Talk:Intelligent design movement/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

ID in higher education

From the third paragraph on, the section is full of OR, POV and lacks sources. Needs revision. Northfox 14:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks to Hrafn for adding a reference to this paragraph. It still needs some improvement. But I think Hrafn got the reference wrong. It seems that ref 80 is indexing a book about ID as rhetoric, or public affairs, not science. Ref 80 is not an outside source verifying that the university presses would classify ID books in the same category. Not that this matters much, given the low quality of the article as a whole. Northfox (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Not as far as I can tell. Do you have specific examples, or is this just a general gripe? 64.237.4.140 (talk) 18:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent Design is Creationist POV

Please examine the article on Wedge Strategy on reframing Creationism as non-religious by passing it as Intelligent Design and thus have it taught in schools as science. --220.239.179.128 (talk) 09:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion for the page? Wikipedia is not for discussion. WLU (talk) 12:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"Conclusory judgments"

This comment, from pro-Science legal commentator Peter Irons, from an article hosted on Panda's Thumb (blog) (and mentioned in this recent post), brings to mind recent bald statements that the current 'Legal arms' section is "accurate":

If Professor McCreary truly believes that Judge Jones's opinion was “one-sided” or

biased, I think the onus is on her to support that conclusory judgment with some

reasonable argument or evidence, both of which are lacking in her article.[1]

Like Irons, I believe that "the onus is on" those stating that the section is "accurate", despite evidence to the contrary, to "support that conclusory judgment with some reasonable argument or evidence, both of which are lacking". Lacking such reasonable argument or evidence, I think it is not unreasonable to dismiss such unfounded judgements out of hand. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I dunno about this...

This edit, though adding a massive number of sources, seems to say that the Discovery Institute fuels IDM, not a 'small number'. Thoughts? WLU (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with you. It might be possible to make a roughly equivalent statement by first using these sources to say that the DI fuels the IDM & then wording based on a new source discussing the size of the DI. But as it stands, the statement is not supported by the sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC Legal arms

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

Do the references given for Intelligent design movement#Legal arms support the statements made in that section? Specifically:

• Do [2] & [3] provide adequate support for the statement that "The movement's de facto legal arm is the Thomas More Law Center"? The TMLC represented the a pro ID/Creationism school board in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District‎ (after seeking such a case for several years), the single largest ID case to date, but its conduct of the case resulted in considerable conflict with the Discovery Institute, by far the single most prominent institution in the ID movement (see also [4]).
• Does [5] support the statement that "the Alliance Defense Fund ... have also litigated extensively on behalf of the movement" (my emphasis)?
• Is there adequate support for the statement that Quality Science Education for All is a "Similar legal foundation[]" to the TMLC?

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd give the "Legal Arms" title a pitch and replace it with "Litigation on Behalf of IDC" or similar. The points Hrafn makes are good. IIRC, ADF was poised to render assistance to FTE in the KvD case if FTE's motion for co-defendant status had been accepted by Judge Jones. Also, I think ADF was involved in some capacity in the earlier IDC outing in Darby, MT. QSEA is simply Larry Caldwell as far as I can tell, and not an organization with, well, organization like TMLC. So divorcing the section from claims of which lawyers are best buddies with the DI would seem to be the way to go, and then simply tell the tale of what each group has done in trying to litigate IDC into public school science classrooms. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Further on QSEA, its website appears to have been 'domain parked' and it doesn't show up on the IRS's list of charities. Is it still in existence (for that matter, did it ever have a formal existence)? Anybody know? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The original was more accurate and well supported. I support keeping the section as it stood for several years, IIRC. FeloniousMonk (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this non-answer that does nothing whatsoever to even attempt to address the perceived inaccuracies listed above. I will take this response as simply WP:ILIKEIT (of the original and WP:IDONTLIKEIT of any changes). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:ILIKEIT too! Odd nature (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• (RFC Response) I'm looking at this version. All in all, the section massively fails to use reliable sources to support its content, and most of the content should currently be removed as unsourced, with the remainder rewritten to reflect the sources. (There may be reliable sources out there to support some of the other content, but they aren't evidenced here.)
  1. The description of the Thomas More Law Center as the "de facto legal arm" is not supported by the sources. The first (New York Times) source makes it clear that the Discovery Institute disagreed with the TMLC's activity. The TMLC should only be described as representing itself, not the movement as a whole. I think there is room in these sources to have some content in the article, but not the current article. Our article on the TMLC makes it clear that they have much wider ranging interests than merely ID, and thus describing them as the legal arm of the ID movement is no more accurate than describing the ACLU as the legal arm of the evolutionist movement would be. Both statements are massive distortions.
  2. The Alliance Defense Fund is being described as "have also litigated extensively on behalf of the movement". This is only supportable if either a reliable source so describes them or an extensive number of litigations are evidenced. The current source only evidences one motion to intervene, which may or may not have been granted, and thus can't even serve as a single example of litigating on behalf of the movement, much less of "litigated extensively". On the current sourcing, the reference to it should be removed entirely.
  3. Two sources are offered regarding the QSEA. Both are blogs. Neither is by Caldwell or QSEA. So they are not reliable sources for the claims being made about QSEA. With no reliable sources about QSEA in this version of the article, all content about QSEA should be removed. GRBerry 19:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Some blogs are accepted as reliable sources at Wikipedia, and both Pandas Thumb and Pharyngula are widely accepted and used here at Wikipedia. The observations about QSEA are fine. Odd nature (talk) 00:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Odd Nature that these ScienceBlogs are generally regarded as WP:RS. However I would point out that they make no mention of TMLC, let alone comparing it to QSEA, so cannot be used as a source for such a comparison without blatant WP:SYNTH. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The assertion that Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) does not belong in this discussion is false. ADF was active in the discussions of the Darby, MT "objective origins" policy.

And finally, ADF officially became part of the debate over a new science policy recently approved by the Darby School Board. At a Tuesday night meeting, the board retained by a 3-2 vote a Lincoln attorney whose fees and costs will be paid by ADF in the event the school district is sued over the science policy.

The policy is called "objective origins," and the three board members who voted for it say it will improve the district's science instruction by encouraging teachers to help students challenge theories such as evolution. The district has yet to develop a curriculum to teach "objective origins," and it remains unclear precisely what students will be taught.

Critics of the policy say it is little more than another effort to teach Christian creation stories in science class. Creation science has been drubbed in court cases, and although no one has sued the district over the origins policy, a lawsuit would hardly come as a surprise.

WP:RS-worthy Source

ADF inserted itself into the Selman case with an amicus curiae brief:

Byron Babione is a senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case.

"The sticker should have been perfectly constitutional," Babione contends. "In other words, it had a secular purpose -- it didn't advance any one or particular religion, and it didn't entangle government excessively with religion." Instead, says the attorney, it "simply promoted critical analysis with respect to the theory of evolution, as critical analysis is promoted with respect to any scientific theory."

Source: http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/12006d.asp, last accessed June 2, 2006. You can also find discussion on the ADF site itself.

That's just the first two I looked for. Do we need more? --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wesley. The agapepress link is dead but can be found on Wayback here. What we appear to have to date from the ADF on ID is:

• one (unsuccessful) motion;
• one offer to pay legal expenses; and
• one amicus curiae brief.

Of these, only the first is actual "litigating". Taken as a whole, they give a pattern of interest in litigation on the issue. I agree that this warrants mention, but I think that we need to be careful not to exaggerate their involvement. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

True. I thought I had entered a comment to that effect already, but maybe I only previewed it. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

An ADF lawyer also prepared the DI's and the FTE's amicus curiae briefs in KvD.[6] Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on the material above, I'd like to ask a few questions:

1. Do we have any evidence that either the TMLC or the ADF had any specific focus on ID, beyond it merely being another front (along with the 'War on Christmas', monuments to the 10 commandments, etc, etc) in the culture wars?
   1. If not, surely if they're anybody's "legal arm" they are the 'arm' of the wider Christian right?
2. Do we have any evidence of substantive litigation by the ADF on behalf of the ID movement?
   1. If not, then wouldn't it be WP:UNDUE weight to give them more than a a bare mention?
3. Do we have any evidence that QSEA ever had a formal existence as an organisation (as opposed to merely a name invented by Caldwell)? Do we have any evidence that it continues to have any existence at all?
   1. If not, then it wouldn't it be again be WP:UNDUE weight to give this short-lived and insubstantial 'organisation' more than a bare mention?

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with GRBerry as he stated above: 1. "The description of the Thomas More Law Center as the "de facto legal arm" is not supported by the sources" . . . 2. As far as the Alliance Defense Fund issue, "the current source only evidences one motion to intervene, which may or may not have been granted, and thus can't even serve as a single example of litigating on behalf of the movement, much less of "litigated extensively" . . . and , "two sources are offered regarding the QSEA. Both are blogs. Neither is by Caldwell or QSEA. So they are not reliable sources for the claims being made about QSEA." Jsn9333 (talk) 02:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Summary

General points:

• Four editors considered the current wording to be inaccurate and/or in violation of policy, and stated reasoning for these views.
• Two editors stated, as a bare assertion, that the current wording is "accurate".

Detailed points:

• 4 editors considered that "legal arms"/"defacto legal arm" was inappropriate.
• 4 editors considered that the sourced evidence for the ADF's litigation on this issue amounts to a single motion to intervene (though further evidence of interest in litigating was found), and that this does not warrant the description "litigated extensively".
• 4 editors raised a variety of concerns relating to the prominence of QSEA and the appropriateness of the comparison to TMLC. Additionally, questions relating to whether QSEA still exists, and whether it ever had a formal existence remain open.
• 2 editors considered the use of blog material to be problematic. 2 other editors dissented, stating that these blogs (which are invitation-only Scienceblogs, under the purview of Seed magazine) are widely accepted as reliable.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Methodological Naturalism

Hrafn, this paragraph is about what ID proponents believe. Whether or not there is such a thing as science with out methodological naturalism is not the issue.

Its proponents believe that society has suffered "devastating cultural consequences" from adopting materialism and that a philosophical commitment to methodological naturalism is the cause of the decay into materialism because it seeks only naturalistic explanations." - Emphasis added

Also, ID proponents are not anti-science per se. That is a false dilemma. Thank you for your consideration. -- DannyMuse (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

See origins of the idea, per timeline. ID proponents are anti-science in the terms that science is defined by the scientific community and legally defined, but pro-"science" if you accept theistic realism as "science". . . dave souza, talk 18:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Dave, I understand that, but again this paragraph is about what ID proponents believe. Notice my suggested rewording does not use the term "science" so as to avoid that issue, but substitutes methodological naturalism to focus on--from their perspective--the problem. Would you prefer if I had said in my comments that ID proponents do not believe they are not anti-science per se? --- DannyMuse (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. You can argue against people being anti- to anything, if you take a sufficiently idiosyncratic definition of that thing. Anti-aircraft guns aren't "anti-aircraft", if you define "aircraft" to mean "something the travels under water". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

To which, just shows the weight problem of an uncritical paragraph expounding their beliefs or views without showing the overwhelming majority view that what they call "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" is not science and fails basic requirements of the scientific method. If we show their claim, it should be followed in the same paragraph by a suitably sourced majority view. Anyone got a preferred citation for the majority view? . . dave souza, talk 20:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Dave, don't you think the Reception by the scientific community section of the article handles that adequately? So many of these articles on WP seem to follow the format of "x believes this, but y disagrees. x also believes this other thing; y disagrees with that too ..." It gets tediously heavy-handed, and seems a bit paranoid, as if y is overly worried that some folks might be swayed by x's position if not countered at every turn. -- DannyMuse (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This is moving off the issue, I think. WP:UNDUE states that articles "must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." DannyMuse's phrasing is, I think, an attempt to "rewrite" the scientific view of what science is from the creationist viewpoint. Given that they have yet to demonstrate (or even adequately articulate) a 'science without methodological naturalism' that is practicable, I see no reason to WP:WEASEL-word the article to give WP:UNDUE weight to such quibbling. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No it's not quibbling, it's the issue as ID proponents see it. Frankly, it's irritating that you would suggest that I am making "an attempt to "rewrite" the scientific view of what science is from the creationist viewpoint." If you checked the source I used you'd see that. That's why I sourced it. I really can't believe you want to revert the text to something that is just plain wrong. IDer's do NOT believe that "science is the cause of the decay", but the commitment to methodological naturalism. They may be wrong, but it is what they believe. C'mon, most of them are scientists for crying out loud!!! OK, you win, and the article loses. Whatever. This is why WP itself is not considered a reliable source. Unbelievable. -- DannyMuse (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

<unident>"Science" requires a "commitment to methodological naturalism" -- so stating that "IDer's do NOT believe that 'science is the cause of the decay', but the commitment to methodological naturalism" is equivalent to "IDer's do NOT believe that 'science is the cause of the decay', but science". Their mythic 'science without methodological naturalism' is about as well-defined, credible and as coherent as the Invisible pink unicorn. It's existence has merely been asserted, without even a coherent explanation of how it might work, let alone working examples. By allowing them the pretence that they can oppose methodological naturalism without being opposed to science itself, we would be accepting their premise in the article -- clearly a violation of WP:UNDUE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Asserted? No examples! Have you not heard of Newton? Galileo? -- DannyMuse (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure have. They were at the forefront of empirical methodological naturalism in science, and you're debating the subject rather than making proposals to improve the article, as required by WP:TALK. Please make constructive proposals instead of making arguments which fail WP:NPOV/FAQ#Making necessary assumptions. . . dave souza, talk 21:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Dave, please reread my first comment in this thread. And please refrain from unhelpful comments such as "you're debating the subject rather than making proposals to improve the article". The wording that in the article is incorrect as it is which is why I changed it and I sourced it. Correcting errors is an improvement. Clearly you and Hrafn disagree. DannyMuse (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That you have to go back to the very dawn of modern science to come up with even stretched-past-breaking-point 'examples' is an indictment of your argument. Galileo was clearly moving away from explicitly theistic 'science' towards methodological naturalism -- hence the accusations of heresy. From memory, Newton attributed a God of the gaps to account for differences between his calculations and observations -- thus failing to correct the errors in the calculations. Hardly an improvement on pure MN. He also spent a great deal of time on alchemy. Should we also be advocating rehabilitating that as part of our abandonment of MN? And there is no substantive difference between Dave & me on this point, merely a difference in how far we let things go before we shut it down as unproductive. That you bring up Newton clearly means that this has come to an end. There probably should be a variant of Godwin's law that states that as an argument about MN "grows longer, the probability of [Newton being brought up as an example] approaches one" and that "the thread is finished and whoever mentioned [Newton] has automatically 'lost' whatever debate was in progress." Newton was a titanic figure at the dawn of modern science, he is however not an example of how science should (or even could) be done now. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, there is no point in discussing anything with you because no matter what I say, or how I say it, you always miss my point and go off on some tangent unrelated to the point I am trying to make. That being said, I will take responsibility for being unclear in one statement I made. When I said "Clearly you [Dave] and Hrafn disagree" I meant you disagree with me, not with each other. I thought the context would have made that clear, but apparently not.

That being said--and not that it will probably matter or make any sense to you, but--I found out what I came to these series of articles to discover. It was disappointing. -- DannyMuse (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Incidentally, re this edit -- a single revert of a controversial edit is not "edit-warring", but is specifically envisioned per WP:BRD. The correct response is not to revert the revert, but to discuss it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, "Please don't revert the revert, but let's discuss!" See my response to Dave's comments above. --DannyMuse (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No. After your edit was reverted, what you should have done was to gain a WP:CONS for the change, before you reimposed it. As an act of good faith, I held off reverting this second unilateral introduction of it until some discussion had occured. You have failed, to date, to gain any support whatsoever for this change, so I am again reverting it. Please do not further attempt to reintroduce it without a consensus to do so. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for waiting a bit to discuss. -- DannyMuse (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

neo-creationist

The lead sentence does not have a cite to support the thought that the IDM is a neocreationist campaign. Could we find one that does or use "creationist" or "progressive creationism of the 1980s". This Forrest cite supports the last one: Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy Barbara Forrest. May, 2007. page 2 bottom. With some rearranging of words this would then look like:

The intelligent design movement is a direct outgrowth of the "progressive" creationism of the 1980s.[Forrest cite] This campaign, called the "Wedge Strategy" in internal Discovery Institute documents, is primarily conducted in the United States.[cites] By employing intelligent design arguments in the public sphere it promotes a creationist agenda calling for broad social, academic and political changes.[cites]

Pasado 06:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

To avoid oversimplifying the development of the campaign in a misleading way, here's a suggestion, modified from that discussed at talk:Intelligent design –

The intelligent design movement is a direct outgrowth of the "progressive" creationism of the 1980s.[Forrest cite] A group calling themselves The Wedge took up the campaign initiated by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics to teach creation science in schools under the name of intelligent design, and as part of the Discovery Institute developed what they called the "Wedge Strategy" as a campaign primarily conducted in the United States.[cites] By employing intelligent design arguments against evolution in the public sphere it promotes a religious agenda calling for broad social, academic and political changes.[cites]

If more cites are needed, see the timeline of intelligent design. ... dave souza, talk 09:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Pasado, i'm not sure why you use a source that does not support the movement, this should be in the history section rather than the introduction. Any movement should be taken as good faith and should be allowed to be defined by those who commenced it. The idea of ID does not necessitate creationism, and to indicate otherwise is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zugwang (talk • contribs) 21:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Creationists, including the newest kind -- the neo-creationist "intelligent design theorists" who are the subject of this book -- offer an abundance of theories.

Creationism's Trojan Horse, Forrest & Gross, p7 Hrafn42 11:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I notice that Forrest's latest writing (May, 2007) does not mention neo-creationist ID. She may now just be using the label "ID creationism". More to the point after Kitzmiller. Pasado 05:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably the still-birth of 'abrupt appearance theory', the only form of Neo-creationism other than ID, had a role in this. As long as ID is the only existent form of Neo-creationism, the latter term is somewhat redundant. Hrafn42 08:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If ID is the only active form of neo-creationism then saying "The intelligent design movement is a neo-creationist campaign..." is equalvent to saying "The intelligent design movement is an intelligent design campaign...". Pasado 05:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. There seems to be more to neo-creo than ID. The neo-creationism article says "Eugenie Scott describes neo-creationism as "a mixed bag of antievolution strategies brought about by legal decisions against equal time laws." Based on Scott's original definition, and Pennock's usage in his (admittedly 1999) book "Tower of Babel" neo-creo is an umbrella term for creationist strategies and campaigns which sought to evolve post-Edwards. ID isn't the only game in town - AiG and ICR have far larger budgets than does the DI. "Creation science" has evolved in response to Edwards. I think there's ample ground to talk about post-Edwards creationism outside of ID. Guettarda 05:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Can the ICR's & AiG's strategies be considered Neo-creationism (as that term is defined in that article)? My impression was that the ICR at least (and I suspect AiG as well) objected to the 'hiding your theism under a bushel' that Neo-creationism involves. Hrafn42 07:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The Edwards ruling said that alternate scientific theories could still be taught in schools. I'm no expert on the evolution of "creation science", but things like baraminology and the increasingly "scientific" tone of some creos is surely part of the "new creationism" that developed post-Edwards. Between Scott's definition and Pennock's discussion of "new creationism" (he doesn't actually use the term neo-creo, but I think he's talking about pretty much the same thing), I think there's a lot more to neo-creo than just ID. Of course, I'm talking off the top of my head and have no supporting cites, but I really don't think that neo-creo is just ID. Guettarda 14:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

According to Pennock the "Young-Earth Creation-Science" hasn't evolved much: "Nevertheless young-earth creationists (YECs) continue to flog the same dead horses. I will not take the space here to rehash the details of this debate, but will simply mention a few of the "evidences" for a young earth that I hear most frequently, to give a flavor of the "positive" arguments of creation-science for those who are unfamiliar with them." Tower of Babel, p216. I don't think that Creation Science has evolved all that much in response to Edwards. Baraminology is explicitly based on Biblical 'kinds', so is hardly particularly neo-creationist. Hrafn42 14:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

ID classified as creationist

I was just wondering why it is that ID is classified here as a creationist movement. My understanding of creationism was that they A: Rejected Carbon dating B:Rejected Charles Darwin's origin of species and C: asserted that the Earth is a few thousand years old. In contrast, ID is as I understand the idea of an intelligient trigger directing the formation of the universe, with this theory often working in conjunction with evolutionary sciences. So it seems a bit two dimensional to label ID as creationism. Tominator93 (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

read the whole article and the reason will be clear to you--LexCorp (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Read Creationism. Contrast Young Earth creationism (which is what you describe) with Neo-creationism (which is what ID is a form of). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Right. I misread it. Thanks for clearing that up!Tominator93 (talk) 04:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

A or B?

I've reverted this change in assessment level,[7], the points raised – (uncited quotes; uncited papragraphs; some parts may not be neutral, e.g. "no less than the "renewal" of American culture through the shaping of public policy to reflect conservative Christian value") – should be given attention. . dave souza, talk 10:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The Lead

Is far too long. It is rambling (I didn't follow the argument about materialism and atheism at all), and repetitive (there are two references to almost identical claims by the American Association). Anyone mind if I copyedit? (I'm aware that sometimes this can trigger off great edit wars of nuclear proportions, so will lay off for now). The Rationalist (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Article structure

This article is in bad need of restructuring:

1. The lead has gotten fairly bloated.
2. It lacks section(s) on the history and rationale of the movement.
3. It lacks information on the organisations in the movement beyond the CSC
4. The 'Campaigns' section is well out of date, as is 'Intelligent design in higher education' and probably others.

I'm going to have a go at restructuring and/or rewriting, unless somebody comes along and objects violently. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Legal arms

• That Thomas More Law Center is "the movement's de facto legal arm" seems to be an exaggeration. It has defended ID in its sole major case, but in doing so ended up at loggerheads with the movement's main body, the Discovery Institute. Likewise claims that it has "played a central role in defending against legal objections to the teaching of intelligent design in public school science classes" on the basis of this one case, would appear to be misleading.
• I have seen no evidence that they "participated as a plaintiff to remove legal barriers to the teaching of intelligent design as science."
• QSEA is not a "similar legal foundation" -- it is Larry Caldwell, an incompetently litigious individual.
• ADF is on the same level as TMLC, but tends to fund lawsuit through other organisations, rather than directly participating in litigation. Have they been involved in creationism litigation, let alone ID litigation? I have seen no evidence of this to date.

Contrary to Odd Nature's claim in an edit summary, this section does not contain "obivious,[sic] uncontroversial facts". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Odd nature is not so far offbase, I think. You seem to be more than a bit generous with the tags and templates here.

The TMLC, having litigated Kitzmiller (unsuccessfully), is indeed the ID movement's legal arm. No exaggeration there. DI is not a law firm, therefore it cannot be a legal arm. QSEA's goal and method is more similar to TMLC than not, much more so than the ADF to the TMLC. I think the article strikes the right note here. Let's move along to something more constructive. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added 6 new sources and performed a minor copyedit for clarity and accuracy. This should take care of your objections Hrafn. Thanks. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• To state that the "movement's de facto legal arm is [present tense] the Thomas More Law Center", when it represented the movement in a single case (albeit the only case of any importance) and ended up estranged from the movement's most important institution, is a severe exaggeration of any ongoing relationship between it and the movement, and clearly WP:SYNTH. Better to simply state that they represented the movement in its sole major case.
• While Larry Caldwell/QSEA's aims may be similar to the TMLC, his level of organisation, competence and funding is not anywhere close. To say that it is a "similar legal foundation" would be like claiming that a local university IDEA club is a "similar organisation" to the DI.
• I can still find no evidence of ADF involvement.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Got some other firm in mind? Name em. I can provide a source that the TMLC is the leading ID litigator if you insist.
2. And the article makes that distinction: "Though much smaller in scale than the Thomas More Law Center, in its first year of existence (2005) QSEA has brought no fewer than three separate lawsuits to further the intelligent design movement's agenda."
3. See: ADF attorneys seek to supply missing link in intelligent design curriculum case

FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Why does a movement have to have a "de facto legal arm" (be it TMLC or some other firm)? That would imply a close relationship (which TMLC never had with the ID movement, it was pursuing its aims more or less independently, hence the conflicts with the DI, both pre- and post-trial). As far as I can see, lacking a concentrated legal strategy, which is unlikely post-Dover debacle, the movement doesn't need to have a firm 'on tap'.
2. I still think this wording gives QSEA WP:UNDUE weight -- as it says "similar" up front, but does not qualify it until the next sentence.
3. A single motion does not amount to having "litigated extensively".

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest something along the lines of the following:

Litigation

In the movement's sole major case, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District‎, it was represented by the Thomas More Law Center, which had been seeking a test-case on the issue for at least five years. However conflicting agendas led to withdrawal of a number Discovery Institute Fellows as expert witnesses, and recriminations after the case was lost.

On a far smaller scale, Larry Caldwell and his wife operate Quality Science Education for All (QSEA), which has also litigated extensively on behalf of the movement. In its first year of existence (2005) QSEA has brought no fewer than three separate lawsuits, to further the intelligent design movement's agenda. Observers of the movement such as PZ Myers and Timothy Sandefur describe QSEA as a vexatious litigant, whose founder is known for "his hair-trigger willingness to sue people for just about anything, in the cause of ID creationism."

• I don't think a single (unsuccessful) motion warrants mention of the ADF.
• We probably should include the status of Caldwell's three cases (as far as I can tell, there's one lost, one ongoing & one unknown).

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have slightly modified my proposal to reflect the TMLC's lengthy search for a test case. I must admit that I find it bizarre that they spent this amount of time without any apparent indication that they coordinated their efforts with the DI. Have I missed evidence of such coordination? The way Kitzmiller was conducted certainly doesn't seem to indicate any advance coordination of strategy between them. I have also explicitly included the final QSEA sentence, to remove any ambiguity that I might be advocating its removal. If nobody objects within the next day or so, I'll probably introduce it on mainspace. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about it, if the TMLC had really been the movement's "de facto legal arm", rather than simply following their own agenda, the result would presumably have been choosing a better client than the Dover School Board (who must have been the DI's worst nightmare), and no mass-defection of DI expert witnesses. I suspect they would still have lost, but it might not have been such a thorough Waterloo. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think your unilateral rewrite of this section is any improvement, nor do your arguments here to justify it make much sense to me. I think it was more accurate and clear in the original prose and since FM shares my opinion, I've reverted. Odd nature (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• How is suggesting an edit here on talk and then, when there has not been any objection to it after 10 days (12 days from the original version of it) making this edit, a "unilateral rewrite"?
• How is it accurate to call a single unsuccessful motion to intervene to have "litigated extensively on behalf of the movement"?
• How is it accurate to call a legal firm, that both during and after its one ID lawsuit was having major disputes with the organisation that is the 'hub' of the movement, the "de facto legal arm" of that movement? This implies that they were marching in lock-step, when in fact they were brawling in the streets.

Your attitude appears to be one of "we don't like your edits and we don't like your argument -- but are not willing to say why either is deficient." That is hardly helpful for attaining a meaningful consensus, beyond a brutal one of "don't edit the article, and don't bother attempting to discuss it." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Three inaccurate statements contained in this section

1. "The movement's de facto legal arm is the Thomas More Law Center". This is both an exaggeration and WP:SYNTH of the cited sources, which state nothing resembling this, but merely state that the TMLC was seeking an ID case to defend (as one of the sources notes, as part of a far wider campaign to "to change the culture"[8]). There is nothing in either source to even suggest that the TMLC is acting as the "de facto legal arm of the intelligent design movement", but rather that the TMLC was acting independently of, and to a considerable extent in defiance of, the wishes of the ID movement.
2. "...the Alliance Defense Fund ... have also litigated extensively on behalf of the movement." This statement is wholly unsupported by the source, which states that the ADF merely represented the FTE in a single, unsuccessful motion.
3. That a "Similar legal foundations [to the TMLC is], ... Quality Science Education for All". This is pure WP:OR, as well as another exaggeration. No source is given comparing the two organisations.

It is therefore my intention to tag the first statement with template:syn, the second with template:failed verification and the third with template:or. Should editors remove these tags without addressing these legitimate concerns, it is my intention to call an RfC on the matter. Under normal circumstances I would merely tag these statements without this elaborate notice, but it is clear that certain editors take great offence at any interference in it, so I am proceeding more cautiously. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh give it a rest. Your changes failed to gain consensus, get over it. Let's move on.Odd nature (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Odd Nature: PUT UP OR SHUT UP: YOU were the one stating that the original section is "more accurate", yet YOU are avoiding any attempt to defend this exaggerated, WP:OR/WP:SYNTH/unverifiability-riddled piece, against specific charges of inaccuracy, as though it had the bubonic plague or something. Given that your position appears to remain "this section is ours, don't change it and don't bother talking about it", I see no other recourse but to seek a WP:RFC on the matter. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this should be reviewed(not sure), but the tone is sounding harsh and there is probably some bias in what the users in this section are saying. Three things I have to say: 1. be careful with what you say on Wikipedia. We don't want it to be biased. 2. Make sure that there is no vandalism. 3. Tone it WAY down please.98.228.227.12 (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The isssue was reviewed in the request for comment archived below, also in 2008, so this is a stale issue that has long been resolved. Guess archiving of much of this talk page is rather overdue. . . dave souza, talk 10:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You reverted my last edit on the Intelligent Design movement page

(This section, regarding this edit has been cut from User talk:Just plain Bill, and pasted here where it belongs:)

I have a concern. And if you can answer my concerns, that will be appreciated. Using the term "non scientific" actually has the negative denotation of bias and it clearly sounds like good faith for assuming that intelligent design is automatically non scientific. Also, the word "other" actually has no negative denotation of "good faith" and it doesn't assume anything to the contrary of the standard scientific consensus, but it just says "other", complying with a neutral point of view. Saying "Non-scientific" on the other hand is a biased insult to those who agree with intelligent design-regardless of even if that movement is not subjected to or associated with the current scientific peer review.

I would be glad if you can speak to me and give me some info, please send me a personal message. Thanks for your time. Nashhinton (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Many of my daily activities are non-scientific, for example, greeting friends when I meet them, or opening curtains to let in the morning daylight. It is no insult to call such things "non-scientific." Your concern would be better aired at Talk:Intelligent design movement. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 02:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think your explanation was detailed and helpful, but thanks anyway. I mean it's just the word "other". I see no problem with it. Is it biased and not neutral to say "other"? Nashhinton (talk) 06:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

"Other" is not biased, but it is vague, and not as accurate as "non-scientific" in this context. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 13:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, "other" as used by Nashhinton in this case has no meaning whatsoever. It's a completely redundant and dispensible non-word. The issue is thus whether the word "non-scientific" should be dropped. I agree with Just plain Bill that it is accurate and abundantly sourced, and even necessary in this sentence, as it is central to the nature of the whole controversy itself, and explains the reaction of the AAAS in the next sentence. Nashhinton has provided no evidence that the word does not comply fully with WP:NPOV, or that the word was added in bad faith, as he claims, to denigrate and insult, rather than to accurately and impartially describe the activities of the ID movement. As Just plain Bill pointed out, the word is inherently neutral. Whether anyone finds it insulting is irrelevant; the fact that they feel insulted is their oun problem, not Wikipedia's.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

There are no "alternatives to evolution" that have any substantive scientific acceptance, therefore it is perfectly accurate to state that the alternatives in question are non-scientific. If IDers feel 'insulted' by this then I would suggest that it is their own fault for engaging in religiously-motivated pseudoscience in areas where they are generally (and often grossly) unqualified. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, and I see no reason to hide the truth in order to mollycoddle IDers sensibilities. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

O.k. I'm still confused, and I'm not getting a plausible answer. The word "non-scientific" has the negative denotation of good faith by already assuming that ID is automatically non scientific, even if the evolutionists disagree with it. If the word "other" is used, it denotes a sense of neutrality and it is less offensive to the readers who hold to a worldview of ID. I think saying "non-scientific" is biased. I mean, if I posted an article concerning an opinion, such as Posttribulationism, should I already assume that the idea is false since mainstream christian denominations don't believe in it? Or for example, if I was editing an article on atheism, should I already assume that Christianity is true, and should I call atheism "false", since the majority of people in this world are Christians? And then if somebody wants to alter the word "false" into the word "secular", is that somehow improper for them to do such a thing? I'm wondering if this is clearly reverting to an Ad populum way of editing on Wikipedia or if it's just biased. Thanks for your time. Nashhinton (talk) 06:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Who said it was false? As a faith position it may be true, but it does not comply with the essential characteristics of science of being open to empirical testing and natural explanations – have a good look at the Kitzmiller judgement for a more detailed explanation. Indeed cdesign proponentsists have been demanding a new "theistic science" that openly deviates from the scientific method by starting with the presupposition that "God exists and makes empirically detectable interventions in nature that can only be explained by miracles". It may not be "improper" for them to delude themselves that this is science, but it's against the constitution of the US for it to be taught as science in schools. . . dave souza, talk 07:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC) link added 07:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm perplexed and sorry that you didn't understand my simple analogy. Explain to me how the M Theory is not classified as Pseudo Science, regardless of it even not passing the scientific method due to it's unfalsifiability (as Rene Descartes brilliantly explained to be a pivotal necessity in order for scientific qualifications to be good science), but ID is all of a sudden "non-scientific". If you can answer my questions, specifically that one, that will be appreciated. Thanks for your time. Nashhinton (talk) 07:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

"Negative denotation of good faith" is not making sense here. In this context, good faith signifies the assumed stance of all Wikipedia editors; that is, our edits may be assumed to have their basis in our best intentions. "Non-scientific" does not mean "deluded" or "false;" it simply means "not part of the scientifically testable body of inquiry."

I think Nashhinton may be confusing denotation with connotation. At any rate, "non-scientific" is used here in a context along with "Teach the Controversy," and is an entirely appropriate way to describe the irrelevant material which ID proponents would like to see wedged into science classes. If someone tried to teach thermodynamics or safe-cracking in Sunday school, that could be correctly described as "irreligious" without the term being considered insulting or biased. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 07:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

If reliable sources discuss claims of M theory to be science, and include their findings that it's not science, that would appropriately be included in the article. Nashhinton, you may find cdesign proponentsists an instructive link. . . dave souza, talk 07:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

O.k Thanks for your answer. I'm understanding alot more. I'm satisfied with that answer. Thanks for your time, and I'm sorry for wasting your time. :)Nashhinton (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem, for further reading wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science is very informative. . . dave souza, talk 07:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Not a forum

Allegations of smear job No, Nashhinton, you were right. The article is a smear job written by people who hate intelligent design. A neutral article about an intellectual movement would start by describing it as the advocates would describe it, not the enemies. The advocates of ID do not call themselves neo-creationists, and probably would not agree with much of what is attributed to them here. (I am not an ID advocate. Actual ID advocates should be cited.) There is a lot here about the Kitzmiller case and how the Discovery Institute drives the ID movement, but the Discovery Institute was not a party to that case and did not even agree with what the parties in the case were doing. Roger (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC) What a load of WP:Complete bollocks. A "neutral" article would not hide the fact that pretty near the entire scientific community regards ID as complete bollocks. Of bloody course "advocates of ID do not call themselves neo-creationists" -- that'd ruin the whole 'don't mention God and maybe they'll let us teach it in public schools' strategy that is the core of Neo-Creationism. The DI was indeed "not a party to that case" -- but it's fingerprints were all over it, from start to finish (and they're still trying to re-argue the thing over 5 years later). I'd suggest that you go join your brother on Conservapedia. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC) You nicely illustrate your hostility towards the subject. The article could include criticism from scientific organizations without distorting what the ID proponents say. Roger (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Say rather that you "nicely illustrate" the obdurate denialism of the Christian right on this issue. This article is not about "what the ID proponents say", it is about what reliable WP:SECONDARY sources say about the IDM. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC) <ec> Hi, Roger, your statement above "The article is a smear job written by people who hate intelligent design" is a personal attack on other editors, I advise you to strike it and withdraw your unworthy smear. You may also find it useful to renew your understanding of WP:NPOV policy on pseudoscience. . . dave souza, talk 19:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC) I do believe that the article is not neutral. I see that you have inserted "neo-creationist religious" into the first sentence here.[9] You also inserted an allegation about the "overall goal" of the movement. You re-inserted "religious" here.[10] In neither case did your edit description match your edit. I was not trying to make a personal attack on you, but I do disagree with these edits. If you tell me that you do not hate ID, I will take your word for it. 51 of the 63 edits this year were by Hrafn. He is the one who accused me of "complete bollocks" and "obdurate denialism", and who told me to "go join your brother". If you are here to police the personal attacks, that might be a good place to start. Roger (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

'Higher education' section

This section is appallingly badly sourced, and probably needs a complete rewrite. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Universities that teach ID

[Moved from User talk:Hrafn ]

Hi! Wrt this: I'm pretty sure there are a number of universities currently teaching ID. Biola probably still does, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, I'd guess Oral Roberts U. does, and the other evangelical universities. You're right about Keas; he's in Texas now. I'd never heard of him and looked him up; do look at this grad photo--they're wearing cowboy hats instead of academic caps! Yopienso (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

1. The place to discuss an article is article talk.
2. I have already included Biola in the article.
3. A wikt:seminary is not a wikt:university.
4. As "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", what you "guess" isn't the issue -- it's what you can find a WP:RS for. But feel free to add anything that you can find a WP:RS for. Secondary/third-party sources are of course preferred, but I think in the circumstances an (accredited) Higher Education institution self-identifying as teaching ID would probably be considered sufficiently noteworthy (as long as the self-identification makes it unambiguous that it's teaching ID, so WP:Synthesis isn't involved).

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The reason I put it on your page was because it was primarily a friendly (collegial) note--I thought you'd get a kick out of that photo.

Now that you kindly moved it here, though, instead of throwing it away, I may rummage about and insert something into the article; as you said, it needs a rewrite. It's very incomplete. I mentioned Biola because your editing to the past tense for OBU seemed to include Biola, which is still very much an ID hotbed.

Since the section heading is "higher education" and not "Inclusion in university curricula" (despite my own talk heading), I think Southwestern is appropriately included: Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas, is a private, non-profit institution of higher education. . .

Here's a page with three position papers from Liberty U. and here's a required course on creationism that does not, however, mention ID, so I get mixed signals. Here's an Oral Roberts U. professor of chemistry who, as a Fulbright scholar in Hungary, wrote a paper that "discussed problems with the Darwinian paradigm and the reality of intelligent design." Yopienso (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Since WP identifies ID as a form of creationism, we need to include Liberty U. Yopienso (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Patrick Henry College in Virginia is "unabashedly young-Earth creationist, as stated in its catalog:

Any biology, Bible, or other courses at PHC dealing with creation will teach creation from the understanding of Scripture that God’s creative work, as described in Genesis 1:1-31, was completed in six twenty-four hour days. All faculty for such courses will be chosen on the basis of their personal adherence to this view. PHC expects its faculty in these courses, as in all courses, to expose students to alternate theories and the data, if any, which support those theories. In this context, PHC in particular expects its biology faculty to provide a full exposition of the claims of the theory of Darwinian evolution, intelligent design, and other major theories while, in the end, to teach creation as both biblically true and as the best fit to observed data."[11]

Interesting that they class ID with "Darwinian evolution" as another major theory, but not the one they primarily teach. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Not altogether surprising -- many major YEC organisations have a rather distant relationship with ID (which they seem to consider to be 'watered down' creationism/creationism-lite or similar). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yopienso:

1. If you had read my user talpgage header you'd have realised that I wouldn't regard it as "friendly".
2. The Biola/OBU wording was purposefully sufficiently ambiguous that it could cover both past & present teaching.
3. You still haven't provided a source for SWBTS's official support of ID
4. The "three position papers" link appears broken.
5. The "required course" makes no mention of ID
6. The writings of an ORU prof does not equate to official university policy (Behe writes about ID, but that doesn't make Lehigh University pro-ID).

As I said: "self-identification [that] makes it unambiguous that it's teaching[/promoting] ID". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for my unintentional offense. Again, I was not intending to work on the article; I just thought you'd like the photo. The article was a springboard, not my subject.

The position papers link just now worked fine for me. It's a PDF so may take a while to load on your computer.

Not arguing a point, just asking here, if this assertion in Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary is well-enoughed sourced: In line with this initiative, the seminary actively supports intelligent design, having employed prominent intelligent design advocate William A. Dembski. (Tomlin, Gregory (undated). "SWBTS trustees elect new deans, faculty, and vice president;expands program in San Antonio". Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Archived from the original on 2006-09-01. Retrieved 2006-12-01. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)) If so, we could use it here; if not, we should delete it there.

Lehigh U. makes a point of distancing itself from Behe's opinions; SWBTS doesn't from Collier's: "He has studied Christian worldview and is especially passionate about intelligent design. His uncompromising viewpoint on intelligent design has opened many doors." Would they let him be so passionate without a disclaimer? That's not quite ironclad; SWBTS could be deleted.

I'm out of time for now. Best wishes! Yopienso (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Whoops! I was closing my tabs and found this from the ORU catalog I'd forgotten about. "Biological, Physical, and Mathematical Sciences Students acquire knowledge of the nature and expression of God’s creation with particular attention to the harmony and pattern of the natural order of the universe, the revelation of God’s Word, and how all creation reflects God’s glory." Page 30. Yopienso (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Eventually got the position papers file to download (it appears Firefox could not identify it as a PDF until *after* it was downloaded). They do not appear to represent either official University policy or unambiguous support of ID.
• "the seminary actively supports intelligent design, having employed prominent intelligent design advocate William A. Dembski" = WP:Synthesis (drawing a conclusion not contained in the cited source).
• The point is that additional synthesis is needed to distinguish between Collier & Behe. Unless a WP:Secondary source makes the distinction, we can't. Nor can we conclude that permission for an individual's advocacy amounts to support of that advocacy.
• The ORU catalog makes no explicit mention of ID, so again is not acceptable as a source for support of ID.

Basically the source has to be summarisable to the institution saying 'we teach ID' or 'we support ID' to be usable. 'We think ID is interesting' or 'we've hired somebody who supports ID' doesn't cut it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I followed the links expecting to find a syllabus for an ID university course. I found nothing of the kind. Without that, I don't think that the article should say that universities give courses on ID. Roger (talk)

I certainly agree to having my work "mercilessly edited." One word of caution, though: let's not box ourselves into a corner. It seems the aim here is to show no institutions teach ID. If it is an active evangelical movement that seeks to undermine the scientific method, surely someone teaches it; the DI alone cannot account for the pervasiveness of the movement. The NCSE would be making much ado about nothing if that were the case. (Yes, textbook panels are also a huge component.)

I think a catalog description is adequate proof; most university syllabuses are not available online. Roger's edit neatly circumvents that problem; thanks. Yopienso (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's a very brief excerpt from a long paper by Barbara Forrest, The Wedge at Work: ". . .in Johnson's campaign to promote "intelligent design"; it fuels the mission by Johnson and his CRSC associates to get 'intelligent design theory' into the academic world. . ." Do we want to show examples of the wedge at work, or squelch them? Yopienso (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

1. The IDM is largely a political movement, not an academic one. (Hence the fact that it has far more lawyers and politicians as prominent leaders than scientists)
2. What academic presence it does have is largely tied to the DI.
3. The "aim" is NOT "to show no institutions teach ID", it is to follow the core policy of WP:Verifiability -- that a source (either the institution itself or a reliable third party) states that the institution teaches ID. None of your sources do that!

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm pleased with the results of our collaboration here.

Keas, btw, left OBS in 2005.

I've removed Liberty U. at least for now--I included it on the basis of "cdesign proponentsists," but conclude that's not good enough. This isn't either, but is interesting and may lead to something more substantial: Karl Giberson, director of Gordon College's Forum on Faith and Science, Stephen C. Meyer, director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, and Marcus Ross, a professor of geology at Liberty University suggest the best ways the intelligent design movement can gain academic credibility. This, documenting a Liberty U. professor who teaches ID in the classroom, may do. Or not; he uses it as a philosophical exercise. (In BIO 101?)

The first paragraph of the Higher education section needs attention. I don't understand the basic gist, so can't really fix it unless I go to the sources and try to figure out the intent of the WP editor. ". . .with Dembski. . . was given no courses to teach." I don't follow the syntax: Did Dembski leave Baylor? Yopienso (talk) 07:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Marcus R. Ross is a YEC (although one with some ties to ID) -- so listing him as an example of ID in Academia would be misleading.
2. As I said above, the three papers are more than a little ambiguous in their support of ID.
3. After the MPC controversy, Dembski wasn't fired from Baylor, but was given no teaching responsibilities -- he was essentially put on (what he described as) a 'five year sabbatical'.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, forget Liberty U.

I fixed Dembski.

The "wedge" into the universities is not in the classroom, but in conferences and seminars and clubs. Should anything from this 7-yr.-old Nature article be added to the last warning paragraph in the Higher ed section? Yopienso (talk) 10:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's a page on a 2006 forum about ID at Lehigh U. Judge Jones, in his decision, wrote that while intelligent design has no place in a science classroom, it "should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed." During the fall semester, a Chaplain's Forum held on campus to offer differing perspectives on the contentious issue drew a standing-room-only crowd. The six faculty members who participated addressed the implications of intelligent design for science and for religion. This series of essays, which grew out of the Lehigh forum, is intended to shed light on an issue that all too often engenders only heat. This examined, but did not promote, ID. (Well, Behe did.) Yopienso (talk) 10:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The Nature document appears to be behind a paywall. Given that even the chaplain at the LeHigh forum offered no comfort for ID (and the other 4 were even less positive), it offers no indication that ID is making any inroads there, so would appear to be off-topic. It's still just Behe, simply with LeHigh occasionally allowing him for him and his opponents to air their views. This article should avoid being about every occasion on which ID has been discussed -- otherwise it'd get very large and very unfocused. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)