Talk:Intelligent design

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Something uncontroversial (hopefully)

Can someone who understands the inline citation system better than me cluster the citations in a way that we can actually read the sentences? Anyway we could just collect them at the bottom and then pull them by refname?--Tznkai (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that was already tried and it was deemed a failure. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It was a disaster, it made it unclear as to how well supported the passages were which invited allegations of poor sourcing and support from lurkers wanting to shitewash the article. Odd nature (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I just helped get Alzheimer's disease to FA status, and it uses very easy to read grouped references. I actually despise the messiness of the html and wiki-code underlying this article. I can't edit it because it makes no sense, it's sloppy. So if someone wants to make this article a real FA article with clean editing underlying it, I'll be supporter. This article is a mess. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I argued that (and a number of other stylistic points) a while ago. Folks jumped on me and called me a creationist shill. :( The primary purpose of the article needs to be to be read, not to prove itself against opponents. Big long strings of citations links get in the way of reading. --FOo (talk) 07:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I remember supporting you. I still think this should be done. It seems that when this was being discussed, the prevailing reason for having long lists of numbers after cited statements was to intimidate POV-pushers. But I find this reason rather questionable. The purpose of references isn't to deter POV-pushers, but to be an addition resource for the reader to continue researching the topic. Consolidating the references clearly enhances the readability of the article, and should be done as a service to the reader. If this means that editors will need to be more vigilant, then I can live with that. siâ„“â„“y rabbit (talk) 12:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, and assuming good faith of course, the prevailing reason was to respond to arguments repeatedly presented by pov-pushers or uninformed newbies and not to "indimidate" them. Tidying up and grouping the references will be welcome. . dave souza, talk 13:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

My recommendation is we strip/consolidate some of the references, make it readable, but take anything we remove and put it in a special sub-article or talk page. Its against style, but we might be able to get away with Intelligent Design/additional references as an appendix. Certainly Talk:Intelligent Design/additional references would be ok. Point POV pushers who don't like a references to that page.--Tznkai (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm against removal of references, unless there is a good reason to do so. Just to be clear, I was referring only to consolidating contiguous references to make the text easier for readers to parse. siâ„“â„“y rabbit (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm just not convinced we need 4 references per statement.--Tznkai (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The usual approach is to add a line break separating two or more references cited from one inline link – thus <ref>[reference1]<br>[reference2]<br>[etc.]</ref> We did try that here at a time when there was a lot of editing going on, and it got very unwieldy, but things are calmer now. named references that are used more than once have to be separate.. dave souza, talk 16:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The current coding makes it extremely difficult to make even the simplest of edits. Maybe thats a benefit in some ways, but on a personal note, its driving me insane.--Tznkai (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fundamental Flaw

The Intelligent Design article suffers from a fundamental flaw: It says nothing about the physical mechanisms by which complex organisms developed in our time-variant, three-dimensional world. Surely, someone in the ID community has described a physical mechanism that produced the cilium, for example.

Creationists can point to the creation miracles described in the Book of Genesis as subjective explanations for origins. These, however, provide no objective insight into the physical mechanisms involved in the miracles themselves.

According to Modern Evolutionary theory, Genetics produces variants in a biological population that are tested by Natural Selection for viability in the prevailing environment. The accumulation over time of variant traits produces speciation. Evolution describes a physical process that requires no supernatural intervention to succeed. Furthermore, the same general theory decribes the processes by which all living organisms could have developed - from algae to aardvarks.

Does ID provide explanations for the physical development of complex organisms in our world? If so, it should be stated here. Otherwise, ID is just arm-waving from an objective or scientific point of view. The article provides subjective insight into ID but provides no objective insight into the means by which the gap between designer and design is bridged. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If ID assumes it's science, which it does, then how do you scientifically describe a designer? You can't, since supernatural beings are outside the scope of science. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Zbvas had it when he stated that "ID is just arm-waving from an objective or scientific point of view". Accurate description. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Right. It's not the article that's flawed; it's ID. There is no discussion in the article of mechanisms proposed by ID proponents because they haven't proposed any. As William Dembski put it: "You're asking me to play a game: 'Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.' ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC [irreducibly complex] systems that is what ID is discovering." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dembski Lowell33 (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A nondirected reminder, Wikipedia talk pages is not the place for us to argue about the merits and flaws of ID itself, but argue the merits and flaws of the relevant article. This conversation seems to be conflating the two.--Tznkai (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is Intelligent Design Pseudoscience?

Based on arbitration and clarification on same, the Pseudoscience category, which has been applied to this page, and to the Intelligent Design category in general, requires a reliable source indicating that it is in fact pseudoscience to sustain its application. Can you point out some reliable source that will settle the matter? If not, we'll need to remove the Pseudoscience category tag from this page and also from the Intelligent Design category. Thank you.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

What, the comprehensive citation of reliable sources in the second paragraph of the lead section isn't enough? ~Amatulić (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Self-ref has made some inappropriate category changes in a whole host of Pseudoscience articles. It took a bunch of editors time this morning to clean them up. It's right in the first sentence. This question has been answered 40 times.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't really call it pseudoscience. It isn't anything-science, its religion. Avruch ^T 00:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before, ID is religious in origin, it has religious implications, but it is not a "religion" it doesn't belong in that class. More to the point pseudoscience is approximately defined as that which imitates science, but is not science, thus ID is pseudoscience, because it explicitly claims to be science, and is definitely not. Religions can contain pseudoscience, Scientology being an excellent example. A religion can also make an extraordinary claim such as "a personal god that is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, transcendent and imminent created the universe out of nothingness" but not attempt to prove it by pseudo-scientific means, and thus that belief is not pseudoscience. Its only when something masquerades as, or imitates science that something is pseudoscience.

tl;dr: Intelligent design is pseudoscience.--Tznkai (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

We have decent reliable sources calling it pseudoscience. Now, I'm not personally sure that it is pseudoscience (waxing in detail about the difference between fringe science and pseudoscience would be only minimally relevant and heavily OR) but the sourcing describes it as pseudoscience so we're done. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a subtlety here that needs to be understood. We can consider this a religion if that's all the proponents of ID would do. If they said, "There is an intelligent designer that created the world." That's a religion. But the whole point of ID, as described the Wedge document, Teach the Controversy and the Discovery Institute, is to define ID as a science to overcome the establishment clause of the US Constitution. Since it tries to make itself a science, then it's a new ball game, and that's why there are reliables sources that call it a pseudoscience. Any attempt to say that ID is a religion must be considered disingenuous. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This is classic pseudo territory: something is presented as that which it is not. The campaign to get ID taught in science classes is well documented, as is its outcome. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see logic and reason win out over hoo-doo-voo-doo-do-you-feel goo once in a while. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Re to Tznkai about Scientology. Yes scientology is a religion, or at least they claim to be. What Scientology espouses is pseudoscience pure and simple. Same thing here. Christianity is a religion. Some Christians try to convince us that the world is anything but a random consequence of physics, biology and chemistry by pseudoscientific concepts like Creation science and ID. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This is starting to get heavily POV. Can we focus on the issue at hand which is whether or not the sourcing is good enough for the designation? JoshuaZ (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is dicussing that, or even feels such a discussion is required. The National Science Teachers Association, David Mu writing in the Harvard Science Review, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.... those seem like valid sources to me, and way more than sufficient to support the point. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so we're done here. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I realize much has already been discussed on whether "intelligent design" counts as science. The conclusion of the editors from the discussion seems to be this: "ID is not science." The top reasons seem to be this: "This was the finding of Judge Jones during the Kitzmiller hearing, and is a position supported by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community." And this: "Intelligent design does not qualify as scientific theory, because it is untestable even in principle, while all scientific theories are in principle dis-provable."

However, it seems that the answers to the FAQ "Is ID science?" can be improved if the reasons cited include ones published by philosophers of science (e.g. Ian Barbour or others). As it is, there are replies to the reasons offered (which are in my opinion decisive undercutting defeaters). With respect to a judge's testimony or the testimony of scientists, neither the judge nor scientists in general are trained to study the demarcation problem (the problem of saying what is science or how to define the word, 'science'). So they are not reliable experts on this question. Ask philosophers of science . If most of them judge ID to not be science (and my impression as a philosopher myself is that this is not so), then we may have a good expert testimony to think ID is not science. One piece of evidence that scientists are not experts on the demarcation problem is that very many scientists think that Karl Popper's falsification criteria provides a necessary condition on a statement's being science. But many problems with his criteria have been identified, and many philosophers of science (my impression is that most of them) reject it. (One reason, among many, is that the Big Bang theory is clearly science, yet no observations could, in principle, falsify it [though observations can make it less likely]). Scientists who are unaware of these problems don't count as expert testimonies on the demarcation problem. Also, given that the falsification principle is problematic (according to the experts in philosophy of science), it shouldn't be cited as a good reason to think that ID is not science.

So, improvement can be made by finding reasons for the claim that ID is not science that come from philosophers of science, and deleting the reasons offered in the FAQ that are defective.

Joshr737 (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Your mistake is that the Kitzmiller judgement forms a well tested assesment of expert opinion, including expert opinion of philosophers of science, and we're not relying on the judge's own legal opinion (not "testimony"). While I appreciate that many ID proponentsists fancy themselves as philosophers, they start from the premise that they want to change science to accept supernatural explanations, and present arguments rejected by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community as not being scientific arguments. The various approaches of philosophers of science all come round to the same view of creationism, a view which is of course rejected by creationists pushing for their brand of pseudoscience. You are of course welcome to present references to reliable secondary sources independent of the DI but related specifically to ID to provide verification of your argument. . . dave souza, talk 16:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Dave. I can see how the Kitzmiller judgment can be cited as evidence for the statement that ID is not science, if it indicates that most experts on the demarcation problem (philosophers of science and certain scientists) agree that ID is not science. It's not clear, however, from the citation that this is so (nor is it evident that the Court is a reliable expert as to whether the arguments presented for its judgment were representative of the field or justificatory). Perhaps a statistical survey of philosophers of science would be more to the point. As for the statement in FAQ that "scientific theories are in principle dis-provable", there are reputable philosophers of science who do not accept ID but who reject that claim (e.g. John Earman). My sense is that few, if any, philosophers would accept it. For critical reasons with references, see: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#Crit. I myself do not know whether ID counts as science, but it's evident that Wiki's reasons and references don't adequately verify that ID isn't science. Thus, I recommend stating the conclusion much more tentatively, or else providing alternative reasons and/or references. Joshr737 (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshr737 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The link doesn't discuss Intelligent design, and I find it unlikely Popper evaluated ID at all. This ID article currently names and cites numerous authorities who have, including Philosophers of Science. Which work of Earman's do you argue should be used for an alternative view in this article?Professor marginalia (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

And is this a suggestion to rewrite the article talk page's FAQ? Or claims made in the article itself? Professor marginalia (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the talk's FAQ page be revised. (Regarding the ID article, I believe "seek to define" is more accurate than "seek to fundamentally redefine", but I'll leave that be.) The Karl Popper link reveals deep debate over the falsification criteria--a principle presented dogmatically in the FAQ as if it were well accepted by the experts, which it is not (refer to the Popper link, or Wiki's own http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Contemporary_philosophers). Also, citing some experts on the demarcation problem doesn't indicate what most experts think. I don't know if a survey has been done.Joshr737 (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The FAQ is not an encyclopedia page, it's a short-cut answer sheet for quickly answering various repetitive questions which are genuinely posed by new editors first coming to the talk page. If this FAQ page presents its own editorial disputes, I'd question whether it's serving any real service to the project. I will offer more as a broad claim than a defense of the specifics on the FAQ page that the criteria "what is a science" regarding testability and so forth is very conservatively defined by scientists, academics, the national academy of science, etc, and this view is simply reflected by the Kitzmiller court. In the FAQ, which is not encyclopedic but designed simply as notes to help bring new editors "up-to-speed" about what's already been discussed to death on the talk page, you should expect to see only a shorthand outline for what should be well substantiated claims in the article. In other words, look to the FAQ to understand the issues posed in the events surrounding and involved in the intelligent design movement specifically as it has really unfolded. Any demarcation statements in the FAQ are only relevant here in terms of the ways they were posed by key players who're viewed as authoritative in defining or describing intelligent design. In other words the FAQ should say what authorities about ID say. Apart from ID it's irrelevant on the FAQ what other authorities about demarcation say.Professor marginalia (talk) 05:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, ok then. Thanks, Prof. Joshr737 (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] See also

Should we link theistic evolution in the See Also section? I'd like to, but the section is chunky as it is.--Tznkai (talk) 02:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed various things, trying to narrow the scope of the See Also section to things more directly related to ID as opposed to various things related to the Religion/Science culture war.--Tznkai (talk) 03:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I"m going to revert it back, because ID's whole purpose is to establish itself as a science, so that it can be taught in schools. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Worth reviewing, as the removal of Project Steve is the only thing I've an issue with. Not sure about the removal of Creation myth and adding OEC. . dave souza, talk 17:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed it too. I think there's a slight POV going on with the removal of Project Steve. I always though including Creation Myth was POV, since we know it's a myth, but ID supporters don't. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Not what "creation myth" means in this context. From an anthropological perspective, the Big Bang together with abiogenesis and evolution is a "creation myth". Given that context the term might be close enough. However, with the big tent nature of ID, ID is not a creation myth by itself. Not sure if it should be linked to or not. Project Steve however seems relevant enough to link to (although not completely sure it should be given its humorous nature). JoshuaZ (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify your objection OM?

I feel that Project Steve is only relevant as a rejoinder to "A Scientific dissent..." and similar documents, not to ID in general, so should be removed because of its lack of close relevance, unless we want to link in see also "A Scientific dissent" as well, which I don't.

As far as creation myth, the article refers to ALL creation myths, myth being a term with a whole grocery store's worth of worms involved. Old earth creationism is a close relative of ID, although OEC is not pseudoscience, but an ontological commitment with certain implications.--Tznkai (talk) 01:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Defining Science section fixes

Copied as plain text without references here:

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge of the natural world without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural, an approach sometimes called methodological naturalism. Intelligent design proponents believe that this can be equated to materialist metaphysical naturalism, and have often said that not only is their own position scientific, but it is even more scientific than evolution, and that they want a redefinition of science as a revived natural theology or natural philosophy to allow "non-naturalistic theories such as intelligent design".[158] This presents a demarcation problem, which in the philosophy of science is about how and where to draw the lines around science.[159] For a theory to qualify as scientific,[160][161][162] it is expected to be:

For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, and ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word. Typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency,[163] violates the principle of parsimony,[164] is not scientifically useful,[165] is not falsifiable,[166] is not empirically testable,[167] and is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive.[168]

In light of the apparent failure of intelligent design to adhere to scientific standards, in September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent".[169] In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and called on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".[170]

PZ Myers and other critics also say that the intelligent design doctrine does not meet the Daubert Standard,[171] the criteria for scientific evidence mandated by the Supreme Court. The Daubert Standard governs which evidence can be considered scientific in United States federal courts and most state courts. Its four criteria are:

In deciding Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District in 2005, Judge Jones agreed with the plaintiffs, ruling that "we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".

I've bolded what I feel are the major problematic passages: what read like long digressions on what is science and what is nto. There are a few other problems as well, but they are minor.--Tznkai (talk) 03:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It's an important issue, but agree that a much more concise treatment would be an improvement. More references have become available, and in some ways it's a bit of a relic that needs to be refocussed now that ID has lost so much credibility. . . dave souza, talk 17:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New organization levels.

I've stuck IC, SC, Finetuned universe, and Intelligent designer as subsections of a new section called "integral concepts." To me IC is not on the same hierarchical information level as "movement" or "origins of the concept."--Tznkai (talk) 04:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "mainstream denominations"

RE this edit:
..... I don't want to be too contrarian here, but the phrase "Mainstream religious denominations" is most certainly not a value judgment as asserted in the edit summary; rather, it is a very reasonably objective observation. See, e.g., major religious groups, mainline (Protestant), and other articles and resources on this issue both within WP and without. The word "mainstream" would appear to be a reasonable way of expressing this very widely accepted "mainstream" concept. I recommend putting it back in perspective for the reader. It's not just that "Many religious bodies have responded by expressing support for evolution" but rather that "Many mainstream religious denominations have responded by expressing support for evolution." [bold emphasis placed on the words that are apparently at issue]. If there's another more accurate way of expressing this without being excessively verbose (which has been a prominent complaint on this page of late) I'd be very appreciative to see it presented here. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to get slightly technical here, so bear with me. "Mainline" and "mainstream" are two terms used to refer to Christian denominations incorrectly. Mainline Protestantism is a marker for the older Protestant churches with more liberal/progressive theology. Less bible literalism, more historical critical, less experiential, more intellectual. The ELCA, UMC, Presbyterian USA are mainline churches. Whatever the origin of "mainline" it is used by scholars as a marker for a group of churches, not as an implication on how accepted, normal, or popular they are. Mainstream on the other hand, is an approximation of what is either most common or most normal, mainstream as opposed to radical. Where this gets stick is in the context of the United States, which is really where ID is relevant, evangelical/fundamentalist Christians outnumber mainline protestants by far.

Defining what counts as a "mainstream" religion to me, is a value judgment, and even when its not a value judgment, its a tricky one, dependent on social and historical context. What is mainstream here is not mainstream somewhere else.

I'm not certain, but I'd be willing to bet about fifty bucks that most of the major world religions have not deigned to weigh in an official position on evolution versus science: the Indian family and the East Asian families of religion don't really have a reason to care as such. Evolution has been sticky primary in the Abrahamic religions, and Americans in particular. (As can be seen by the lopsided information here)

What we're really trying to say, is that mainline protestants, Roman Catholics, and a handful of Muslim groups (giant can of worms on trying to