Talk:Intelligent design/archive52

The bias is blatant

This whole article should be reworked. It is the most blatantly biased Wikipedia article I have read yet, incessantly reminding us that BIG SCIENCE rejects ID as "discredited" and "unscientific". The whole thing comes off like a nervous drive by shooting of anyone who would dare question big science instead of just reporting the history of the movement. Tomdahlberg (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)tomdahlberg

I hope you enjoyed the film. However, you misunderstand Wikipedia. Wikipedia is designed to present the mainstream view most prominently, as can be seen by reviewing WP:NPOV. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 05:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Big Science? Is that in anyway related to Big Pharma? Are they related or just kissing cousins? Do they go to family picnics together with the Big Liberal Media Bias? I want to go! Baegis (talk) 10:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

We have an article on BIG SCIENCE. Avb 10:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Off-topic argument focussed on the personality of editors here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Tomdalberg, get in line. You're not the first and won't be the last to state the obvious. There has been a long parade of people trying to explain why this article is anything but neutral. Unfortunately Filll and other agressive admins maintain this blog like their personal webspace. They own this turf and thus brook no dissent and accept no criticism but from those who already agree with their narrow valueset. Excuse me for stating the obvious, but you'll worry less about the flagrant bias in this article when you understand that this is an "encyclopedia" written by twenty-somethings for an audience of teenagers. Compare for example the articles on breast (as if mammary gland wasn't enough) to the articles on toe or finger. This gives you an idea of WP's priorities. When you realize that the article about the camel is only barely more fleshed out than the article on camel toe, then you won't take these edicts issued by "experts" such as Filll quite so seriously. 98.169.241.244 (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC) That's funny - the toe article is a stub and the Cameltoe has more references than ID has peer reviewed papers. Ttiotsw (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC) Excuse me for stating the obvious. Of course Wikipedia is "biased"; that is Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia follows something called WP:NPOV which means mainstream views are most prominent. If you do not like WP:NPOV, then you are welcome to go to a wiki that does not have NPOV like Wikiinfo or Conservapedia.--Filll (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC) Filll is completely correct. But, to better understand his position and mindset, replace "mainstream" with "liberal" or "progressive". Like most liberals/progressives, Filll believes there is the "mainstream" view and then there are idiots. 98.172.21.102 (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC) Folks, may I suggest WP:DNFTT? Thanks!--Ramdrake (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC) And still, if Wikipedia is to be respected, it must explain what something is as a priority before denouncing it. Yes, denounce it, but explain it first. This page is controlled by evolutionist Nazis who are injecting their POV before allowing any definition or balanced understanding of what someone may want to inquire and understand what ID is - definition. The first paragraph can largely be put in a separate section, the 'Christian Objective', but that in and of itself does not define what ID is, despite how many 'agree' with it, it still requires definition which is sorely lacking in the header section of this article. Preceeding signed by: Bnaur Talk 18:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC) Ahh the joys of projection -- the conservative evangelical culture that spawned Creationism is far more authoritarian than that of the scientific community (which tends to be more than a little eclectic and anarchic). HrafnTalkStalk 19:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC) I am sorry you disagree with the product of WP:CON over several years. This is not the only wiki that has an article on this however. You might like some of the others better. I would be glad to give you suggestions if you need them. --Filll (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The VERY STRONG CONSENSUS and superlative is that wikipedia actually serves the purpose of providing definition of ideas and concepts before POV (not in place of consensus POV), it is the priority and the purpose of this site. When I want to learn about something, this is the place to learn, so definition is the top priority, not the last and I assure you that is the consensus. Now, instead of focusing on the POV, take another look at how this information (that I also agree with) should be layed out to present the definition of what ID is FIRST (this will take at least two paragraphs), and then follow it the proponents/opponents POV (which is all we know about ID from the current first paragraph which attacks IT without ever defining what IT is). All good info, just poorly presented. Preceeding signed by: Bnaur Talk 19:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

See WP:LEAD, and read the article more carefully. Looking at your effort above, is poor old Behe out in the cold now, and whatever happened to the abrupt appearance of cdesign proponentsists? Also see WP:NPOV, WP:NPOV/FAQ and WP:FRINGE – this isn't a sales brochure and we provide all expert views on the subject, not just those favouring ID. .. dave souza, talk 19:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, no sales brochure, for or against, until after it is defined without a POV (thats what we need and what we don't have today).Preceeding signed by: Bnaur Talk 06:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Off topic discussion complaining about the fact that off topic discussions are shut down
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's a lot easier to build a consensus when you shut down anyone who disagrees with you. It is common practice at WP to label any voice of dissension as a "troll" or a "puppet" and then ignore them. That is how a cult operates. You can own this website but you can't own the truth. I personally NEVER log in to edit or comment on this type of article for fear of retribution against my account. 98.172.21.102 (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC) That is irrelevant and offtopic. You are free to go to Conservapedia and I am sure you will be happy editing there.--Filll (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC) No one cares if you're biased. What people object to is that you claim to be "NPOV" when you are liberal/progressive POV. Do you work for MSNBC? 98.169.241.244 (talk) 13:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is shockingly and disturbingly biased, and puts Wikipedia's objectivity and NPOV into question. This clearly has proved to be its Achilles’ heel, as it seems unable to provide a dispassionate and objective article on ID. Clearly, the writers have strayed from Wikipedia's stated "strength" of making it difficult to "censor and impose bias." Unfortunately, this is the case in this article.

Examples: "It is a modern form of..." rather than "According to xxx it is a modern form of..."; or "The unequivocal consensus...is..." rather than "Although the majority of those in the scientific community believe xxx, many other scientists state that..."

Wikipedia should be ashamed of itself and should at a minimum flag this article as not neutral and biased toward one side of this issue. To let this article stand as is underscores Wikipedia's detractors who believe it to be, at its core, a left-leaning, anti-religious organization. .(And stand by for ad hominem attacks on this writer who has simply observed this heavy-handed bias...shave and a haircut, _______). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logicanalysis (talk • contribs) 08:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

_ _ _ two bits, if my understanding of the idiom is correct. As it says at the top, this article must follow NPOV with particular attention to NPOV: Undue weight and NPOV: Giving "equal validity". The examples you raise have been carefully considered to reflect the weight presented by references, and the suggestions you make fail NPOV by giving undue weight to an extreme minority view which should be shown in accordance with WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia is a community project, and you should be ashamed of attacking editors by caricaturing their views in a way which does not comply with WP:CIVIL. Please have a good look at Talk:Intelligent design/FAQ which discusses the issues in more detail, . . dave souza, talk 11:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Logicalanalysis, re: "Although the majority of those in the scientific community believe xxx, many other scientists state that..." Wikipedia:AWW ▫ Urbane Legend ^chinwag 14:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Broken New Republic links

The citations linking to the New Republic 92 and 93 are both broken, and no archive link is available. LexisNexis keeps back issues of the New Republic, but I couldn't find the cited articles there. My skills on LexisNexis are somewhat limited, though. Can anyone else who has the time and necessary skill please try to locate these sources? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I can look, if it is available in the standard academic version of Lexis.--Stetsonharry (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

NR doesn't like sharing anymore. Has anyone tried the Wayback Machine at the Internet Archive (archive.org)? FeloniousMonk (talk) 17:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Not on my version of Lexis. Reader's Guide Online refers to it as follows:

"Title: The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name Other Titles: Review article Personal Author: Coyne, Jerry Journal Name: The New Republic Source: The New Republic v. 233 no. 8/9 (August 22-29 2005) p. 21-33 Publication Year: 2005 Abstract: (omitted)"

From this, it indicates that this article appeared in a "double" issue of TNR. References 92 and 93 give the incorrect impression that there are two separate articles, not one article in a double issue.

Style question: since two succeeding footnotes refer to the same source, shouldn't the second footnote no. 93 be an "ibid"?--Stetsonharry (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I finally got to an entry through EBSCO, but apparently the article has been removed from the index for some unexplained reason. Anyway, I have combined the two duplicate references in a single named reference, and I have done away with the link altogether since apparently no electronic version of the article can be accessed, even with an institutional subscription. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Style answer: my impression is that the guidelines are against 'ibid's or similar -- for one thing, wikipedia articles are dynamic, and you never know when an intervening citation might be added. WP:CITE#Shortened notes is a good alternative. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Lynn Margulis

In the "Peer review" section there is a reference to Lynn Magulis. It should say Lynn Margulis. This is her link in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis Estebangil (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed. Guettarda (talk) 04:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

So how possible is it...

To change all the capital-g Gods in this article to be god, so that the article stops pretending to be about Christian god and is thus, gasp, about the idea of god in general? Vael Victus 18:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Both "God" and "god" are used in the article, and more often that not "God" is used in quotes or specific contexts. Can you be more specific? Thanka. Guettarda (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think God would be the correct usage when used in the context of a monotheist religion (which is ubiquitous in this article). User the lower case implies one god among many, and polytheism. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The assumption that Christians are the only ones who believe in monotheism is inappropriate to boot. - Denimadept (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

What assumption? Capitalising merely indicates the definitive article. And in any case Intelligent Design is almost exclusively Christian. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the assumption made by the person who started this section. Inasmuch as Muslims can be considered heretical Christians, agreed. - Denimadept (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, there are no Muslim supporters of ID, so the point is moot. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Right there in this article, actually. - Denimadept (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

As it says, the ICR appears to be more popular, and as I recall there was a shift away as it is of course blasphemous to suggest that there could be another god than Allah, as implied in ID's inherent dissimulation. A minority view which shouldn't be given undue weight against the Kitzmiller assessment that "the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity" . . dave souza, talk 19:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The closest that this section comes to a Muslim ID advocate (as opposed to Creationism advocate more generally) is a Muslim signatory of ASDfD -- and many non-ID creationists sign that. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well alright, if you want to capitalize it so you can for some reason give a name to the idea of a god at all, why not call it, "the creator"? I'm seeing christian bias here and I don't like it one bit. (even though they're not the only ones to call their god God apparently) Vael Victus 02:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

PS - if it's still mainly Christian, then you still have to accomodate the people that aren't Christian. Christianity will die soon enough, then what will happen to intelligent design? Vael Victus 02:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

See the Kitzmiller assessment cited in my comment earlier in this thread. The intelligent design movement is likely to die out shortly as it fails to achieve its aim of legitimising anti-evolution teaching in US public schools, creationism is probably going to carry on regardless, and I'm sure that Christianity will continue into the forseeable future with mainstream denominations continuing to reconcile God's word with secular science. . . dave souza, talk 09:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

External links: a forest of advocacy

I note that the external links section in this article is unusually large, and rather a lot of them are to advocacy websites, many of which might well fall afoul of the "misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" criterion for exclusion (see Wikipedia:External links). Have the items on this very long list recently been reviewed for appropriateness? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The EL section has always been long, and are regularly pruned. I think a reader that notices the headers (ID perspectives, non-ID perspectives, and media articles) should have a sense of what they're reading. Are there any specific links that bother you? Guettarda (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the links from the top downwards, it's evident that the first ones are promoting viewpoints that, in the scientific arena in which their proponents firmly place themselves, are those of a tiny fringe at best, and are often simply misrepresentations of science by religious conservatives. It seems to me that the effect of including these links in the external links section, rather than discussing them with an accompanying link within the body of the text if and when it is appropriate to discuss them, is to promote fringe views and pseudoscience through the medium of Wikipedia.

In addition I have a particular problem with evolutionnews.org. The URL itself is misleading, and so is the description in the external links section of our article: "Discovery Institute website tracking media coverage of intelligent design." Actually the site seems to comprise a series of op-eds written by Discovery Institute contributors about selected mainstream press articles. It's a quasi-political blog, basically. The identity of one of the main contributors should set alarm bells ringing: Rob Crowther, who according to the website "holds a BA in Journalism with an emphasis in public affairs and twenty years experience as a journalist, publisher, and brand marketing and media relations specialist," That's right, he's a spin-doctor by profession and proud of it. This is unashamed advocacy intended only to promote intelligent design.

But that really isn't the only one I think is inappropriate. For instance, while William Dembski is an important figure within the Intelligent Design movement, I don't really think it's appropriate to include a link to his blog in the external links of this article. Perhaps in William Dembski, but here I think it gives undue weight to his views as written on his personal website (rather than his academic work and his books). I feel that this is simply a matter of incongruity, a bit like including a link to a personal website belonging to Stephen Hawking in the article about black holes. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Tony, I don't think anyone has ever complained that the ELs are too pro-ID :)

I think you have a point with evolutionnews.com. With regards to Dembski's blog - I'm not sure if there really is a good distinction between the personal opinions of the main ID proponents and "official" ID. But yeah, I see your point. Guettarda (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well if you say this is a first, I'm frankly surprised. It looks to me as if the effect of editing down the years has been to produce something resembling an atttempt at "balancing the pros against the cons". There really are quite a lot of bare links to advocacy sites there (I'm referring particularly to the pro-ID ones; there are one or two links there that also seem to be there solely attack ID, such as talkorigins.org, a very broad-ranging website that happens to contain many anti-ID articles.)

Don't misunderstand me: I'm definitely not saying that the Discovery Institute, ARN, ISCID and whatnot shouldn't be covered in an article on ID. I am simply saying that if as now we include, outside the article body and the references, a bare link to a website, we should be especially careful to ensure that the effect isn't inappropriate for an encyclopedia.

I note that ARN, Discovery Institute, etc, are cited quite a lot within the article where they are relevant reliable sources for statements about ID and about their members and themselves. This I consider appropriate. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if any guidelines are violated but I agree that some of these are extreme. Wouldn't it be better to link to an article in an established magazine setting forth the case for ID?--Stetsonharry (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this. I wonder if I could get a general consensus that we should simply remove all entries from the "external links" section in one go, on the understanding that any entry may be restored if we have consensus that it complies with all Wikipedia policies. Some links could be restored immediately by someone being bold, because nobody is likely to want to challenge their appropriateness. Others, it may be more appropriate to discuss before adding back. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't like it. There's a number of useful links there and nowhere else. Odd nature (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand this undo, given here by difference

["Made up" information userfied to User talk:Doug youvan Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC) ]

I would suggest we look into Minsky and Vinge. Doug youvan (talk) 03:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"I would suggest" that you first establish (i) what the heck 'Minsky and Vinge' is and (ii) what possible relevance it has to the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, see: http://www.panspermia.org/thirdalt.htm and references within that article and others that branch from the root webpage. Doug youvan (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia . It appears this ID article neglects contributions from the 5th century BC through Arrhenius to Crick and Hoyle. Doug youvan (talk) 05:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I am getting heartily sick of this irrelevant disruption. Either cough up WP:RSs (which neither the panspermia site nor wikipedia itself are) showing how this is relevant, or stop posting this crap. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I withdraw my offer to help with this article. Doug youvan (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of policies

Doug youvan, as set out in WP:TALK this page is for discussing improvements to the article, and is not for speculative original research which you seem to be proposing. The article is about intelligent design in its modern meaning with all points verified from reliable sources. The questions you raise about possible antecedents are already covered in reasonable detail in the intelligent design#Origins of the concept and intelligent design#Origins of the term sections. If you feel that more detail is needed, you must provide verification that a suitable expert authority has described that detail as relating specifically to intelligent design. Something you think looks similar cannot be included, as that would be original research which Wikipedia policy excludes. Please set out your detailed proposals with the required sources on this talk page for discussion before editing the article, or your changes are likely to be reverted. You may find it best to work up your ideas in your userspace before exposing them to scrutiny and criticism. . . dave souza, talk 08:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I will. I had assumed "good faith" meant cooperation between editors on an article's Talk page before a new editorial effort was mounted. My assumption was wrong. Sorry. Doug youvan (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC) See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIntelligent_design&diff=218385656&oldid=218337319 Doug youvan (talk) 12:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

For clarification, have a look at WP:AGF. . dave souza, talk 08:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Dave, Thanks. I've decided not to even try to contribute to this ID article. Doug youvan (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

POV in lead; request for arbitration

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Some comments about the point of view of this article: Regarding the statement that "[t]he unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science but pseudoscience": that intelligent design is not falsifiable moves it outside the scope of science, but to say that something is pseudoscience implies a judgment that it is false, a judgment that we should withhold. (If it is false, then let the reader decide.) Also if, on the one hand, we were to accept that intelligent design is in fact the modern form of the teleological argument, then given that it has been subject to debate for hundreds of years, we should take extraordinary pains to be neutral about it (that is, not imply that it is true or that it is false) (even within my own religious tradition I do not know whether the "teleological argument" debate has been definitively resolved); however, if it is merely the Discovery Institute's end-run around the judicial system, then the lead should clarify that it is only one of several possible modern forms of the teleological argument. Finally, regarding the request for arbitration, I think this should really go to mediation instead, as it is a content dispute first, and a conduct dispute second. If the mediation committee rejects this suggestion, then resume the article RFC. Bwrs (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC) The request for arbitration is not a content dispute perse, so I don't think it's relevant here. Pseudoscience is that which is not science passed off as science; it's not limited by definition to falsified scientific concepts. Aunt Entropy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Yes, but "pseudoscience" is a POV-laden word. I propose to separate the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" from the same proposition couched as a testable scientific theory for the purpose of being introduced into public-school classrooms, and have copied the lead and the "overview" section to userspace for this purpose. Bwrs (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC) You mistake the meaning. NPOV: Pseudoscience has a specific meaning in terms of WP:NPOV policy, and as fully verified in the article, ID falls within that definition and the definition of a fringe theory. Remember, this article is not here to give "equal validity" to the extreme minority expert view that ID is valid, or has other origins than those shown by the sources given. . . dave souza, talk 19:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC) There is a huge compromise area between giving equal validity to a minority viewpoint and declaring said minority viewpoint to be pseudoscience or fringe theory. If someone wants to use science to justify religious doctrine (intelligent design by definition) or if someone wants to reconcile religious doctrine with science, that is a legitimate line of academic inquiry, and to call it a fringe theory or pseudoscience is not neutral. But if the proponents of the modern form of "intelligent design" want to couch religious doctrine as science in an effort to inject it into public schools, that is a problem; these are two different things. My proposed solution is to separate intelligent design itself, from the Discovery Institute's assertion or assumption that it is a scientific theory). The former (the assertion that the origin of the universe is best explained by an intelligent, not a random, cause) is not pseudoscience; as for the latter, let the reader decide. Bwrs (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Regarding Bwrs' second point - it isn't really an either/or argument. The fact that ID is a teleological argument doesn't mean that it is identical to other teleological arguments. And the fact that it is an argument designed to exploit Scalia's loophole in Edwards v. Aguillard doesn't mean that it is (or isn't) a teleological argument. ID is a mixture of old and new arguments. It is, quite frankly, extremely complex. As for the RFAR (now archived) - it really has nothing to do with this article. I believe that only one editor even touched on the ID article. Guettarda (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Yes, but I think that it is still the sort of dispute for which formal mediation is the best solution, precisely because it defuses the conduct dispute and gets us focused on content. Bwrs (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC) I don't think one can seriously argue that pseudoscience implies falsehood. There are, for instance, many scientists who have religious beliefs which they do not consider to be scientific. Thus, the declaration that the world was literally created in six days can fairly be described as pseudo-science, if it is raised in the process of scientific discourse, although the believer scientist might not deny that, yes, the all-powerful creator in which he believes would be capable of performing such miracles. By describing it as pseudo-science, the believer is simply stating that it implies knowledge not achievable, or refutable, by scientific means. It requires an appeal to faith rather than reason and observation, and the scientist explicitly rules out faith as a criterion for judgement of facts. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Intelligent design explicitly demands that the definition of science be changed to included deductions based on faith, as in theistic realism, so that unexplained questions are described as scientific proof of the existence of the Creator. Pseudoscience has two basic elements, a claim to be science and a departure from scientific methodology. Whether it's a falsehood or a delusion is open to question. Evidently many people are completely sincere about such "science", perhaps because they don't realise that untestable science is a contradiction in terms. . . dave souza, talk 22:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC) I disagree with the assertion that "don't think one can seriously argue that pseudoscience implies falsehood," because even if falsehood is not part of the denotation of pseudoscience, it is part of the connotation. For example, if you were to hear your doctor say that "x treatment is based on pseudoscience," you would take that as an indication that she is calling x quackery. "Pseudoscience" is a pejorative word, which can deprive an article of fairness of tone. Looking at the bigger picture, it seems to me that what we have is a religious belief, and the assertion that the facts, as observed and explained by science, support the religious belief, and the assertion that #1 or #2 above is science. As written, the article seems to be suggesting that the assertion "that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process" (i.e., #2 above) is pseudoscience, but I think that what the scientists are calling pseudoscience is actually #3 above. Bwrs (talk) 04:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC) On teleological arguments, I think it's fair to state that they've fallen out of favor and stayed out of favor for so long largely thanks to scientific works attacking teleology. The most famous of these was Darwin's Origin of Species, in which he constructed counter-example after counter-example, all of them scientifically plausible and testable, demonstrating that the appearance of conscious design may be achieved by natural processes in the fulness of time. The destruction of teleology is often conceived nowadays as being achieved in the field of biology, but the destruction of teleological theories of cosmology and, latterly, geology, preceded and laid the groundwork for the biological revolution that followed. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC) On a grander scale, a teleological view that everything has an overall purpose can be held along with acceptance of science. At the closer scale of things like planetary movements and speciation earlier teleological arguments were pushed aside by a more deistic idea of (designed) laws. There was a fascinating series about the Medieval Mind on the BBC which made the point strongly that a bestiary was used to describe the purpose of animals as moral lessons to humans, and the mindset of things having to have a divine purpose still clashes with the scientific mindset of replicable testing, even today. . . dave souza, talk 22:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC) There is a line between saying something isn't "falsifiable" and saying it is "Psuedoscience" and that line is crossed when the something tries to masquerade as "science". Unlike the Time cube article which just categorises the article as pseudoscience, this article supports the Psuedoscience claim with 4 references. The references ultimately are to organisations which cannot reasonably be considered partisan, fringe or unreliable. They outnumber many-times-to-one the Discovery Institute and represent a very broad section of society both in the US and abroad. So the Wikipedia claim of pseudoscience is reliable and to not call it that would unbalance the article because that one word very clearly defines the concept of the Intelligent Design argument to the world i.e. it summarizes the majority view. For us to remove that word and "let the reader decide" would be selfcensorship. I also don't see the problem with the current lead that ID is "the modern form of the teleological argument"..... It shows the falsehood of ID in that to me something is a lie if it omits a relevant fact. The fact here is the mention of "God". The lead is thus a very accurate summary of the subject.Ttiotsw (talk) 07:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Dude, it says that the scientific community regards it as a psuedo science, which is perfectly true, it doesn't say wikipedia regards it as a psuedo science, or that it is as psuedo science, or that would violate our NPOV policy--Serviam (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Good point. Maybe we can agree to disagree. Bwrs (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC) BTW, arbitration is not available for simple content disputes like yours. Furthermore, please read Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Principles. Its sets forth the following rules for handling articles that deal with pseudoscience: Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. This article was written to comply with this ruling, so you're not likely to get anywhere with your objections. Additionally, this article is a Featured Article, as such it's already been heavily reviewed by the community and judged to be well within our content policies. Odd nature (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Accepting the reality of the SUB-COMMUNITY

I am neither a proponent nor an opponent. However...
The subject is introduced in terms of avoidance -- this cannot be reflective of NPOV even if it concurs with CON. The article is Featured under Religion, mysticism and mythology rather than a Science category. Perhaps the article should be Featured under Culture and society, due to its controversial nature, so that the religious poppycock and scientific certainty ideologues, and all viewpoints in between, can be fairly represented.

The tone of the introduction seems to reflect an unwillingness to accept that Intelligent Design scientists EXIST within the scientific community. Regardless of anyone's opinion of how wisely these folks are using their PhDs, they are a SUB-COMMUNITY that is not going away. If the Wikipedia community values a lack of bias, accepting that minority dissenters are a real presence on the landscape of the cosmological debate is a practical way to demonstrate it.
Championdante (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The tone of the introduction seems to reflect an unwillingness to accept that Intelligent Design scientists EXIST within the scientific community. There are a handful of scientists who are ID proponents - you can pretty much count them without running out of fingers. There are probably quite a few more who are sympathetic to the idea. But no one is actually using ID in science. They're a real political presence, yes, but they aren't using ID in their scientific endeavours. So, as far as the "science" of ID, they don't exist. We have a separate intelligent design movement article that deals with the political movement. This article is about the so-called science of ID.

How would you propose we change this article? What sources are we missing, or are we misrepresenting? It isn't really about our opinions - it's about representing sources in a balanced fashion. What do you suggest we change? Guettarda (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Out of 480,000 scientists surveyed in a 1989 Newsweek survey, only 700 believed in intelligent design, that's hardly anything, about 0.17%, hardly a sub community, and that number will have dramatically decreased in the 19 years since then.--Serviam (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Championdante is mistaken. Intelligent Design is not a "sub-community" of the scientific community. This can be seen by the large number of prominent ID proponents that are not scientists, but rather lawyers, philosophers and/or theologians. Just because some scientists do it, does not automatically make it a scientific endeavour -- any more than scientists doing transcendental meditation would make that science. Rather, ID is a Christian apologetic endeavour, and ID (like all forms of Creationism) is part of the Christian apologetics community. This in itself would not create any major controversy, as a number of scientists engage in Christian apologetics -- Kenneth R. Miller and Francis Collins being two names that immediately come to mind. The problem with ID is that it is widely regarded as being based upon ignorance and/or misrepresentation of the true state of scientific research regarding evolution and, in attempting to pass itself off as legitimate science (rather than admitting that, like all apologetics, it is a philosophical argument, regardless of its basis), it is pseudoscience. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Also the vast majority christians (Virtually all of those outside the US, plus plenty of them inside) accept current scientific consensus.--Serviam (talk) 10:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)