tangible signs of having been designed by a preexisting intelligence. It has been around, in one form or another, since the time of ancient Greece. The most famous version of the design argument can be found in the work of theologian William Paley, who in 1802 proposed his "watchmaker" thesis - William Dembski.

--JPotter 01:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

historical note: the Watchmaker analogy did not originate with Paley, and he was charged with plagiarism in 1848. ...dave souza 17:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Marshill, please read and earnestly consider all the replies from others to your NPOV objection above. There's no consensus for it. Weigh that against your outrage and conviction here. Also consider that this article was already recently the subject of an RFC for similar objections, and the community's response was to make no substantive alterations to its content.

Also, I think it's pretty clear that your objections arise out of a poor understanding of the NPOV policy due to your newness to the project. Also, your comments and ad hominems have disadvantaged you by implying a personal bias that is pro-ID, anti-science, and anti-atheist.

The fact is the article's content is very well supported by policy and cites. An NPOV template is neither appropriate nor justified. An RFC is unlikely to change that, considering the amount and quality of the evidence that supports the article. Just my opinion. FeloniousMonk 21:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Felonius. I have read everything quite thoroughly. I have read comments that defend the article. I have also read comments from other users who agree with me that this article is slanted. It seems there is a dispute, one over the neutrality of this article. I feel its pretty clear that you have not truly considered my objections, which are well documented on my page. The main article's criticisms are very well supported with numerous cites. An NPOV template is appropriate and justified. Because an RFC happened in the past does not automatically grant this article permanent acceptance. Furthermore, it would be unfortunate to see special pleading in this case. The article is a well written criticism against ID, full of evidence and support, except that its not titled as a criticism to ID. Its part of a series on creationism. The NPOV tag belongs, in my opinion. Thank you for your comments.

Marshill 21:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Marshill - As other editors have pointed out, your criticisms have been very vague and unactionable. Please be more precise with your criticisms. Provide precise and actionable criticisms in the form of different phrasings and such for specific bits of text. That would help tremendously. --JPotter 22:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Marhsill. I just realized that you have created a sub-page with more substantive objections with your criticisms more fleshed out. I find some of your reasoning compelling while some I do not. Do you mind if further discussion takes place on your subpage? Thanks. --JPotter 22:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jason. Thanks for your suggestion. Please be redirected to /Marshills_NPOV_objections where you will find precise and actionalbe criticisms. One possible real world model for a well-written balanced article is here http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html please note that this article was written by a source hostile to ID, yet it is vastly more neutral than the one here. This (the article on wiki) is not a neutral article, as I and several others have pointed out. Because you (maybe not you specifically, but people here) feel it is neutral, and we do not, that represents a factual, objective contest over its neutrality. Because this article's neutrality is being contested, the NPOV template is appropriate. thanks again. --Marshill 22:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Certainly, feel free to comment on my page. Thanks to feloniusmonk for making it. I welcome any and all discussion. ty. --Marshill 22:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Marshill, thanks for taking the time to write this (/Marshills_NPOV_objections). Your thorough compilation underscores my long-standing observations that the current presentation of ID concepts is unhelpful for those who wish to learn more, being buried in a point-counterpoint structure. I hope you stay in the loop; once you get past the initial shock of rebuttals, if you have any energy left, you might help improve the article.

Having followed the article for a while, I'm afraid we can't do much to eliminate the negative slant -- and many argue that we shouldn't -- but we might at least be able to get the content to a more reasonable state. My hope is that the article will eventually be helpful for those who want to understand more than just the "pseudoscience v. scientific community" issues related to intelligent design. So my suggestion is to focus on content rather than tone, in fleshing out the various subtopics of ID. (For example, having more of a philosophy background myself, I was able to add to the history section, which helps round out the context of the issue.) Thanks again for your passionate interest.--Gandalf2000 22:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

hi, thank you Gandalf. Well met. What do you think of http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html? I feel it is very balanced, very neutral and informative. It allows the reader to make up his/her own mind. I can only wish the wiki article would have even a fraction of the neutrality that one does. The article now in a poor state, IMHO. A POV tag here is well deserved...at least until a consensus is agreed to on *both sides* of the issue. -- Marshill 22:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

That appears to be a good article as far as source material goes, but the challenge for an encyclopedia is to summarize the topic. The problem is that there is a huge disagreement over what are the fundamental issues of the topic. Though proponents of ID clearly have a philosophical and religious stake in the topic, they are careful to frame their issues and focus their research in scientific terms. The critics say that is disingenuous, and needs to be exposed as such. As you can see on the talk page, there is constant topic-shifting; because ID straddles the intersection of science, philosophy, religion, and politics, it seems no one can stay on-topic long enough to provide clarity on any one of these aspects. This is particularly true in the scientific aspects of the discussion; because ID is rejected outright as pseudoscience, critics are unmotivated to explore the research and concepts.--Gandalf2000 23:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

But that article has precisely the point - counterpoint format that you seem to find so objectionable here. I'm not sure I understand the point. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

My reference to point-counterpoint is that it appears in nearly every paragraph, if not most sentences. My main point is that I expect an encyclopedia to summarize well -- and this article does so from a political/religious/philosophical point of view (POV) -- but it does not clearly summarize the scientific issues (even recognizing that those scientific issues are disputed).--Gandalf2000 02:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

What "scientific issues"? ID posits no scientific theory to speak of, only an assertion drawn from an inferrence and a list of polemics against the scientific method. The article does address that. FeloniousMonk 03:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Tada! Case in point! (That was easier than I thought....)--Gandalf2000 04:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hold on. That's interesting. Specifically what scientific points have been made by ID? How much more is ID than "We think the universe shows things that are too complex to have come about through gradual changes." A list of relevant scientific principles would be helpful, especially if these principles couldn't be unhinged by anyone with scientific training. -- Ec5618 09:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The article was written as a standard debate, something that would not be found in an encyclopedia. Additionally, the debate involves a number of ID-proponents, each one writing of his position, and then there is a response by a non-ID-proponent. (Thus, I am unclear as to how you can say the article was written by someone hostile to ID.) You need to realize that there are clear distinctions between classical debating methodology and standard encyclopedic methodology. Jim62sch 15:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

1. The first line, defining ID, is not presented as a verbatim quote from the DI website, and as such it isn't a problem to edit it. Adding the words 'superior to' is not a misquote, as such. Are you disputing that many IDists see ID as being superior to current scientific theories regarding the origin of life? Whether it feels unfriendly to you is irrelevant, I'm afraid.

The scientific community does in fact find ID inadequate: ID does not follow the scientific method, and scientists of all credes have resoundingly dismissed ID. In fact, within the world of peer review and falsifiability, ID does not exist.

2. While 'putative purpose' may seem harsh, stating that the purpose of ID is to investigate the world honestly is simply POV. In fact, considering the fact that the term ID was created to replace the word creationism in the book Of Pandas and People shortly after teaching creationism in schools was outlawed, it's tempting to conclude that ID is a cover. Though, 'stated purpose' might still be correct.

The same goes for several other quotes and objections: since their stated purpose is questionable, we must use modifiers.

And yes, there's criticism. What's your point?

Ec5618 01:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Marshill suggests "CSI cannot be generated by the only known natural mechanisms of physical law and chance, or by their combination." But this is exactly what is at issue. By making this as a statement of fact instead of what ID is claiming to be true, the statement would slant in favor of ID and would become POV. It is exactly true that ID-ers are claiming that this is true. Most scientists disagree. Thus, it is not biased or slanted writing to state, correctly, that ID claims that this is true. Similarly, most scientists claim that it is not true. That's how to write it in an NPOV way. Bill Jefferys 16:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

You bring up a good point. Perhaps however it would be fruitful to understand what specified complexity (a.k.a. complex specified information) actually is (the current article does not explain the concept very well).

The definition of information being referred to here is Merriam-Webster's dictionary 2b. Information is an inherent attribute communicated by sequences of units (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in computers) with each unit consisting of two or more variants. Complex information is simply a high information content. For instance, the following sequence PLMGQEIXZVITQAGUSAQPECNZA is more complex than ZP. For a complex set of information, it is unlikely that any particular sequence is chosen. For instance, the odds of getting the sequence of 143 characters exactly right via random chance (once we take into account spaces, commas and periods) is 29^158 or approximately 1 in 10^231. But to make a design inference Dembski says, it is not enough for information to be complex, it must also be specified. Specification, in short, implies the existence of a non-ad-hoc pattern that can be used to eliminate chance and be grounds to rationally make a design inference. Suppose the complex sequence was this:

THERE WAS ONCE A MAN WHO HAD A DAUGHTER WHO WAS CALLED CLEVER ELSIE. AND WHEN SHE HAD GROWN UP HER FATHER SAID, WE WILL GET HER MARRIED. YES, SAID THE MOTHER, IF ONLY SOMEONE WOULD COME WHO WOULD HAVE HER. AT LENGTH A MAN CAME FROM A DISTANCE AND WOOED HER, WHO WAS CALLED HANS, BUT HE STIPULATED THAT CLEVER ELSIE SHOULD BE REALLY SMART. OH, SAID THE FATHER, SHE HAS PLENTY OF GOOD SENSE. AND THE MOTHER SAID, OH, SHE CAN SEE THE WIND COMING UP THE STREET, AND HEAR THE FLIES COUGHING. WELL, SAID HANS, IF SHE IS NOT REALLY SMART, I WON'T HAVE HER. WHEN THEY WERE SITTING AT DINNER AND HAD EATEN, THE MOTHER SAID, ELSIE, GO INTO THE CELLAR AND FETCH SOME BEER. THEN CLEVER ELSIE TOOK THE PITCHER FROM THE WALL, WENT INTO THE CELLAR, AND TAPPED THE LID BRISKLY AS SHE WENT, SO THAT THE TIME MIGHT NOT APPEAR LONG.

The sequence of letters above (taken from "Clever Elsie", one of Grimm's fairy tales) has 143 units, with each unit having 29 varieties (29^143 possibilities for a sequence of this size). Under Dembski's definition, if the information has less than 1 in 10^150 chance plus the specification criterion it can be considered CSI (because anything less than 1 in 10^150 goes past the "universal probability bound"--so called because 10^150 is an upper limit on the total number of possible physical events since the big bang). Thus, we would have rational grounds for making a design inference here because the sequence above is both complex and specified (following a non-ad-hoc pattern; in this case a meaningful set of words). --Wade A. Tisthammer 04:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

In other words, are we to use a creation out of whole cloth by Dembski to define another similar creation of Dembski's? I think not. As for the unreliability of Dembski's "universal probability bound" I'd suggest you look into theoretical physics, in particular quantum theory and the wave function (both Schrödinger’s and Hawking's versions), M-theory, Decoherence, symmetry breaking, etc. Essentially, there are no bounds, thus rendering Dembski's argument a fallacy. Jim62sch 11:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It is you who should take a look at modern physics Jim. For instance, it is not possible to have any physical processes within a bound smaller than Planck time (under our current understanding of physical laws). There are bounds, thus rendering your argument a fallacy. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Wade: I am perfectly aware of Dembski's definition of CSI, you needn't write a dissertation to instruct me.

The point is simply that his claim that it can't be created by natural mechanisms is exactly what is in dispute. He hasn't proved that this is the case, and scientists claim that he's wrong. Bill Jefferys 14:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It was not a dissertation, it a was a brief introduction. It was my observation (at the time) that the Wikipedia entry did not do an adequate job of explaining the concept. Also, the concept often seems misunderstood. For instance, why think that natural mechanisms are adequate to create CSI? By definition, anything with CSI is highly improbable to have been formed via non-artificial means. So if natural processes have a reasonable probability of creating X, then X cannot be CSI to begin with. Many critics seem to miss this. It seems to me that the proper way to attack is to dispute that life has CSI (e.g. some probability calculations of abiogenesis) rather than CSI being insufficient to infer design.

I believe the whole CSI argument is nicely refuted by Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker and in Climbing Mount Improbable. In other words, I understand what IDists say CSI is and I believe that biodiversity is still better explained by evolution by natural selection. --JPotter 20:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

See above. Many critics seem to miss certain crucial facts of CSI. I am not confident that you properly understand what CSI is. (I advise you to look over Dembski's explanatory filter again). --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I've moved Marshill's personal views and the subsequent discussion to his userspace, User_talk:Marshill/Atheism_ID_Discussion. It was well off-topic and disruptive. Let's move on people and stay on topic. FeloniousMonk 17:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

i have no problem with that. It was heading in the wrong direction.

i have also moved the atheist/theist debating in the previous section devoted to discussion regarding the "responses to ID in summary" section to the same area. it was getting way off topic. thanks felonius for keeping it on the right track. oh how quickly we can diverge in topics like this! Marshill Marshill 17:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Since the article has been reorganised, hoe much relevance do they above points still have? More than a few section headers have been moved, and some of the points have been addressed or rebutted. Even the value of the straw poll could be debated. Could somone make a new list of objections, in some form of numbered list for easy reference? I'm assuming there are still objections, of course.

We might even consider considering archiving this page, and moving any relevant discussion to the main Talk page. -- Ec5618 11:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• the "ID as science" section. It needs a lot of work, and I think that it's original research and arguably POV.
• the first sentence of the Movement section needs a cite and possibly a rewording. Shouldn't be that hard.
• the Movement section needs a pro-ID source and summary of their argument. Right now, it's only criticism.
• The first sentence of the "debate" sentence needs a source (any source arguing against "teach the controversy" will do) and an "opponents argue" or something comparable.
• The "three issues" in the "debate" section should not be in list form and should not appear to exhaust the debate.
• Marshill wants a cite for the discrimination point. Shouldn't be hard to find one.
• The three footnotes in a row should be separated. Putting a reference to the "wedge document" in the preceding couple of sentences will also help with another objection about references.
• Specified complexity: I don't know enough about Dembski's case for it after reading that section. It needs more Dembski arguments. Adding a quote from Behe about irreducible complexity in that section is probably a good idea as well
• We should add a reference for Fine Tuned Universe. My understanding is that some very prestigious physicists believe in it.