Talk:Intelligent design movement/Archive 2

Hm

This article is way too long. Does anybody with more idea of what is and is not important want to chop it down a little... lot? Alister Namarra 21:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this, and I think we could create articles for those legal cases and controversies that are significant enough to warrant, and pare down mention of those sections to an overview or summary. FeloniousMonk 19:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I've moved much the long-ish content to a subarticle, Intelligent design in politics. FeloniousMonk 00:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Good call, this improves the article.--Gandalf2000 02:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Any other suggestions for moves? FeloniousMonk 04:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd say just keep an eye on it (which I know you do) and whatever section gathers enough information to become its own article. Kind of a natural selection process....--Gandalf2000 05:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The intellectual right weighs in against ID

FM suggested on the intelligent design talk page that the right place for items like Pat Robertson's recent outburst is here rather than there. I note that George Will and Charles Krauthammer have recently published columns critical of ID, and leave pointers here for what they are worth. I don't know if they merit inclusion in the article in any way, especially given the current length of the article, but it seems that this is a possibly significant development. Bill Jefferys 15:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Mythology Class

I'm not active at this page, but I assume that something like this definitely belongs on this page, and is best placed somewhere in the higher education subsection? -Parallel or Together? 10:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's that important. Alister Namarra 03:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Deleted content (in context)

2005 University of California at Berkeley controversy

In October 2005, the University of California at Berkeley was sued for running a website for school teachers called Understanding Evolution. The lawsuit has been brought by Jeanne Caldwell, whose husband, Larry Caldwell, is the founder of an anti-evolution group called Quality Science Education for All. The Caldwells argue that Berkeley was "taking a position on evolution and attempting to persuade minor students to accept that position." Michael R. Smith, the assistant chancellor for legal affairs at Berkeley, said that the university would defend the lawsuit "with vigor and enthusiasm."

The suit is about this University of California at Berkeley page pointing to this National Center for Science Education page which contains statements from these religious organizations:

• American Jewish Congress
• American Scientific Affiliation
• Center For Theology And The Natural Sciences
• Central Conference Of American Rabbis
• Episcopal Bishop Of Atlanta, Pastoral Letter
• General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) (2002) *
• The General Convention Of The Episcopal Church
• Lexington Alliance Of Religious Leaders
• The Lutheran World Federation
• Roman Catholic Church (1981)
• Roman Catholic Church (1996) *
• Unitarian Universalist Association (1977)
• Unitarian Universalist Association (1982)
• United Church Board For Homeland Ministries
• United Methodist Church
• United Presbyterian Church In The U.S.A. (1982)
• United Presbyterian Church In The U.S.A. (1983)

"In an interview with Higher Ed, an online news source, Larry Caldwell said links to religious organizations on the website indicate that UCB strayed into religion since the listed religious groups stated that evolution and religion were not necessarily incompatible." [1]

" “In this government-funded Web site, the same people who so loudly proclaim that they oppose discussion of religion in biology are advocating ‘teaching strategies’ in science classrooms to convert students to government-endorsed religious beliefs,” said attorney Larry Caldwell, president of Quality Science Education for All and husband of the defendant Jeanne. Larry Caldwell is co-counsel with PJI in the suit." [2]

comments

I disagree with the alteration. WAS 4.250 03:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Bryan Leonard : Why is this here

What exactly is the point of including this? It seems to have nothing to do with the movement and everything to do with some guy and his PhD school playing politics over his thesis. If someone has a convincing reason to include this let me know or I'll remove in a few days. -- Jbamb 23:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Categories

I've yet once again had to restore this article to categories that are necessary for a complete list of topic within the category. ID is viewed as pseudoscience by the scientific community and the courts, and is creationism by definition, something now recognized by a court and long argued by the ID observers and the scientific community. These facts are well-supported and not in contention.

Despite the well-meaning but misinformed campaign to remove ID from the pseudoscience category under the pretense that pseudoscience is a subcategory of creationism, the fact remains that readers browsing by category will be short-changed under this organizational schema. Navigating by category, they will not see that ID is considered pseudosciences, it being absent in the category since readers are left to infer that it belongs there as part of the creationism category. Readers would somehow have to infer that pseudoscience is a subcategory of creationism, something that does not necessarily logically follow. Furthermore, WP:CG does not expressly forbid the article existing in both categories. Indeed, it provides several categorization schema in which it could. FeloniousMonk 16:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

George Deutsch ID advocacy

I'm not sure where to put this but under the "Intelligent design movement in the public arena" heading should the attempts within NASA to promote ID by George Deutsch be included? I am very new to Wiki and I'm reluctant to start editing major entries such as this one on the Intelligent Design Movement. Mr Christopher 18:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Do you have some cites to articles or good quotes? He seems notable enough, but the extent of his advocacy and it's impact are probably the determining factors for inclusion. FeloniousMonk 18:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Felonious Monk, from the NY Times as quoted in the George Deutsch Wiki article:

"It is not NASA’s place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator... This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half of this debate from NASA. That would mean we had failed to properly educate the very people who rely on us for factual information the most"

My initial comments about him "promoting" ID may be imperfect. Perhaps his behaviour is more consistant with one who is defending ID. Although his ID contribution appears limited the fact that he is a Bush appointee to NASA and his attempts to censor/filter NASA scientists on this subject are well documented seems noteworthy to me. It rings of "teaching the controversy as well". But it may belong in a different article. Mr Christopher 19:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's the NYT article: [3] (login req) Since that article Texas A & M has confirmed that Deutsch did not graduate from there, meaning he faked his resume to get the job. Deutsche has since resigned from NASA.[4] (login req) So it's another pro-ID scandal revolving around inflated credentials and claims. Now whether to list it here or not. FeloniousMonk 22:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Over 500 Scientists Proclaim Their Doubts About Darwin’s Theory

Link...

• Over 500 Scientists Proclaim Their Doubts About Darwin’s Theory Discovery Institute February 20, 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.20.74 (talk • contribs)

Please see Project Steve. 733 scientists named Steve have voiced their support. I think it's safe to say that a supermajority supports evolution.

Note also that the DI's list contains signatures from just 154 biologists. Chemists and physicists really have no expertise on the subject, and are in effect laymen.

Finally, note that the DI is considering creating a website (www.dissentfromdarwin.org) to host the list. Would you dare to guess how many ID websites are actually hosted or maintained by a small number of people? While a google search may yield a large number of hits, when searching for intelligent design, the fact is that very little support for it exists. And it seems that the little support that does exist is continually trying to appear bigger. -- Ec5618 08:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, note the breathtaking dishonesty of the actual question asked versus the creationist interpretation. The statement was: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Most, if not all, scientists agree with the idea of being skeptical about ANY claim. The trouble is the singling out of evolutionary theory. How did they make the leap of being 'skeptical' to 'dissent'? -- Tenshu 14:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

ID and Creationism

ID is a form of neo-creationism. True or false? I edited Intelligent Design's intro, adding what I cut from Intelligent design movement. I figure if the guys there delete that change, this is means its common knowledge that ID is not neo-creationist. But if they let it stand long enough, we should undo the cut here. Fair enough? --Uncle Ed 20:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ed Poor (2) FeloniousMonk 22:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

NO DEAL Not fair because "Intelligent Design" page was protected because of objections to Ed Poor's edits- ie it appears to stand by default is actually due to its author Ed Poor.

DELETE Neo-Creationism as a pejorative description It appears that neo-creationism is a pejorative term coined by evolutionists to tar Intelligent Design with the tag "creationism." Apprently it is never used favorably by ID practioners of themselves. e.g. it is not mentioned at ISCID.org. It's only use at uncommondescent.com is in one quote of Miller's. The onlyl occurrence at IDthefuture.com is to the book Traipsing into Evolution on the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial and its use there by evolutionists against ID. Creation Science seeks to compare empirical evidence with the Bible. Intelligent Design only pressupposes that intelligent causes exist and examines empirical evidence for evidence of intelligence vs a closed system of natural causes.

e.g., in arn.org it occurs in "Darwinism, Design and Public Education" section IV Critical Response "Design Yes, Intelligent No: A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory and Neo-Creationism, Massimo Pigliucci." Recommend DELETE "neo-creationism" as a descriptive term for ID and only mention its use as a pejorative term. DLH 12:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a widely used term that is well-supported. That ID is creationist is established. That is it different from other forms of creationism is established. This different form of creationism has been termed neo-creationist. Simple enough. Guettarda 13:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Guettrada

Check Yahoo for "neo-creationism" vs "Intelligent Design". The ratio is 0.03%. That is not "well established." Its is derogatory term used by critics and rejected by Intelligent Design practioners. Decribing ID as "neo-creationism" is thus a deliberatelyl provocative action directly at odds with NPOV. DLH 02:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should say then that ID opponents characterize ID as "neo-creationist" and that ID supporters disagree with that characterization. Just as Evolution opponents label Evolution supporters as "Evolutionists" while the latter frequently object to this label. --Uncle Ed 15:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Just as certain conservatives reject being labled [Right-wing_politics|right-wing]], right-wing is no less apt a description. Whether any particular group rejects being characterized or described is largely irrelevant as to the accuracy of the description. FeloniousMonk 21:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Using proper search terms and operators, we see your numbers here are faulty: "neo-creationism" + "intelligent design": 781 hits on Google, "neocreationism" + "intelligent design": 3,790 hits on Google. All of which is quite beside the point as long as we can attribute the use of the term and concept to parties significant to the topic, which we can: Pigliucci:[5], Matt Young: [6], Henry Morris: [7], NCSE: [8], and so on..., then the numbers are not the issue here. FeloniousMonk 21:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with DLH that describing ID as "neo-creationism" is a provocative action directly at odds with NPOV. The term is not accurate and is not in common use. Schlafly 17:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You're both mistaken then. WP:NPOV clearly states that "where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one ... Debates are described, represented, and characterized ... Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular." Since that intelligent design is viewed by significant players in the controvery as a form of creationism, neocreationism, like Pigliucci[9], Young [10], Morris[11], and the NCSE [12], including mention of it in the article is perfectly inline with the NPOV policy. FeloniousMonk 18:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Concur with FM, and with Guettarda, above - there is nothing anti-NPOV about accuracy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent Design IS creationism, ID is a religion

>>>ID believes that mankind and animals was designed by a higher power. >>>Creationism believes mankind and animals was designed by a higher power.

Neither has any physical evidence, or offers any alternative ideas to evolution. Thus, both are religious ideas.

-intranetusa

ID POV is that it is NOT Creationism

FeloniousMonk

"Creationism by Definition" is the perspective of those who oppose ID. The ID community strongly disputes that categorization. e.g., See: _{Subscript text}

"3 The Charge of Creationism Despite intelligent design’s clear linkage, both methodologically and in content, with existing sciences that sift the effects of intelligence from undirected natural forces, critics of intelligent design often label it a form of creationism. Not only is this label misleading, but in academic and scientific circles it has become a maneuver to censor ideas before they can be fairly discussed. . . . In either case, however, creationism presupposes that the world came into being through a creative power separate from the world. Intelligent design, by contrast, places no such requirement on any designing intelligence responsible for cosmological fine-tuning or biological complexity. It simply argues that certain finite material objects exhibit patterns that convincingly point to an intelligent cause. But the nature of that cause—whether it is one or many, whether it is a part of or separate from the world, and even whether it is good or evil—simply do not fall within intelligent design’s purview." [http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.09.Expert_Report_Dembski.pdf Expert Witness Report: The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design] Sect 3 "The Charge of Creationism" p 3 and following.

"The references to “creation” and “creation science” in the first two passages quoted above by Barbara Forrest (i.e., the FTE planning document and the affidavit by Dean Kenyon) are not referring to a religious doctrine of creation in which God brings the world into being but rather to a generic intelligence capable of bringing about biological complexity. Precisely because these senses of the term creation are so distinct, “intelligent design” rather than “creationism” is now the preferred way to speak about a science of biology in which intelligence plays a key role. Forrest, to be sure, insists on referring to intelligent design as a form of creationism, but this is simply to discredit intelligent design, not to clarify the underlying issues." [http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.09.Expert_Rebuttal_Dembski.pdf Dembski Rebuttal to Reports by Opposing Expert Witnesses], 2.2 ID and Creationism p 8. and following. etc.

Thus your categorization is explicitly POV and breaches Wiki NPOV policy. See: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." You have no right to "assert" this POV position. We need to state both sides in an objective way.DLH 02:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This point has already been discussed many times and settled. Please read Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive6#ID in relation to Bible-based creationism, Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive 11#What makes ID different than creationism, Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive 11#Moving ID out of the "creationism" catagory, Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive 12#Shouldn't this page be merged with creationism?, Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive 16#ID not Creationism? It's safe to say that this is flogging a dead horse. BTW, any notion that argues that the universe was "designed" is by definition a form of creationism. FeloniousMonk 05:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, they can claim ID isn't creationism all they want, doing so is a documented part of their strategy after all, but they can't so easily explain away the fact that a significant of element ID evolved from creation science. Dembski's rebutal was not compelling and a red herring here; Judge Jones ultimately ruled in Kitzmiller:"ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." Clearly the judge found claims similar to Dembski's ran counter to the hard evidence. In trial evidence was introduced that Of Pandas and People, the main ID textbook, was in draft stage in 1987 when the Edwards v. Aguillard decision made teach "creation science" unconstitutional. Evidence and testimony in Kitzmiller show that early drafts of Pandas show that it was a run of the mill creation science book, using the word "creation" and cognates throughout. Drafts made after the Edwards decision show that the authors simply substituted the term "intelligent design" for "creation." [13] Keeping up the ruse that ID is not creationism has got to be difficult for ID proponents considering the facts about it's origins. It's an uphill battle that I do not envy, but I see no reason why Wikipedia should help them either. FeloniousMonk 06:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

ID vs Neo-Creationism Change

Changes in Bold "The intelligent design movement is a campaign originating in the United States that calls for broad social, academic and political changes derived from the notion of "intelligent design" (ID). Critics claim it is a form of neo-creationism which ID disputes."

• Changed the summary to change "based" to "originating" as the movement is now international.
• For NPOV, changed from "neo-creationism" to:

Critics claim it is a form of neo-creationism which ID disputes." i.e., Since this "neo-creationism" was clearly described as provocative, this change is important to show both sides of the issue. Added (ID) as abbreviation to compact discussion. DLH 02:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted your other edits, which need to be discussed first, and I've moved neo-creationism out of the intro and attributed the opposing viewpoints, while noting what the Kitzmiller ruling says on the matter. FeloniousMonk 05:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Neocreationism is a term that was coined to describe the DI/ID movement (although it has been applied to others since). "Critics claim it is a form of neo-creationism which ID disputes" is an inaccurate statement. You can argue that Forrest, Scott, Pennock, etc., are wrong, and that either ID is not different enough from old-school creationism to warrant a new name, but you can't argue that ID isn't neocreationism, because pretty much by definition it is. Guettarda 05:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. "Critics claim it is a form of neo-creationism which ID disputes" is an accurate statement. I'd also like to see an honest representation of the viewpoints, not just the anti-ID one.

Diggnate 19:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

POV issue with Johnson quote

The following statement is made about Johnson: "Johnson explicitly calls for intelligent design proponents to obfuscate their religious motivations so as to avoid having intelligent design recognized "as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message."

Yet the only support for it is this: "Intelligent Design is an intellectual movement, and the Wedge strategy stops working when we are seen as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message. ... The evangelists do what they do very well, and I hope our work opens up for them some doors that have been closed."

Those are clearly not the same thing. Johnson does not want people confusing the ID arguments with the Christian evangelical message. He is calling ID proponents not to confuse their Christian evangelism with the philosophical issue of ID by speaking uncarefully and thus misrepresenting both the Christian gospel and the ID arguments. The fact that the document this quote is pulled from is called "Keeping the Darwinists Honest" shows that transparency is what he thinks he is going for, not obfuscation. Calling this an explicit call for obfuscation tars him with a label that seems unwarranted given that there's a perfectly reasonable way of taking his statement that involves no such thing. Thus this statement is clearly POV.

As is the case with all of the Wikipedia entries on ID, this relies on a recurring fallacy. Someone's motivations for wanting others to believe an argument are not equivalent to the premises of the argument. ID arguments are classic philosophical arguments going back at least to Plato, and they do not rely on religious premises. The arguments, then, are not packagings of the Christian message. Some people might be motivated by religious reasons to promote the arguments, but the arguments do not rely on religious premises, and the conclusions need not involve any particular religious viewpoint. (Witness Antony Flew's recent non-religious endorsement of cosmological ID.)

Parableman 18:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

" Johnson does not want people confusing the ID arguments with the Christian evangelical message. He is calling ID proponents not to confuse their Christian evangelism with the philosophical issue of ID by speaking uncarefully and thus misrepresenting both the Christian gospel and the ID arguments." Yes, that's what Johnson tries to get across in his message, but when taken in the light of all his other statements stating ID is the means to a religious renewal of our culture, of which there are many examples I can cite, his message becomes clearly more disengenuous spin. Wikipedia is not here to provide the Discovery Insitute another channel for promoting its messgae. FeloniousMonk 16:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Johnson obviously does want culture to be more in line with Christian principles, as any good Christian would. If it's bad for society to be a certain way, then of course he would want that. If convincing people that there's a designer who has good purposes for the world will help move people along to Christianity, then he will do that. But that's irrelevant to this issue. This issue is about whether the ID arguments are identical with the Christian message, and the answer to that is obviously no. Someone might be convinced to accept racism as bad because they are convinced of Christianity, but that doesn't mean the wrongness of racism is equivalent with Christianity. So why confuse the ID argument with the Christian message? It's the same sort of error. Being convinced that someone moved toward one thing will be more open to another is a very common social strategy, and the tool toward getting someone toward the first thing is not to be confused with the second thing. Johnson rightly doesn't want those things confused. You seem to want them confused, and it's pretty sad to see that POV conveyed in a supposedly neutral encyclopedia. Parableman 17:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This is an issue of what the definition of Intelligent design is. It's not the simply a argument from design nor teleology, it's a coordinate protocal developed by a movement meant to advance an agenda. People may wish that it wasn't that way, they may believe that the conflation of ID with Christianity is not what they would like for the phrase "intelligent design", but the fact remains that as a popular concept, intelligent design is as the article here on Wikipedia describes it and as the judge in the Dover Panda Case ruled. It's not just a philosophical statement. --ScienceApologist 15:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Simply repeating the fallacy doesn't make it any more true. A person's motivation for giving an argument is not the argument. Some people try to convince people that the standard evolutionary account is true because they are atheists and want to convert people to atheism. That doesn't mean the standard evolutionary account is atheism or a political movement to make people atheists. So too the intelligent design arguments are not a political or religious movement. It happens that a religiously motivated political movement supports the arguments, but the arguments have been around long before that group, and the arguments stand or fall completely independently of the motivations of that group. What this entry does is confuse the motivations of the movement with the content of the movement's basic claim, and that is intellectually dishonest.Parableman 04:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Parableman here. Whoever said "Johnson explicitly calls" is distorting what Johnson said. If Johnson is explicitly calling for something, then just put in the explicit quote. The actual Johnson quote is saying something quite different. There is no need to put words in Johnson's mouth. Roger 04:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent Design Template

Seems rather unnecessary to me and now the front page looks cluttered. ID is a subcategory in Creationism - does it really need its own template too? --Jmast7 20:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

POV problems

This is a long article, and it is not clear that a separate article is needed when there is already an article on Intelligent design.

The article starts by stating various alleged beliefs and purposes of those in the "intelligent design movement". These are unsourced and inaccurate. For example, it cites "the lobbying of policymakers to include its teaching in high schools", but I thought that Discovery Institute is actually against that. There is a footnote to the Discovery Institute for some beliefs, but that page does not back up what was said.

And that is just some of the problems with the first paragraph.

I realize that this page is maintained by evolutionists who want to attack creationists in any way they can, but this is ridiculous. Philip Johnson and others are on the record with their views. The article can quote them for their beliefs. Better yet, it can just refer to Wiki articles on them. It is not helpful to have their beliefs misstated by folks who are opposed to the movement.

I am not in the movement either, and I don't object to criticizing the movement, but it should describe beliefs and goals as the adherents of the movement have stated them. Roger 07:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

When I look at [14], I get the impression that the Discovery Institute supports teaching Intelligent Design in schools. I have no idea, in fact, where you got the idea that they might not desire that. And since most, if not all, of the main proponents of Intelligent Design are religious, we should mention that. Thus, your issue with the first paragraph is based on nothing, as far as I can tell.

And your suggestion that "this page is maintained by evolutionists who want to attack creationists" is also quite odd, as this page is frequented by people of any creed. (Also note that 'evolutionists' is not a word, and it effectively shows your bias.)

"It is not helpful to have their beliefs misstated by folks who are opposed to the movement." I would agree. Are you saying this is happening? Where? How? How do you propose we fix it? -- Ec5618 08:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You get the wrong impression. The article you cite says, "As a matter of public policy, Discovery Institute opposes any effort to mandate or require the teaching the theory of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education." So I think that it is incorrect to say that DI is lobbying for the teaching of ID.

The Wiki article itself later says, "the Discovery Institute repositioned itself for tactical reasons against the teaching of intelligent design favoring a Teach the Controversy strategy." Note that this statement also has POV problems, because it suggests that DI is not sincere in its positions. It would be like saying, "Hillary Clinton supports the Iraq War for tactical political reasons, fearing that the war will be popular with voters". It might be true, but she would deny it. An encyclopedia should stick to the facts. I want to know mainly what the ID advocates say, and some of the critics says. I do not want to know some anonymous Wiki writer's unsupported opinion of why the advocates say what they say.

The word "evolutionist" is listed in the Merriam-Webster and Oxford English dictionaries. Roger 16:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

DI only started opposing pushing the teaching of ID after it got its butt handed to it in the Kitzmiller case. However, lesser lights, such as the Intelligent Design Network of Ohio are still pushing for mandatory teaching of ID, albeit in a more subtle way. In fact in July 2006, supported by Intelligent Design Network of Ohio, a member of the Ohio Board of Education, floated a proposal that would open the way for teaching ID in schools by providing teachers with a template they could follow in order to incorporate "different points of view, to different lines of evidence, to different interpretations of the evidence". Of course, the only competitors to evolution are Creationism, and its offspring, intelligent design.

In re, "The Wiki article itself later says, "the Discovery Institute repositioned itself for tactical reasons against the teaching of intelligent design favoring a Teach the Controversy strategy." Note that this statement also has POV problems, because it suggests that DI is not sincere in its positions." That's correct -- the DI is as sincere as was Joe Isuzu. Shifting times, shifting realities call for shifting tactics, even if, like the Biblical Creation story, it leads to contradictions. •Jim62sch• 20:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, for your first "point", yes this separate article is necessary due to size guidelines on articles, and because the movement is a full-blown sub-issue. •Jim62sch• 20:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Here at Wikipedia the 'consensus' (as we might call it) is to refer to "supporters of evolution" (not "evolutionists"). Supporters of Creationism on the other hand may be called "Creationists". --Uncle Ed 16:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Gee, Ed, I'm glad you didn't take a page from Coulter and say godless, liberal Darwinists. •Jim62sch• 20:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"Evolutionist" is used as an epithet by opponents of evolution. Hence the problem. AFAIK, "creationist" is not considered an epithet. Am I mistaken? Guettarda 16:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"it suggests that DI is not sincere in its positions" They aren't sincere at all; that's the point. They've been demonstrably talking out both sides of their mouths since they started their campaign. And that they are isn't just the opinion of their critics, but is supported by their own statements. Anyone who's read the wedge document objectively knows this. That we haven't just come out and say as much in the article is because we do not want to spoon-feed the readers. But we could, very easily as there's no shortage of sources to support such content. FeloniousMonk 16:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Your personal opinion about the sincerity of the DI folks is not interesting to anyone. If you have some objective evidence that satisfies Wiki rules, you can put it over on the DI page. Or just refer people to the Wedge document if you think that is so convincing. But this ID Movement article is mainly just a lot of unsourced anti-ID opinions. It is neither objective nor useful. Roger 17:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

And that of course would be your opinion. BTW, Rog, see those little bracketed superscript numbers in the intro? They're called references or footnotes. They're not just random integers buzzzing darkly about the page. •Jim62sch• 20:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It may indeed be my opinion, but not just my opinion: [15][16] FeloniousMonk 19:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, FeloniousMonk is not the only one who pretends to have some sort of mind-reading capabilities. There are others who misstate the goals of the Discovery Institute or who claim that it is insincere. Roger 20:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Scientists object to the terms evolutionism and evolutionist because the -ism and -ist suffixes accentuate belief rather than scientific study. Conversely, creationists use those same two terms partly because the terms accentuate belief, and partly perhaps because they provide a way to package their opposition into one group, seemingly atheist and materialist, designations under which many scientists would not like to be cast. Thereby the creationists deride the scientists' theories as mere belief that ignores divine intervention, contrary to what creationists think is a more preferable explanation. (from Evolutionist#Development_of_usage)Unsigned comment left by Ed Poor

Whoever wrote this (please sign, by the way) appears to me to be correct. "Evolutionist" is something of a "code word" for "atheist" and "secular humanist", often spoken with the implicit assumption that the secular-humanist agenda is to kill off religion and everything that "God-fearing people" find most meaningful in the world. ... Kenosis 16:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I was just using the word "evolutionist" in its ordinary dictionary meaning. Roger 17:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it, (AGF and all that, wot) although a nagging feeling, buzzing darkly in my head, leads me to think you might be being DI-like. •Jim62sch• 20:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I posted the bullet item above. As indicated, it's from Wikipedia's Evolutionist article (er, I mean Evolutionism which is where the redirect goes). I don't know what FM meant by "RS" but my observation of talk pages is that contributors here regard "evolutionists" as a forbidden epithet. I'd like to see a source for the idea that scientists who support the Theory of Evolution don't want to be called "Evolutionists". Not that I doubt it, of course. --Uncle Ed 18:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I should think they prefer to be called "scientists" or "biologists". RS is "Reliable Source", but that's not an issue since FM self-reverted. •Jim62sch• 21:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This pretty much sums it up for me: [17] FeloniousMonk 19:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that "scientists object to the terms evolutionism and evolutionist". A simple google search shows lots of people using those terms in a positive way. OTOH, most of the top hits for "creationist" are using the term as a negative epithet. The word "evolutionist" is in the leading dictionaries, and has been in common usage for over 100 years. I agree with Uncle Ed that the contributors here have an ideological preference, but that just shows their biases. Roger 17:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree, many more people are willing to use the term "creationist" as a self-identifier. For example, AiG and ICR both identify themselves as "creationist." In contrast, the NCSE and talkorigins.org do not identify as "evolutionist." Personally, I'm not comfortable either word being used outside a context where one is talking people who self-identify in that category. But the difficulties raised by "evolutionist" are much larger than those from "creationist." JoshuaZ 18:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of what you believe, many of us do. Guettarda 18:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

And you don't? "Debunking the Judicial Supremacists and the Leftist Evolutionists - The blog with Roger's View" FeloniousMonk 19:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I post my personal opinions on my blog. If you read it, you will find that I am not a proponent of ID or creationism. Here on Wikipedia, I am only advocating that ID be described accurately. Roger 20:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Very cute blather, Rog. And then there's this classic, "Translation: S.J. Gould was leftist-atheist-evolutionist, so it would be okay to teach his goofy and unscientific ideas."

Nonetheless, ID is described accurately -- as accurately as the ever-shifting presentation of inferred design by the Dembskiites, Beheans and Johnson's Witnesses will allow. •Jim62sch• 00:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget the transatlantic difference: as I recall, British evolutionary biologists are pretty comfortable with terms like evolutionist, but ID is a US phenomenon and most modern usage of the term in that country is clearly derogatory. Buncha turrists. ..dave souza, talk 19:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The article seems to acknowledge that ID is "a doctrine that calls itself science". Regardless of whether ID is science (and technically, it's philosophy, not science or religion), its proponents largely think that it is science and often say that it is. In the light of that, the following lines in the article are not just false but inconsistent with what the rest of the article insists on:

They believe that society has suffered 'devastating cultural consequences' from adopting materialism and that science is the cause of this decay into materialism since science seeks only natural explanations. Science is therefore atheistic, they claim.

I also think it would be more accurate to say that ID opposes naturalism, since someone can endorse a teleological argument while being a materialist about human beings. Peter van Inwagen, a philosopher at Notre Dame, is a materialist about human beings but is very open to teleological arguments such as the fine-tuning ID argument from physics. The issue isn't strictly speaking materialism, which can be taken to be the view that only physical things but often just means that humans are merely physical beings. Philosophers use it in the latter way all the time, and van Inwagen calls himself a materialist even though he believes in God and believes God to be non-physical. So I think it would be more accurate to say naturalism here rather than materialism.

Here is my suggested rewording:

They believe that society has suffered "devastating cultural consequences" from adopting naturalism and that naturalistic science is the cause of this decay into materialism, since naturalistic science seeks only natural explanations. If we accepted non-naturalistic explanations in science, those consequences would not arise.

I'm not entirely sure the last part is important, but it sure seems false to me to say that a group who thinks they are doing science also thinks they are opposed to science. They may not agree with the mainstream about what science is, but that very fact means they aren't opposing science itself but rather (what may be) a dominant attitude within science, that science must be naturalistic. It is the methodology of naturalism that they oppose. It seems disingenuous to me to describe their view as saying the opposite of what they in fact say. This is just one example among many in the article for why so many people keep saying that this article is POV. If you can't even get the view straight on what it says, how you can possibly see the article as accurate and non-POV is beyond me. Parableman 23:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Judging Intentions?

I suggest the following statement is unsupportable and should be removed from this article:

"The bulk of the material produced by the intelligent design movement, however, is not intended to be scientific but rather to promote its social and political aims."

Most of the said material is produced by or derived from The Discovery Institute, and the authors indeed do write with the intention that everything be based on science and/or logic. This Wikipedia article has already repeatedly dismissed ID as "pseudoscience" and "creationism," but here the article takes it one (unwarranted) step further by saying that ID proponents DO NOT EVEN INTEND for their writings to be accepted as science. Call me ignorant if you want, but I thought the argument was all about the fact that ID proponents seek for ID to be taken seriously as a branch of science.
As for social and political aims, these were already pointed out adequately in other sections, and it is unreasonable to suppose that, because there are social and political aims (as many people have, including ID opponents), there can be little or no sincere attempt at (intention of) scientific inquiry.
Finally, if the Wikipedia authors want to keep the above statement as is, I wonder how they would feel about adding this implied corollary statement: "Some of the material produced by the intelligent design movement is not motivated by social and political aims but is intended to be purely scientific."

Yes, of course the statement is unsupportable, unless you believe in evolutionist mind-reading. But it is just one minor problem. The article has POV problems from beginning to end. Just look at the first couple of paragraphs which mis-characterizes who the ID folks are, what they do, and what their goals are. Readers will recognize the article as an anti-ID polemic written by people with no respect for the NPOV policy. Roger 04:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Help me out here. What's an evolutionist?. ... Kenosis 04:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I just heard Dawkins identify himself as an evolutionist. Look it up. It's in the dictionary. Roger 08:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Dawkins is in the dictionary? •Jim62sch• 19:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Help ME out. What's a creationist? I thought a creationist was a person who believes in a Creator who created the Universe. Intelligent Design has nothing to do with that, but instead argues only that living things were designed.

The definition of creationist, according to dictionary.com, is even more specific than what I just said. Here it is: "Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible." Most I.D. proponents either do not believe this, or at the least do not argue publicly for taking Genesis 1 literally. It's two giant leaps to go from designer to saying the designer is also the Creator to saying the Creator is the God of the Christian Bible. ID does not make even take a baby step in either direction. I know that many evolutionists are atheists. Therefore, would it not be fair by this same standard to characterize Neo-Darwinian Evolution as merely a form of atheism?

First, sign your posts. Second, see Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Third see Teach the controversy and Wedge document. Fourth, see various comments by Behe, Dembski, Johnson etc regarding the link between ID and religion, specifically Christianity. Perhaps then you'll realise that the statement in the article is quite accurate, thank you.

Second, this is utter bullshit, "I know that many evolutionists are atheists". Define many. Show a source not from a creationist/religious/ID source. Also, believe it or not there is a middle ground between theism and atheism, it's called agnosticism. I think you'll find far more sientists fall into that category than are atheists (primarily because it has the merit of being the only "logical" choice of the three). •Jim62sch• 15:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Dembski: "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory,"

Johnson, "I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science."..."Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth?"..."I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves."

None of those sources say that the ID material is not intended to be scientific. Roger 18:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, Roger, whatever. Let's play a game -- since you think the ID material is meant to be scientific, you show us how it is. Make sure you go through this site with and tell us what the percentage of true science is to PR and misdirection. •Jim62sch• 19:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

No, not my game. I will concede that much of what is on that web site is not scientific, in my personal opinion. I haven't looked at enough to give a percentage. But I am not a mindreader, and I don't know whether it is intended to be scientific or not.

As an analogy, I personally regard astrology as unscientific, but there could be some astrology books that are intended to be scientific, for all I know. Roger 20:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, what's an evolutionist? The guy used the term "evolutionist mind-reading"; I think we deserve a clarification of what he means by the term "evolutionist", or more specifically, "evolutionist mind-reading". ... Kenosis 19:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Look at Jim62sch's comments above for examples. He claims to know what I think, and he defends a statement about what the DI folks think. Roger 20:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Nah, you've got telepathy all sown-up dude, your bailiwick, not mine. As for intent, yes one can judge it -- the court system does it all the time.

BTW, just what does "evolutionist mind-reading" mean? •Jim62sch• 22:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the statement should either be removed or modified. Certainly the statement is unsupported. Simply puttine a "citation needed" next to it does not do the job. The statement should be removed because until/unless someone can provide a citation from a source within the discovery institute that supports the utterly pov statement. Guettarda said "needs a citation, certainly, but it's factual". Why? because you say so? We can't put things on the wikipedia page that are unsupported by real facts, not just perceived facts.

One more thing I just noticed right under this text box. Wikipedia requires that all encyclopedic content must be verifiable. I don't think an uncited, unverfied statement like this belongs on this page. Diggnate 19:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Kenosis, I think "evolutionist" (when they're civil enough to spell it with an o instead of an i, that is) means "enemy", and any perceived or imagined attributes of the "enemy" (such as atheism or anti-Christianity) are therefore categorically considered attributes of "evolutionists". After all, it's not like there's even a real conflict between design and evolution (see theistic evolution for the obvious, obvious, obvious solution that no one in America understands). The entire thing in its faux-Gordian-knot "complexity" is a political ploy manufactured from whole cloth. Therefore the terms can be defined to mean whatever the principals want them to mean.

Though I do find it amusing to contemplate what would happen if the same tactic were applied to another highly-accepted scientific theory. We could instead be seeing scientists scoffed at and dismissed as "Round Earthers" (or perhaps "Roundists"?) and much sober discussion amongst immaculately-coiffed talking heads about the "growing controversy" over the Round-Earth concept - which we will regularly be reminded is ONLY A THEORY!!!  ;) Kasreyn 05:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Roger, that sentence should be removed. Until evidence can be given to support such a wild assertion it should be removed.Bagginator 03:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent design on the Web

I see a whole new section has been added titled "Intelligent design on the Web". It is largely another diatribe against the Wedge Document. There is a whole WP article on that subject, as well as other descriptions. There is even a section on the Wedge earlier in this article. This seems to be a major preoccupation of the anti-ID WP editors.

Thanks for putting in the reference to the web page with the email address to complain about the biased nature of the entries on intelligent design. I agree that the article is biased from beginning to end, and I sent in my complaint. Roger 02:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Roger that address is not to handle content problems. Your email will be ignored. Content problems stay on talk pages. Now, what precisely is your complaint about this article? JoshuaZ 02:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Material on ID in the UK

As per the discussion at intelligent design I've added the material on creationism in the UK here. I think it's good material but I'm not sure if it's well-placed at the moment. I think that if we can find more evidence of pro ID teaching in other countries it might be worth its own section, and its interesting to note here how categorical the government was in asserting that ID was neo-creationism and unscientific. --Davril2020 18:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a good start. I just started following this development and it's also interesting to note they use the same arguments and materials as the Discovery Institute. Have you had a chance to read much of the Truth In Science web site? You'd think they were the UK version of the DI. Same sneaky, wedge type tactics. The name itself is pretty funny when you read what they're selling. Most of their board members are clergy or in non-scientific fields. Mr Christopher 18:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This group is very dependent on the DI and it appears that their material is more or less taken directly from them. In their weblinks they describe the DI as "the institutional home of the Intelligent Design movement." --Davril2020 19:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent Design, neo-creationism versus the Court system

There should be a section added discussing how the high courts have ruled on this matter. I.e. Dover, Pennslyvania, etc, etc.

Biologic Institute mentioned in Newscientist opinion.

Saw this and found it gives a nice background to the ID movement attempts to do science, http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19225824.000?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=mg19225824.000 Mentions all the usual characters. From the article, "It was Discovery that provided the funding to get the Biologic Institute up and running." , quotes a Douglas Axe saying that "Biologic Institute will "contribute substantially to the scientific case for intelligent design"., and I think that about kicks off the rest of this opinion piece describing this bun-fight. Ttiotsw 09:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The story is covered in the Discovery Institute article. .. dave souza, talk 00:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

ID movement's accomplishments over the last year

Here's a brief run down of the accomplishments and developments within the ID movment since Kitzmiller V Dover by John Lynch at the Stranger Fruit blog, The Year in ID Mr Christopher 23:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone want to help me build up this article neutrally?

(An unsigned comment/question left by Wjhs567 (talk · contribs) on 19:28, 4 January 2007)

Your best best would be to restore the cited and supported information you just removed. Then come back to the talk page and we can discuss changes you want to make. Mr Christopher 02:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I'm getting at. You don't just walk in and make wholesale changes on a very controversial topic and then come to the talk page and ask for volunteers to join you in your editorial carnage bliss. Your melt down is not conducive to anything positive. And then cowardly giving a spanking in editorial notes to another editor. Get a grip for starters. Mr Christopher 02:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It's probably pretty hopeless anyway. The first sentence quickly identifies the article as a propaganda piece, when it says the foundations of ID are fundamentalist Christians. Fundamentalist Christians are overwhelmingly young earth creationists, and feel no need to develop a scientific version of what they believe. ID proponants can well be evolutionary creationists, and there's no Christian fundamentalist in the world who'd get in bed with them. Fundamentalist" is obviously used as a demonizing pejorative with little understanding of the real meaning of the term. The next word thrown in is "evangelism" which makes no sense at all, obviously the writer has no clue about what that is either. It's an attack piece, and probably can't be fixed as long as dedicated POV pushers dominate it. Pollinator 03:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"[A]nd there's no Christian fundamentalist in the world who'd get in bed with them" - Nancy Pearcey is an ID proponent, DI fellow, and YEC. ID has been presented in such a vague manner that it isn't necessarily incompatible with YECs. As for saying it comes out of the fundamentalist and evangelical community makes no sense? How is that an attack piece? Please get your facts straight before you attack your fellow editors. Guettarda 04:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say "evangelical." See what I mean? Pollinator 04:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Nor does it say "evangelism"...so what's your point? Guettarda 04:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but it does - in the link. There's no mention of evangelical; rather it links to evangelism - a whole differnt concept. Your inability to discern what I'm talking about says a whole lot. You are convinced of the righteousness of your "cause."

It strikes me a curious that you should characterize my pointing out the innacuracies as an "attack" when the first sentence has long been a club to promote a POV, and leads to an article saturated with a POV - that ID proponents are dishonest. The whole piece is an attack piece, yet someone who points out innacuracies is "attacking."

Who identifies Pearcy as a "fundamentalist?" The article about her doesn't say that. Her life history doesn't sound particularly fundamentalist. Does she self identify as a fundamentalist? The Associated Press guidelines, in an effort to prevent bias, state that the term should only be used for those who self-identify.

Pearcy is a "fundamentalist" because she once was a creationist? That's a logical fallacy. All bugs are insects, therefore all insects are bugs.

What we have here is a kind of zealotry - a religious ferver that's exhibited by the cadre of editors that have circled the wagons around their POV that ID proponents are dishonest. The ferver is so strong that they are willing to use all tactics - intellectual dishonesty included - in a effort to destroy the "enemy," who is perceived as a threat to evolution. When an attack piece hauls out the epithet "fundamentalist" (and usually with little understanding of what a fundamentalist really is), it exposes some interesting dynamics. A fundamentalist sees things in black and white, and those who are quickest to use the term in a derogatory way generally have the same mindset. They are just fundamentalists of a different pursuasion. The white and black hats are traded around.

Evolution is a scientific theory. It can stand or fall on its merits. The majority of scientists believe it - as well as many ID proponents. But there has gathered a group, who are not following science; they have made it a religion. And they hate the term "evolutionist." Why - because it identifies them as a religion; a very fundamentalist one, that sees only white and black, that "evangelizes" with great zealotry, and that will even be dishonest to vilify and demonize the "enemy." Pollinator 14:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand, Pollinator. So far, the only evidence you have presented to prove that this article is biased is that the article calls Christian literalists fundamentalists. Right? Perhaps you should read fundamentalism. -- Ec5618 16:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but ID is a far cry from Biblical literalism. Fundamentalists would be a tad more comfortable with ID than with materialistic evolution, but this is not their home. Young Earth Creationism is the home base of Biblical literalists. Why do you keep on conflating different things? And, as I've already pointed out, the lead in does not mention Evangelicals. It's a clearcut case of "Ready...Fire...Aim..."

As Ec says, you seem to have serious misunderstandings about the meaning of "fundamentalist" and "evangelical", at least as used in the context of American Protestantism. It is less of an epithet, in my opinion, than is literalist, since it embodies a sense of finding the "fundamentals" of one's faith. The ID movement finds its base among American fundamentalist and evangelical Christians, not among liberal Christians or secular people. How is it an attack to speak a simple truth? Granted, there's a growing progressive movement among evangelicals which is likely to be anti-ID (at least in my personal experience) but that doesn't change the fact that ID finds its base among fundamentalists and evangelicals. Guettarda 17:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No, my friend you don't understand fundamentalists. ID leaves a lot of gray area; it is even open to evolutionary creationism. Fundamentalists simply won't buy into that. There is NO WAY that the movement can be based in Fundamentalists. As for Evangelicals, they aren't mentioned until late in the article - and that's another can of worms. But as long as the claim is made that the ID movement is based in Fundamentalism, it is POV, and a purely phoney one at that. Pollinator 04:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, whatever you say. I take it you have supporting citations? Guettarda 16:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the article is just a biased piece. If you make edits to make the article more accurate, such as describing ID the way the proponents describe it, then WP editors will revert the edits. There are some other evolution-related articles with the same problem. Roger 16:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, the only clearly visible feature I see that might give an appearance of possible bias is the use of the unnecessary adjective "neo-creationist" immediately in the first sentence summarizing the what the IDM is. It's unnecessary there because the sentence proceeds to describe what the campaign is. Although the term "neo-creationism" is sufficiently prevalent in describing the approach of the IDM today that it's unavoidable not to mention it, perhaps the term should be removed from its placement as an introductory adjective and turned into a noun, maybe at the end of the first paragraph, where it might possibly read as follows: "This approach to re-framing traditional creationism has also been termed neo-creationism.[Insert appropriate citation to William Safire of the NYTimes, who's written about it, and perhaps other additional sources]." Other than that, I'm at a loss to see a serious problem with the way it's reported; indeed most of the assertions in the article about the views and intent of the IDM are drawn directly from verified statements by leading ID advocates and from verified material about their affiliations widely published in mainstream media. ... Kenosis 16:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

ID proponents are dishonest. They claim "scientific theory" for what is not scientific whatsoever. To say so is not biased; it is accurate. I fail to see the issue. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Likewise the effort to prevent ID from access to the marketplace of ideas is dishonest. That's not science; it's religion, with secular evolution as the sacred cow. Evolution as science, whether materialistic, or as a tool used by God, is simply science, and will stand or fall on its own merits. It does not need religious zealots - such as some of these page editors - to defend it. Pollinator 04:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "prevent ID from access to the marketplace of ideas"? Surely you don't buy into that crap about them not being "allowed" to publish (while still failing to publish science in their won in-house journal, which appears to have folded for lack of attention or something)? As you well know, science starts with peer-reviewed publications, gets cited by one's peers, and only then makes it into textbooks. Trying to get into textbooks without producing the basic scientific publications isn't "access to the marketplace of ideas"...it's more akin to the protectionist based "import substitution" which I grew up with in Trinidad in the 70s and 80s. We were forced to buy sub-standard products at far higher prices in order to support local start-up companies that were guaranteed a protected market for their crappy products by the government. It's much like the IDist desire to have their textbooks inserted into schools by school boards intent on "protecting" the minds of their children, while giving them a seriously substandard product. Marketplace of ideas? ID has already failed there. Guettarda 16:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It isn't just the name-calling that shows bias. It also mixes the opinions of different and contradictory viewpoints within the ID community. It also emphasizes the alleged motives of the ID proponents, instead of what they actually say and do. It reads as if the WP editors have some sort of mindreading capability.

The editors who control this page are avowed ID-haters. Just look at the comments above. KillerChihuahua says that ID folks are liars because they don't use the term "scientific theory" the way he'd like to use the term. Guettarda doesn't like them for some obscure reason relating to Trinidad tariffs.

The page should describe ID the way an ID-proponent would describe it. I am not one. I suggest asking one to help edit the page. Roger 03:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes Roger, very nice. Instead of shouting "bias" and "discrimination" do you have anything factual to add to this discussion? The simple truth is that ID proponents have yet to produce any scientific tests of their hypotheses, have yet to produce any scientific publications (even in their in-house journals), and despite their failure to produce any science...and having failed to get any traction in the "marketplace of ideas" they have,the help of crooked school boards, tired to get their "textbooks" into schools. Just because you don't understand my analogy doesn't make my point any less accurate. I have no especial "hatred" of ID, just in people peddling dishonest ideas. Of course, I am less than happy with the fact that the ID movement attacks the core of my religion while pretending to represent it, but that's just a personal opinion for which I cannot provide good sourcing and thus has no place in the article (unlike the verifiable material which is quite rightly present in the article). Guettarda 07:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No, that would be promoting a particular viewpoint, the ID one. And that's something our core policy governing content, WP:NPOV, expressly forbids.

A few minutes spent comparing the Wikipedia article Richard Dawkins - written by his fan club here - with this article quickly belies that assertion. One is fawning, the other rude. Both are propaganda pieces; one to glorify and one to vilify. Pollinator 04:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You're claiming you're not a supporter and promotor of ID? Sure you don't want to correct that statement? Read your own blog lately? You may want to reconsider your stance, as well as your method of participating at the project. FeloniousMonk 03:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Pollinator seems to be under the impression that ID did not evolve out of previous creationist movements, such as creation science, a notion that flies in the face of many sources, not least of which is the Dover trial ruling.

When did I say that? Pollinator 04:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

From the ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (pp 17-35)[18]:

• "An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching About 'Gaps' and 'Problems' in Evolutionary Theory are Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier Forms of Creationism: The concept of intelligent design (hereinafter "ID"), in its current form, came into existence after the Edwards case was decided in 1987. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child." (page 18)
• "...we find that ID's religious nature would be further evident to our objective observer because it directly involves a supernatural designer." (page 24)
• "A 'hypothetical reasonable observer,' adult or child, who is 'aware of the history and context of the community and forum' is also presumed to know that ID is a form of creationism. (page 31)
• "The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism." (page 31)

There is no shortage of reliable sources showing the genesis of creationism culminates in ID; I've added one to the article. FeloniousMonk 04:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Pollinator's problem with the statement "evangelistic creation science movement" is, but he's flying in the face of a numnber of WP's own articles. Not least of which is Creation science which says right in its intro that "Believers in creation science primarily include members of evangelical Christian denominations".

Exactly why is mentioning that creation science was a evangelic movement "irrelevant" here? FeloniousMonk 04:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Evangelical = evangelism? To start with, one term is two millinia old, the other less than half that. If you think the two are the same, you should disqualify yourself from editing due to lack of knowledge. It's an indication that you are so anxious for this to be a hatchet job that you don't care what you hurl, as long as you hurl something. Pollinator 05:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

1) WP:AGF. 2) Um, "evangelical" points to a Evangelical (disambiguation) page which in turns refers readers to Evangelism, so your objection is utterly baseless. Please turn your rhetoric and edit warring down a notch or two here. FeloniousMonk 05:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This reference to "evangelistic" takes no broad swipes at all evangelical or evangelistic pursuits. It specifies "evangelistic creation science" and "Christian fundamentalist", and "evangelistic" links to evangelist. I'm more concerned that a recently provided verification was removed, which referred the reader to Kitzmiller v. Dover, a United States District court case that subjected the lineage of the intelligent design movement to a thorough analysis, the conclusions of which were quite consistent with the content of the first sentence of the WP article on Intelligent design movement. ... Kenosis 04:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The case is already linked in the article. It should be removed. It's overkill, and a violation of Wikipedia policies. Pollinator 05:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly how is providing a source that also is linked to in the article a "a violation of Wikipedia policies." Please point us to that specific policy. FeloniousMonk 05:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

For one: "What generally should not be linked: ...The same link multiple times, because redundant links clutter up the page and make future maintenance harder." WP:CONTEXT Pollinator 05:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, WP:CONTEXT has no prohibition against having an external link to a source and a wikilink to WP article as we do here. Nor is WP:CONTEXT policy, but rather a Manual of Style Guideline, unlike Wikipedia:Verifiability which is a policy and requires sources be added, as I've done and you've repeated tried to delete. It's becoming increasingly obvious that 1) your objections are baseless, 2) you're grasping at straws. How about giving it and us a rest here? FeloniousMonk 06:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the link because we are discussing apples and you are sourcing oranges (and the oranges are already sourced later). Please stop shooting from the hip and go back and read the talk. Pollinator 06:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Returning to my original question - I take it that you have some sort of supporting cites for your assertion that ID is totally unacceptable to fundamentalist Christians? Guettarda 06:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually that's not the way Wikipedia editing works. It is very hard to reference a negative. The one who added the POV, that the movement is "Fundamentalist" needs to provide the reference - from a non-biased, non-pejorative source. I can, and will give a quote that indicates that it was not derived from creationism - obviously in the sense of the fudamentalist variety, which is Young Earth Creationism. ID is a big compromise - too big for Christian Fundamentalists - which allows only that there was a designer - the designer could have even used evolution. Obviously that's not big enough compromise for materialistic evolutionists, who will take no prisoners. This is middle ground. Why cannot there be a courteous discussion, instead of the vilification in this piece? Pollinator 06:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"Why cannot there be a courteous discussion" - I don't know, but we are all waiting for you to try courtesy instead of rudely making accusations, and failing to respond when people reply to your accusations. Guettarda 08:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I responded to your request for a reference, even though in normal edit procedure it was really incumbent upon you to to provide the reference for the opinion/assertion in the first line (which has not yet been provided). You didn't like my reference and reverted it. Someone else reverted it with a false edit summary claiming deletion. There have been few replies that actually addressed the issues I've brought up. Some have been quite discourteous in themselves, misquoting me, or directing me to "read" something, which I've read several times, but which is irrelevant to the issue. And I've said "please." Pollinator 08:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I've read the discussion and your objections are baseless as a number of other editors have pointed out to you above. The source given, the Dover trial ruling, is meant to support the entire passage, that "...arose out of the previous Christian fundamentalist and evangelistic creation science movement...", not just your baseless quibble over the use of "evangelical." You're missing the point here time and again that this article does not say that ID is evangelical; it simply says that creation science is. Which is a fact presented the intro at creation science: "Believers in creation science primarily include members of evangelical Christian denominations. " That creation science is evangelistic does not need support here, per WP:NPOVFAQ#Making_necessary_assumptions. FeloniousMonk 06:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop conflating evangelism with evangelicalism. Talk about making assumptions! You undermine your own position. Pollinator 08:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC

Whether it's to Evangelicalism or Evangelical, the article needs to link something. Creation science links to Evangelicalism while piping "evangelistic" in its intro, so that's fine with me. FeloniousMonk 01:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You say evangelicalism, I say evangelistic..

The article at present talks of the "evangelistic creation science movement", Pollinator wants it called the "evangelical creation science movement". Evangelicalism "is typified by an emphasis on evangelism", so an evangelical movement would be expected to be evangelistic. So no problem. However "evangelicalism usually refers to religious practices and traditions which are found in conservative, almost always Protestant Christianity". That's more restricted than evangelism – does it fit better? Would it exclude Behe? If the cap fits, changing it would be a minor refinement. Nae bother. .. dave souza, talk 11:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Please... once again, stop misrepresenting my position. What I have said is that evangelism is not an appropriate term here. It is not relevant to the page at all. I think the term evangelical is what is meant, and the confusion certainly displays a lack of knowledge on the part of those who throw it around. But I did not say that evangelical is an appropriate substitute. Evangelism is a term coined by and used by Christianity to refer to presenting the claims of Christ to people. It could only be appropriate here if it is redefined to a much broader meaning in which it means to "make converts to any particular movement", even Evolutionism.

But even worse is the misrepresentation of ID as a Fundamentalist-originated movement. Once again, the Fundamentalists will be found in Young Earth Creationism. ID is a moderate form if creationism that only states a presupposition and some evidence of a designer. ID is a complete abandonment of Fundamentalism. Fundamentalism will not compromise; it will only deal on its own terms. As we see by the results here, Evolutionism (not evolution) is very Fundamentalistic in its mindset; only the black and white hats are exchanged. There is no capability to compromise, or even to sit down and talk in a courteous way.

This page is, (and has long been) a polemic that seeks to vilify, to destroy ID'ers. It is condescending in tone and highly discourteous. It needs a lot of work to become NPOV, but it is tightly controlled by a group of zealous Evolutionists who will not allow any changes to this propaganda piece.

Note that I have NOT said that ID is correct (and there are many variations). Nor have I supported Fundamentalists or Evangelicals. I have kept my personal opinions to myself

I am saying this is a hatchet piece, a propaganda job. When the first sentence of the article is a direct expression of the opponents of ID, and one of the leading proponents of ID is not even allowed a quote as to what it is, the piece is unWikipedic (and it goes downhill from there). Just as it would be inappropriate for Wikipedia to advocate ID, it is inappropriate for the piece to be 95% attack against it, refusing to even allow for an ID proponant's statement as to what it is.

And there are a number of similar pages on Wikipedia that need to be cleaned up. Pollinator 16:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, since intelligent design was 'created' by the Discovery Institute, and each and every member of that institute is or was a young Earth creationist, and young Earth creationists are Christian literalists and as such fundamentalists, intelligent design was 'created' by Christian fundamentalists.

Considering that the Wedge document shows that the Discovery Institute believes its purpose to be to affirm the reality of God, and to promote Christian values, the Discovery Institute is an evangelising institute.

By what logic can ignore this? "misrepresentation of ID as a Fundamentalist-originated movement" indeed. -- Ec5618 16:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Is this "fuzzy logic? No, it's a string of logical jumps along the line of: "All bugs are insects, therefore all insects are bugs." And "was" is the operative word, if ever on ID proponents. Again, ID is an abandonment of Fundamentalism. Furthermore Behe was never a Fundamentalist. He is Roman Catholic. Fundamentalists are anti-Catholic. Pollinator 17:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Though of course the article's saying the movement has fundie origins, not that everyone in it is necessarily one, and Behe is supporting fundamentalist arguments which go against the official Roman Catholic line. So fundamenalists have presumably decided he's not an atheist like those other Catholics. ... dave souza, talk 21:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The Discovery Institute is certainly a prominent proponent of ID, but the article randomly mixes opinions of the DI with opinions that are diametrically opposed to the DI. It would be better to describe separately the opinions of DI, YEC, evangelicals, Dover PA school board, etc. As it is, the article is false and misleading from beginning to end, because it attributes views to people that they do not have. Roger 18:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Vague accusations. Be specific. ... dave souza, talk 21:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue of the Discovery Institute being the sole nexus ot the Intelligent design movement is a separate issue. I've removed the extra adjective "evangelistic" with the following edit summary: "Rmvg 'evangelistic' from lead paragraph. 1)It doesn't add any insight; 2)it's not necessarily historically correct; 3)if correct, it can be added again w/citation(s), as Kitzmiller didn't say this". ... Kenosis 21:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, I think you made the same error as Pollinator and some others here in misreading the passage. The original passage did not say that IDM arose from fundamentalism and evangelism and creation science. It said that IDM arose from a fundamentalist and evangelistic creation science movement. Which is exactly what the creation science article says creation science arose from. Sorry, but the intro since you deleted "evangelistic" is contains an error that you need to fix.

For those who can't be bothered to follow the link and read the creation science article, it says "Believers in creation science primarily include members of evangelical Christian denominations..."

This is completely consistent with the IDM article saying "The intelligent design movement is a neo-creationist campaign that arose out of the previous Christian fundamentalist and evangelistic creation science movement in the United States..."

The error that has been introduced with the deletion of "evangelistic" is that it decouples Christian fundamentalist from the creation science movement and indicates that IDM arose from two separate movements. Read the bolded word here in the current version: "The intelligent design movement is a neo-creationist campaign that arose out of the previous Christian fundamentalist and creation science movement in the United States..." This simply is inaccurate and won't do. Either you fix it or I will, it doesn't matter. FeloniousMonk 01:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The creation science article pipes "evangelistic" to Evangelicalism in its intro, which addresses Pollinator's objection over "evangelistic"/"evangelicalism", so that's fine with me. FeloniousMonk 01:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed it on different grounds. Specifically 1)Any variant of "evangelical" or "evangelistic" inadvertently takes too broad a swipe at many who have nothing to do with the IDM today nor with creation science, even if it is true that the IDM draws its constituency therefrom and that its historical roots lie therein; 2)the extra adjective "evangelistic" adds no value to the lead-paragraph explanation of what the IDM is. I'm advocating deleting the extra adjective "evangelistic" from the lead paragraph, so that the reader unfamiliar with these subtle differences in the word "evangeli..." doesn't have to become familiar with the variations of the word. The rest of the sentence says what's necessary without adding that extra often-confusing word. ... Kenosis 03:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point: We have a source, the Dover trial ruling, that says ID sprung from the creation science movement [19] and a creation science article that says "Believers in creation science primarily include members of evangelical Christian denominations that subscribe to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy..."

I'm not following your justification here. Any encyclopedia that avoids confusing words will never acheive its goal; to educate. Links are provided for readers to follow for the very reason that they will learn and not be confused. FeloniousMonk 03:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's just one adjective too many for the lead sentence, and an adjective subject to great confusion even among many persons who actually belong to denominations or churches that have some variant of the word "evangel..." attached or associated with their worship orientation. To the extent it's notable and important to the subject of the article, this particular constituency of the IDM can readily be identified to the reader in another sentence in the lead section of the article. ... Kenosis 04:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Links in the first paragraph

1. The cite that I provided (which was quickly removed) specifically denied that the origins of the movement were Fundamentalist. That cite needs to return for NPOV. - 2. Present citation number 1 makes no mention whatever of Fundamentalist roots. - 3. Present citation number 2 notes the specific objection of one of the leaders to being designated a Fundamentalist. So it supports my point. - 4. Present cite number 3 (which is an extremely POV site, and probably would only use the term Fundamentalist in a pejorative sense anyway) does not refer, in the article cited to Fundamentalist or Fundamentalism, only to religion or Christianity. - The removal of evangelistic was a small step, but as I've already indicated, the attribution to Fundamentalism is the greater error, so the NPOV tag remains. ID is specifically a departure from Fundamentalism. The four cites above either support my postion or do not support the POV statement in the lead sentence. Pollinator 01:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Which movement are you referring to? There are two mentioned in the intro, the intelligent design movement, and the creation science movement. Be specific please because it's clear to a number of us that your making a number of obvious mistakes as to which sources support which points your previous objections.

The source provided in the article supports the statement that the intelligent design movement arose from the creation science movement. FeloniousMonk 02:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, the other sources provided, [1] the Judge's ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, [2] the Discovery Institue's Wedge Strategy, and [3] Barbara Forrest's The Wedge at Work: Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics are perfectly acceptable reliable sources. Apparently you're unaware that Barbara Forrest testified for the plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, where the judge's ruling relied heavily on her testimony, much of it taken from her "The Wedge at Work". The judge also considered the Discovery Institue's Wedge document in his ruling. And FYI, the ID crowd's arguments there didn't do so well; they lost, whereas Forrest's side won. The sources couldn't be any more notable, reliable, consistent or significant. Your NPOV objections are baseless, as is your use of the NPOV template. FeloniousMonk 02:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Forrest's opinion is just her opinion. She may have persuaded the Kitzmiller judge, but the DI was not a party to that case, and that judge does not speak for the DI or the ID Movement.

The article has a section titled "Criticism". Forrest and the Kitzmiller judge are ID critics, and their opinions could be put in that section. It is a gross NPOV violation to use ID critics to define ID in the first paragraph of an article on the ID Movement. Roger 02:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"Barbara Forrest's opinion is just her opinion." Yes, that is the Discovery Institute's spin on it since they lost in court, but in actuality Barbara Forrest's opinion is testimony that the judge accepted and affirmed in his ruling. And reading the Discovery Insitute's spin, you're left with the impression that the judge agreed with their objection to Forrest's testifying as an expert. But in fact, Judge Jones denied this motion. These and many number other equally damning examples is why accepting source material from the Discovery Institute at face value is problematic. They have no credibility outside of their own movement. Scientists at any reputable institute would be investigated for academic misconduct and blacklisted by granting agencies for doing what the Discovery Institute does as a matter conducting its daily business. So of course the Discovery Institute and other ID pov-pushers are going to portray the Dover trial ruling as "mere opinion" and "criticism". Just as they do any neutral airing of their campaign. The fact remains the Dover trial is the first and only analysis of the claims of ID's proponents in a US court. You've got some strange notions of how WP:NPOV works: you won't find any Discovery Institute spin presented as fact here, per WP:NPOV. FeloniousMonk 03:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree with FM here. Forrest's testimony was accepted and ruled highly credible by a US federal judge. The DI's propaganda and spin aside, use of her testimony regarding the nature of the DI and the ID movement are fully NPOV and V compliant. JoshuaZ 03:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the Discovery Institute did not lose in court. DI was not even a party to the case. Regardless, it is an article on the ID Movement, not on ID Criticism. The criticism belongs in the Criticism section. Maybe the critics are more credible than the ID proponents, but that is for the reader to decide. Roger 04:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, technically it was the Thomas More Law Center that lost the case since the DI decided to back out at the last minute (a story unto itself). But anyone who thinks that the DI didn't lose big in Dover over the case they make for ID is living in deep, deep denial. As far as belonging in the criticism section, um, no. It's not criticism; it is part of an objective and dispassionate description of events. Please read WP:NPOV, particularly the bit about "Debates are described, represented, and characterized... Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular." FeloniousMonk 05:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk, you obviously have some personal or ideological antagonism towards the ID Movement, as you refuse to allow their views to be represented. Yes, I've read WP:NPOV, and it says that articles are to studiously refrain from stating which viewpoint is better. It also says, "When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed." If you cannot see the bias, try giving the article to a neutral party and asking whether a viewpoint bias can be detected. It will be obvious to anyone that the article was just written to attack the DI and other ID proponents. Roger 06:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"FeloniousMonk, you obviously have some personal or ideological antagonism towards the ID Movement" No, just against those that peddle personal POV as fact. There is no shortage of examples showing why accepting source material from the Discovery Institute at face value is problematic. Again, they have no credibility outside of their own movement, as noted in the Dover trial ruling. FeloniousMonk 06:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Roger, do you have any comments to make about the article? Guettarda 14:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I second Guettarda's query - this is trolling, plain and simple. Roger, are you lost? This is the talk page for a Wikipedia article, not your blog. First Pollinator (whose good faith I have no reason to doubt) makes some unclear statements and suggestions (unclear to me at least, and no judgment implied, we've all been less clear than we thought when posting) and while FeloniousMonk asks for clarification and attempts to discuss what the perceived issues might or might not be, Roger takes the ball and goes running off into Troll-land, quibbling about tiny details of phrasing which are not even in the discussion, trying to fight the Kitzmuller case all over again, insulting and attacking othter editors on this page - in short, Roger, we know you have a blog. Keep this kind of thing on your blog. Don't attempt to re-argue a court case on this talk page, and stop attacking editors. You are wearing out my patience, and I am sure the patience of others here. I am inches away from blocking you for constant low-level trolling and disruption combined with personal attacks, and have no issues with doing so if you continue. You are throwing constant road blocks into any attempt at coherent discussion on this page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding: In case it is not clear, you are directly insulting FM and indirectly insulting everyone who is here to work on an article, and not here to listen to your personal interpretation of Kitzmuller. You are also being incredibly rude to Pollinator, who was trying to discuss something. This thread being hijacked by you for your usual brew of unsubstantiated rumour, personal opinion, original research, and personal attacks has virtually guaranteed that it will take many times as long for Pollinator's concerns to be discussed rationally, and most of this thread is about your irrelevant red herrings rather than about the topic of the thread starter. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Time for a breather

I am not trying to be ugly, but I am having a really hard time comprehending why a bunch of editors that are science-minded, simply are not able to follow some basic logical steps. I am science-minded myself, and I really thought that science was good training in being able to use reason and logic. Please forgive me, as I have no desire to be nasty. It is just that this process is kinda like being in labor for 48 hours, when it's past time for a C-section.

Once again, I'll try to get to the points:

1. I have never said that the trial transcript is an invalid link (though it doesn't need to be in the article multiple times), or that I have any problem having it in. And the trial is fairly neutral, so I find it hard to understand why some gloat over the result and some are in despair or denial.

What I DID say, is that the link to the trial was not responsive to the issue I brought up. It is mostly irrelevant. The trial does not refer to Fundamentalism (which is the key point I was addressing) and it can only be relevant if one makes a series of assumptions. Thus the link should be removed from that point, although I have no issue with it being used where it is relevant. Why, despite many repetitions, am I still being misquoted on this?

2. I have no problem with ID being described as Creationist. It certainly is, as a designer could aptly be called a creator. But there are many flavors of creationists, ranging in several steps, from the ones who claim six days, six thousand years ago, to the ones who say the creator quite likely used a few billion years and a process the scientists call evolution.

3. The biggest POV problem is that this cadre of editors continues to describe ID in terms of Fundamentalism. As I've stated several times, ID is a specific move away from (distancing/repudiation, or whatever synonym you want) Fundamentalism. This point has been absolutely and completely ignored over and over. It's time to deal with it. The unwillingness to deal with it makes it appear that there is a deliberate effort to mislead the reader into thinking that this is a Fundamentalistic movement, when it's not. The misrepresentation gives an example of Evolutionism vs. evolution.

4. A secondary problem is the "solution" to the conflation of evangelism and Evangelicalism, by making it a piped link. This is illogical and worse it's deceptive. Yes, evangelism is one of the characteristics of Evangelicalism. But you cannot say that evangelism IS Evangelicalism. Once again the logical fallacy. All bugs are insects; therefore all insects are bugs. Anyone who would state my example among any science-minded hearers would lower his estimated IQ level in his listeners' minds.

Could I make a simple request that any reader let these points simmer a little before responding. There's so much shooting from the hip, and so little comprehension and so much misrepresentation of the points being advanced that it scares me. Is this the younger generation of Wikipedians? Or is this an illustration of a zealous religious belief (Evolutionism)?

To make this a better article, we've got to move it away from being a propaganda piece. If you can't see that it's propaganda, you are too deeply embedded in it. There's more, but no point in going on until these points are settled. Pollinator 03:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Pollinator, what on earth is the conceptual underlayment for the statement "a zealous religious belief (Evolutionism)?" Are we in 2007 or 1907, or 1807? Geez, it took, as far as can tell to date, some 15 billion years for our universe to manifest to the current stage, and some 3 billion + years for life to manifest on Earth to the current stage. What on earth is going on here? Your suggestion that the article "move away from being a propaganda piece" will not in the end be adequately specific to sort out what you assert to be problematic about this article.

While I already put forward my reservations about the use of the adjective "evangeli..." in any of the widely misunderstood (and also still widely debated) applications of each of the many variants of the word, this article tells the truth about the situation in words most English-speaking persons can understand, and is verified by an unusually high number of citations from academic sources, general media sources, legal sources and firsthand material from the organization that made the term "intelligent design" famous in the modern world. After the objection to the issues of the use of "evangeli..." and "fundamentalist" is potentially settled, what else? Maybe it would be appropriate, I humbly suggest, per your suggestion to "take a breather" with this, to just take a day or so, and maybe make a bulleted (or preferably numbered) list of all the objections to the explanation the article provides of what the "intelligent design movement" is, and what it seeks to do, what it has done to date, etc. ... Kenosis 05:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Pollin, the article doesn't say it is part of the "fundamenetalist" movement, but that it arose out of the closely connected creation science movement. So what precisely is the issue? (It might make sense to have a note that some YECs such as AIG and ICR now strongly condemend the ID movement but nothing in the article is factually inaccurate). JoshuaZ 05:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for re-stating (and re-starting, after Roger hijacked your previous attempt above) your concerns. I'd like to get a little clarification on item 3 from your list: would you give a specific example of ID being described inappropriately? Thanks much. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Using the term "fundamentalist" is inflammatory and inaccurate. It is used in the article as a smear term. I agree with Pollinator that ID is not fundamentalist. Saying that ID it arose out of the closely connected creation science movement is like saying that the modern evolutionist movement arose out of the closely connected eugenics movement. Roger 16:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hardly. Evolution was hardly thought up by proponents of eugenics to give eugenics some semblance of credence. -- Ec5618 16:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ec, please do not respond to Roger's trolling, or this thread will be hijacked like Pollinator's last attempt. If you had not already replied, I would have removed his post as trolling. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Please read this article in its entirety and then comment if it should be linked under "see also". Struct 03:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I posted a comment here, but someone removed it. Roger 08:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that the ID movement conforms to the opening paragraph of Cult: "In religion and sociology, a cult is a cohesive group of people (sometimes a relatively small and recently founded religious movement, sometimes numbering in the hundreds of thousands) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream, sometimes reaching the point of a taboo. Its separate status may come about either due to its novel belief system, its idiosyncratic practices, its perceived harmful effects on members, or because it opposes the interests of the mainstream culture. Other non-religious groups may also display cult-like characteristics." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Struct (talk • contribs) 13:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

My comments were removed. Roger 20:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Neo-creationism Merge

Neo-creationism appears to be a content fork maintaining a critical POV of the intelligent design movement. Most information is either duplicated or irrelevant to an encyclopedia and would not be added to this already long article. Pbarnes 16:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's a broader term which includes ID. Guettarda 16:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the article: "Neo-creationism is a movement whose goal is to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, policy makers, educators, and the scientific community." It certainly doesn't sound like a broader term to me, it sounds like a description of ID. Would you like to reference something that makes a distinction between neo-creationism and ID? Better yet, find me one person who is in favor of neo-creationism who would not be classified under the ID umbrella. Even if there is a distinction, is it notable? Pbarnes 16:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, you want to merge an article into another were the latter (ID movement) is a subset of the former (neo-creationism)? That does not make any sense. ID is a form of neo-creationism, not the other way around. 151.151.21.100 23:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, find me one person who is in favor of neo-creationism who would not be classified under the ID umbrella. Please explain to me how this is a notable topic? Pbarnes 23:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

According to some, neo-creationism holds a broader definition compared to ID movement which includes ID and something they reference in the article called the "abrupt appearance theory". The "abrupt appearance theory" is not only non-notable, since it only obtains 479 ghits, but is also another name for the ID movement according to one of the few sites who actually use the phrase:

After teaching "creation-science" in the public schools was ruled unconstitutional, creationists tried to rescue it by renaming it: abrupt appearance theory, initial complexity theory, and, recently, intelligent design theory.[20]

For this reason, neo-creationism is just a new name for the ID movement and should be merged to prevent a POV fork of the information. Pbarnes 17:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You obviously have not read Wendell Bird's The Origin of Species Revisited: [21] "Abrupt appearance theory" is not ID. Not even close. Next. 151.151.73.169 17:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's go to the book for the definition and then we will see who is correct.

"The theory of abrupt appearance involves the scientific evidence that natural groups of plants and animals appeared abruptly but discontinuously in complex form, and also that the first life and the universe appeared abruptly but discontinuously in complex form" (Bird 1987: 13).

Now lets compare this definition with the wikipedia definition of intelligent design, "an argument for the existence of God,[1] based on the premise 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." The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia states, "intelligent design, theory that some complex biological structures and other aspects of nature show evidence of having been designed by an intelligence." As you can see, the theory of abrupt appearance fits quite well into both definitions of ID. Pbarnes 17:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A key aspect of ID is the assertion that design can be detected scientifically. ID does not rule in or out evolution and common descent (Behe agrees with over 90% of evolutionary theory, while Wells rejects common descent). The premise of ID is scientifically detectable design. It says nothing about the timing or pattern of species appearance/emergence. Guettarda 17:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That's original research, but it doesn't help your case here. The fact is that Wendell Bird is a Creation Scientist who thought up Abrupt Appearance Theory before the ID movement came to be: The Origin of Species Revisited was published in 1991, meaning he was working on it at about the same time Thaxton was cutting and pasting CS with ID in Pandas, the first ID book. Do you even have a source that says AAT is ID? 151.151.73.169 17:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I oppose any attempt to merge Neo-creationism with this article. Neo-creationism and intelligent design have a clear parent/child relationship and you don't move parent articles into child articles. The justifications given for doing simply do not carry water. FeloniousMonk 03:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I oppose merging the two for the same reasons given by FM and others. Mr Christopher 21:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. •Jim62sch• 22:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)