Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Fact and Theory

This article should note that the existence of biological evolution is considered by science to be a fact. In the context of the intelligent design debate, opponents of evolution claim that evolution "is only a theory"; according to their useage of this word, this means that that there is no proof, and it may be totally wrong. In contrast, scientists point out that biological evolution certainly occurs; there is no longer a debate in the scientific community on this issue. It is an established fact. To clarify the terminology, consider this: The fact that biological evolution exists is just as well established as the fact that gravity exists. Specific theories of evolution, however, give details as to precisely how one lifeform may have evolved over time; this would be an example of a theory that could change and develop over time. Similarly, specific theories of gravity give details as to precisely how masses attract each other. However, no one will ever make a discovery which overturns the facts that a rock drops when you let go; no one will ever make a discovery which disproves that today's forms of life have evolved from earlier forms. The existence of the phenomenon (evolution, gravity) themselves are well established facts; precise models of how they work are less well established, and may be called theories. RK 16:27, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so quick to talk about scientific "fact" - what you call a "fact" is actually based on a particular understanding of the world - outside of that context you cannot call it a "fact". I.e., things that are incontestably true now may not be true tomorrow, because the underlying paradigm has shifted. I don't think there's any value into separating things into "fact" and "theory", only into establishing strength of evidence and the accuracy of representative models and their predictive behavior. Biological evolution is theory as much as anything else, since all knowledge is ultimately based on the unknowable. Why speak of "fact"? Rather, point out that there's no need to look down upon "theory". Graft 17:58, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That is incorrect. It seems as if you adhere to Kuhn's ideas about paradigm shifts; please understand that most philosophers and scientists reject many parts of Kuhn's ideas on this topic. His book on this subject is widely read, but it is also usually dismissed. In any case, no scientific discovery will allow rocks to fall up when we let go of them. It is an established fact that if you pick up a rock and let it go, then it will fall down. No paradigm shift changes the way the world works. A paradigm shift can only change a specific theory of describing how masses attract each other, or how life has evolved over time. Similarly, no one will ever make a discovery which disproves that today's forms of life have evolved from earlier forms. The existence of the phenomenon (evolution, gravity) themselves are well established facts; precise models of how they work are less well established, and may be called theories. In any case, my contribution does adhere to NPOV, as I am explicitly stating who is making this claim ("the mainstream scientific community"), in the same way that al of our other articles handle this precise subject. RK 16:27, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I haven't read Kuhn, but anyway... I can agree with you that rocks will probably never fall up (although "never" is a long time), but, this is different than our saying that rocks fall down because of gravity. Gravity is a specific postulation, an explanatory principle. Before gravity there was the bizarro (to us) Aristotlean view that the "natural principle" of the rock was to be close to the ground. Then newton made up gravity. Possibly general relativity changes that, even, but since I don't understand general relativity I can't say. The point is, you can't call "gravity" a scientific fact, any more than Aristotle could have called his "natural principle" a scientific fact. It's a way of explaining observation - a compelling one for us, to be sure, but this by no means propels it into the realm of fact. Similarly, we can observe that there are fossils of apparent great age that might represent earlier forms of some creatures, but evolution is not fact - it is only a theory that explains the given set of observations. No matter how compelling the rationale for evolution may seem to you, there is, nevertheless, a rationale - it is NOT fact, it is theory. Graft 00:43, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, maybe we can write something like "the mainstream scientific community holds that biological evolution is considered a fact." Stating it in this way should be in accord with NPOV. RK 02:36, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, there are no facts. We only know what our fallible senses convey to us, and we can't really be sure that is true. Every deduction starts with a premise; you can't prove anything that is not inherent in the premises. All knowledge is theory. It just happens that evolution is one of the most thoroughly substantiated theories, right behind special relativity. Fairandbalanced 02:22, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

RK, there may be a bit of terminological confusion for our readers if we don't distinguish between (A) hypotheses and theories (on the one hand) and (B) facts and observations (on the other).

The fact that an ordinary object, when released, starts moving toward the ground is certainly an unchallenged "fact", easily and universally observed. However, the "fact" that the planets revolve around the sun is a conclusion based on astronomical records and complex calculations. Newton's "Laws of Motion" have superb explanatory and predictive power, and have not been seriously challenged by any source, secular or religious for well over a century.

Darwin's "theory of evolution", however, is different. For one thing, it has no predictive power since the time scale it deals with is far too long for any living person to check. (I say all the above as a means of clearing the air and establishing some common ground, in the hopes that we can work together to improve the intelligent design article. Please let me know your thoughts on terminology before we go on. --Uncle Ed 18:10, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC))

Three part response to Ed. (A) Actually, biological evolution does make many predictions, and many of these predictions have been verified. (B) What you write above misses my point; it is a fact that planets orbit around the sun, and scientists consider it a similarly established fact that all living organisms today evolved from earlier life forms. (C) I understand that many Christians, Jews and Muslims would disagree, but that is the consensus of the scientific community, and an ever growing number of religious believers as well. (In my own faith community, Judaism, the majority of religious Jews, including an ever increasing number of Orthodox Jews, now accept that biological evolution occurs. While apparently happening at a slower rate, this trend has been occuring in other religions as well.) RK 22:05, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In fact, Ed, the theory of evolution does have predictive power, and can be observed in a time period short enough for any living person to check. A simple, graduate-level experiment has students observing a population of flies in a terrarium with an electrified ceiling. Natural selection in this situation obviously favours those flies which are less capable of flying. Over several generations (and one fly generation takes about two weeks) the flies can be observed to have significantly reduced wings, and eventually their wings will be purely vestigial organs. This experiment, which has been repeated innumerable times with the same observations being made, very conclusively illustrates evolution at work.

Verified predictions that evolution makes

Prediction: "The macroevolutionary prediction of a unique, historical universal phylogenetic tree is the most important, powerful, and basic conclusion from the hypothesis of universal common descent."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

Prediction: "According to the theory of common descent, modern living organisms, with all their incredible differences, are the progeny of one single species in the distant past. In spite of the extensive variation of form and function among organisms, several fundamental criteria characterize all life. Some of the macroscopic properties that characterize all of life are (1) replication, (2) information flow in continuity of kind, (3) catalysis, and (4) energy utilization (metabolism). At a very minimum, these four functions are required to generate a physical historical process that can be described by a phylogenetic tree. If every living species descended from an original species that had these four obligate functions, then all living species today should necessarily have these functions (a somewhat trivial conclusion). Most importantly, however, all modern species should have inherited the structures that perform these functions. Thus, a basic prediction of the genealogical relatedness of all life, combined with the constraint of gradualism, is that organisms should be very similar in the particular mechanisms and structures that execute these four basic life processes." (see above website for verification information.)

Prediction: If evolution occurs, then life must evolve as a a nested hierarchy of species. (see above website for verification information.)

Prediction "If there is one historical historical phylogenetic tree which unites all species in an objective genealogy, all separate lines of evidence should converge on the same tree (Penny et al. 1982; Penny et al. 1991). Independently derived phylogenetic trees of all organisms should match each other with a high degree of statistical significance." (see above website for verification information.)

Prediction "If there is a unique universal phylogeny, then all organisms, both past and present, fit in that phylogeny uniquely. Since the standard phylogenetic tree is the best approximation of the true historical phylogeny, we expect that all fossilized animals should conform to the standard phylogenetic tree within the error of our scientific methods." (see above website for verification information.)

Prediction: "Fossilized intermediates should appear in the correct general chronological order based on the standard tree." (see above website for verification information.)

Prediction: If evolution has taken place, then we would expect to find many anatomical vestiges.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html

Prediction: Vestigial organs can sometimes be functional. (see above website for verification information.)

And the list of verified predictions of evolutionary theory goes on an on. The idea that one cannot make and verify predictions about evolution is a falsehood being spread in the intelligent design, as well as creationist, community. RK 21:54, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Twenty nine verified predictions that evolution makes.

---

RK, thank you for your calm and reasoned response. It sets an example for all of us.

1. Any verified predictions made an evolutionary theory, really should be in the evolution article. They can also be summarized, at least, in the intelligent design article -- if only as rebuttal to the notion that "only ID has predictive power".

2. I'm sorry I missed your point. I'm always a bit embarrassed when that happens, and that's why I appreciate your patience in these discussions. I'd rather take a little extra time, so we're not arguing at cross purposes (in fact, I don't want to argue at all -- I just want to make a comprehensive and neutral article). Perhaps we need to distinguish between (a) the idea that species have periodically died out over the past 100s of millions of years, and new species have appeared; and (b) the idea that the new species evolved from the old species. Adherents of ID, to my knowledge, universally acknowledge point (a) while disputing point (b). It is rather Creationists, particular Biblical fundamentalists, who deny the fossil record while ID adherents generally accept it.

3. I think you are right that it is the consensus of the scientific community that new species have evolved from old species, as I wrote in 2 (b) above. Certainly every article on evolution, creationism and related subjects should acknowledge this (last year I started the evolution poll article, but I don't know if it's still there). What I'd like to see made clear in regards to religious believers is the distinction I made in 2 above, between (a) new species appearing and (b) new species evolving from the old. Some religions teach that God simply "made" new species, denying the concept of, um, "speciation" -- and this is straight creationist dogma. Other religions, or other currents within the main religions, teach both that God created and that evolution is true; still other religious ideas posit that God sort of let it all happen on its own, i.e., that new species emerged without any divine intervention whatever.

Fact and Theory, Part 2

I would really like to see these points clarified, without the Wikipedia taking a stand of course. I daresay scientists consider the non-Creationist view to be a "fact" just as ardently as, say, the Roman Catholic Church considered the "earth is the center of the universe" view to be a fact in Galileo's time. I am not asking the Wikipedia to take sides in either of these controversies, of course. All I ask is that the views be described correctly and that they be properly attributed to their adherents.

Does this sound like a good plan to you, RK? --Uncle Ed 22:42, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Ed. RK

I rather suspect the problem here is one of understanding. Fact, something that is thought to have occured with sufficiently high statistical certainty that to consider otherwise would be unreasonable, eg Stones fall when dropped, Evolution occurs. Theory, a set of principles which through logical deduction explain known facts and make further predictions based on those facts. Example, the Newtons Theory of Gravity, The Theory of Evolution. Hypothesis, in some sense this is a subset of Theory. It is an untested theory, often this refers to a single principle rather than a collection of them, since a collection of principles is often called a theory even if it does not have verified predictions, eg String Theory, The Hypothesis that the universe consists of a space containing two dimensional objects (strings). So you see Evolution is both fact, and theory, since Evolutionary fact is the first case, evolutionary theory is the second. ID is none of the above, there are no ID facts. There are no ID theories (no predictive power). There is no ID hypothesis because of it's lack of predicted power.

I must disagree with you people concerning the difference between "hypothesis", "fact", and "theory". I am not an expert on the subject, but I have been taught (and based on the understanding of science that I have, I am fairly certain this is correct) that these terms are properly used as follows: A fact is something known BY OBSERVATION OR EXPERIMENT to happen in the natural world. For instance, it is a fact that a dropped stone falls to the ground. A hypothesis is a possible explanation of a set of facts. For instance, Newton hypothesized that the rock fell to the earth because the masses of the rock and the earth attracted each other. A theory is a well verified and documented and widely accepted hypothesis. kpearce

Kpearce, I agree with this; you are certainly correct. However, we would be stricter than most scientists if we insist that direct observation is necessary for something to be declared a fact. There are many things that scientists consider facts that are not observable, even in principle, that can nonetheless be proven. Sub-atomic particles like electrons, protons and neutrons cannot ever be observed directly, but their effects can be observed directly. Gravity waves have not yet been observed directly, but their effects can be observed directly. Of course, in a technical sense, one can fairly say that science produces no final facts, only tentative understandings and beliefs that are, at the moment, well justified to be considered as facts. In this technical sense, evolution, gravity, electrons and all sorts of other facts can be denied as factual. Of course, the main point is then that all facts about everything ever observed also fall into this category, and this is discussed in more detail in our articles on Science and the Scientific method. RK 02:36, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

A potential problem (and one that we can easily deal with) is that people use the term "fact" in two different ways. (A) In the common, general way that most people usually use the term, evolution, gravity, electrons and all sorts of other things are considered by most scientists to be "facts". (B) In the technical sense that you describe, they are not "facts", but then again, neither are many things that most people would normally accept as facts! Another linguistic problem: People often use the word "theory" incorrecty. If we state in this article that the existence of biological evolution is not considered a fact, most readers of this article would misunderstand the point; they would assume that other things are considered facts, and would mistakenly assume that this means that scientists admit that evolution is "just a theory", and thus no more or less established than creationism. Most English speakers see the word "theory", but mistake this as a synonym for "hypothesis". Now, that would be incorrect. Kpearce correctly understands the difference, but I suspect that 90% of our readers will not. So I am just concerned about how to phrase the article to clarify this issue. I want this article to note that most scientists hold that the existence of biological evolution is just as well established as most things that people call "factual". RK 02:36, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

For instance, many experiments and calculations have been made regarding Newton's hypothesis that masses attract each other and so it has become the Theory of Gravity. However, gravity is NOT a fact. It is an explanation of the facts. Likewise, in the case of evolution, there are facts (e.g. if you introduce penicillin to a bacteria culture the colony will either develop a resistance to penicillin or die out. There are facts which better support evolution, I'm sure, but this is a simple, easy example by a non-expert). Darwin hypothesized that these facts could be explained by his Theory of Evolution. Since then, predictions (further hypotheses) have been made and tested and more observations have been made and the vast majority of the scientific community has come to the conclusion that evolution is the correct explanation. This makes it a theory. A theory never becomes a fact. It is only a well-established and widely accepted explanation of the facts. (Macro-)Evolution is a possible explanation of observed facts. There are alternative explanations, but these are dismissed by the vast majority of the scientific community. As has been pointed out, there was a time when the idea that the earth was not the center of the universe was rejected by the vast majority of the "experts". For myself, I think we need physicists who question gravity, and biologists who question evolution, but that opinion doesn't belong in this article. What does belong in the article is clarification of what a theory is. It is not right to say that evolution is "JUST a theory", but neither is it correct to say that evolution is a fact. What is correct is to say that evolution is an explanation of certain facts, and that it is accepted as an accurate explanation by the vast majority of the scientific community. kpearce 23:53, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Huh? When was the idea that the earth is not the center of our universe rejected? People who question gravity tend to die from falls, but there are always physicists proposing modifications to general relativity. And there are biologists proposing modifications to the current standard model of evolution. There are also fringe physicists and biologists with nonsensical theories. Only the fringe biologists get the support of billionaires. Fairandbalanced 02:51, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Some legal mind once said that outside the realm of mathematics, nothing is proven: the best you can get is "beyond reasonable doubt". We don't know that gravity is a fact: rocks might start flying upwards tomorrow. But it's highly unlikely, given what we know. Don't we see bacteria evolving? Is that evidence for evolution? -- Tarquin 09:49, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I don't know of anyone who rejects the idea that bacteria evolve. Those who reject Darwin's Theory of Evolution make a distinction between macro- and micro-evolution. For myself, I would restrict micro-evolution to the genus level. For instance, if macro-evolution does not occur then that means that if you are breeding dogs, no matter how many millions of generations you go, you will only get more dogs (genus canis). However, it doesn't mean that if you breed German Shepherds you will only get more German Shepherds. I would say that micro-evolution is an observed fact. Macro-evolution cannot possibly be an observed fact, since it takes millions of years. Rather, it is an extrapolation (a "derived fact", as Ed says below). Regarding rocks flying upward, I think that we would do well to remember that David Hume famously claimed that our entire belief in cause and effect is irrational, and there is really no logical reason to believe that the laws of physics will still apply tomorrow. However, we must assume these things without proof in order to make sense of the world (that last part is just a random, irrelevant comment). kpearce 21:10, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Actually if you breed German Shepherds, you will always get German Shepherds. Otherwise you would be breeding something else. Duh! That is why breeding seldom gets beyond the species level and has not yet, to my knowledge, approached genus bounds. Breeders want easy inter-breeding. Fairandbalanced 02:51, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thank you, Kpearce and RK. I think I finally have figured out what the problem with "fact" is: the confusion arises from its use in two different contexts.

1. In the process of establishing scientific principles, researchers begin with (a) observed facts, like rocks fall when we drop them; move on to (b) hypotheses, such as, "objects are pulled to the ground by an invisible force". The same applies to those tiny lights in the sky we now call planets: First (a) Tycho or someone observes that one night they're here, next night they're there; second, (b) Ptolemy or Kepler hypothesizes that the planets revolve around the earth (with epicycles) or the sun (in nearly-circular ellipses, with one focal point at the centroid of mass between sun and planet, if you want to be precise)
2. When scientists become convinced that a certain hypothesis is correct, they begin speaking of it as a "theory" or even a "law". Thus, we have the law of gravity and the laws of motion, but also still Einstein's theory of relativity. It is when scientists universally come to accept a given hypothesis that it graduates (in their eyes, at least) to being considered a fact, as in "It is a fact that the planets move in elliptical orbits". I think here that the phrase it is a fact is synonymous with "We are completely certain it is true."

Unfortunately, sometimes terminological confusion arises (whether purely by accident, or as a result of deliberate rhetorical shenanigans, I refuse to speculate :-) and the distinction between observed fact (I saw this event occur) and derived fact (I know this hypothesis is true) gets blurred.

I suggest we duck the whole issue by simply reporting that various writers believe this or that to be true. We can mention that they say idea X "is a fact" or "is not a fact" if that is how they put it. But I think our articles should clarify that a statement such as "evolution is a fact" is synonymous with something like "Writer B believes that evolution has been verified beyond any shadow of a doubt".

In any case, I don't think a Wikipedia article should say that evolution or ID (or any other controversial idea) is or is not a fact. --Uncle Ed 13:49, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Argument Zone

no one (to my knowledge) disputes that bacteria evolve

Actually, this is disputed. And part of the dispute centers on the meaning of the term evolve.

Bacteria do mutate, of course, and I don't think mutation of bacteria is disputed. What is disputed, rather, is whether mutation should be considered (a) an example of evolution and thus (b) contemporary evidence that new species come into being without supernatural intervention.

Creationists maintain that only God can create new species, and that thus speciation -- the morphing of one species into anothen -- never occurs in nature, unless God Himself causes it to happen by a deliberate act of will.

Advocates of ID maintain that there are many examples of the emergence of new species whose characteristics differ from previous species in such complex ways that (c) the could not have arisen via the operation of natural processes and thus (d) point to an intelligent designer of some sort. The argument used by ID is analogous to the argument used by archaeologists when the come upon what are called "ruins" and declare them to have been built by human beings (I'm thinking of the Mayan civilization, or those big statues on Easter Island).

Regardless of the merits of (1) the theological stance of creationists or the (2) would-be "scientific" arguments of ID adherents, we ought to describe these ideas in the intelligent design article.

And, of course, we ought also to include the ideas and arguments of any major spokesmen who criticize these ideas, such as, I suppose, evolutionists. --Uncle Ed 13:31, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Many of these points are brought out in irreducible complexity, which is a much shorter, cleaner and better-written article this long-winded one. Graft 17:29, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

For the record (and because this might possibly be relevant to the article) I am a "young earth creationist" (although I don't understand all this stuff about there being a difference between "creationism", "intelligent design" and "intelligent design theory") and I DO believe in speciation. I've studied the Bible more than I've studied science, so my reasoning lies there, primarily. In Genesis 1 God creates the various plants and animals to reproduce "after their own kind". The Hebrew word for "kind" used here is "miyn". Respected Evangelical lexicographers Brown, Driver, Briggs and Gesenius, while clearly denying Darwinian evolution, specifically note that this does not preclude speciation, as can be seen at http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=04327&version=kjv. I would tend to think that this word refers to genus, rather than species, as I have pointed out earlier. However, your statement that creationists maintain that speciation cannot occur without a special act of God may not be altogether incorrect. Many creationists (myself included) reject the idea that nature is autonomous and would say that nothing happens without a "special act of God". The laws of nature, we would say, are only descriptions of how God normally wills the universe to behave. If God were to stop willing masses to attract each other, the law of gravity would cease to apply. kpearce 23:48, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

So either Nature is your God or your God is Nature, one or the other. And of course you don't know why anything happens. That is not much of an explanation. Kind of hard to turn that into useful devices and new discoveries. Gee, I wonder why scientists reject supernatural explanations!

Fairandbalanced 02:51, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You have grossly distorted my position. I don't believe in "Nature" as an autonomous force, worthy of capitalization, at all. I only believe in God. One of the things that He does is to will the so-called "natural world" to function in a certain way. As to not knowing why anything happens, I would say that neither do (mainstream) scientists. Back again to gravity, people asked why dropped objects fall, and the answer was "masses attract each other". Why do masses attract each other? Maybe science has an answer for this, but they sure don't teach it in high school physics. Likewise, a scientist might ask, Why is the grass green? Certainly I could answer to this that "God wills it to be thus", but that only leads to a question of "Why does God will grass to be green?" Since we already assume that God wills the world to be as it is (although I would say that sometimes He has brought things about indirectly by creating free beings), this answer is true, but not informative. What is meant when someone like myself asks "Why is the grass green?" is in fact "Why does God will grass to be green?", and then we can go through all of the same steps an atheist would (chlorophyll, reflection of lights of certain wavelengths, absorption of others, photosynthesis, etc.). Finally, however, we will get to a place where science as we understand it can take us no further and we will enter the realm of theology with a question like "Why would God want to create a world in which small plants gain energy by the process of photosynthesis, which requires them to contain chlorophyll, which makes them appear green to the human eye?" An atheist, however, hits a brick wall when he has gone as far as his science will take him. He reaches a point where asking "Why?" one more time would not yield any useful result. A creationist who rejects the autonomy of nature can keep probing deeper, on into infinity. Instead of reaching a point where he can no longer learn more by asking "Why?", he reaches a point where he can learn no more about the so-called "natural world" and his questions regard God instead. kpearce 23:09, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You are saying there are no laws of nature separate from God. That means God and Nature are indistinguishable. So you ask "Why?" and the answer is always "God." How is that distinguishable from not asking "Why?" in the first place? What knowledge does it produce? What falsifiable predictions does it produce? Admittedly I have never managed to probe infinite levels; you must have extremely fast neurons. Fairandbalanced 09:14, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

An atheist accepts that there is no means of answering the question "why does grass exist". -- Tarquin 12:23, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

See Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin. If you mean "For what purpose does grass exist?" the answer of course is "to propagate its genes." A creationist, on the other hand, has no answer, for he/she says it is the work of God and whatever purpose God has is unknowable. Fairandbalanced 21:36, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Edited the 'watchmaker' section, because it devotes one line to the theory, and twenty to its refutation. It's also done much better in the irreducible complexity article. The 'many watchmakers' example doesn't really capture the point of the arguments against Paley, because even the assembly of the watch from pre-fabricated parts is clearly an act of intelligent design. The point is, how did those parts get in the places they needed to be, and this is what Dawkins tries to tackle. DJ Clayworth

NPOV?

I think the NPOV of this article is lacking at some locations - look at these snippets:

• "For example, they claim that all the major types of animals appeared at the same time in the fossil record with no evidence of common ancestry (Alas, they do not!)" - wouldn't "they do not" suffice? It seems to me that this is a case of ironical pity (or how you'd call it), like "Oh, I'm soooo sorry!" with a tone of "I'm not a bit!". We should stick to facts.
• "The eye is an especially embarrassing example for ID; Michael Behe resorted to saying it might be deliberately flawed!" - "embarassing" is clearly a personal judgement. My proposal: "The eye is now known to be suboptimal (the nerve fibers extend towards the inside of the eye, which causes an unneccessary blind spot), which evolutionists see as evidence against its intelligent design. In response, Michael Behe reasoned that the eye may be deliberately flawed." - whether this "deliberate flaw" hypothesis makes sense is then left up to the reader, probably to most, it doesn't.
• ", that one would expect any reasonably intelligent designer to have done a much better job!" - ok, I may be oversensitive, but a full stop seems more neutral, the exlamation mark gives the impression of the author being enthusiastic about this opinion. It should be clear that this is the view of many or most evolutionists, and the sentence is not meant to ridicule ID or creationism on behalf of Wikipedia.
• "Engaging just a little hyperbole, one could say that ID is making monkeys of creationists." - I'd suggest to remove that or use it as a quote (of a scientist or celebrity who actually said so, if there is one).

Also, it would be neat to actually provide at least one hypothesis on the eye's evolution (but in a seperate article). I recently ran across one on the net, but I lost the link and failed to "google" it up again, and I can't remember the exact details. :-(

As a good example how not to do things the NPOV way, take a look at The Evilution of Sex. This level of "debate" (read: distortion and absurd "extrapolation" to ridicule) should be left to others. Now don't get me wrong, of course this article here is in no way that bad!!!, but methinks it's best to avoid any semblance with that rubbish!

Best regards, Aragorn2 16:11, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

reply to Ed Poor

In reference to this addition: "Much of the controversy over ID stems from the desires of its advocates to get the theory accepted as a scientific hypothesis -- a desire which has consistently been thwarted by the scientific establishment."

I think its truth depends on what version of ID is being proposed. The claim that biological complexity requires a supernatural explanation is regarded as pseudoscientific -- here the addition applies. In contrast, the claim that natural selection is not sufficient to explain biological complexity is a scientific hypothesis, which has been falsified -- in this case the addition doesn't apply accurately. Rikurzhen 21:17, Oct 17, 2003 (UTC)