Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MisterDub (talk | contribs) at 15:30, 4 November 2013 (→ID is "not science" not "pseudoscience": Please RfC). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

	Please read before starting
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. Misplaced Pages policy notes for new editors: 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: NPOV: Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI) NPOV: Undue weight (WP:UNDUE) NPOV: Making necessary assumptions (WP:MNA) NPOV: Giving "equal validity" (WP:GEVAL). 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). 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.
Important pointers for new editors: This article uses scientific terminology, and as such, the use of the word 'theory' to refer to anything outside of a recognised scientific theory is ambiguous. Please use words such as 'concept', 'notion', 'idea', 'assertion'; see Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid#Theories and hypotheses. Although at times heated, the debates contained here are meant to improve the Intelligent Design article. Reasoned, civil discourse is the best means to make an opinion heard. Rude behavior not only distracts from the subject(s) at hand, but tends to make people deride or ignore what was said. Please use edit summaries. Challenges and proposals to this article's content must be in alignment with Misplaced Pages's core content policies: WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. If you make a suggestion that does not align with them, you can expect a pointer to the appropriate policies; giving such a pointer is not a form of rudeness, but meant to help smooth the process of building the encyclopedia. To respect your own time and that of others editors, if you receive such a pointer to policy, you should take the time to read and understand the policies before re-raising the issue. If you have been pointed to policy, but continue to argue the matter ad nauseam without the benefit of being supported by policy, you should not expect a full response, but rather that your discussions will be archived or userfied. Again, this is not rudeness or incivility; it is out of respect for the time and patience of all the editors participating and in the interest of maintaining a smooth-running encyclopedia:Misplaced Pages talkpage guidelines do not allow for raising and re-raising objections to content that is well-aligned with content policy, and there is a specific policy against doing that: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (which classifies it as disruptive editing). It's better for everybody if we don't allow things to get to that point. Please peruse the FAQ and the partial index of points that have already been discussed, and use the search box below, to ensure that you are not rehashing old topics. Old topics resurrected without new evidence are likely to be ignored and archived quickly.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning Intelligent design (ID). To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question. Q1: Should ID be equated with creationism? A1: ID is a form of creationism, and many sources argue that it is identical. U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and Phillip E. Johnson, one of the founders of the ID movement, stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast creationism as a scientific concept. Not everyone agrees with this. For example, philosopher Thomas Nagel argues that intelligent design is very different from creation science (see "Public Education and Intelligent Design", Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 36, no. 2, 2008). However, this perspective is not representative of most reliable sources on the subject. Although intelligent design proponents do not name the designer, they make it clear that the designer is the Abrahamic god. In drafts of the 1989 high-school level textbook Of Pandas and People, almost all derivations of the word "creation", such as "creationism", were replaced with the words "intelligent design". Taken together, the Kitzmiller ruling, statements of ID's main proponents, the nature of ID itself, and the history of the movement, make it clear—Discovery Institute's protestations to the contrary notwithstanding—that ID is a form of creationism, modified to appear more secular than it really is. This is in line with the Discovery Institute's stated strategy in the Wedge Document. Q2: Should ID be characterized as science? A2: The majority of scientists state that ID should not be characterized as science. This was the finding of Judge Jones during the Kitzmiller hearing, and is a position supported by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. Scientists say that ID cannot be regarded as scientific theory because it is untestable even in principle. A scientific theory predicts the outcome of experiments. If the predicted outcome is not observed, the theory is false. There is no experiment which can be constructed which can disprove intelligent design. Unlike a true scientific theory, it has absolutely no predictive capability. It doesn't run the risk of being disproved by objective experiment. Q3: Should the article cite any papers about ID? A3: According to Misplaced Pages's sourcing policy, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, papers that support ID should be used as primary sources to explain the nature of the concept. The article as it stands does not cite papers that support ID because no such papers have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Behe himself admitted this under cross examination, during the Kitzmiller hearings, and this has been the finding of scientists and critics who have investigated this claim. In fact, the only article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that made a case for intelligent design was quickly withdrawn by the publisher for having circumvented the journal's peer-review standards. Broadly speaking, the articles on the Discovery Institute list all fail for any of four reasons: The journal has no credible editorial and peer-review process, or the process was not followed The journal is not competent for the subject matter of the article The article is not genuinely supportive of ID The article is published in a partisan ID journal such as PCID If you wish to dispute the claim that ID has no support in peer-reviewed publications, then you will need to produce a reliable source that attests to the publication of at least one paper clearly supportive of ID that underwent rigorous peer-review in a journal on a relevant field. Q4: Is this article unfairly biased against ID? A4: There have been arguments over the years about the article's neutrality and concerns that it violates Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy. The NPOV policy does not require all points of view to be represented as equally valid, but it does require us to represent them. The policy requires that we present ID from the point of view of disinterested philosophers, biologists and other scientists, and that we also include the views of ID proponents and opponents. We should not present minority views as though they are majority ones, but we should also make sure the minority views are correctly described and not only criticized, particularly in an article devoted to those views, such as this one. Q5: Is the Discovery Institute a reliable source? A5: The Discovery Institute is a reliable primary source about its views on ID, though it should not be used as an independent secondary source. The core mission of the Discovery Institute is to promote intelligent design. The end purpose is to duck court rulings that eliminated religion from the science classroom, by confusing people into conflating science and religion. In light of this, the Discovery Institute cannot be used as a reference for anything but their beliefs, membership and statements. Questionable sources, according to the sourcing policy, WP:V, are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight, and should only be used in articles about themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources. See also: WP:RS and WP:V Q6: Are all formulations of intelligent design pseudoscience? Was William Paley doing pseudoscience when he argued that natural features should be attributed to "an intelligent and designing Creator"? A6: While the use of the phrase intelligent design in teleological arguments dates back to at least the 1700s, Intelligent Design (ID) as a term of art begins with the 1989 publication of Of Pandas and People. Intelligent design is classified as pseudoscience because its hypotheses are effectively unfalsifiable. Unlike Thomas Aquinas and Paley, modern ID denies its religious roots and the supernatural nature of its explanations. For an extended discussion about definitions of pseudoscience, including Intelligent Design, see Pigliucci, Massimo; Boudry, Maarten, eds. (2013), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem, University of Chicago, ISBN 978-0-226-05179-6. Notes and references ^ Phillip Johnson: "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." Johnson 2004. Christianity.ca. Let's Be Intelligent About Darwin. "This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy." Johnson 1996. World Magazine. Witnesses For The Prosecution. "So the question is: "How to win?" That's when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing"—the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do." Johnson 2000. Touchstone magazine. Berkeley's Radical An Interview with Phillip E. Johnson "I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science."…"Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth?"…"I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves." Johnson 1999. Reclaiming America for Christ Conference. How the Evolution Debate Can Be Won Dembski: "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory," Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999 Wedge Document Discovery Institute, 1999. "embers of the national ID movement insist that their attacks on evolution aren't religiously motivated, but, rather, scientific in nature." … "Yet the express strategic objectives of the Discovery Institute; the writings, careers, and affiliations of ID's leading proponents; and the movement’s funding sources all betray a clear moral and religious agenda." Inferior Design Chris Mooney. The American Prospect, August 10, 2005. "ID's rejection of naturalism in any form logically entails its appeal to the only alternative, supernaturalism, as a putatively scientific explanation for natural phenomena. This makes ID a religious belief." Expert Witness Report Barbara Forrest Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, April 2005. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., pp. 31 – 33. ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., 4. Whether ID is Science, p. 87 "Science and Policy: Intelligent Design and Peer Review". American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2007. Retrieved 2007-07-19. Brauer, Matthew J.; Forrest, Barbara; Gey, Steven G. (2005). "Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution" (PDF). Washington University Law Quarterly. 83 (1). Retrieved 2007-07-18. ID leaders know the benefits of submitting their work to independent review and have established at least two purportedly "peer-reviewed" journals for ID articles. However, one has languished for want of material and quietly ceased publication, while the other has a more overtly philosophical orientation. Both journals employ a weak standard of "peer review" that amounts to no more than vetting by the editorial board or society fellows. Isaak, Mark (2006). "Index to Creationist Claims". The TalkOrigins Archive. With some of the claims for peer review, notably Campbell and Meyer (2003) and the e-journal PCID, the reviewers are themselves ardent supporters of intelligent design. The purpose of peer review is to expose errors, weaknesses, and significant omissions in fact and argument. That purpose is not served if the reviewers are uncritical "Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington". Biological Society of Washington. Retrieved 2007-07-19. See also Sternberg peer review controversy. Wilkins, John (9 November 2013), "The origin of "intelligent design" in the 18th and 19th centuries", Evolving Thoughts (blog) Matzke, Nick (2006), "Design on Trial: How NCSE Helped Win the Kitzmiller Case", Reports of the National Center for Science Education, 26 (1–2): 37–44 "Report of John F. Haught, Ph. D" (PDF). Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (NCSE). 2005-04-01. Retrieved 29 August 2013.

	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.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 2, 2005 Peer review Reviewed January 21, 2006 Good article nominee Listed October 16, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 9, 2007 Peer review Reviewed February 23, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted July 24, 2007 Featured article review Kept December 14, 2008 Featured article review Kept Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. [REDACTED] Alternative views High‑importance [REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Intelligent design Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Maintained

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows: Neutral point of view as applied to science: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89

Archives by topic: Philosophy sources​

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

The bigger picture - content of closely related & potentially overlapping articles

List of closely related articles, not clearly a sub-article, where major overlap with this article is present or very possible

Please consider this to be an editable list and, in this subsection, just the short list per the title. North8000 (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Intelligent design
• Teleological argument
• Creationism
• Intelligent design movement
• Discovery Institute
• Creation–evolution controversy
• Creation science
• Timeline of intelligent design
• Intelligent designer
• Intelligent design in politics

Considered but excluded

• All of the others in the ID template. The appear to be specialized / well-defined enough to be more cleanly separable.

Discussion and ideas

Holy crap, what a big list / big mess! So I'll confine my idea to this article rather than try to tackle all of that: Move more of the DI related material to the DI articles. And leave this as a smaller article about the closely related set of meanings named by the term, with some encyclopedic coverage of the term. A broad brief article that links to the others. The intelligent design template (and it's existence by that title) already follows this concept. North8000 (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

What an odd statement! See WP:SUMMARY. As has been explained before, this is the main article for ID, which itself is a subset of creationism, and is adapted from the TE, so features briefly in both these articles. Why can't you understand that? . . dave souza, talk 17:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Dave, in that on sentence there is insult built on 2 false premises, (that somehow wp:summary makes an answer obvious and I just don't get it), an obvious fact-free tautology ("this is the main article for ID") then 2 personal assertions by you, then a claim that someone who either doesn't agree with that whole string of things, or who sees that sting doesn't answer the question just "doesn't understand". Let's try to just have a good discussion instead of that. As I indicated, my main concern (false, unsourced and in-conflict-with-sourcesstatements that ID is just DI) are a few small tweaks and one hat away from getting resolved. Everything else is just trying to help with concerns raised by others. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

How do you get "ID is just DI" from what I wrote? ID is both a variant of creationism and a specific formulation of the argument-from-design which has at times employed the phrase intelligent design. As shown by the sources cited in the article. If you want to help, please discuss specific points in relation to the wording shown in reliable sources. . . dave souza, talk 18:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Dave, I didn't say that you said that. And with a few minor wording tweaks in the text and a fix on the hat, the article will no longer say that. And the immense amount of sourcing discussions have shown that "that" (ID is just DI) is unsourced and is in conflict with sources. Plus I agree with the statements in your second sentence. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I just did those tweaks in the article, essentially changing "ID" to "ID movement" in three places. If those minor tweaks stay, the the whole article (except for the hat) is fine with me. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

North8000 -- Brief article and dump all that multiply duplicated stuff ... would you mean like the MisterDub sandbox ? Markbassett (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Not in that way......that is basically a DI article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Then would dumping all the multiply duplicated stuff be desiring to wind up at about that size article, something like 4 paragrpahs and a dozen or so cites ? That's basically just the header on the current 26+screens (which seems way too much) but maybe you hope abstract up to the level of ID generally (cutting DI-specifics) would also be small ? Markbassett (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

As I think I've said before, we can reduce detailed coverage in WP:SUMMARY style, transferring the detail to sub-articles while keeping sufficient information in this main article to outline the relevant points, while maintaining due weight. We don't just "dump" relevant reliably sourced information. This article covers (as an overview) the anti-evolution creationism promulgated by the DI, outlining the teleological argument where necessary for explanation. We certainly shouldn't duplicate the TA article here. . . dave souza, talk 19:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree with your first two sentences. Then... I think that what extensive discussion and sourcing has shown is that: 1. The article should not be and can't properly be limited to to DI 2. There is no DI that is distinct to DI. There is the DI initiative, maneuvers etc. as covered in the ID movement and DI articles. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not understanding what you mean yet. You're saying to not dump stuff here when it's replicated on the related articles and do not want to remove stuff here that is sourced. That sounds like you are thinking to simply delete some content to a shorter summary form ... what or how are you looking to summarize to something small(er) ? How small would it get? What would it look like ? I see you are looking at DI and TA content and could envision really short like MisterDub the top plus just a few others (IC, SC, Kitzmiller), but don't understand what summarized would look like or how it would get there. Markbassett (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, there is only one thing in all of these discussions that I am making an effort to change, and that is to stop explicitly and implicitly defining "Intelligent Design" as being just Discovery Institute. EVERYTHING else is just my ideas to help in areas where I am not making any particular effort.....where I'm not pushing anything, and where it would be fine with me if my ideas went nowhere. Conversely, my efforts to fix the "ID is just DI" problem should not be linked to those other suggestions. That said, one idea would be to dramatically shrink this article by moving material to the ID movement, DI and TA articles. (so NO deletion of material). And leave this as a short article with enclyclopedic article on the term "ID" (usage, history, definitions) North8000 (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

In other words, you're trying to create an alternative reality in which ID doesn't have its most common modern meaning. Doesn't work. . dave souza, talk 22:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

That is a complete mis-statement of what I just said and of what the extensive sourcing has shown. I am saying that statements that ID is exclusively DI are false, unsourced, and contrary to sources. North8000 (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

What you say you're saying is heart felt, I'm sure, but wrong. ID isn't "exclusively" anything, but very little in real life is so absolute. Same goes for the articles on wikipedia--very few are written to satisfy this absolute. The "unsourced" and "contrary to sources" makes no sense except if one is looking for sources that say "ID is exclusively" and of course you won't find them because it's a strawman argument. Few except contrarian editors here obsess over who "owns" the term almost nobody really used until DI coined it. The cup spilleth over with sources all about the same ID described in this article. The non-DI centered ID? Few and far between, virtually all of them coat-tailing with the term in the wake of DI. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

@Professor. I think you are both under-rating the "ownership" issues you mention the article has had (maybe not the right term, because we are talking a topic "owning" an article). You are also perhaps making a bit of a "counter-strawman-argument" if that is a term: I think no one is arguing against DI-style ID being a dominant theme in any discussion of ID. But there do still continue to be valid concerns with the way in which DI-related topics have been put in a "walled garden" of articles that "keep it simple" for the readers by not mentioning real links to messy reality that is not exclusively the DI.

@Dave. I think you also need to please try not to reinterpret things in such a simplistic way. At the very least we can say that you have no source for the "most common meaning" of intelligent design being "Discovery Institute creationism" and I really hope you are not going to insist on anything like that anymore? Can you please nuance your position a bit? Indeed our clearest statements about what it means all agree that it means "argument from design" and/or "intelligent design movement" (both of which are of course very much subjects which are linked to the Discovery Institute, but not exclusively). We have found no evidence in any source that the second of these two over-lapping meanings is more common than the first.

@North. I can fully agree that the article should not make any simple equation of "all" ID being DI. But apart from the hat, does the article really still say this? And concerning the hat, did my proposal not fix that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The hat 2

Hello Andrew. Answering your first question, the article no longer has that problem. So the hat is the only problem. On the next point, if I (now) understand what your idea is, I must confess that since I don't think it was on the talk page and it only existed on the article for a few hours, I completely missed it, and I thought you were talking about something else. And now that I see it, yes, it sufficiently solves the problem. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, it was an attempt to be uncontroversial, so should we call a little vote on that hat?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal #1 Yes. (of course, not specifically a "vote") Just to be clear it is to replace the hat with the following (drafted by you)

This article is about contemporary anti-Darwinian "intelligent design" creationism. For "intelligent design" arguments more generally, see Teleological argument. For the movement, see Intelligent design movement. For other uses of the phrase, see Intelligent design (disambiguation).

• Support This removes the unsourced (and in conflict with sources) implicit assertions that Intelligent design is limited to the Discovery Institute and that belief/ argument promulgated by them is unique to them. And removing that assertion of exclusivity aligns the hat with the current article. The article can remain largely as it is. In fact, IMO, with respect to this, the article can remain exactly as it is today. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support It is meant to be an improvement that it is hard to argue against.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment' the phrase anti-Darwinian "intelligent design" creationism introduces a new term with its own multiple ambiguities, it should be rephrased in line with the lead as anti-evolution "intelligent design" creationism. The second point, "intelligent design" arguments more generally, would be more precise as generic arguments from "intelligent design". . dave souza, talk 10:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds OK with me. To keep crystallized, I would rather not derail the process. If all of the other supporters of #1 (currently just Andrew) is/are OK with it, suggest we immediately change the proposal to what you suggest. Otherwise I'd like get #1 put in and then (if most others are OK with it) put in the changes that you recommend, and I'd support the changes that you recommend. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 1b

So with Dave's changes that would be: This article is about contemporary anti-evolution "intelligent design" creationism. For generic arguments from "intelligent design", see Teleological argument. For the movement, see Intelligent design movement. For other uses of the phrase, see Intelligent design (disambiguation). (?) North8000 (talk) 11:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems ok to me and we could make that Proposal 1b for example if it resolves Dave's concerns. For the record the reason I proposed anti-Darwinian was because of Markbassett's concerns, but they do not seem to be widely shared? (And I am not sure that the draft resolves his concerns.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal #2 Keep the hat as it is today.

This article is about the form of creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute. For the philosophical "argument from design", see Teleological argument. For other uses of the phrase, see Intelligent design (disambiguation).

• Oppose It has all of the problems described in my "support" of proposal #1. North8000 (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Indeed this clearly gives the impression of a strict equation of ALL ID with DI, which long discussion here has found no clear defenders for. The main article text is now already adapted.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: There was an obvious typo in proposal 1 which I fixed, and I have added the text for proposal 2.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep more as today. I appreciate the article as defined has demarcation issue of it excludes prior ID or later ID or ID promulgation by organizations other than DI, or if DI changes their name, etcetera. Yet the common meaning of the term seems along the lines of article as currently stated, perhaps more precisely from the period of Pandas from Kitzmiller. So it sounds like the question is how to deal with period after or before or side -- things that say intelligent design but not fit the hat scope. I don't think we'd be helping scope or lessening work by making it "anti-Darwinian ID creationism" because it's making more and worse issues (a) adding specification in definition implies there are forms of ID that are not anti-Darwinian or creationism that would then need to be addressed, and (b) it starts putting dependencies onto other articles. The added 'more generally see' would not be too bad, but I think that's more acceptably handled in article text having wikilinks and a See Also section. Markbassett (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

There are (or should be) "dependencies" on other articles. Consider WP:WG and WP:BUILD. The common meaning of intelligent design is the same theological or philosophical meaning before the period of Kitzmiller and after, as the rulings and witnesses themselves argue very clearly, and that meaning has never been exclusively linked to the Discovery Institute except in Misplaced Pages. Furthermore we have already changed the lead, as per drafts finally done by Dave souza, and so what is being proposed here merely adapts the lead to the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Markbassett, if I understand your post correctly, I believe that you are saying that the scope of actual article as-is is preferable, and are feeling that proposal #1 would change that. IMO proposal #1, along with fixing two significant problems, is designed to accept the scope of the article as it is and bring the hat in line with the scope of the article as it is. In short, I think that proposal #1 agrees with what you just said. North8000 (talk) 10:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

North8000, basically the hat as-is seems preferrable. From structural to value view, it seemed to me the addition of yet more qualifiers as in Proposal #1 hat is not a way to broaden subject area to help the demarcation question of non-DI ID or more generally of what to do with things of the same topic label that the hat explicitly excludes. The more qualifiers seem to me just more lines of demarcation and connection to struggle with and more wording choices to fuss over. I'd think that - fewer - qualifiers to be more abstract would cover more generally but have no ideas what that wording would be. The dominant current meaning of the label ID does seem roughy what DI put forth and from the era of Pandas to Katzmiller, so the current hat seems not too awful or wrong. (The content is .. many many other topics) That this hat is not allowing all the meanings of that label does seem a gap, but I think the other way you'd wind up with say maybe some of DI does not fit or is questionable if fits, and folks would like that even less. Markbassett (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, the question of this and related articles and their titles is so immensely tangled that no possible any will resolve it. Here we are just trying to take a baby step of a way to get the "ID is just DI" statement out of there in a reasonably good (but inevitably imperfect) way. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Would anybody else like to comment on the hat proposals? North8000 (talk) 10:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

As above, anti-Darwinian "intelligent design" creationism should read anti-evolution "intelligent design" creationism. . dave souza, talk 10:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to be slightly bold and put it in as modified by Dave souza. North8000 (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Let's consider it to be open to further evolution based on results of discussions of similar scale. North8000 (talk) 12:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not find this bold at all. The lead was changed after much discussion and the hat adjustment simply fits. Great efforts have been made to get discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, changing the specifier makes new questions about boundaries or intent so I will ask for explicit clarification of the different lines of hat 'This article is about contemporary anti-evolution "intelligent design" creationism. For generic arguments from "intelligent design", see Teleological argument. For the movement, see Intelligent design movement. For other uses of the phrase, see Intelligent design (disambiguation).' Specifically, please insert any clarifications for these or add more questions if you want :

• When is 'contemporary' ? Is it the last 10 years or 30 or 50 or what ?
• Does 'contemporary' exclusion mean some other non-contemporary item exists or should  ?
• In particular the Intelligent Design (historical) had AfD partly saying it should go here -- should 'non-contemporary now be created ?
• Does 'anti-evolution' specification mean to focus on parts of ID that are anti-evolution or ways ID is so ?
• What other ID that is not DI will now be added ?
• Should content DI now be reduced to summary with pointer to DI article ?

Markbassett (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm back from vacation and have to say that I'm quite displeased with this new hatnote. "contemporary anti-evolution 'intelligent design' creationism"?! Sounds like we're trying to hard. 1) Why limit this article to any specific time period? Remove contemporary and let the article stand for all ID. 2) Why say anti-evolution? All creationism opposes evolution; this is just redundant. 3) Do we really need to tell people that they're on a page for "intelligent design" when they're staring at the intelligent design page? I have since removed these adjectives as they are completely unnecessary. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

My answer to both is that the understanding is that it is subject to and very open to further changes and evolution, except for going back to claiming / implying that ID is just DI. So let's discuss any ideas for improvement that either of you have. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Dub's edit in the hat is fine with me except I think that we need a process where significant changes in the hat have at least some discussion first. North8000 (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

ID is "not science" not "pseudoscience"

A number of references are given to support the claim in the lead that ID is widely considered pseudoscience in the scientific community. This is simply not supported by the sources. To the contrary, the most widely held and most well-reasoned position is that ID is "not science". To inflate a religious belief (as it has been reliably called in Kitzmiller and in other highly reliable sources) to the level of pseudoscience is to give ID-proponents more credence than they deserve. To even mention the word science in the same breath as ID is a blatant violation of NPOV and UNDUE.

Examples of failures to adequately cite the categorisation:

1. List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design lists only two bodies that specifically mention pseudoscience. Most of the rest are in the "not science" category.
2. Kitzmiller calls it "not science" and does not use the word pseudoscience at all.
3. Ref 7 (Mark Greener. Taking on creationism. Which arguments and evidence counter pseudoscience?. EMBO Reports. 2007;8(12):1107–1109. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7401131. PMID 18059309.) has the word pseudoscience in the title but fails to use it in the article at all, instead using the "not science" angle. I suggest that "pseudoscience" is just being used as an inappropriate editorial shorthand in the title contrary to the arguments of the actual author.
4. Ref 7 (Nature Methods Editorial. An intelligently designed response. Nat. Methods. 2007;4(12):983. doi:10.1038/nmeth1207-983.) fails to use the word pseudoscience anywhere instead using the "not science" angle.

Even if there are arguments that "psuedoscience" is an appropriate category, it is certainly insufficiently sourced at present. If it really is so strongly supported as pseudoscience, it shouldn't be hard to find a detailed reliable source which classifies it as such with detailed reasons rather than just using the word "pseudoscience" somewhere in a discussion about the topic.

Some facets of ID appear pseudoscientific, irreducible complexity being the most obvious, but attaching a pseudoscientific idea to a relgious ideal does not inflate the whole religious ideal to the level of pseudoscience. It is simply not science and it is not even well-disguised religion. More specifically, pseudoscience is commonly defined as something that "masquerades" as science or "pretends" to be science or "has a close resemblance" to science. ID does none of those things except in the eyes of its supporters whose views we should not be promoting. GDallimore (Talk) 22:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

ID does masquerade as science, and the description as pseudoscience is covered by a number of refs in the article. For example Mu, which I've cited. You seem to be drawing a distinction which isn't the intent of the sources, which clearly show that ID is claimed to be science, but isn't. . . dave souza, talk 22:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

GDallimore, WP's policies dictate that we don't take a side on an issue. So, if ID's proponents or believers say that it is a science or a philosophy, and critics say that it isn't, we take a middle ground between the two. IMO, the best way to do that is to first present the topic as its believers see it, phrased in neutral wording, then include a detailed section with criticism and contrary opinions. That way, the reader forms their own opinion instead of us trying to tell the reader which side is right. Cla68 (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

No, we do not take a middle ground on any issue, not this not any other; what we do is base what we write on WP:RS. There's no "right side" here simply because there's no "two sides" to begin with: there's science and then there's this, a pseudoscience (at best) completely discredited an recognized as such (or worst):

• 'Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC) had been one of the most succesfull pseudosciences of the past two decaded...
• ..Ronald Pine (2005) goes further, suggesting that ID is "not even a pseudoscience"; it is "simply a scam and a fraud"...

I'm sympathetic to GDallimore's argument in that this probably doesn't even qualify as a pseudoscience. Personally I'd just call it a plain old scam but that would probably be considered not WP:NPOV. Regards. Gaba 00:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

GDallimore, I refer you to the 2004 case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, where the concept of "intelligent design" first came to wide public attention. The case focused on the fact that the Dover, Pennsylvania school district was pushing ID. Originally, the school wanted to replace all mention of evolution with ID; later, they backpedaled and said that it should be taught alongside evolution. Proponents of ID in Dover stated, in their own documents filed in open court, that intelligent design was "an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view." They were promoting the concept by way of a text book, Of Pandas and People, which would be used in high school biology classes. The ruling in the case stated that, despite the efforts of proponents to push it as science, it was not science. Non-science being promoted as science... that is the very definition of pseudoscience.

Beyond all that, ID has been described as pseudoscience by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, among other notable organizations with an interest in promoting actual science. There are more than enough reliable third party for the "pseudoscience" descriptor to remain. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 01:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Cla68 - the "split the difference" rule is not WP NPOV policy...you may wish it were, but it isn't.

GDallimore - A pseudoscience in the traditional sense is a concept/theory/epistemology which is manifested to be science but isn't. ID does claim to be science, and if one agrees it isn't science, then QED... But neither my logic model nor yours carry weight here. I would ask you, however, to consider if your citing a science journal writing about a controversial concept and calling it "not a science" might not qualify as pedantic quibbling that they didn't use the term "pseudoscience" explicitly. Science journals write about things (purporting to be) science, right? They don't write about theology. There's a context here that none of us are well served to pretend doesn't exist. The context is ID proponents trying to gain it some kind foothold in the science curricula. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• GDallimore Delete Pseudoscience or put in 'citation needed' as you see fit. If we're discussing whether it suits that is WP:OR, but if it's commonly said outside of Wiki it's citeable and if it isn't it does not belong here. Pseudoscience really is just a fuzzy-word epithet indicating displeasure, so I tend to doubt that serious books or official statements will do that form of dialogue. I'll even say that if one has got examples of high-level people having that kind of hissy-fit it is noteworthy so I'd say it does belong as individual cite. Markbassett (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd question the motivations in editing this article of somebody who says "To inflate a religious belief (as it has been reliably called in Kitzmiller and in other highly reliable sources) to the level of pseudoscience is to give ID-proponents more credence than they deserve."

Is it the role of wikipedia, in this person's view, to manage the credence any particular group is given? I find this kind of an attitude unhelpful and unnecessarily prejudiced in discussing the article. Forgive me for being so brash, but I have to say that if you cannot put your personal biases aside and treat a piece objectively, you're not going to make for a good editor of wikipedia. BabyJonas (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, WP's NPOV policy requires it's editors to put personal opinion aside and focus on presenting topics in a neutral way. When someone reads a WP article, they should not be able to tell what side on the topic is being taken. Can this be said about this article? Cla68 (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality does NOT mean giving equal weight. Should we change the article on Earth then and add Flat Earther beliefs such that anyone reading it would assume that 21st century scientists are still unsure on whether it's round or flat? Should we discuss the Obama birther articles as if there really is 50% chance that he is indeed Muslim and born in Kenya and is a communist and a member of the New World Order and evil aliens from outer space sent to destroy America?

No. There's a reason why we require reliable sources. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Obsidian, nothing personal, but there are at least four logical fallacies in your counterpoint above, including false analogy (ID and flat earth theory have little in common), appeal to ridicule (comparing ID to flat earth theory is an attempt to diminish the idea and its supporters), argumentum ad populum (I'm right that ID is wrong and everyone should be told so because most people agree with me) and straw man (no one here is saying that the article should discuss ID as if it were true). Having a large section in the article of criticism of ID is fine. Along with that, the section of the article that describes ID's history, including before it was a DI thing, plus its tenets and concepts, should be phrased in language that does not take a position on whether it is true or not. That's NPOV and we are required to follow that by WP's policies. We don't have a choice in the matter Cla68 (talk) 04:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'm giving you actual examples from policies and guidelines. Because flat Earth theories and the many variants of creationism both have one very important thing in common when it comes to how we should treat it in Misplaced Pages: both are regarded as pseudoscience by mainstream science. And speaking of WP:NPOV, no, it actually requires us to do the opposite. Specifically:

In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject. For instance, articles on historical views such as Flat Earth, with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader. (WP:DUE)

Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly. This also applies to other fringe subjects, for instance, forms of historical revisionism that are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence, such as claims that Pope John Paul I was murdered, or that the Apollo moon landing was faked. (WP:PSCI, expanded in WP:FRINGE)

Note that both of these are policies. You originally said "they should not be able to tell what side on the topic is being taken" which is directly contrary to what is being asked of us when discussing fringe and pseudoscience topics. While it's true that we, as editors should not insert our own opinions into the text. We are required to actually clearly identify what tenets and concepts are regarded as false by more reliable sources. Not doing so will be giving undue weight so as to make it seem like the belief is equal in footing with the scientific consensus.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that TechBear's statement "Non-science being promoted as science... that is the very definition of pseudoscience." is a definition core to this debate. I think that the DI version / initiative was/is indeed claiming to be science and thus could be called pseudoscience. And, as the predominant current version of ID, I think that the sources cited were referring to the DI version However, as months of extensive research and discussion have established, ID is not limited to the DI version / initiative. Other instances of it are simply religion / religious or creationism. E.G. simply a belief that life/earth/humans are too complex to have evolved or occurred by chance and therefore God must have done it. So, IMHO, it is incorrect to refer to ID overall as pseudoscience. North8000 (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Ugh. This was done. We really want to dredge this up again? I figured this would happen after the last discussion. As soon as anyone doesn't push back with full force at the assertion that "ID is not limited to the DI", editors come out from the woodwork to start changing hatnotes to change the scope, and removing sourced labels of pseudoscience and creationism, and everything else that might make ID seem unfavorable. This article is about the DI version of ID. That version of ID is presented by its proponents as science. The scientific consensus is that ID is not science, but instead a pseudoscience. We go by the sources here, not by argument, and I'm honestly quite tired of editors trying to wear everyone down by repeating the same things over and over until their "opponents" leave. Bring some sources, or this is a waste of time.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Mann jess, you might be sick of being told that the sources do not allow us to equate all ID with the DI but it is still true. OTOH, I do not think this is relevant to this thread? The only concern connecting those two debates is that we should not let our article mislead readers by equating all ID with the DI version which is famous to the general public because of a textbook argument (and this is true whether or not this Misplaced Pages article is primarily about that textbook argument version).
• Coming back to the original question then, I agree with editors who say that the DI version is "pseudo science". In other words it claims to be science, but does not meet the normal modern criteria for being science.
• I disagree with Cla68 in seeming to say we could also call it pseudo-philosophy in the article. The DI might not be philosophers, but they are using a philosophical argument. And we have no sources calling them pseudo philosophers. But this appears not to be relevant to the original question.
• I agree with editors that splitting the difference is not normal Misplaced Pages policy when sources disagree. When sources disagree, we either report the controversy, or we exclude what is fringe, depending upon the context.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

With respect to the question at hand, the problem and solution might more revolve around the context of the statements by the sources rather than a conflict between sources. The solution might be as simple as seeing if they were talking about the DI version/initiative, and if so, changing the pseudoscience wording to say/reflect that. North8000 (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Anyone know what the hell is being argued here? And if not, why the hell are we arguing? This is asinine. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that it is about the generalization contained in "The scientific community considers intelligent design a pseudoscience" and similar statements. I might just try a tweak of the wording to resolve. North8000 (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, a proposal is exactly what needs to be presented, instead of this vague bickering. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I plan to try to juggle the lead to tweak this. The only underlying change would be try try to pair the pseudoscience statement with either the DI initiative, or with variants claimed to be science. Another goal will be to eliminate repetition which the lead sort of has. I'll ask others to revert me if they do not agree. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. I scaled back and did not try to deal with redundancy. North8000 (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

North8000, I reverted the change of "intelligent design" to "such" because the antecedent then becomes unknown. I would recommend proposing something here on the Talk page instead of editing the article directly, as not everyone here agrees that ID is something more than the pseudoscience propounded expounded by the DI. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm cool with the revert.....BRD. On your last point, any folks still saying that it's limited to DI are in conflict with extensive sourcing established here in recent months.

So, my proposals are regarding the word/phrase just reverted by Misterdub.

• Idea #1 change it to "such"
• Idea #2 change it to "these beliefs when purported to be science"

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Both proposals suffer the same flaw: what are you referring to? The sentence appears immediately after the introduction of IC and CSI as concepts, so... are you talking about either one? Or both? Or what? What we want, and what the sources say, is "intelligent design is a pseudoscience," as it currently reads. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It is an aspect and/or specific type of intelligent design which is a pseudoscience, ie the aspect or type which claims to be scientific. Am I wrong? (Intelligent design does not by its definition do this, even though it is a common and notable association.) So is there any reason we would want to make this unclear?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes it's a common good writing practice to do that. North8000 (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

And the current wording is significantly more problematic. North8000 (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

So, the statement that ID is pseudoscience is accurate then, yes? " is a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God that proponents present as 'an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins' rather than 'a religious-based idea'." -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

It's an accurate statement about certain instances of ID, including the DI type, and IMO that is the context of the statement by the source. But it is inaccurate in it's overreach. North8000 (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think you have an inaccurate perception of what ID is and this view is leading you to propose changes that are neither supported by the sources nor Misplaced Pages policy. ID is not the teleological argument, and confusing these two subjects is a violation of due weight in that it presents a fringe theory/pseudoscience more favorably than its professional reception. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Huh? I can't see how that relates to or describes what I was proposing. To (over) simplify, I was simply proposing to have the "pseudoscience" statement apply only to those variants (or to the DI variant) that claim to be science. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

What I mean is that there is no variant of ID that is pseudoscientific because there are no variants at all; it's all pseudoscience. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. So how did that second sentence come to say that? I've apparently missed something and at first sight this re-opens the older discussion. Our sources, just to remind, do NOT allow us to equate all intelligent design to the pseudo scientific variant. After a lot of discussion I believe it was recently agreed that Misplaced Pages has no right to be making that equation (quite independently of whether this article is about that variant). MisterDub, you do not recall that conversation?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

BTW, the third sentence preserves the concept that there are "versions", as was proven by examining the sources. So now the second sentence has evolved away from the third one, and they disagree. This needs a fix. The third one is justified by sources, but the second part of the second sentence is a reinsertion of an assertion created by Wikipedians and published here in older versions of the article, and does not agree with the sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this looks like a revival of the "all ID is DI" assertion which I think extensive sourcing based discussions over recent months has shown to be wrong and in conflict with sources. North8000 (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

You both seem to think you have proven more than you have. I honestly don't see a point in arguing this again. If you want to change the subject of this article, please start a RfC. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that the subject is fine. But if you are taking issue with my last statement, (which was essentially that ID is not limited to the DI version) then are you asserting that ID is limited to the DI version? If that is considered an open question then maybe we should do an RFC on that question to get it resolved, although I thought it already had been. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Pages and pages of talk demonstrate that this article is about the DI's version of ID.Yopienso (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

If so, the work that you described was to confirm that the article had/has a serious problem and is in conflict with sources. I don't really think it's that bad. With the prominence of the DI version within ID, it's fine that the article is weighted towards the DI version. IMHO there are just a few tweaks (involving statements that make generalizations that conflict with sources) that need making. North8000 (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

@MisterDub, I do not recall any argument or source from you or anyone else which showed that all ID is DI? Just name one source or point to one "argument"? What is very clear in this discussion now is that you are claiming this (you say there are no variants) and you are saying that the last part of our second sentence is saying this. (One of the arguments used to stop changes was that our article does not imply or say it. So that argument is not relevant now.) Why would you want this?

@Yopienso, whatever we Wikipedians decide that this article is about is not my issue here. It still should not distort, and it should be correctly disambiguated. Misplaced Pages should not say in any article that all ID is DI, because that would be a lie. I note that in the previous arguments you were one of the people who agreed with this, and claimed that the article does not make that lie. Now, given that the subject here is specifically a sentence which says there are no variants of ID, you are defending the lie openly? (Sorry to use a clear word like "lie" but clarity might save us wasting time again.)

...anyway, the third sentence disagrees with the second sentence, as I mentioned. Are there variants, or is all ID, DI?

@everyone. Here is the only thread which actually stayed on topic during the recent discussions and which I believe led to (temporary?) changes to the lead aimed at removing the implication that all ID is DI. I will point to one poignant example of how that discussion went: When I finally read a copy of the main source being cited against me, Padian, K.; Matzke, N. (2009), I saw that it says clearly that ID is traceable at least back to Aquinas and Paley. And on page 33 they specifically distinguish "your father's 'ID'" and "The DI's version" or "The ‘ID’ purveyed by the DI". Do we have a source saying that our father's ID, and that of Paley and Aquinas is a "scam"? I do not think so. So can we get past this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Yopienso & MisterDub, I thought we had somewhat amicably resolved that ID is not limited to or solely DI. Probably the only changes still needed in the article are to tweak the wording on a few sentences which indirectly make that claim. (and the above thread is about one of them). If the question is not resolved then it is perhaps time for an RFC on that question, which the core question. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I am not claiming that ID is necessarily associated with the DI, but it is pseudoscience, as the sources state. The sources show that ID is related to the argument from design, in that ID is a teleological argument, but this article is about "this version of the argument," not the argument itself, which is treated elsewhere. "This version of the argument" is pseudoscience. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 06:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Mister Dub as I have just pointed out, all the sources clearly distinguish versions of intelligent design, and specify that it is the DI version which is pseudoscience, and specifically not the version of "your father", nor that of Paley. We can not ignore that context which is found in all the sources, including the ones which refer to pseudoscience. Putting it the other way again: we have no source saying that Aquinas and Paley were committing a pseudoscientific "scam". If we make Misplaced Pages say this then we are distorting the sources, i.e. telling a lie.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It's called an anachronism, look it up. Aquinas and Paley weren't ID proponents, they were believers in God who argued for His existence teleologically. Get your subjects straight. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that Andrew's point was that the source identified that of Aquinas and Paley as intelligent design. North8000 (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

In answer to "@Yopienso": As long as I've been aware of this article, (8 March 2010) it has been about the DI's ID. "Nearly all intelligent design concepts and the associated movement are the products of the Discovery Institute . . ." I do not find the present article to contain "a sentence which says there are no variants of ID." The third sentence specifies, "The leading proponents of this version of the argument are associated with the Discovery Institute." OF THIS VERSION Sounds pretty clear to me.

I am not watching this article closely. I was behind the hatnote that informed the reader that this article is about the DI's ID; I'm sorry to see that gone. But not sorry enough to protest! I don't have the time or interest to split hairs here. Best wishes, Yopienso (talk) 10:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

One of the options of the time was to have it be only about the DI version and to change the title to reflect that. (or such an article could be created if the existing DI articles and the DI coverage within / as a subset of this article were not enough) But without that, having the current title and limiting it to the DI version is like saying that the Automobile article is only about vehicles manufactured by Ford. An article dedicated to and limited limited to the latter would be the Ford automobiles article. North8000 (talk) 11:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

@Mister Dub, I agree with North. What you are saying is not what our sources say, and this has been proven. Somewhere in history Misplaced Pages has misunderstood its sources and created its own myth. Intelligent design is not by definition pseudoscience or a "scam", and there are variants, both before and after the 1980s. That is how all the sources write.

@Yopienso I agree that the third sentence is correct. But the second sentence, if you look at how Mister Dub used it above, says that there are no variants at all. So these two sentences are in conflict now. You can call this hair splitting if you want. I guess editing is all about hair splitting?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, Andrew, you can both be wrong. Want to change it: RfC. I'm done arguing this nonsense. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Help with a reference please

Hello, I am trying to determine the origin of the term "Intelligent design". There is a sentence in the section about Of Pandas and People that references an article, but the article is hearsay. Here is the line I am referring to. "A Discovery Institute report says that Charles Thaxton, editor of Of Pandas and People, had picked the phrase up from a NASA scientist, and thought 'That's just what I need, it's a good engineering term'." Any help or clarification is appreciated. Thanks in advance Newsmill (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

That's an official statement by one of the Discovery Institute's lawyerly ID proponents. Suspicious minds might think one of the variants discussed in the preceding section was a more likely precedent, my own feeling is that "The origin of printed texts, manufactured devices, and biomolecular systems require intelligent design and engineering knowhow" from Edwards v. Aguillard: Dean Kenyon's Affidavit has the most obvious connection, as Kenyon was a co-author of Pandas. . . dave souza, talk 09:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe we have not succeeded finding any appropriate style of source for the question of first usage.

• I have found it very hard to find any particular beginning to the term. It is basically a common combination of terms that goes back centuries. It is a classic case of a frozen idiom because the way the two terms are being used is slightly archaic, but you "get" them when you see them used in context. The context is not always theological, but very often is.
• Anyway, given that we have no good source, I think we can not say much in the article about the oldest usage. We can and do say that it became a highly publicized term in the 1980s in a quite specific context (but not different in kind from older usage).
• Concerning the point Dave is interested in I would confirm that from searches I did the term was already being used in the early 1980s within the American creationist movement, before Pandas and People and before Thaxton. I suspect (but this is OR) that there has been some mythologizing by that movement concerning the origins of the use. The claim that Thaxton remembered it from engineering books, then heard a NASA scientist use it, and then easily found it (pre google) by thumbing through old science magazines seems very difficult to believe given that the term is not really common in such contexts at all.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that response. The referenced material offers no answers and seems a little fishy at best. Cheers. 216.185.230.22 (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean the Thaxton story? I agree. I do not think we are currently using it as "gospel" in the article though?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Does this source fall into the category of Questionable sources? According to WP "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newsmill (talk • contribs) 01:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Newsmill, it seems to me that our current use of this source is permitted by Misplaced Pages policy, that the DI is reporting "material on themselves, in articles about themselves"; Charles Thaxton is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Should we shrink the talk page "header"

Even on my wide higher res screen and even when collapsible sections are collapsed the "header" takes up two full pages, and I'm guessing on many computers it is "header" is 3-4 screens long. Should we shrink it? North8000 (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You are talking about the lead section? EvergreenFir (talk) 03:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

No I think North is talking about the header of this talk page, not the lead of the article itself. And I would say that North definitely has a point. For all the good intentions of that header it will not work well if it is overdone.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

If you click "Hide" on each section, they collapse. Yopienso (talk) 07:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Well yes, but is there any other answer to North's question? Why have something so large and complex if the only reason for not doing it is that you can collapse it and therefore ignore it? Wouldn't it be better to have a lead people are really going to be able to absorb?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir, confirming Andrew's answer, as noted in the section title (which I should have repeated in the text) I was talking about the talk page header. North8000 (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

@North8000: as long as it is, I don't think the header could be shrunk any further without losing vital instructions. Given the nature of the topic, the header appears to be very succinct. It gives future trouble-makers no reason to provoke arguments about certain wordings or concepts in the article. That's just my two cents. --Sp33dyphil ©_ontributions 12:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned above I have a similar subjective impression to North, but I guess that North's proposal is going to be difficult unless there are concrete proposals? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping that somebody else might have suggestions. But my thoughts would be to start with the "instructions to new editors" text because that's a general primer on editing in Misplaced Pages. After that the part that names particular editors. And after that maybe the "pseudoscience" part which is only somewhat applicable since this is more about religion than pseudoscience. (although the DI said otherwise). Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Like Sp33dyphil, I don't think you can cut much, if anything, without losing or hiding information important to newcomers. There's also a "Skip to table of contents" link at the top for those who don't want to scroll through it. I don't see this as a problem at all. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be interesting to hear someone explain the differences between this header and say the header on Evolution, which suffers the same problems and potential problems as this article. To my eyes the difference partly results from the fact that Evolution is better attended and worked on. In other words, better quality. (Also, I think I am not going to shock anyone by saying that I think the header on this article is not only aimed at for example creationists or newbies. I have noted how the header is traditionally used here as a kind of threat to experienced editors daring to propose changes here, along with the constant "this has all been discussed before and it is annoying that people keep coming here trying to change things" remarks.) Anyway, I think it is not very convincing to justify a questioned text by saying "I don't think you can cut much without losing or hiding important information"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:QUESTIONABLE#Questionable_sources

• 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
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class Alternative views articles
• High-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• FA-Class Christianity articles
• Mid-importance Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• FA-Class Conservatism articles
• Mid-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• FA-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• FA-Class Skepticism articles
• High-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• FA-Class Religion articles
• Top-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• Pseudoscience articles under contentious topics procedure