text:
Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 7

Is omnipotence relevant?
The user Silverback continues to restore and add rambling sentences that ruminate on whether or not the "intelligent designer" is omniscient or omnipotent. I've offered my thoughts on this already (see "ID in relation to Bible-based creationism," above). As I read it, these bits are digressive, confusing, and reflect an eccentric personal POV. I think they should be reduced or eliminated for the betterment of the article, but I don't want to do that unilaterally since my attempts to integrate this material thusfar have largely been reverted. I hope some other users will look over the material in question (most of it is in the "Hypotheses about..." section) and hop in to arbitrate this. --BTfromLA 03:36, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I agree that such an issue is digressive. It's relevant, but it gets to a level of detail that an encylopedia article shouldn't try to tackle.  --Theyeti 04:09, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * What is digressive about the issue, can you be more specific? I've cleaned up the clumsy language, which resulted from my attempt to add qualifying dependent clauses, in situ, to statements that were clearly false or over generalizations, especially the idea that ID makes no claims about the designer.  Since most ID theory based on irreducable complexity, "claims" to accept existing fossil evidence, the irreducably complex mechanisms often came into existance at different specific points in time, therefore, the designer must have been present and available at those points in time, or new spermia arrived at that time, or the design was present but waiting to be expressed in the genome until the time of its appearance in the fossil record.   There are other possibilities, but each possibility makes demands and implies temporial and other characteristics of the designer.   Independently of this is the issue of whether the designer could be ominiscient and omnipotent.  This is particularly relevant since the "conservative christians" mentioned earlier in the article, usually also hold the belief in such a creator and are unaware that such a belief may have to be abandoned if ID is true, or that such a belief may subject their ID design theories to greater scrutiny.  Most controversial theories in wikipedia devote space to criticisms and counter arguments, and ID theory should not be allowed to escape a significant part of that criticism by allowing resort to a cause, the intelligent designer, which has the unusual characteristic of being available and capable whenever needed, yet escapes scrutiny by being otherwise explicitly ignored by the theory, despite the implicit characteristics that must be present to fulful each individual invocation, and the accumulated characteristics required to fulfill all the invocations.--Silverback 08:12, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Omniscience (on the part of The Designer) is not relevant to ID. While it may be an assumption help by many, it is not a requirement of the concept. --DannyMuse 22:26, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Let's be more scientific, "omniscience" and "omnipotence" is a "hypothesis" held by many. The finally tuned universe theory for instance hypothesizes an intelligent designer capable of anticipating the characteristics of a universe that would be hospitable to life, and assumes that was the motive of the designer.  It is the statement in the second paragraph, about no assumptions being made that is incorrect.--Silverback 22:34, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Silverback, I'm confused. It's hard to tell from the way you worded it, but it seems that you're agreeing with my point! (I added emphasis to your commentary above to highlight that). --DannyMuse 18:29, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

new bs.
i don't have enough reverts to fight this vandalism on my own. would anyone care to help me prevent our newfound friend from completely destroying this page and replacing it with his own ignorance and bigotry? Ungtss 17:38, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stay cool. Flaming, insults in edit summaries do not improve articles. Stirling Newberry 17:43, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Stirling, your edits to the opening paragraph are reducing NPOV a lot, and you should undo them. It is customary to define and describe a subject first, before getting into the details of its criticism. For example, the idea that ID is a "wedge agenda", while reasonable, is just one POV that is denied by many ID adherents, and shouldn't be in the intro. Why did you capitalize "Wedge Agenda", by the way? --Yath 17:50, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That statement is inaccurate. I am reporting the documentable POV of practicing scientists about ID, and attributing it to them. NPOV doesn't mean "don't say anything bad", it means "document who criticises, and for what reasons. Stirling Newberry 19:04, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Stirling, I have to agree - the opening paragraph is highly problematic. The rest of your edits are very useful. Would you be willing to try and work out a compromise on the first paragraph? Graft 19:35, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Because the article is insufficiently editorially biased and needs as much prejudicial rhetoric as possible.

Thank you anonymous troll.Stirling Newberry 19:04, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, you dug your own hole, didn't you? Discarding accepted standards of neutrality in favor of well-meaning but misguided political ranting helps our POV least of all. Justifying this project with "if the shoe fits" and whining about "pure censorship" only makes you seem temperamentally ill-equipped for article writing. This is all the more depressing because many of your edits reveal an impressive breadth of knowledge.

 * But the logorrhea must stay out: Before even being permitted a complete description of Intelligent Design, we were subjected to rambling insertions dealing with associated political issues (the "Wedge Agenda") and the presentation of opposing judgments, however correct they are. ("the words 'fraud', 'sham' ... are used by practicing biologists")

 * Throughout, the article also became laced with shambolic editorial criticism in the authorial voice. ("it argues from ignorance, argues that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, and that insufficiency of current formulations of selection are sufficient to collapse the entire theory...")

 * Much has been restored since. In future, please make an effort to provide more measured contributions.--RBeschizza 06:15, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I second RBeschizza's comments. I have removed the following from the brief bullet-point summary of critical arguments.  It may be that soem of this can inform the more detailed critical sections, but they make the "summary" unreadably long:

"*The ID movement's mathematics in published papers is flawed, that definitions of "steps of complexity" do not hold up under examination, that the restrictive assumptions made to prove that natural selection will not occur in certain populations does not fit observed biological populations. Please remember that the goal of this article is to provide a brief overvue of the topic, not a comprehensive rehersal of all relevant arguments. There are separate articles for irreducible complexity, specified complexity, and many variants of creationist, evolutionary and theological arguments that are touched upon here. --BTfromLA 07:06, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Definitions of irreducible complexity are contradictory, do not reduce to a mathematical or comparable form, and that assertions of "irreducible complexity" are circular - structures are defined as irreducibly complex, and then this is used to prove the existence of irreducible complexity.
 * That supposed examples of "irreducible complexity" turn out to have entirely reasonable biochemical basis which could evolve in steps.
 * That the definition of steps in irreducible complexity do not correctly map to the fitness space of evolution, or of the alterations in the genome.
 * That assertions about "information" used in ID correspond to "low probability", which has been disproven by information theory. That is low probability states can also be low information states. (See A Mathematical Theory of Communication).
 * Invocation of intelligent agents is an explanation which raises more questions than it answers, particularly "unembodied" intelligent agents which do not need to conform to known laws of physics.
 * ID proponents consistently use of fatally flawed logical and mathematical arguments, obfustication, equivocation and straw man attacks.
 * ID attacks "naturalism" and "uniformitarianism" without sufficient evidence, or examining all reasonable natural explanations.
 * ID claims that "improbable" equals "impossible" and then procedes to definitions of improbable which are selected to maximize the appearance of improbability: particularly the appeal to "single selection", "random selection" and questionable assertions as to the mechanisms of selection."

Proposed new lead section
I've come over from peer review and decided to start at the top... I've rewritten the lead section in what hopefully is more NPOV and acceptable to all sides. I'm not going to jump in the middle of an edit war though, so I'll just post my proposal below and let you all run with it if you think it's an improvement on the current. Personally, I think it is. :) Bantman 07:13, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

The theory of intelligent design (ID) proposes that life on earh was deliberately designed by one or more intelligent agents. Advocates of the the theory claim that empirical evidence supports the conclusion that life on earth was deliberately designed. ID proposes that an intelligent designer is necessary to fully account for the adaptive complexity and diversity of life, because naturalistic causes are inherently insufficient.

The phrase "intelligent design" was first widely publicized by legal scholar Phillip E. Johnson in his 1991 book Darwin on Trial, though earlier references can be found in creationist literature. Johnson's argument, and a key tenet of the ID movement, is that philosophical naturalism is false. Since the publication of Johnson's book, a movement has coalesced around the theory of intelligent design; this movement has led an organized effort to advance ID in public and scientific circles as a legitimate alternative to naturalistic theories on the origin of life and evolution, and is known as the intelligent design movement.

The efforts of the intelligent design movement have been rebuffed by the vast majority of the scientific community, which widely considers the theory of ID to be worthless pseudoscience. ID has not garnered the support of any significant portion or subset of the scientific community; in particular, biologists nearly universally reject ID. Many scientists view ID as having been already so thoroughly disproven as to not demand further attention; however, it has attracted considerably more attention than might be expected for a theory with no significant support in scientific literature, probably due to the very public efforts of the intelligent design movement. In response to these efforts, ID has been repeatedly discredited in scientific literature.

 * i like it very much for the most part -- i'd just change the last sentence a little bit to include the possibility that it has been successful with the general public because many of us find it to be reasonable, rather than solely "due to the public efforts of the id movement." generally very well done, sir:).  Ungtss 08:19, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Also, maybe a little more exposition on why it is rejected by scientists, e.g. "Some skeptics claim that ID is largely a cipher for more traditional forms of Creationism"? --RBeschizza 09:11, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Summary of Arguments against ID
Are you MAD sterling? That's absurd to have that many dot points under, a "SUMMMARY of arguments against ID". I strongly suggest reverting back to the original section, which was concise and to the point (as a summary should be). --Brendanfox 00:25, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The original summary was not concise, it was bowdlerize. If ID supporters want fewer bullet points, they can make fewer egregious errors of fact, logic, mathematics and good faith in their papers. Stirling Newberry 01:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * friendly one, isn't he? Ungtss 01:52, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Brendanfox (or someone), please do revert that section. Stirling, whatever your familiarity with ID discussions, you evidently are not a professional writer.  Wikipedia articles aspire to providing concise definitions of the topic at hand, and a brief introduction to the issues that surround it.  Many of these issues are elaborated upon in linked articles, and can be pursued in greater depth through bibliographic citations and off-site weblinks. A summary that names general categories and does not extensively delve into specific details is not Bowdlerized--it is a summary.  In general, the goal should be to pare away everything that is not required for a clear, bare-bones presentation of the material, and move details of sub-topics to their own articles (like irreducible complexity). --BTfromLA 01:55, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My such nice people we have here. Stirling Newberry 07:19, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * perhaps one should take a look in the mirror first. none of the individuals opposing those edits (other than me) ascribe to ID.  Ungtss 07:32, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * What not-nice behavior are you referring to, Stirling? You have insisted on adding an absurd amount of clutter and brazenly POV language to the article (which was already overlong and digressive in my view).  And your comments are often hostile or snide. I, and several others, have tried to point out why your additions are seen (by everyone here, far as I can tell) as causing more problems for the article than they address. (Although your contributions to the precision of the article are certainly welcome.) Untgss is correct, by the way--I have no interest in promoting ID, and as far as I know, he is the only participant here who supports the idea.  If you are not just a troll--being deliberately outrageous to get a rise out of people--then please allow some others to edit the material, and allow yourself a little time to consider whether the edits might actually improve the piece. If you want to write a screed that rails on for page after page about the deficiencies of the ID proponents, this is not the appropriate venue. At this rate, we seem on track to have an article with four hundred bullet points followed by a catalogue of all possible disputes about the nature and abilities of God, gods and non-gods. Sheesh! --BTfromLA 08:49, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Gentlemen, I must insist that the name calling stop immediately. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:57, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree that stirlings additions are pooly written. They also contain responses to arguments that are made in ID that are not documented here, especially the information theory stuff.  Perhaps he should document the ID arguments before he responds to them, so his additions make more sense.--Silverback 13:29, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?
Stirling, are you seriously claiming that "ID supporters are completely unreasonable, and are fellow travellers with anti-science causes" qualifies as a neutral point of view?

Dispute resolution--request for comments
The user Stirling Newberry has called for dispute resolution about this page, labelling it (in the notes attached to one of his repeated reversions of the article) to be a "bad faith fraud" and declaring that all the editors here "have no regard for factuality."

He has thusfar made no comments on the talk page that specify which facts are misrepresented. He has made aggresive revisions which have been partly reverted, on grounds (best I can tell) that the writing was extremely POV and wildly overlong.

Comments and suggestions from other editors or disinterested Wikipedians would be very welcome at this point. --BTfromLA 05:54, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I have no interest in either side of this argument. I've not followed this, but here's an outsider's view on some small points. For example the first area of the revert wars: Critics of ID label it as "stealth creationism," a veiled attempt to introduce religious beliefs into scientific discourse.

 * The phrase should definitely be cited in this article, since it is often comes up in discussion of ID. However, rather than inferring intent with the phrase "veiled attempt" why not just stick with the facts, like saying, Critics of ID label it as "stealth creationism," since many creationists have taken to ID to support their argument, or something to that nature. Don't ascribe intent unless you can cite something more concrete. Fuzheado | Talk 06:33, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Notice that whoever wrote that wasn't ascribing intent; they were pointing out that critics ascribe intent. — B.Bryant 05:42, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * It should be reasonably obvious by now that Stirling knows his contributions are not NPOV and that Stirling does not care. He is unaware, or unwilling to accept, that an encyclopedia article must be concise, descriptive, and written from a neutral point of view. I agree with his positions, but object strongly to his attempts to mold this article into a screed. His arrogant attitude to NPOV, his adversarial whining and his unwillingness to even discuss his edits, are fast becoming an object lesson in Wikipedia's weaknesses. --66.55.230.178 01:40, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * i agree with the above. he's clearly got an agenda and doesn't give a rip what anybody else thinks.  i appreciate the willingness of those who don't support id to support npov so admirably in this case.  thank you.  Ungtss 02:35, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I didn't find much to support claims of Stirling's NPOV writing on either the request-for-dispute-resolution or on the Talk:Intelligent design page. Going through the history for the Intelligent design article itself is more revealing.  Although I agree with Stirling's general sentiment and dislike of ID arguments, his additions to the article and edit summaries sometimes seem deliberately inflammatory.  The other regular posters seem to be trying to enforce NPOV standards, even when doing so conflicts with their own viewpoints.  Incidentally, I'm of the opinion that strongly-worded POV arguments are highly ineffective in gaining converts.

 * Thank you very much for taking the time to look at some of the relevant reverts and rewrites on the page--it's the only way to really get a sense of the situation.
 * I'm not familiar with how these disputes are finally resolved; thusfar, the comments seem pretty consistent... what happens next? --BTfromLA 19:51, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Despite the above consensus, evidence is mounting that the user Stirling Newberry is determined to continue his problematic behavior here, including his unwillingness to engage in civil discussion about the article with other editors, even those editors who agree with his views on this topic. (See recent edits to the article and his exchanges with other users elsewhere on this page.) I'd very much appreciate any proposals for a happy resolution to this problem. --BTfromLA 18:25, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bracketing
"Organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences and the National Center for Science Education describe ID as pseudoscience which has been thoroughly debunked." Is this saying they "describe ID as (pseudoscience which has been..)" or they "descirbe (ID as pseudoscience) which has been.."? Mlm42 02:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Who knows? Read over the talk page and you'll see the chaos these edits have caused. The fact they are so dreadfully written is the cherry on top.

 * Maybe.. but I think there's still hope to make this a coherent article. Mlm42 05:11, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * How about "The National Academy of Sciences and the National Center for Science Education reject ID, calling it pseudoscience which has been thoroughly debunked." This fits accurately with the positions of both bodies and is more clear.  Incidentally, I'm not sure if the NCSE should appear in the same context as the NAS, since NCSE is a one-issue participant in the discussion, while the NAS is a much broader quasi-governmental agency that funds & critiques science throughout the US.  I do think NCSE should be mentioned in the article as a counterbalance to its opposing peers, the Discovery Institute and the Center for Science and Culture.  NCSE is mentioned further down in the arguments against ID section and the External Links. SMesser 17:43, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Shape of Earth: views differ
It is clear to me that Stirling Newberry's contentions are largely correct -- Ungtss is absolutely dedicated to gradually transforming this article into the form: "Shape of earth: views differ", completely regardless of the accuracy of that statement. BTfromLA and Silverback, by validating his edits, are implicitly collaborating with him. Until he is directly confronted and opposed by the community, the only possible result of this type of activism is a larger distance between the content of the wikipedia and the scientific consensus and the corresponding irrelevance of Wikipedia.--Goethean 18:22, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * um ... nobody is "collaborating" with anybody else. if you'll notice, my edits were MINIMAL before stirling came along with his bigotry -- the page was arranged primarily by those who disagree with ID but are interested in npov.  as to your ridiculous analogy to flat earth, perhaps evolution should be compared to Spontaneous generation?  flat earth flies in the face of demonstrable, repeatable evidence, and is held by only a tiny minority.  id flies in the face of ... what?  hypotheses about how the eye MIGHT have evolved?  worldwide, support for creation + "evolution with God's help" outnumbers support for naturalistic evolution 10:1.  this is no fringe view -- this is a major point of view among the general public that deserves fair representation.  finally, as to your accusations of "advocacy," take a look in the mirror, bro.  the rest of us are interested in npov.  care to join us?  Ungtss 18:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That you have decided to flagrantly violate the rules simply to defend your POV is not an excuse. Stirling Newberry 04:14, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * To you, NPOV means: "views differ". You are the one that rejects the testimony of biologists, chemists, medical doctors, immunologists, cosmologists, astronomers, and every person working in the area of knowledge on which you are writing. The prevalent view among Madagascar villagers may be that the earth sits on top of a turtle. That doesn't have a great deal of bearing on the actual shape or location of the planet.

 * I will not join you in your quest to marginalize Wikipedia. That is the reason for this post.--Goethean 18:22, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * looking up NPOV, i find the following:

 * "The neutral point of view policy is easily misunderstood. The policy doesn't assume that it's possible to write an article from just a single unbiased, "objective" point of view. The policy says that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct."
 * followed by ...
 * "How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?

 * If we're going to represent the sum total of "human knowledge"--of what we believe we know, essentially--then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes fairly, on some bogus view of fairness that would have us describe pseudoscience as if were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view, and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

 * There is a minority of Wikipedians who feel so strongly about this problem that they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy, given that the scientists' view of pseudoscience can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to those who might be misled by pseudoscience." Ungtss 18:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * you are in the minority on wikipedia. admittedly a particularly vocal and narrowminded minority, but a minority nonetheless.  npov requires that pseudoscience be explained on its own terms, and criticized on the terms of its critics.  Ungtss 18:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * ...and your interpretation of that policy could be restated as "Shape of earth: views differ." No matter how outlandish an idea is, how disingenuously it has been put forward, or how dark the motivation for its appearance, you think it must be presented as if it were absolutely equal in validity to the most self-evident truth. This is not just bad policy, not just a formula to make Wikipedia worthless, it amounts to dishonesty.
 * Goethean has a valid point, Ungtss, and I have been meaning to bring this up once the Stirling business passed. Your consistent refusal to permit the ID topic to be flagged at the beginning as containing scientific claims that are rejected by the great bulk of scientists and to being embedded in political advocacy amounts to asserting a pro-ID POV.  The aim of the ID movement is to have ID, which is not currently accepted as scientifically legitimate, treated as a scientifically legitimate alternative to evolution. Rather than admitting that goal up front, you want it treated as if the goal has been achieved.  It is certainly possible to topple too far in the direction of a hostile or dismissive POV, as we saw with Stirling's edits, but I while I didn't revert it, I don't think your shifting my recent attempt to introduce the controversy at the top of the article (and I tried to do it as neutrally as possible) to the bottom of the intro is justified by anything but pro-ID POV.  Happy to have others weigh in here.  --BTfromLA 19:14, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * i don't think id is being treated as equal by any stretch of the imagination -- it is, in fact, explicitly flagged within the intro, and repeatedly throughout the text. my only question is whether it should be flagged before or after it is actually described.  i think it's logical to summarize the idea, then where it came from, and then why the scientific community finds it to be ridiculous.  the alternative is to criticize it in detail before it is described.  which do you think is more npov?  Ungtss 19:19, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please review that intro I put in a few edits back--It certainly doesn't criticize ID in detail, nor (in my view) does it hopelessly taint the ID claims. It simply announces that this is a set of claims that mainstream science does not accept and that are embedded in political, as well as scientific arguments. This is true, right? It introduces the context in which ID (as opposed to theistic beliefs in a designer that make no scientific claims) operates, and thus seems like an appropriate way to frame this topic. --BTfromLA 19:48, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * it read as critical to me -- it made it clear in the very first sentence -- before you even knew what id WAS, that the majority of scientists had rejected it, and it was a primarily political controversy. consider the geocentrism page.  it starts with a description of the idea, and only after several paragraphs does it describe how the idea came to be debunked due to its flaws.  why is this permitted?  surely the idea should be flagged as pseudoscience and loads of ad hominem laid at the feet of those who still believe the earth is the center of the universe.  do you see the issue here?  this is an encyclopedia.  it needs to describe ideas first and only later criticize them.  we need to know what id IS before we're reminded ad nauseum that today's scientists have been trained to reject it without consideration.  Ungtss 23:35, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * On the other hand, look at the Morphogenetic field article. The first clause is: "According to the biologist Rupert Sheldrake..." The hordes of New age hippies who embrace Sheldrake's theories -- and I have been in lecture halls full of them -- are never mentioned. There is only a description of an episode in the history of science and the merits and demerits of the theory. Yet you are never given the impression that this is accepted science. To me, it strikes the right note. --Goethean 23:49, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Geocentrism has virtually no adherents today, and it is certainly not a recently-developed strategy to undermine the intellectual dominance of a secular worldview and and the science that is seen as supporting that dominance. But that's what ID is—read Phillip  Johnson—and I can't see why there is anything wrong with making that clear up front.  I don't have the quote with me, but someplace Johnson says something to the effect that the debate isn't primarily a scientific one, and a little exploration of the Discovery Institute's web site will make it clear that non-scientific issues are involved.  I'm all for allowing the ID arguments (including the philosophic and political ones, which haven't much been explored in the article) to be presented in terms that the proponents would recognize and agree with—I don't think we're all that far apart on this—but I think that wanting the topic introduced as if it were a recognized scientific theory slides from NPOV into a pro-ID bias. --BTfromLA 00:06, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * i agree with your goals -- here's my suggestion -- we take the tone suggested my goethean -- we can delete everything in the article that implies either that ID is an accepted scientific theory, or accusations that ID is rejected by the "majority of mainstream scientists" and is "pseudoscience." we'll get rid of all the ad hominem on both sides, and leave just an encyclopedic discription of ID, without the politics.  what do you say?  Ungtss 00:42, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * <>
 * what makes you think it was recently developed? ID and Atomism have been battling it out since the beginning of time -- johnson's just the latest Paley.  further, seems to me that macroevolution is just a recently developed strategy to undermine the intellectual dominance of the theistic worldview.  a strategy which, in my opinion, is devoid of any scientific merit whatsoever.  Ungtss 00:42, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The idea that the universe was deliberately designed is a venerable one, of course, as for that matter is the notion that the goal of science is to understand the mind of God. While ID proponents may indeed partake of those longstanding ideas, "Intelligent Design," the subject of this article, is a self-defined movement that is less than twenty years old. It is not accurate to describe all belief in an intelligent designer as "intelligent design", any more than it is correct to describe all art that emphasizes a concept as "conceptual art." ID, like conceptual art, is an historical movement that occured in a particular context at a particular time. In the case of ID, the movement is ongoing. --BTfromLA 02:00, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * quite true -- so how do you suggest we make this article npov: by describing its ideas first, or by describing its rejection by scientists and political controversy first? Ungtss 14:42, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Is it primarily a scientific hypothesis or political movement? Creationists say scientific; evolutionists say political. To me, the wedge document shows the political-cultural agenda that gave rise to this theory/hypothesis/idea/assertion.--Goethean 18:12, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * certainly it's both -- a view of life and the universe generally that is currently entirely excluded from scientific discourse ... and a political movement to get that view back into public discourse and education. perhaps we can find an npov way to describe its political side?  something less, "these guys are here to brainwash everybody!" and more "these guys are trying to find a way to have their religious ideas fairly considered and represented in a secular context ... in the hope that once they enter public discourse, they will win on their merits."  or maybe a representation of both?  any ideas?  Ungtss 18:30, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * That would be great as a paid advertisement for the Discovery Institute. --Goethean 03:21, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * if the facts alone, before all the meaningless ad hominem and proof by authority, serve as an advertisement, then perhaps the idea has merit. Ungtss 03:35, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * You seem to think that referring to the scientific method, science journals and scientists are a fallacious way to evaluate the accuracy of a scientific theory. Or perhaps it's Western logic that is hopelessly flawed by its dependence on the atheistic, materialistic mindset. --Goethean 03:45, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * i simply think the current paradigm definition of science is too narrow, due to the atheistic/agnostic bias prevalent (for the moment) in the scientific community. modern science arose within the creationist context, and is entirely consistent with it -- in fact, dependent on it.  and if you think that atheism has won in the west, you're kidding yourself.  Materialism gave us world wars, holocausts, eugenics, great purges, the psychological benefits of secular liberalism, and a fantastic period of baseless speculation regarding the origins of the universe, earth, and life.  i ain't buying it.  secularism makes no sense.  Ungtss 13:09, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Proponents of ID call nineteenth- and twentieth-century biology "baseless speculation." Let's put that in the article. I have a feeling that Western science is looked at slightly more positively here in the Wikipedia compared to in your evangelical circles.
 * This Wikipedia article is not the appropriate place for your beachhead against modern science. Your motivations are now clear, and they are not objectivity or accuracy. They are to replace, in this little corner of the world, the consensus with your ideas about science. Get a blog.--Goethean 15:37, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) i'm not an evangelical, haven't been to church in years.
 * 2) id do not reject ANY aspects of biology -- on the contrary, they pay SPECIAL attention to the DETAIL, and argue that the DETAIL infers a designer, rather than no designer.
 * 3) beachhead my ass. it's npov, not spov.  get your own blog. Ungtss 15:42, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Notable recent convert?
What's with the Notable recent convert section? It doesn't appear to be particularly encyclopedic. Why should the article care whether some former atheist has converted to ID? Particularly as he is not a biologist or scientist in any way. — Asbestos | Talk 10:19, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * As a former philosophy major and a former atheist, I find Flew's change of mind extremely interesting. But I agree that it should be reduced to a sentence or two and a link to the Flew article. We don't need a rah-rah paragraph for every walk to the pulpit.
 * Does this entail that if Henry Morris or some other major creationist flip-flops (an admittedly remote possibility) that it is also not noteworthy? Perhaps not, since Flew was never an explicitly anti-ID exponent, although I'm sure he ripped on Paley's teleological argument in his time. --Goethean 18:18, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call it that noteworthy if Morris recanted, neither for an article on creationism nor evolution nor the debate. Flew doesn't deserve a paragraph either. Maybe one could do a list of noteable ID proponents containing Flew and add "(atheist converted to deism by ID arguments)" in his case. Same for Morris, should that happen. --Hob Gadling 18:52, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

tell me, stirling
1) would you mind justifying inserting redundant education material which is covered in greater detail (and significantly greater accuracy) on Creation and evolution in public education?

2) would you mind justifying long pov arguments in headers against id, but not in headers for id?

3) as was said in Far and Away, "i have no wish to fight you." but i will.  your constructive edits are welcome, but your bigotry has no place here.  Ungtss 16:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

More lies and insults. Obviously you think yourself above the law and the rules. Stirling Newberry 16:24, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * since stirling has not justified his edits and instead merely attacked with more vicious and fundamentalist fury, thoroughly ignoring the npov rules for pseudoscience, i ask that the majority carefully consider the content and purpose of these edits in an already bloated and back-and-forth article, and decide whether they are appropriate. Ungtss 16:30, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * <>
 * odd, coming from one who seems to think he IS the law and the rules. Ungtss 16:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stirling, you can see above where virtually all observers found your earlier editing to be inappropriate and counter-productive. Please don't continue in that vein. You have good information to bring to the article, and that is welcome, but if you make large and controversial changes, it is incumbent upon you to justify your changes on the talk page, and to engage in reasonably courteous discussions with those who differ or question your choices, assuming good faith on all sides. Why not try that? --BTfromLA 16:53, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Because ungtss is not engaged in good faith, nor was he from the beginning. Nor are you. Stirling Newberry 17:15, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * That's ridiculous. First of all, they are NOT the only two people editing this page. Second of all, regardless of THEIR behavior, YOU should always behave decorously. This is not some "ends justify the means" conflict. When someone asks you to justify your edit, do it. Period. If you can't do that, you shouldn't make edits. Graft 18:37, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Please see my recent post to the "request for comments" topic, above. --BTfromLA 18:54, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * well, fellas, wadduwedo now? Ungtss 19:42, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I've requested constructive proposals, above. I see that there is a procedure for formally presenting evidence and requesting community comment about a user's behavior, and another for requesting binding arbitration about problem users who do not respond to community consensus. I have no experience with those options, nor am I aware of all the rules and definitions pertaining to them, but my hunch is that either type of complaint would be appropriate in this case. Personally, I am reluctant to get that deeply pulled into this matter, and I'm hoping someone--perhaps somebody who hasn't been involved in these exchanges--can come up with an alternative solution.  --BTfromLA 20:10, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Faith, good and bad
The whole intelligent design controversy is rooted in metaphysics and methodology. Much of which is inextricably linked to a priori assumptions (i.e., axioms or premises).

Materialists already think there is no God, and except for the insignificant minority of "open-minded materialists" they will reject any argument contradicting their axiomatic starting point. Hence, ID's suggestion that the origin of multi-cellular beings (particularly vertebrates and humans) could reasonably be ascribed to an intelligent being is anathema to them. So it's really hard for them even to tolerate expression of such an idea, let alone to entertain it as a "hypothesis".

Religionists (and yes, I am one) already think there is a God, and likewise tend to reject out of hand any argument that contradicts their faith. "Fossils prove evolution? Then the fossils must be fakes (or a test from God)." So goes the fundamentalist POV.

This article will remain turbulent and contentious until someone -- cleverer and more diplomatic than I am -- can identify and explain the hazy and/or hidden assumptions and thought processes of the various opposing sides. Larry Witham's recent book By Design is a valiant attempt to do just that. I wish I could get him to put his two cents in, here at Wikipedia, but published authors are notoriously hard to recruit. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 18:43, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * Now Ed Poor comes in and decides to engage in bad faith Larry Witham is highly sympathetic - one might even say sycophantic - towards ID. Merely one review among many for the above mentioned book from amazon.com

 * Reviewer: A reader
 * This overview of the intelligent design movement is guaranteed to drive certain people crazy. Foremost among them will be fans of Richard Dawkins's "The Blind Watchmaker" and other acolytes of the modern religion of Scientism. Not science, mind you, which requires an open, inquisitive approach to data, but Scientism, the slavish devotion to the god Theory. Darwin handed down his discoveries, the earth shook, the sky trembled, don't try to teach anything else in OUR public schools.

 * The problem, as Witham demonstrates in his work, is that there are a great many questions left unanswered by Darwin, most of them revolving around what Michael Behe calls "irreducible complexity." There is no need to resort to the thought experiment of finding a watch in a field, as Dawkins does in his attempt to prove that random selection is the only force capable of or sufficent to explaining the world around us.

 * Behe, cited by Witham, makes things much easier: a simple mousetrap, with only five working parts, cannot have come together over billions of years by any natural process known or suspected. Half a mousetrap is useless, as is four-fifths. Only the complete mechanism will function, and the odds of a mousetrap "evolving" are astronomically, vanishingly small.

 * (Which begs an interesting question: Does Dawkins, and by extension his fans the Priests of Darwin, actually believe that a mechanism as complex as a pocketwatch will appear before their eyes if they sit in a field waiting for sufficient eons?)

 * Witham approaches this fascinating area of inquiry as an intelligent layman, surveying the experts in the field with an eye to offering the reader as complete an exposition of the intelligent design question as possible.

 * Highly recommended, but only to those willing to have their eyes, and minds, opened wide.

 * Witham has also written several articles which uncritically present ID claims, and his blurb indicates his strong sympathy with ID. Since Mr. Poor entered this discussion by preaching good faith, and by threatening me for "breaking the rules" even as he presents a book which was written by someone who is all but an ID partisan and part of the "wedge strategy", I submit that he is not to be taken at face value, that he is not engaging in "good faith" but is, instead, merely presenting another face of ID supporters, in an attempt to frame the debate, as ID supporters do as between "Scientism" the religion and their own religion. This is not the point at issue with ID. I am deeply disappointed in his, at the very least, intellectually sloppy framing of the issue, and, at worse, intellectual dishonesty in presenting a book as neutral which is not. Stirling Newberry 02:26, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * (with regard to ed poor's comments): well said. perhaps we should all put our heads together to find a way to do it right?  seems to me we've got the gamut of opinions here ... maybe with a little teamwork we can do it right.  Ungtss 18:50, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

proposed solution
1) i added irreducible complexity + specified complexity to the intro to be clearer that the issue is more than a philosophical one, and to balance out the ad hominem added by stirling to the end of the intro, which i left untouched.

2) i removed the education material, because i already took the pertinent parts out and placed them on the education page, and they are therefore redundant, as well as being largely inaccurate.

3) i removed the ad hominem arguments from the end of the "summary against" section, because they are all subject to ID ad hominem retorts, and neither of them improve the quality of the article.

4) i removed the pov arguments from the headers, because that is not appropriate or stylistically justifiable, and is applied only to the "anti-" sections.

any other immediate improvements are edits are welcome ... otherwise ... shall we vote on whether stirling's or my proposal is more npov? Ungtss 19:57, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I assume that when this vote is over, you will return to your work of editing the article to bring it more in line with your bias. --Goethean 20:40, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * What about Silverback's version, which had the political campaign talk up top? --Goethean 20:45, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * let's compare to the political campaign by the NCSE and NAS for the teaching of evolution. should that be at the top of the evolution page?  Ungtss 20:58, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * See BTfromLA's previous comments:

Geocentrism has virtually no adherents today, and it is certainly not a recently-developed strategy to undermine the intellectual dominance of a secular worldview and and the science that is seen as supporting that dominance. But that's what ID is—read Phillip Johnson—and I can't see why there is anything wrong with making that clear up front. I don't have the quote with me, but someplace Johnson says something to the effect that the debate isn't primarily a scientific one, and a little exploration of the Discovery Institute's web site will make it clear that non-scientific issues are involved. I'm all for allowing the ID arguments (including the philosophic and political ones, which haven't much been explored in the article) to be presented in terms that the proponents would recognize and agree with—I don't think we're all that far apart on this—but I think that wanting the topic introduced as if it were a recognized scientific theory slides from NPOV into a pro-ID bias. --BTfromLA 00:06, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * look at Communism and tell me if it starts with a discussion of the Communist party. look at Abortion and tell me if it starts with a discussion of the NOW.  look at Christianity and tell me if it starts with a discussion of the Christian Coalition.  get over it, man.  npov doesn't only apply to ideas you like.  Ungtss 22:49, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * You are comparing apples to orangutans. ID was not constructed due to the scientific insufficiency of the theory of evolution. It was constructed due to the theological insufficiency of the theory of evolution. --Goethean 23:16, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) you're wrong. the EYES you're looking at the screen with are telling you that chance mutation and natural selection are scientifically incapable of explaining the fact that you can SEE, and only by glossing over the profoundly complex and intricate nature of the eye can you manage to believe otherwise.  Ungtss 23:22, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) even if you were right, christianity was not devised from the scientific method, nor was communism, nor was the pro-choice movement. they're all ideas grounded in an ethical basis.  and in EVERY CASE, the IDEA is described before the political movement supporting it within the public sphere.  why is ID any different?

Removing the section on recent converts
The section "a notable recent convert", is problematic and should remain out of the article for several reasons:

 * At present the section exaggerates the implications of Flew's statements. The most that can be said of Flew is that he is unsure. By claiming "Antony Flew recently converted to a theistic point of view (though not necessarily the Christian God), primarily on the weight of Intelligent Design." it overstates his conversion and makes an unsubstantiated hasty conclusion about his motivation. In communications with Richard Carrier, Flew has stated that he hasn't really decided what to believe and that he was unsure. In response to theists citing him in their favor, Flew calls his "recent very modest defection from my previous unbelief" a "more radical form of unbelief," and implies that the concept of God might actually be self-refuting, for "surely there is material here for a new and more fundamental challenge to the very conception of God as an omnipotent spirit," but, Flew says, "I am just too old at the age of nearly 82 to initiate and conduct a major and super radical controversy about the conceivability of the putative concept of God as a spirit." See also:
 * Such a section provides little value to the article or the reader. Vaunting "recent converts" is an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. As such it has no place in an encyclopedic article. For balance should we start citing those significant theists who become atheists due to their understanding of science? No. Such a list is a pointless game of tit-for-tat and lessens the article.

Until these issues are properly addressed, I'm removing the section.--FeloniousMonk 22:37, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Well reasoned. I agree. --BTfromLA 05:22, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

summary of other points of view.
what is the purpose of this section, and please provide a basis for believing it to be npov. Ungtss 15:13, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since it is impossible to hold a mature discussion with you, nor to trust the other ID supporters on this page, I am simply going to edit. If you want to escalate this up the chain you are free to do so, Stirling Newberry 15:56, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * listen. you haven't even tried discussing.  this is the first post to the talkpage you've made with more than one sentence, it is STILL contains no content.  you'd best get over your delusion that only those who agree with you are intelligent and mature.  refusing to discuss your controversial edits is one step shy of outright vandalism.  Ungtss 16:29, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Ungtss, it's true that Stirling has for the first time made a couple of talk page posts where he actually starts to explain his reasoning, even if those explanations strike you as inadequate. I understand your frustration, but please bear in mind that words like "vandalism," "delusion," and "bigotry"  (however accurate you may find them to be) are unlikely to advance the cause of pulling Stirling into a civil discussion about the article. --BTfromLA 17:44, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * i apologize. Ungtss 18:40, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

the section at issue:

Summary of other points of view
Because ID supporters make no secret of their contempt for "Darwinians", the issue of Intelligent Design goes far beyond the scientific viability of ID arguments. While the Discovery Institute attempts to place a wall between the theism of its members, and Intelligent Design, this wall breaks down in actual practice as soon as the public debate on the issue is joined.

The larger debate of the basic assumptions of public discourse is beyond the scope of an article on Intelligent Design as such, but cannot be ignored, both because of the public involvement of prominent theists in support of Intelligent Design, and the legal precedents involved in deciding whether Intelligent Design is legal to establish as part of public school curicula, it cannot be ignored in reporting the public points of view. Public opinion polls as of January 2005 show that the majority of Americans believe that "God created humans in their current form".

Within this context, not all critics of Intelligent Design regard it as a clear and present danger, for example William Saleton of Slate called agrees that Intelligent Design is neo-creationism, and that it is "soft headed", but disputes the contention that it is any more than a last gasp of "educational relativism". . And it is far from universally true that religiously conservative individuals are supporters of "Intelligent Design", for example in 1996 John Paul II stated that Darwinian theory had been "proved true" and was consistent with Catholic Dogma. Nor are all supporters of evolution in the public realm willing to make the line against teaching Creationism in schools one that they are willing to defend with political capital: Albert Gore, while Vice President of the United States, stated that he did not oppose local school districts using federal funds to teach Creationism.

 * Thoughts? Ungtss 16:37, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Because ID supporters make no secret of their contempt for "Darwinians", the issue of Intelligent Design goes far beyond the scientific viability of ID arguments. This statement begins with a presumed assertion, and that assertion (true or false) is not supported by the given reference, which is itself an opinion column and thus is not a viable reference for anything outside of itself.
 * That same statement refers to the "issue of Intelligent Design". This is the semantic equivalent of referring to the "issue of evolution" -- either of which is POV.
 * Using a phrase such as "goes far beyond" is, in general, problematic for NPOV. Removing the word "far" would be preferable.
 * There are similar POV questions throughout the three paragraphs. These paragraphs have a tone much more appropriate to an editorial than to an NPOV encyclopedia article.
 * -Rholton 17:56, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Motivation
Taking up an earlier thread:

 * ...ID was not constructed due to the scientific insufficiency of the theory of evolution. It was constructed due to the theological insufficiency of the theory of evolution. --Goethean 23:16, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The comment above about why ID was posited leads me to make a distinction between motivation and correctness. If a heckler interrupts a speech because he wants to embarass the speaker or make him leave the stage, is his hostile motivation necessarily linked to the truth of falseness of the statement he makes ("You took a bribe to support a bill").

If a newspaper reporter is trying to decide whether that politician really DID take a bribe, would he make that determination purely on the basis of the heckler's perceived hostility? ("That heckler is obviously bent on preventing the politician from winning this election, so I'll just ignore his charge. It's clearly politically motivated, and therefore almost certainly untrue.")

Adherents of ID might indeed be mainly motivated by a desire to sidetrack criticism of their religious faith. ("Teaching evolution in schools undermines Christianity, so we better find a way to fight back.") But to conclude that ID is false because its adherents have a hostile motive seems to me an example of ad hominem. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 16:05, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * well said. Ungtss 16:31, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't conclude that ID is wrong because it originated in the Culture Wars. I conclude that ID is wrong because that's what the science says. I was arguing that the article should begin with an account of the political/cultural/social origin of the theory of ID. The quotation from BTfromLA summarizes this argument as it is found in ID texts. It is Ungtss who is assuming that starting the article with an account of ID's origin in cultural concerns will imply that ID is untrue. --Goethean 18:25, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * the problem with opening it with your perception of its "cultural roots" is that your view of the cultural roots is a pov. does religion inform the science of id, or does the science of id inform the religion?  that's a pov question, and BECAUSE of that pov issue, the IDEA has to come first.  Ungtss 18:50, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm just quoting your own material. If you don't like it, then don't say it on the talk page and publish it in articles. Stirling Newberry 18:13, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * 1) i have not published any articles, and talk page rants are not the basis of npov articles. this article is about id, not your blind hatred of people who disagree with you.
 * 2) you are continually ignoring the page consensus among evolutionists and id folks alike that the bulk of your edits are extremely pov, not deigning to discuss your lunacy with anyone, because we're not "mature enough."
 * 3 this article is not your personal soapbox.
 * this is the kind of behavior that gets people blocked. grow up.  Ungtss 18:38, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * STIRLING! TALK ABOUT THIS WITH OTHERS!  THIS IS A TEAM EFFORT!  Ungtss 18:53, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A little less noise, please, gentlemen. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 19:04, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Beginning of the article
Quick change of subject, replying to Goethean: I agree that the article should begin with an account of the political/cultural/social origin of the theory of ID. Our readers are just as interested in the motivations of ID's adherents and critics as in any other aspect. I daresay less than 7 in 100 really wants to step back and take an objective look at the whole thing; the vast majority simply want confirmation of their preconceived positions. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 19:08, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * Given recent discussions about how to frame this topic in an even-handed manner, it might be useful to subject a specific intro to analysis. Below are the opening paragraphs of my own edit of 16 January--this material was quickly moved by another editor into a section a couple of paragraphs later in the article. I offer this for group critique, in the hopes of clarifying the positions on a fundamental editing issue here. --BTfromLA 19:13, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Intelligent design (ID) is the claim that empirical evidence points to the conclusion that life on earth was deliberately designed by one or more intelligent agents.

 * While proponents of the ID concept boast scientific or academic credentials, the vast majority of scientists and scientific institutions reject the ID claims as scientifically illegitmate. Nevertheless, the ID movement has developed a substantial public following, mostly in the US, who advocate for its acceptance as an approach to life's origins in school curricula. Thus, the subject of ID is deeply embedded in political controversies and charges of dogmatic bias and bad faith.
 * I support this intro. --Goethean 20:11, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * i support the intro, as long as it follows the summary of the idea of id in the first paragraph. Ungtss 20:55, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * My support, obviously, is for putting these two paragraphs at the very beginning of the article. --Goethean

 * "the vast majority simply want confirmation of their preconceived positions" I don't think that -- don't you think that there are some people out there who are not familiar with the ID concept and are reading up on it? They probaby already tend towards evolution or creationism, but our readers don't necessarily have a stance on ID. --Goethean 19:58, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Comments

 * 1. Intelligent Design since it is a "big tent" of everyone that doesn't believe in natural selection can mean as little as Behe's contention that not all biological structures were produced by selection. The assertion that "life was designed" is too broad for ID.

 * "Fine tuned" universe proponents don't necessarily reject natural selection, so this comment is wrong.--Silverback 11:01, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * 2. ID doesn't merely make a claim, it makes the claim that it has sufficient proof of its position to teach it this in schools. Which, as outlined, is a much stronger claim than merely that there is evidence.

 * 3. The position of the broad majority of scientists is that ID isn't even science, and that ID is engaging in bad faith.

---

Associated with...
The second paragraph of the article includes this:
 * Though explicitly secular in its arguments, the ID movement is associated with conservative Christians...

In this context, "associated with" seems very weak and begs for clarification. An association can be purely in the mind of the associator, if you understand what I mean. One can associate one thing with another without there actually being a connection or relationship between those two things.

I suspect that the intent of this stentence was to indicate that there is an actual connection of some sort between the conservative Christians and the ID movevment. This should be stated explicitly, and ideally with attribution.

 * -Rholton 19:44, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Rholton. Attribution is usually helpful, and especially so in controversial articles. Unattributed comments like "Scientists remain unimpressed" by the nit-picking of Wells and his ilk go down much better in the form of an attributed quote: Jim Danforth of UCLA maintains that scientists remain unimpressed by critics' nitpicking (source: Geology Today, Feb. 19**) --user:Ed Poor (talk) 19:52, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * Then add the level of documentation you feel you need. Hint google "Intelligent Design" Theology. Stirling Newberry 00:45, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * See? It's ludicrous. I think we should replace everything with unattributed editorial assertions accompanied by "and if you want to know more, you know where google is." What a farce.

 * Huh? I don't think that is what is being suggested at all. Seems to me that Stirling was just suggesting a quick way to locate a source of attribution for a common claim.   If what you're quarreling with is the idea that google should serve as a research tool (as opposed to, say, a good library), you'd have a point.  But I don't think that is what you were saying.

 * i think stirling was suggesting that he have the right to insert unattributed, pov comments, and leave the burden of finding someone to attribute them to to everyone else. that way he can fill the page with whatever he wants, and force us to justify its presence on the page by finding cites for it on google for him.  Ungtss 15:06, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Put simply, it's irresponsible to add a opinion or editorial comment to a NPOV article and demand that others do the academic legwork of providing attribution and citation. It appears that Stirling is just acting out on his "if the shoe fits" impulses without caring much for accuracy, research or neutrality.
 * Maybe I missed the point. Certainly the original author should provide documentation of any doubtful or controversial claims. That get's tricky, though: the author of that sentence may have been me, I'm really not sure, it's one of those bits of the article that evolved over time: some assertion of an affiliation between the ID movement and the Christian right has been in the article for as long as I've seen it, and as Dunc notes below, the cultural links are apparent, at least it seems so to me.  So far as I can tell, IDers like Johnson and Dembski would not dispute that. Anyway, attribution is always good, but at some point if an attribution question arises about a longstanding bit of text, it seems to me that the editors debating the question have to shoulder the attribution burden--the original author may be unidentifiable, or may have moved on. --BTfromLA 21:26, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * The links are easily demonstrated. Take a look at Discovery Institute, Phillip E. Johnson, Bill Dembski.  The ID movement deny that they are religious, because they want to appear scientific, (it's very clever pseudoscience). The cover however is extremely thin, and it takes more than a single sentence to spell that out.  Dunc|☺ 17:00, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * all a valid pov among several ... which is why such things should be attributed to a source, rather than being stated as fact in an npov article. Ungtss 17:23, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ID and religion
Dunc wrote (above):

 * The links are easily demonstrated. Take a look at Discovery Institute, Phillip E. Johnson, Bill Dembski.  The ID movement deny that they are religious, because they want to appear scientific, (it's very clever pseudoscience). The cover however is extremely thin, and it takes more than a single sentence to spell that out.

I'm not sure this is true. The ID proponents with whom I'm familiar don't deny their religious affiliations and motives, but are scrupulously up front about them. Jonathan Wells, in particular.

My own attraction to the Discovery Institute is its frankly expressed religious basis combined with the attempt to conform to the scientific method. (If any Wikipedian has browsed the D.I. website and not discerned its religous basis (i.e., feels they're hiding their faith somehow), please let me know so I can describe this deception in our Wikipedia article about them.

I think the ID movement is being portrayed incorrectly, either out of ignorance (I hope) or a sneaky desire to score rhetorical points (I hope not!).

The essence of ID theory is that science neither disproves faith nor makes it irrelevant; rather, it complements faith. Its main argument is that irreducible complexity makes evolution via natural selection so unlikely that creationism MUST be considered as an alternate explanation.

The essence of opposition to ID is, I feel, a dogged insistence on clinging to the a priori decision to embrace materialism. This opposition manifests as an interpretation of "science" and "the scientific method" as necessarily limited to the search for naturalistic causes to the exclusion of supernaturalistic causes. Thus, ID cannot be a scientific hypothesis because (a) it posits a cause-and-effect relationship that transcends the material world while (b) science is supposed to concern itself only with material forces entirely within the material world. (Which is why scientists are loathe to study ghosts or ESP or life after death on any basis other than debunking these phenomena as hoaxes or hallucinations.)

To write about ID fairly, we need to discover in the writings of advocates and opponents what their explicitly expressed assumptions and motives are, rather than guessing at them. A good starting point is Wells, who openly admits that he studied biochemistry to "destroy Darwinism". At least John is being Frank! --user:Ed Poor (talk) 15:19, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * They do and they don't. That's the problem, they deliberately jump their positions around.  If you ask them they'll say their religious views are irrelevent to their "science", which is about this mysterious "intelligent designer" and deny that it's creationism or pseudoscience.  On the other hand, they'll make it clear to their supporters their theological positions, sell books aimed at the popular reader instead of going through proper peer review (per the scientific method), tour the country talking at churches, get their funding by donations from God-fearing folk and Christian organisations.

 * Wells, by the way, managed to write Icons without an explicit reference to God. But he's also, basically a liar, and has some really wierd theology (by comparison to the rest).  The difference between his position and Behe's big idea is a huge gulf.  By keeping everything vague, it allows individuals to put over that template their own theology, and makes it difficult to argue against.  It's very, very clever.

Now, make whatever religious assumptions you will, but please do not present them as science, which by definition is areligious. Your mention of ESP, etc is enlightening because ID fits into the same unfalsifiable, unscientific box. Dunc|☺ 16:07, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Article Status
This articles really messy, and way too long. I also think that the disputed tag should be placed at the top of the article, because looking at the recent changes, and the responses they've generated, I think there's some VERY different ideas about how this article should be written. I'm on holidays now, in about a week, I plan on cutting a lot of stuff (or moving to new articles), and providing a bit more balance, I don't think the article is neutral at all. I'll provide some more details then. In the mean time, good luck getting it all sorted :) Brendanfox 12:21, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

court holdings
stirling, why are you reverting the insertion of quotes from the relevent supreme court holdings, and the removal of court holdings that had nothing to do with intelligent design? Ungtss 00:47, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have requested mediation over ungtss' flagrant violations of wiki rules, I will also request expedited procedures to have him banned from wikipedia on monday. Have a nice weekend. Stirling Newberry 00:49, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * all the best to you:). Ungtss 00:52, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * stirling -- why are we including Lynch, when it was about nativity scenes, not intelligent design? Ungtss 13:24, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Because it relates to the "clear intent" standard, and provides for "some deference" as a guideline to courts in interpretation of this standard. You might want to read American Public School Law Alexander, Kern Chapter 7, Pages 314-322 for an exigesis of why religion cases are important. Or just reread the excerpt of Aguillard that you wanted inserted. Stirling Newberry 13:45, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * i would think that we would do better to quote cases AS APPLIED in ID cases, rather than inserting precedents that MIGHT be applied in the next case. the 1st amendment is a VERY broad area of constitutional law, and different standards have been applied in different contexts -- i think we should limit ourselves to the 1st amendment as applied to creationism + id, not any religion case.  the page is already bloated.  what do you say?  Ungtss 14:14, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

duplication
stirling, why are you reverting the removal of a word-for-word duplication of text? Ungtss 15:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

stickers
stirling, why are you removing the full text of the sticker, leaving only part, and moving the schoolboard reasoning for the sticker after the court holding which was made over a year after the school board quote? Ungtss 15:57, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Edit war
Guys, stop reverting each other's changes. Edit wars are pointless.

You want to edit? Agree on a phrasing first, then I'll move it into the text of the article.

And stop calling each other names, too, or I'll RFC both of you. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 16:08, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * respectfully, sir, there has been no name-calling this morning, and all my requests for discussion on the talkpage have been rejected. Ungtss 16:11, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How about a sidebar article on evolution stickers for textbooks? The article could be about:

 * the text of the sticker
 * who ordered it applied
 * what compliance (on non-compliance) has taken place
 * comments by pro- and anti-sticker advocates
 * comments by supporters/opponents of (a) Evolution, (b) Creationism and (c) intelligent design

Then replace the long quote in the intelligent design article with a brief one-sentence mention which includes a wiki-link, like:

 * One response to public uproard about the controversy was the court-ordered placement of evolution stickers on text books.

Don't beat a dead horse. Move the corpse and bring it back to life! --user:Ed Poor (talk) 16:19, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * it's a great idea, but we've already got the stickers covered in great detail in Creation and evolution in public education. this section is redundant to that page -- but despite my efforts to the contrary, it remains here.  so i am trying to give it some semblence to the actual events.  in my perfect world, the whole thing would be deleted in favor of a link to the education page.  Ungtss 16:25, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * It may work as a page within, one could document the instances of each sticker and the court cases that surround it, but it would have to come off of a subpage from the education page because it had too much material to fit into that page. It might merit a few sentences within this article. Be bold in writing it. Dunc|☺ 21:17, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

proposal
i proposed this before, but it may have been lost amidst the screaming and yelling: the material on "legal battles over id" is covered in much greater detail, accuracy, and npov style on the Creation and evolution in public education page. i'd like to propose merging the material from this education section onto that page (although i think we'll find it is ALL already there), to avoid redundancy, further bloating this page, and unnecessary edit wars. thoughts? Ungtss 16:49, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * in the absence of any comment, and since the material is covered completely, accurately, and in npov style on the page relating to that topic, i'm removing the education section and adding a link to the intro to the education page. Ungtss 17:14, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * stirling, i couldn't help but note that you reverted the above action, commenting only "rv vandalism." i was wondering why you think the removal of redundant information is vandalism, and also why you chose not to provide any explanation for why the section should remain after i made my proposal.  i'd like very much to know why this material is indispensible to the page, in your view.  Ungtss 18:07, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * It's been two days, stirling, and you still haven't provided any justification for your inclusion of fully redundant material beyond "rv vandalism." i am going to remove it again.  feel free to justify your edit before you "rv" my "vandalism" again.  Ungtss 13:24, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * i see you've reverted the edit without deigning to discuss it with anyone again. perhaps we should retitle the page, "Stirling's Intelligent Design Page?"  Ungtss 14:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've requested mediation. I have no comment pending resolution. Stirling Newberry 15:10, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * If you are unwilling to participate in discussions, you should refrain from editing as well, "pending resolution".--Silverback 15:34, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * No comment. Stirling Newberry 19:11, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * perhaps instead of wasting the precious time of mediators, you'd be willing to provide some comment here first? you have yet to address the topic, other that "rv vandalism" against multiple editors who disagree with you.  Ungtss 15:27, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm an uninvolved third party administrator on this one. Revert wars, regardless of who is right and who is wrong, are detrimental to Wikipedia, besides being annoying. So both sides please knock it off; I don't want to protect the page, but I will if this continues. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:33, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * i'm sorry for that last revert -- i missed the note. what's one to do in a situation like this?  Ungtss 17:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I've been watching from the sidelines as well, and I have to agree with and support Jpgordon on this.--FeloniousMonk 18:44, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Munnin, would you care to enter the discussion as to why you think this redundant material belongs on this page? Ungtss 18:07, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ungtss, please discuss your proposed changes on the talk page. If "other editors" refuse to join the discussion, that will form the basis of my take on this matter. --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 19:16, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * as discussed at the beginning of this section:
 * i proposed this before, but it may have been lost amidst the screaming and yelling: the material on "legal battles over id" is covered in much greater detail, accuracy, and npov style on the Creation and evolution in public education page. i'd like to propose merging the material from this education section onto that page (although i think we'll find it is ALL already there), to avoid redundancy, further bloating this page, and unnecessary edit wars.  thoughts?  Ungtss 16:49, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * a look at the page in question will reveal a historical account of the "legal battles over creationism," beginning with cited, quoted holdings from the scopes trial, and in the "Rise of ID" section, a detailed, accurate description of the "stickers" case with the full text of the stickers, surrounding circumstances, and quotes on all sides, as well as aguillard etc., and many other cases on topic, including one that was added by stirling, which i promptly moved over there.
 * this is a difficult issue in which npov is very difficult to achieve -- npov was achieved on that page after a long battle, several months ago, and has reached what i believe to be a rather fair equilibrium. the insertion of education material on this page is redundant to that page, and forces us to go through the whole npov fight all over again, to prevent misrepresentations of holdings and facts, etc. on all sides.  i hate edit wars as much as everybody else.  Ungtss 19:25, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The proposal is a non-starter. First, I categorically disagree with your assessment of NPOV. Second, since the legal issues are one important reason for people looking up Intelligent Design, removing information that the users are looking for is bad policy, and POV. Third, the target article is specifically on creation in education. It is the contention of the Dover School system that ID is differentiable from creation legally, to date, no court has ruled on this. Fourth, this is an obvious attempt to remove wholesale material which was excised before, only with a patina of a proposal. Linking to another article is entirely reasonable - shuffling material is not. Stirling Newberry 21:51, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * welcome, stirling! so nice to have you!
 * <>
 * on which part of the NPOV guidelines am i incorrect?

 * Balance of presentation. Stirling Newberry 22:28, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * could you be a bit more specific?

 * <>
 * the first clause is correct. the second is not.  providing a link to a page discussing the legal issues in full and accurate terms is the proper way to go, and that is done in the intro of this article.  Ungtss 21:58, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I dispute that the page you point to is full and accurate. I dispute that sending people to another page is a way to go. Stirling Newberry 22:28, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * could you be a bit more specific?

 * <>
 * are you seriously proposing that it is inappropriate to discuss ID on the creationism in education page, because it is differentiable for the purposes of an encyclopedia? Ungtss 21:58, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * <>
 * obvious to whom among the 5 people that have reverted you? the proposal was made in clear terms and totally ignored by you for 2 days.  Ungtss 21:58, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So were the words "bs", "bigot" and other accusations. Clear does not mean worthy of comment. I've requested mediation, this is obviously not clear to you and Mr. Poor. So I will reiterate it: the Pro-ID people are not acting in good faith and this matter is sufficiently serious to require a more formal process than a talk page. 22:28, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * i see. and objections to your string of uncited, personal research ad hominem regarding the "bad faith, biased, hateful, dishonest id fundamentalists" to the ARTICLE over objections from 5-10 evolutionists was not worthy of comment either?  Ungtss 23:05, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I will note for the record that it is humorous that first you demanded that creationism not be mentioned, only the law as applied to ID, and now you are demanding that any reference to the legal controversy be moved to a page which is labelled creationism. Which is it? Is ID creationism or not? It seems that you agree it is, because that is where you are demanding that it be put. Stirling Newberry 23:43, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * perhaps the record would be better served with the facts. i was questioning your insertion of caselaw precedents that related solely to nativity scenes, which you inserted in an effort to describe the test you hoped would be applied in the next id case -- i said nothing about mentioning creationism.  id is just creationism stripped of theology.  everybody knows that.  the question is, is it acceptable in schools if you strip the theology out?  Supreme court says ...? Ungtss 03:34, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Better not do the merge, I'd say, after reading the above, because, as Ungtss said of the other page, "this is a difficult issue in which npov is very difficult to achieve". Matters still to be worked out here include:

 * in what way is ID related to creationism?
 * is it fair to call ID a "variant" of creationism?
 * ... or an "offshoot"?

As a card-carrying creationist and ID proponent myself, I regard "creation science" as an attempt to dress Creationism up in a cheap polyester suit. While "Intelligent Design" dresses up creationism in a Brooks Brothers wool suit!

The dispute (out there in the real world) is still over how human beings came into being. Did it "just happen", due to the inexorable force of natural law? Or did someone (like space aliens, gods or "the Creator") do it on purpose? (Which leads us to methodology, for which I have belatedly added a section heading. --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk))

title: Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 7


text:
Talk:Contribution margin analysis

This article should be merged into contribution margin.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Contribution margin analysis


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athalia Bromton

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 17:47, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Athalia Bromton
Unable to confirm article, this website mentions a Vanity Fair article. - RoyBoy [ ∞ ] 03:41, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Tragic, but doesn't seem to be notable. Gamaliel 03:49, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. LizardWizard 04:04, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Is there an article on kids who kill on Wikipedia? - RoyBoy [ ∞ ] 04:32, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a crime database. JoaoRicardo 05:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable - fails Google test (3 hits, 1 unrelated), Wikipedia is not a memorial. Megan1967 06:21, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, murder most foul is not inherently encyclopedic. Wyss 23:27, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)