This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Z1perlster (talk | contribs) at 18:39, 4 February 2008 (→Intro). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:39, 4 February 2008 by Z1perlster (talk | contribs) (→Intro)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Skip to table of contents |
 | This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
| This page is not a forum for general discussion about Intelligent design. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Intelligent design at the Reference desk. |
 | Intelligent design is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| [REDACTED] | This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 12, 2007. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Creationism FA‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
| Please read before starting
First of all, welcome to Misplaced Pages's Intelligent Design article. This article represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic. Newcomers to Misplaced Pages and this article may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid here. A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents ID in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of ID is too extensive or violates Misplaced Pages's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are:
The contributors to the article continually strive to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the Content forking guidelines. These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are No Original Research (WP:NOR) and Cite Your Sources (WP:CITE). Some common points of argument are addressed at Misplaced Pages's Intelligent design FAQ. Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Misplaced Pages's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON). This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the article itself and not the inherent worth of Intelligent Design. See WP:NOT. If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of intelligent design or promote intelligent design please do so at talk.origins or other fora. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Misplaced Pages article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time. |
Notes to editors:
|
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Misplaced Pages-logo-v2.svg){kind=link}
References
Footnote 24
Not sure if there are any like this one, but footnote # 24 which is supposed to document what Philip Johnson advocates in his book, Darwin On Trial refers to an article by his critic Eugenie Scott. Shouldn't the note show where Johnson makes this claim in the book or other works of his own? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiker 22 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I believe that is the NCSE explaining what the changes advocated by Johnson, in his book, would have entailed for science. Johnson never explictly stated this fact, but the changes he was advocating were aimed at accomplishing that goal. Baegis (talk) 08:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is an underlying theme of Johnson's books rather than a specific claim. HrafnStalk 08:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- In accordance with WP:NOR, analysis of the primary source (Johnson's writings) is based on a reliable secondary source, Scott's critique. ... dave souza, talk 09:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Scott's critique is rather good. The point here is one of standards. Would we use Michael Behe as a source for Darwin's views? If this is an underlying theme in Darwin on Trial, which I, for one have read, it may have been explicitly stated by Johnson himself somewhere else. It is always possible for even the most reliable person to misunderstand what another thinker is advocating and when there is a primary source for said thinkers views, why use a secondary source? Information is simply always better when drwan from the original source. Spiker 22 (talk) 03:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Firstly, under WP:NOR and WP:V we look to secondary third party sources to provide any analysis or interpretation of original sources which are close to the subject of the article or section. For Darwin's views we look to a reputable expert modern historian, which Behe is not. Johnson's writings tend to be elliptical and lawyery, and focussed on complaint rather than positive suggestions. However, from his writings at that time,
- "1.5 The question is whether this refusal to consider any but naturalistic explanations has led to distortions in the interpretation of empirical evidence, and especially to claims of knowledge with respect to matters about which natural science is in fact profoundly ignorant.
- 2.0 The continued dominance of neo-Darwinism is the most important example of distortion and overconfidence resulting from the influence of scientific materialist philosophy upon the interpretation of the empirical evidence."
- "The theory in question is a theory of naturalistic evolution, which means that it absolutely rules out any miraculous or supernatural intervention at any point.... Victory in the creation-evolution dispute therefore belongs to the party with the cultural authority to establish the ground rules that govern the discourse. If creation is admitted as a serious possibility, Darwinism cannot win, and if it is excluded a priori Darwinism cannot lose."
- A few years later, " In our culture there are two distinct models of the scientific enterprise, and the persuasiveness of the case for Darwinian evolution depends entirely on which model you adopt..... The second, or empirical model.... whether an intelligent cause must be postulated, is eligible for investigation".
- Read these extracts in context. Johnson is explicitly calling for a change in the ground rules of science. .. dave souza, talk 10:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
In Specified Complexity section
"The conceptual soundness of Dembski's specified complexity/CSI argument is strongly disputed by the scientific community." I can't see anything in the Times article that says specified complexity is strongly disputed. I thought for the most part considered scientifically and mathematically unsound and a non-issue in the scientific community? 132.206.178.16 (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It might not be in that article, although there are some references to its unsoundness but not in those words. I am not sure those words are meant as a direct quote. Do you doubt the truth of those words? --Filll (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that the current reference doesn't support the statement so a better citation is needed, and that "totally discredited" (or similar) might be a more accurate phrasing than "strongly disputed" -- as the latter implies active ongoing argument, rather than a settled issue. HrafnStalk 02:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- I read through the times article and couldn't find anything that vaguely mentions that the validity of specified complexity (SC) is being even discussed by the scientific community, much less "strongly disputed". For the most part SC as a conjecture is mathematically unsound and as Hrafn said above "totally discredited". I say we correct this. Sjschen (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've altered the phrasing to state "The conceptual soundness of Dembski's specified complexity/CSI argument has been widely discredited by the scientific and mathematical communities." & inserted the three citations used in the lead of specified complexity to support a similar statement as sources. HrafnStalk 04:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Origin of ID movement
Under Origins, Barbara etc. show a number of ID related events from 1984 - 1986. e.g.:
Barbara Forrest describes the intelligent design movement as beginning in 1984 when Jon A. Buell's religious organization the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE) published The Mystery of Life's Origin by creationist chemist Charles B. Thaxton. In March 1986 Stephen C. Meyer's review described it as using information theory to suggest that messages transmitted by DNA in the cell show "specified complexity" specified by intelligence, and must have originated with an intelligent agent. In November of that year Thaxton described his reasoning as a more sophisticated form of Paley's argument from design. At the Sources of Information Content in DNA conference in 1988 he said that his intelligent cause view was compatible with both metaphysical naturalism and supernaturalism, and the term intelligent design came up.
Consequently, there are a number of statements that the ID movement began in 1987 that need to be corrected.
- 1) In the intro:
"Intelligent design" originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguilard ruling involving separation of church and state.
- 2) In the overview:
The term "intelligent design" came into use after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard that to require the teaching of "creation science" alongside evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause, which prohibits state aid to religion.
- 3)
The modern use of the words "intelligent design", as a term intended to describe a field of inquiry, began after the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), ruled that creationism is unconstitutional in public school science curricula.
Propose the first of these read:
- 1) Intelligent design was discussed alongside Charles Darwin's publications, and publications by Horrigan(1979), Hoyle (1981), Thaxton (1984), Thorson (1985) and Meyer (1986). The term Intelligent Design came to prominence after the US Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguilard 1987 ruling on teaching creation science alongside evolution.
Reference: The Intelligent Design Timeline DLH (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'd prefer something like "Although the phrase 'intelligent design' had existed before ... the modern movement for intelligent design can be traced as a response to the events leading up to and following Edwards v. Aguilard " --ZayZayEM (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- DLH is mixing up the idea presented in ID with the introduction of the term itself. It's fair to say that the whole concept and indeed the movement was there in its essentials from the early 1980s, the name was introduced after Aguilard as a substitute for "creation science". Thus:
- ""Intelligent design" originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguilard ruling involving separation of church and state." could be accurately put as
- ""Intelligent design" was named in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguilard ruling involving separation of church and state.",
- or more informatively stated as
- "Creation science was rebranded as "intelligent design" in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguilard ruling involving separation of church and state.. ... dave souza, talk 12:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Answers Research Journal
| Off-topic, if you want to discuss this journal go to Talk:Answers in Genesis or Talk:Young Earth creationism |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
It's A NEW CREATION, the very first volume appeared in January 2008: the very long-awaited Answers Research Journal! Type answers + research + journal in your favorite search engine and you will find it, a professional, peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework . It's not a joke, but it's extremely fun to read! However, even the less competent prophet of the Universe could easily predict with a lot of confidence that this new creature will soon be generating a lot of lines in Misplaced Pages, especially around the page dealing with the intelligent design belief. So: let's be prepared! Sophos II (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
|
Peer review
| Off-topic, if you want to discuss this topic go to Talk:Answers in Genesis or Talk:Young Earth creationism |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Although I totally accept Hrafn's decision to declare the above Answers Research Journal discussion as having turned off-topic and be banned from further progression on this page, I still insist by saying that a few of you are totally missing the point. Have a look at the actual Peer review section to which this discussion page is directly implicated. The second sentence of the first paragraph clearly states that to date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Well, that might have been true until last year, but since January 2008 the intelligent design movement has not only managed to have a few papers published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, it has even also created its own scientific journal to do so, a fact which has not been so swiftly ignored by Nature and New Scientist, as ZayZayEM pointed out in the skipped previous discussion. And this very real fact is right now: in February 2008, just plainly and totally ignored in the page about ID to which this very own talk page is dedicated, notably and precisely with respect to that Peer review section. Have a nice weekend. Sophos II (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It is from a competing movement and organization and viewpoint in the creationism spectrum. And it belongs in that article on AiG. Ok? This is nothing new. The Discovery Institute has at least one "peer-reviewed" scientific Research journal. So does Creation Ministries International and Institute for Creation Research and several others. So what? This should go in the appropriate article, which is not here. I am astounded that you are not quie understanding this. AiG HATES intelligent design, because it takes money out of their pockets. Get it?--Filll (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Sophos II, if you dropped the "intelligent design" part, what are you doing contributing to this page? --Filll (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
No offense but this discussion has always been offtopic, as you have been told here repeatedly. IT DOES NOT BELONG ON THIS PAGE. This page is about intelligent design, not other topics. Is that more clear? Nevertheless, I will humor you. To be a peer-reveiewd scientific journal, the journal must be about science, right? Well about 10 court decisions including a couple of supreme court decisions have been that this material in this journal is not science. Also, the vast majority of scientists (see level of support for evolution) do not feel it is science either. So the judicial and scientific communities do not feel it is science, so it is not science. No matter what tongue in cheek sarcastic news notice you find in the news section in Nature. Get it? Also to be peer-reviewed, it must really be reviewed by peers in a scientific discipline, and typically those peers are scientists who disagree with the main thesis of the article. Do you think that scientists that think creationism is nonsense or pseudoscience think that these articles will be worthy of publication? I think not. Until you can show that, it is not peer-reviewed. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not happy. I am trying to educate you about the world a little bit so you can understand and make more rational statements. And who said that the journal Homeopathy is a peer-reviewed scientific journal?--Filll (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I am afraid you seem to be confused on several points:
So it is not a parallel situation. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
He was encouraged 2 or 3 times to take this someplace else. At some point, the option is to just remove all discussion and comments summarily from this page and place them on his talk page, for example. I am ready to do that now if he responds again. The reason for meeting his comments firmly is to not encourage the "camel's nose under the tent". On some articles, where an inch is given, a mile is taken. And this is one of those articles. But dont worry I am ready to either archive this or dump it on his talk page if he responds.--Filll (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
|
Richard Sternberg
User:TableManners is attempting an (in my opinion revisionist/whitewashing) rewrite of Richard Sternberg. Having attempted to limit the damage to the article for a couple of days, I think it is time for wider scrutiny and cooler heads. I know we've been through this before (e.g. with ImprobabilityDrive on Creation-evolution controversy), so any editors who are familiar with the particulars would be particularly welcome. HrafnStalk 10:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's a white wash alright. He needs to make a case for such controversial edits on the talk page first. FeloniousMonk (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Intro
I casually perused the intro and found it to be absolutely containing what seemed to me to be unreliable claims. For example, the views of the federal district judge in a trial on history, theology, and other matters were presented as absolute fact, even though a judge isn't either a historian or a theologian. Similarly, the views of witnesses in the trial were selectively presented as absolute fact, even on matters in which they had an obvious self-interest. Testimony by a Discovery Institute official about the prominence of the Discovery Institute was presented as unattributed fact. And so on. All claims here need to be attributed, particularly primary sources making analytic claims; peoples' own claims about their own importance should be discounted (and the relationship at least disclosed), and so on. It might be best if every claim being made was presented skeptically, no matter which side it's coming from. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Everything you wrote is true, but you can see how much it matters. Z1perlster (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- This is he result of the consensus of literally hundreds over a period of years. Viewing your suggestions, I found them inaccurate, or weasle-worded. If a person wants to know the justification of the wording, there are copious cited references to examine.--Filll (talk) 03:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- A fallacy is a fallacy, no matter how many use it in an argument. The first paragraphs of this article rely heavily on appeal to authority. For that reason, I, and I'm sure many other readers, didn't bother to delve further into this piece. Z1perlster (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- And a fact is a fact. Great effort has been made to provide the highest quality of supporting reliable sources for the statements made. Doubtless many many more sources can be produced at the drop of a hat, and perhaps a more extensive bibliography should be given. However, one thing this talk page has demonstrated is that no number of sources, however unimpeachable they may be, will satisfy all of the naysayers. This says more about the naysayers, though, than it does about the quality of sources. And your argument about "appeal to authority" is spurious. This is an encyclopedia article, so outside authorities must be appealed to: see WP:V and WP:RS. Silly rabbit (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
That is an absurd comment. And a compliment, I suppose, to the folks who contributed to the article. Angry Christian (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)"The first paragraphs of this article rely heavily on appeal to authority"
- (Edit conflict - mostly to Silly rabbit) True, though WP:NPOV has, 'Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute. By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute."' Is it the case for all the matters listed by Shirahadasha that they are not subject to any serious dispute? If it is, that's fine. If not, they should be listed as opinions of the attributed source rather than as undisputed fact. (What constitutes 'serious dispute' is, of course, the kicker here!)
- I do agree that the 'appeal to authority' argument isn't relevant, though. We're not here to assemble arguments of logic - indeed, to do so usually constitutes Original Research - but to present the facts recorded by reliable published sources, attributed appropriately to those sources - as Angry Christian says, appeal to authority is exactly what Misplaced Pages should do (but it must, of course, be clear what authority is being quoted). TSP (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- This article is titled "Intelligent Design". To include "scientists say it's false" is a blatant appeal to authority. Yes, articles in an encyclopedia should be free of fallacies. If the article was titled "Views of various groups on Intelligent Design", then the opinions of a particular demographic would be relevant. How about "48% of American adults hold to the creationist view of human origins"? That is a fact , but just as irrelevant as to the validity of Intelligent Design. Z1perlster (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
<reduce indent>
Z1perlster, on your talk page you wrote:
"What do the organizers of the Bowl Championship Series have in common with evolutionists - They don't have a clue about intelligent design."
Can you explain what this means, exactly? Angry Christian (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Misplaced Pages featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- FA-Class Creationism articles
- Top-importance Creationism articles
- WikiProject Creationism articles
- Articles edited by connected contributors