Talk:Intelligent design
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Talk:Intelligent_design".

content

Please read before starting

First of all, welcome to Wikipedia's Intelligent Design article. This article represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic.

Newcomers to Wikipedia and this article may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid here.

A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents ID in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of ID is too extensive or violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are:

The contributors to the article continually strive to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the Content forking guidelines.

These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are No Original Research (WP:NOR) and Cite Your Sources (WP:CITE).

Some common points of argument are addressed at Wikipedia's Intelligent design FAQ.

Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Wikipedia's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON).

This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the article itself and not the inherent worth of Intelligent Design. See WP:NOT. If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of intelligent design or promote intelligent design please do so at talk.origins or other fora. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.

Important pointers for new editors:

  1. This article uses scientific terminology, and as such, the use of the word 'theory' to refer to anything outside of a recognised scientific theory is ambiguous. Please use words such as 'concept', 'notion', 'idea', 'assertion'; see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Theory.
  2. Although at times heated, the debates contained here are meant to improve the Intelligent Design article. Reasoned, civil discourse is the best means to make an opinion heard. Rude behavior not only distracts from the subject(s) at hand, but tends to make people deride or ignore what was said.
  3. Please use edit summaries.
  4. Challenges and proposals to this article's content must be in alignment with Wikipedia's core content policies: WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR.
    • If you make a suggestion that does not align with them, you can expect a pointer to the appropriate policies; giving such a pointer is not a form of rudeness, but meant to help smooth the process of building the encyclopedia.
    • To respect your own time and that of others editors, if you receive such a pointer to policy, you should take the time to read and understand the policies before re-raising the issue.
    • If you have been pointed to policy, but continue to argue the matter ad nauseum without the benefit of being supported by policy, you should not expect a full response, but rather that your discussions will be archived or userfied. Again, this is not rudeness or incivility; it is out of respect for the time and patience of all the editors participating and in the interest of maintaining a smooth-running encyclopedia:Wikipedia talkpage guidelines do not allow for raising and re-raising objections to content that is well-aligned with content policy, and there is a specific policy against doing that: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (which classifies it as disruptive editing). It's better for everybody if we don't allow things to get to that point.
  5. Please peruse the 'Points that have already been discussed' section in the archives box directly below, to ensure that you are not rehashing old topics. Old topics resurrected without new evidence are likely to be ignored and archived quickly.
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
This is not a forum for general discussion of Intelligent design.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article.
Featured article star Intelligent design is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 12, 2007.
Creationism portal
This article is supported by the Intelligent design WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Intelligent design-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: ( · refresh)
Maintained The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
FeloniousMonk, Dave souza, and Hrafn

This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.
Archive
Archives
2002–2004 
2005 
2006 
2007 
2008 
Points that have already been discussed 

FAQ

Contents

An Alternative Without a Definition

Just looking at an article that is not unfriendly to a creationist I notice there is a disclaimer that the neutrality of the article is under dispute. But this article, which is also under dispute, but obviously unfriendly to intelligent design, (for example, in the second paragraph it hastily mentions that certain groups that are evolutionary biased call it 'junk science' even though said groups call abiogenesis science when it cannot create life in a laboratory) yet there is no disclaimer that says that this article on Intelligent Design is under dispute. Wikipedia is a fraud. An outright fraud that froze up this page. You guys are pro-evolution, liars, who go to bed saying, "I'm proneutral I don't side with evolution. I am a liar." And you are liars. Next time you call ID junk science I dare you to produce life in a laboratory and call abiogenesis a science. Until then you are liars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.95.195 (talk) 05:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)



Perhaps it would be informative to show if there are still curricula that teach ID. Are there still schools in the USA that have such an obligation? Sikkema (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Dave, et al:

I have objected to the first paragraph of the ID article on the grounds that the opinion that ID is the "best" explanation is not a definition of ID and should not be presented as such. I have proposed various definitions of ID but my definitions have not been accepted. I am therefore going to offer an alternative proposal. The following paragraph does not contain a definition of ID but it does attribute to the proponents of ID the assertion that ID is the "best" explanation. The reader will now correctly understand that "best" is the opinion of ID proponents, rather than a part of the definition of ID.

Intelligent design is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer. The primary proponents of intelligent design, all of whom are associated with the U.S.-based Discovery Institute, assert 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." These proponents reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to avoid various court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science. They argue that intelligent design is a scientific theory and they seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations. They believe that the "intelligent cause" is the God of Christianity.

Scott610 (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Everything above is exactly what's in the first paragraph of our article, just rearranged. As such, I don't see anything wrong with it. In some ways rearranging it as Scott did does make sense. It puts a neutral definition before an attributed assertion. I like it. --Nealparr (talk to me) 00:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The rearrangement muddles the nuance that the term was introduced by a proponent who is no longer associated with the DI, at a time before the DI came into existence. The opening works pretty well for me, but the second part of the paragraph needs work. . . dave souza, talk 20:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Dave: Your point is well taken -- "the term [ID] was introduced by a proponent who is no longer associated with the DI". So I changed "primary proponents" ("primary" implying "first") to "principal proponents". And I added the date that the "modification" of the argument took place, and an example of the kind of modification ("creation" replaced with "intelligent design"). These changes are included in the following paragraph.

Intelligent design is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer. This modified argument was composed in 1989, after the publication of court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science. The changes to the argument included, for example, replacing the term "creation" with the term "intelligent design". The principal proponents of intelligent design, all of whom are associated with the U.S.-based Discovery Institute, assert 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." They argue that intelligent design is a scientific theory and they seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations. They believe that the "intelligent cause" is the God of Christianity.

Scott610 (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

not bad, and I like the idea. I'd like to suggest a couple of major tweaks, though...

Intelligent design is a thesis proposed by Christian advocates as part of the creation-evolution controversy in the US. It is a version of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God that refers to an unspecified Intelligent Designer rather than to God: proponents assert 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." This thesis was offered by individuals associated with the U.S.-based Discovery Institute in an effort to introduce alternative science textbooks in schools, in the wake of various court rulings that prohibited the teaching of creationism as a science. They argue that intelligent design is a scientific theory, and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.

--Ludwigs2 16:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Don't like that one. --Nealparr (talk to me) 19:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
ROFL - just on general principle?  :-) --Ludwigs2 19:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
"A thesis" misdescribes ID, and the historical context is wrong, as my comment above. Don't like the phrasing, more details available if need be. In the fullness of time. . . dave souza, talk 20:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Number of other reasons too. First sentence says "Christian advocates" which, while technically true, paints the proponents too broadly. It's a creationist argument (not all Christians are creationists) proposed by DI (not all creationists are DI). The second sentence is unnecessarily complex... Several other reasons as well. Plus Scott gave a reason for his suggested changes. My comment "Don't like that one" was actually longer than the reasons given for the tweaks; there were none. --Nealparr (talk to me) 21:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
What is "alternative science"? Is it anything like alternative rock? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
lol - well, you know me well enough to know that I can provide reasons to excess; I thought I'd go the more passive route this time. guess that didn't work either. I don't get what you mean by 'unnecessarily complex', however, unless you object to the use of a semi-colon instead of a period.
Dave. I see your point about the historical context, but I don't understand your objection to 'thesis'. that seems an appropriate term.
SA - "alternative science" is a failure to read the text. the actual phrase is "alternative science textbooks". --Ludwigs2 21:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I like the new minimalist Ludwigs : ) but you should really give at least one succinct reason when proposing changes. --Nealparr (talk to me) 21:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
true. maybe I went a little too minimalist there.  :-) tomorrow I'll do better. --Ludwigs2 21:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Of Pandas and People is not a science text, alternative or otherwise. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

well SA, I tend to agree with you, but that doesn't say anything about the well-established fact that it was offered as an alternative science text. saying it was offered as such is generically true, while in no way implying that it legitimately qualifies as such. --Ludwigs2 19:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
SA: What is "alternative science"? Is it anything like alternative rock?
Hmm... rock. Rock = geology. Alternative rock theory. Heh, heh. --Nealparr (talk to me) 19:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I could offer myself to Angelina Jolie as an "alternative" to Brad Pitt. Doesn't really make me a viable alternative does it? --FilmFan69 (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
speak for yourself, FilmFan... =) --Ludwigs2 18:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Another alternative lead paragraph

Please consider my proposal for a first paragraph; in my version, several of the points in the existing opening would be incorporated in the following paragraphs. My goals are to provide an introduction that offers the basic issues surrounding ID in a nutshell, creating a good set-up for a similarly concise paragraphs describing the ID movements claims, their critical reception, their relationship to historical creationism, the Kitzmiller trial, and whatever else needs to be touched on in the lead. I have attempted to improve on the existing intro in terms of neutrality of presentation and felicity of prose.

Intelligent design is the proposition that life was caused by a guiding intelligence and that empirical evidence supports this conclusion. The term is closely associated with the Discovery Institute, an organization that has, since 1996, promoted the intelligent design hypothesis to the general public. Stephen Meyer, a leader of the Discovery Institute who describes himself as “one of the architects of the theory of intelligent design,” states that “intelligent design is not a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins—one that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution.” Despite such claims, the unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science at all; scholars, journalists and jurists have concluded that intelligent design masquerades as a scientific controversy in order to promote religious or political beliefs.

--BTfromLA (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

BT - I could work from this as well. let me think about it a bit and respond more tomorrow. and let's you and I (and whoever else wants to work productively on this) go ahead and make something decent, and ignore the naysayers for the time being. honestly, I'm tired of spending my time providing explanations to people who don't have any interest in listening. --Ludwigs2 21:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Listen, sunshine ;) There's been a lot of discussion about the particular point that it's an assertion rather than a proposition. It's not just "that life was caused by a guiding intelligence", see their efforts in astronomy for example. The claim "that empirical evidence supports this conclusion" does appear in their writings and is significant, but it's not part of the central "definition" which proponentsists consistently use. Meyer's comments don't have that common usage amongst the various leading proponentsists, and his assertion that it's not religious doesn't stand up in court so shouldn't be presented out of context. The last sentence is weak and completely understates the overwhelming consensus across many different disciplines. . . dave souza, talk 21:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I trust you are not addressing me as "sunshine," and that there must be some history to the ugly word "proponentsists" of which I am unaware. As to your comments: I think "proposition" is no less accurate and a bit less tendentious than "assertion," but I could live with that change. I strenuously disagree that the claim of empiricism isn't central to ID--what definitions are you looking at? I chose Meyer's quote because I think it concisely asserts 3 of the main 4 points that characterize ID's self-representations, in my reading, and it hints at the 4th. They are: 1. ID is not dependent on religious beliefs or scripture, 2. ID is a scientific theory or research program based in empirical observation, 3. ID offers a critique of "strictly materialistic" evolutionary theory, 4. That critique extends beyond the materialist philosophy of science to intellectual and political life in general. (There is a good case to be made that this larger aim—undermining what they see as a pernicious ideology that dominates culture and public policy—is the defining principal of ID, if you see ID in terms of the Discovery Institute's "movement." This is made clear in the Wedge document.) As to the last sentence being "weak"--I think such a judgement will be influenced by what follows it, right? How, with a neutral tone, would you improve it? BTfromLA (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The remark about "sunshine" was a flippant response to Ludwig's concern about listening, arising from my local culture. The ugly word "proponentsists" is the missing link, and you should be aware of it if you're familiar with the topic of ID. My suggestion is that you look for the word in the article and follow the link, as well as reading the whole article before rethinking the lead section which is intended to summarise the article. . . dave souza, talk 08:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Dave, I am familiar with the results of Barbara Forrest's sleuthing through drafts of "Pandas and People." I am guilty of failing to commit the word "proponentsists" to memory (had you written "cdesign proponentsists," I'd have recognized it). I hardly think my non-recognition of that bit of trivia merits a patronizing response impugning my competence as an editor. BTfromLA (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
My misunderstanding, apologies. . . dave souza, talk 19:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Apology accepted. If you have thoughts about the substance of my earlier post, I'd be interested to know them. BTfromLA (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem I see is that it defines ID both as "a proposition" and the claim "that empirical evidence supports this conclusion". This is a bit of a puzzler: isn't every theory both its proposition and the contention that it is empirically supported? Otherwise, what is a theory but a random conjecture? It seems to reason that empirical evidence must be separate from the theory/proposition itself and not definitionally part of it. Obviously, this criticism wades into murkier waters about whether ID is pseudoscience since other theories don't have to define themselves as empirically based. But to the extent that ID proponents wish to be taken seriously on such a basis, empirical support should not be a facet of the definition but rather part of the proof. -no sig yet, civilly...
I skipped your point about astronomy. If it is true that we need to add "or the universe" to the definition, then we should. The focus of ID is overwhelmingly on origins of life (and on the weakness of materialist science) as far as I've seen. I don't really know about their cosmological claims beyond ones that the universe os designed, or fine tuned, to allow for life, but I'm happy to learn. BTfromLA (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The focus of ID is essentially the creationist focus on evolution, not abiogenesis (though they commonly conflate the two), and their call for immaterialist "science" follows from that tradition. . . dave souza, talk 08:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it's missing an important reliably-sourced and weighted component that our current article has right up front: "[Intelligent design was created] to avoid various court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science". The second sentence in your suggestion says it is a "hypothesis" that was promoted "to the general public". That's not entirely correct. It was a unsubstantiated claim (irreducible complexity, ect.) presented as a Constitution-friendly bonafide "theory", and promoted to school systems. If it were just a hypothesis (dime a dozen) and just promoted to the general public (less notable), we probably wouldn't be talking about it. ID is notable because of the attempt to get it into schools. Not sure how you would include that in your suggestion, but it's a core component. --Nealparr (talk to me) 04:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Nealparr. The reason that I propose moving the mention of the 1989 "Pandas" to a later paragraph is that I think that the formulation in the current first paragraph suggests an oversimplified interpretation of ID as a whole. It basically asserts, as the thesis of the whole article, that ID is merely a euphemism for old-fashioned creationism. There's truth to that, but it also overlooks much of the story. I think there's a danger to allowing "Pandas" to become a stand-in for ID. The 1989 edition of Pandas was published before most of the distinctive characteristics of ID as we understand it now had been formulated. Darwin on Trial, Darwin's Black Box, the "wedge" document and the founding of the CSC are all, arguably, much more significant and illuminating factors in the definition of ID than Pandas. Don't get me wrong--the substitution of "ID" for "creationism" in Pandas belongs in the lead, but it should be placed in a context that doesn't give it undue weight in terms of the overall definition of ID. As to the "general public" claim: what I was trying to get at was that the DI is engaged in a campaign to sway public opinion, as opposed to professional scientific opinion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that much of their effort has been addressed to the public at large, via newspaper and magazine opinion pieces and a special focus on the established communities of fundamentalist christians and right-wing cultural conservatives, including public opinion leaders like radio talk hosts and syndicated columnists. If there's a concise phrase better than "general public," please suggest it. BTfromLA (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Swaying the public opinion isn't as notable because that's a given. They naturally needed public support and public financing to pursue... (the end of the dot dot dot is the notable). The notable is that they marketed it to officials in charge of public school curricula, and that resulted in a famous court case. --Nealparr (talk to me) 23:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

ID is primarily about the inadequacies of the theory of evolution. It is secondarily about abiogenesis and fine tuning of the universe. It was created to try to create some way to fool the United States Judiciary and constitutional law experts so that biblical literalism could be taught in science classes in public schools, or even that teachers could be forced to teach biblical literalism in science classes in schools. It is part of a grand scheme in some cultural war that fundamentalist extremists are mounting to reform US society. There is minimal science behind ID, and therefore it is not really much of a hypothesis or a theory. It is a public relations and legal strategy by and large. It is essentially intellectually vacuous. The two meagre scientific ideas associated with ID, specific complexity and specified complexity, are mildly interesting but have no evidence to support them, and plenty of evidence against them. A major demand of ID is that "materialist" science be discarded, by which they mean that the definition of science should be returned to its pre-Scientific Revolution definition a few centuries ago, and that magic (and astrology) should be defined as scientific. This in fact is identical to the ideas promulgated by Al Ghazali around 1100 CE that destroyed Muslim science, then the most advanced in the world. --Filll (talk | wpc) 11:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitriary section break

BT - please assume (where it makes sense) that any flippant, sarcastic, demeaning or otherwise irritating comments are directed at me. I seem to attract that kind of thing (possibly because when people talk with me seriously, they tend to lose the debates... <smirk>). don't let it bug you; I don't.
and Dave - pumpkin... ;-) - I know that a lot of text has been wasted trying to find the most minimizing word possible to refer to ID, but all that's done is tangled and confused the discussion mercilessly (particularly, it's caused drastic confusion between 'what' ID says, and 'who' ID is). words like 'proposition' and 'thesis' are perfectly appropriate descriptions of what ID says, and save a whole lot of waffling over the intents and motivations of who ID is.
so let's separate things out here:
  • ID as a thesis is fairly close to what BT says: (modified) it's "the proposition that the universe was caused by a guiding intelligence, and that empirical evidence can be found which supports this conclusion". this thesis has fairly long philosophical roots (going back, as is pointed out, to the teleological proofs of god). that stands separate from the political aspects of ID.
  • ID as a movement was (as Filll points out, but without his relatively strong language) an attempt to bypass the United States Judiciary and constitutional law so that school administrations (which are controllable political entities could tell teachers to teach biblical literalism in science classes in public schools. there's actually a long history on this kind of issue as well - state's rights vs federal authority - and the issue was never specifically religious, but rather a question of how far the federal government could intervene in the actions of state and local government for the general welfare.
  • granting that the ID movement is largely political, we ought to give credit where credit is due. I suspect that most ID proponents actually believe that 'science' has overstepped its bounds and begun intruding on matters of faith where it has no place. I can understand the frustration that some deeply religious person might have when the government comes in and says "sorry, your children are not allowed to believe the same things that you believe, but are required to study something that (ostensibly) disproves your faith." casting proponents as purely politically machiavellian misses the reasons why they are so deeply committed to the attempt, and makes them look a lot worse than they actually are.
the lead ought to reflect (or at least acknowledge) all of these points.--Ludwigs2 19:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The political and religious aspects are very much intertwined, and I agree that from this springs the belief that science seen from the proper religious perspective must support faith. ID as a term was chosen to bypass court decisions, the movement is part of the larger creationist religious and political movement which produced creation science in a preceding attempt to bypass earlier court decisions. My understanding is that it's not a question of how far the federal government could intervene in the actions of state and local government for the general welfare, but a constitutional issue of how far any government can intervene in the rights of the individual by supporting a particular religion and failing to give equal rights or support to other faith positions. Whether the efforts of proponents are sincere and deeply committed or purely politically machiavellian is obviously difficult if not impossible tp determine, and we can only report the opinions of reliable sources. It is clear that proponents want to redefine science to support their faith in supernatural explanations, but we have to be very careful in sourcing that to avoid original research and undue weight being given to that particular aspect. . dave souza, talk 20:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The lead (a summary of important points in the actual article) ought to reflect half a dozen points that have nothing to do with the notability of ID (or in some cases even the topic of ID)? Seriously? And that supposedly includes? a long history of teleological arguments that are not ID, a long history of states rights vs. federal rights (not even an issue that came up in trial, the Civil War kind of settled that a century and a half ago), a frustration that science is dipping into religious matters (versus the other way around), a sidepoint on how the government forces people to believe something (rather than instructs them on accepted scientific theories). That one's of particular concern to me because it's not only OR, it's wrong. The whole thing about ID vs. evolution is that ID says there has to be a designer. Evolution doesn't preclude a designer. Why oh why does the lead have to reflect or at least acknowledge points that have nothing to do with the article? --Nealparr (talk to me) 20:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Neal - the lead already reflects most of what I said, except that it gives no suggestion that ID proponents might have honest motivations: please don't confuse my explanations of points as though they all belong in the lead, not unless you're trying to make a straw man. the main thing I'm suggesting here is that the current article gets tangled up trying to talk about the thesis and the motivations as though they were inseparable, whereas taking them apart and dealing with them separately makes for a cleaner, less biased presentation.
incidentally, (and tangentially), states rights issues were not settled by the civil war. according to the constitution, matters of interstate regulation (mostly) fall on the federal government, while all laws not specifically granted to the federal government are automatically given to individual states. this causes questions about many issues, including education. the federal government provides funding and accreditation for schools, and that places it as an interstate issue, which is why the government and the courts can dictate what textbooks are used. if you wanted to start a private school and teach creation science exclusively no one could stop you (so long as you weren't worried about funding or accreditation). --Ludwigs2 20:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
You said the lead needs to "reflect (or at least acknowledge) all of these points". I apologize if I misinterpreted that as meaning the lead needs to reflect or at least acknowledge all of those points. If you feel that the current lead already reflects most of what you said (I don't think it does, in the way I described above), and that you're just looking to separate them, that's what the article does. It has sections. The lead is just a summary. Btw, whether something is under the federal rights by way of the Constitution, or whether something is under states rights was decided long ago, and was not an issue related to ID because everyone understood it was a Constitutional issue, thus federal issue; the question of state's rights vs. federal rights was/is not an issue related to ID (thus not in the article and not in the lead). --Nealparr (talk to me) 21:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
One point re the 10th Amendment -- it should really becalled the sloppy-seconds amendment: it guarantees only that the states have powers over those issues that the Federal Government, whether via the Constitution or via legislation, has not claimed for itself.
Neal, is quite correct, by the way. As a state has to agree to abide by the Constitution in order to remain a state, anything that is potentially or factually unconstitutional is the perview of the Federal Government. •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Neal - It seems as though you're not disagreeing with me, so I'll try making some edits later.
Jim - that amendment was actually intended to protect the states, believe it or not. the fear was that the executive branch would start making rules and imposing them willy-nilly. the modern example would be if GWB decided to declare that gay marriage was illegal, and used his power as president to keep states from allowing it. the reason that states like California and Massachusetts can legalize gay marriage is that marriage is a 'power not delegated to the federal government nor prohibited to the states'. I'm not advocating for gay marriage, mind you, just pointing out how it's a protection, not a 'sloppy seconds'. --Ludwigs2 22:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
The purported original intent is irrelevant, the de facto application is what matters. As for gay marriage (with which I have no problem) it is not regulated by the Federal Government yet. •Jim62sch•dissera! 23:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm disagreeing that all the points you said need to be covered actually need to be covered. I don't think some of them have much to do with ID and that we run the risk of obscuring the coatrack with not necessarily related coats. If you think the coats are already there, then I'm also saying we don't need to expand on them (though I don't really think they're there). Of course since I haven't seen any actual proposed text, I'm just talking in principles rather than specifics. --Nealparr (talk to me) 23:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
ok then. mostly I just want to clean up some misattributions in the text. we'll see how it goes. --Ludwigs2 23:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm open to other ways of wording that convey the important concepts and provide accurate summaries of the article per WP:LEAD. I won't shoot down good ideas : ) For example, I like BTfromLA's "Despite such claims, the unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science at all; scholars, journalists and jurists have concluded that intelligent design masquerades as a scientific controversy in order to promote religious or political beliefs" as a replacement for "The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is pseudoscience." It's more informative. --Nealparr (talk to me) 23:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Noun omission?

Describing ID as an "argument" or whatnot is awkward. Why not just begin by saying: "Intelligent Design maintains (or contends or argues) that....." This way there is no judgment as to what it is.--Stetsonharry (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The Discovery Institute might argue, Intelligent Design is their argument. --Michael Johnson (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
well, what is the proper attribution here? this is part of the problem in this article, mind you. if ID is a theory or a thesis or a proposition or somesuch then Stetsonharry's usage is perfectly appropriate; if it's not then we need to attribute ID as the position of some group or person, who we can then cite. we can't have it both ways, and we can't have it neither way, so which way is it going to go? --Ludwigs2 22:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Not really. Intelligent design maintaining, contending, or arguing, or doing anything at all, is a personification of ID. I don't see how giving an inanimate idea human traits is good encyclopedia writing. Intelligent design, the assertion, in the current article is attributed to "certain United States creationists" and "the Discovery Institute". It's first defined as an assertion, and then supporting sentences describe who's doing the asserting. Taken together, as a whole paragraph, it's fully attributed. --Nealparr (talk to me) 23:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Once again, Neal is correct. •Jim62sch•dissera! 23:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
no, sorry, that's a standard usage, at least in academic circles. when an idea is considered as the opinion of a particular group or person, it's attributed to the group (i.e. ID proponents say idea X, which says...). by contrast, when an idea is considered as part of an established argument or discussion, the idea is usually offered without attributing it to people (i.e. idea X says that...). for instance, it is much more common to say that 'the theory of relativity says...' than to say 'Einstein says, in the theory of relativity...' at any rate, I'm just trying to clear up attribution. the current first line reads Intelligent design is the assertion that... - so who's asserting? either we are trying to say that a specific group is asserting this, or we're trying to say this is a general assertion, independent of particular speakers. which? --Ludwigs2 01:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Again, read the paragraph for your attribution. It is clearly attributed as the views of a particular group. It doesn't have to be one really long sentence. --Nealparr (talk to me) 02:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Ludwigs2: The proponents of ID at Discovery Institute have never offered an alternative definition of ID. I now believe that they are still using the definition of ID that was set forth in Of Pandas and People. Based on that definition, they assert that ID is the "best" explanation for "certain features of the universe and of living things". They also assert that ID is a scientific theory. What do you think of the following revision for the first paragraph of the ID article?

Intelligent design is the assertion "that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact". [Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People, 1989] This assertion is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer.[3] The idea was developed by certain United States creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to avoid various court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science.[4][5][6] The principal proponents of intelligent design, all of whom are associated with the U.S.-based Discovery Institute,[7][8] believe 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". They argue that intelligent design is a scientific theory,[11] and they seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.[12] They also believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.[9][10]

Scott610 (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
well, this asserts that intelligent design is an assertion of Davis and Kenyon. is that correct? personally, I don't have a problem treating Intelligent design as part of an established argument, without reference to its authors (in the old-fashioned high-school debate "Resolved!" sense), but I get the feeling that's anathema here because it sounds too much like giving ID credit as a theory. me, I'd prefer something like this:

The central argument of Intelligent Design is that a guiding intelligence lies behind the creation of the universe, 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". This general claim was put forth as part of the creation-evolution controversy in the US, first appearing in the textbook Of Pandas and People, (1989) which states "that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact". It was further developed by individuals associated with the U.S.-based Discovery Institute, who argued for a radical redefinition of science so that intelligent design and its supernatural explanations can be accepted as valid scientific theory. Intelligent design is widely believed to be an adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God that specifically avoids identifying the Designer as the Christian God, done with the intention of circumventing various court rulings that prohibited the teaching of creationism as science due to creationism's overt religious references. It has never been accepted by the scientific community as a valid scientific theory, and ultimately suffered the same legal fate as creationism.

this separates out the argument from the movement and treats both separately, and makes (I think) a cleaner read. --Ludwigs2 03:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
It also skips over what it is and jumps right into what it says. Assertion (what it is) is skipped to central argument (what it says). It'd be like listing off the central points of the Constitution without first saying that the Constitution is the supreme law of the US. It's what we've been talking about for several weeks now. You can't separate the argument from those arguing it. Intelligent design is defined as the assertion by DI et al. that blah, blah is best explained by blah, blah. The argument is intrinsically tied to the movement, the arguers. After you state that, then you can separate them out and talk about them individually. --Nealparr (talk to me) 04:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Ludwigs2: Davis and Kenyon are the authors of Of Pandas and People and they presented their definition of ID in that book. I do not know to what extent their editor was involved in composing that definition but they have put their names on the book and did not attribute the definition of ID to anyone else. It therefore appears to me to be their definition.
I prefer the format of my first paragraph (above) because it (1) provides a definition of ID, (2) puts ID into a historical context (a teleological argument), (3) explains why ID was formulated (to circumvent court rulings), (4) identifies the people who are promoting ID, (5) what they believe (ID is the best explanation) (6) what their goal is (legitimize ID by redefining science), and (7) what they believe (the intelligent designer is the Christian God). I think that my proposal has a better temporal flow. In contrast, your proposed paragraph does not embody that kind of temporal flow. For example, you put the opinion that ID is the "best" explanation before the definition of ID. The definition came first and should be stated first. Scott610 (talk) 04:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
And, yet again, Neal is correct. •Jim62sch•dissera! 16:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
lol - Jim, I'm sure Neal appreciates having his own cheer squad, but...  ;-)
Neal - look, I find this assertion - e.g. "you can't separate the argument from those arguing it" - silly and manipulative: it's the kind of approach that Jim Crow advocates used to use (e.g. 'civil rights is something only blacks talk about - why should anyone else care?'). but if you really insist on it, then I suggest we take it seriously and start cutting everything from the article that implies there's some argument above or beyond the political manipulations. start with the assertion that ID is an extension of the teleological argument for God (no connections to larger arguments allowed), then move to the point that DI people believe in the Christian God (now irrelevant to the discussion). probably most of the sections on irreducible complexity and etc need to go, as well as most of scientific the counter-arguments (since in fact those are no longer necessary as well). I suspect we could cut the article length by 30 or 40 percent if we're diligent. --Ludwigs2 18:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, almost Godwin's Law to have your assertion compared with Jim Crow's racism. I guess the thread isn't long enough yet to have it compared with Nazism. Call it silly or manipulative all you want. It's still basic encyclopedic writing 101. You have to say what it is. In this case it's a group's assertion, argument, political maneuvering, whatever you want to call it. But whatever you want to call it, it's still theirs since they're the only proponents of it. Even Godwin's Law is Godwin's. You can't just skip that for whatever reason you felt the need to. You have to be upfront about these things if you don't want to manipulate the reader. --Nealparr (talk to me) 00:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
sorry Jim - I don't know how to give examples of bias except by pointing out the opinions of biased people. and the fact of the matter is that ID has an intellectual history all its own, without any reference to DI (note that many people who know what ID is have never heard of the DI). besides, no one here is suggesting that we fail to note the political side - please read my last attempt, for heaven's sake. all I am suggesting is that the idea can be treated independently of the movement. your arguments to the contrary are just plain bad reasoning. --Ludwigs2 17:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
No cheering squad, just saving myself from having to type too much.
What is this sudden desire to cut the length of the article? How do you assume that certain sections are not necessary any more? They're every bit as necessary as they were when the article reached FA status. Keep in mind that WP is not a news journal, cowing to and driven by the present whims of the masses, but is an encyclopedia that must, pretty much by definition, include the history of whatever is being written about. Hence, the sections you mentioned are very much necessary.
Your analogy with Jim Crow advocates is spurious. Realistically a better analogy would be to note that any discussion on Stalinism cannot be separated from the Stalinists and Stalin himself. •Jim62sch•dissera! 18:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Jim, I have no particular desire to cut the length of the article, but the article ought to reflect the preconceptions we put into it honestly. if we're going to begin with the assertion that the idea and the people cannot be separated, then logically we should carry that idea all the way through the article. it's senseless to assert that the idea can not be separated from the people, and then later criticize the idea itself rather than the people who present it.
and no - my reference to Jim Crow may have been ill-advised (apologies) but it wasn't spurious. your reference doesn't work the way you think, either: Stalinism is commonly used to refer to forms of government that Stalin and his followers never had contact with. even my computer dictionary defines it as 'any rigid centralized authoritarian form of communism', and I've read a number of academic and non-academic critiques of the Bush Administration that refer to it as Stalinist. the idea is clearly distinct from the particular actions of Stalin or Stalinists. --Ludwigs2 19:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Where is it that the proponents and the idea are not criticized together, when there's criticism? Where is this independent criticism? Throughout the article the topic is presented as an assertion by political advocates and both are criticized together. Why is that the case? It's because if they weren't political advocates, there'd be no criticism. It'd be like any of the other religious articles. Criticism has little weight in them. It's the political advocacy that ID should be taught in school, and that ID is science, that elicited the overwhelming criticism that plagues ID. The advocates did that. They are intrinsically intertwined with the idea. The article makes that very clear. --Nealparr (talk to me) 00:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, if you're looking for the topic where teleological arguments are not mostly political, and not mostly intrinsically intertwined with political advocates, courtroom dramas, and elitist definitions of science, that's exactly the teleological argument article. That's where you have your separation of idea from advocates. It's linked from this article in a way compatible with summary style. But there's no confusion that ID is just teleological. ID has other, more notable and heavier weighted components (courtroom dramas, elitist definitions of science, huge backlash from trying to politic it into schools, etc.). ID is not just another teleological argument. A way to visualize this is: A square can contain triangles, but a triangle does not contain squares. The square takes on other aspects the triangle doesn't (like right angles). It's the same with ID and teleological arguments. Teleological arguments fit into ID easily, but ID does not fit into teleological arguments just as snuggly. It's because it has other aspects that your run-of-the-mill teleological argument doesn't (like courtroom dramas, elitist definitions of science, huge backlash from trying to politic it into schools, etc.). It's not your typical teleological argument. The advocates, the political drama, all of these things (like right angles to squares) are intrinsically intertwined with the idea. --Nealparr (talk to me) 01:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Neal - you and I both know that it would be perfectly easy to treat ID as an intellectual idea only, without any reference to the political movement. it goes just like this: The central argument of Intelligent Design is that a guiding intelligence lies behind the creation of the universe, 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". It entails a radical redefinition of science to account for supernatural explanations. It has never been accepted by the scientific community, since no empirical evidence exists that would lead this theory to be preferred over others. I'm not suggesting that this be the sole treatment of ID (as you keep erroneously suggesting), but I am saying that your refusal to accept this as part of the discussion of ID is a ridiculous, unfounded bias. I mean yeesh! - this is not difficult, dude... --Ludwigs2 17:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
First, I never said you wanted it to be the sole treatment of ID, and I never refused to accept it as part of the discussion. In fact, I even said that after you say what it is, then you can separate it out into various topics where the idea and its proponents are not intertwined, accurately stating that there are multiple aspects to ID, agreeing that there's several notable issues at play and that all need to be covered if they're relevant and not just coats obscuring the coatrack of ID. I even pointed out that we already do separate them out in summary style. You do, however, want the separation to be up front, the primary starting place in the opening paragraph of the lead, totally out of place, and totally not a definition. You're the one making it difficult by continuing to skirt around what it is, so it can be presented as something it's not. It's not an intellectual idea. At best it's an appropriated intellectual idea for the purposes of political agenda. Characterizing it as just another intellectual idea is complete mischaracterization. It's notable for the political movement. So what do you put first? How do you define it? Sure as heck not like you do, starting off with an orphaned "central argument". Central argument of what? What is ID? How the heck would we know, you never told us. Try and write an actual definition of intelligent design and you'll very quickly realize that can be no separation of the idea from it's proponents. Go ahead, give it a try. Instead of writing "the central argument of" try and write something begining with "Intelligent design is". Then we'll talk. --Nealparr (talk to me) 18:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
<