Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by OlEnglish (talk | contribs) at 04:48, 26 February 2012 (archive search enabled). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:WikiProject Intelligent design

Archives

/Archive 01 — March 2002 to January 2006 /Archive 02 — January 2006 to August 2006 /Archive 03 — August 2006 to April 2007 /Archive 04 — April 2007 to October 2007 /Archive 05 — October 2007 to March 2010 /Archive 06 — March 2010 to March 2011

Proposals to wording of the opening paragraphs

It seems any of my nominal edits to the introduction are being repeatedly blocked by Charlesdrakew, an individual it seems who has accrued some notoriety as a committed Darwinist zealot, and in his conviction almost blind to the notion that the opening paragraphs sound so one-sided and biased as to make this entire page read like a 12-year old's twitter rant. Now Mr Charlesdrakew, let me make this clear. I am neither creationist nor darwinist, but I would like to make the opening paragraphs sound more professional. I propose the following:

"Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems demonstrate features of complexity that are so lacking in redundant components that they are unlikely to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring chance mutations."

This is far more representative, I think, of what this hypothesis proposes.

Proposals to changes in wording for neutrality purposes:

The term "non-scientific", in the very first sentence, is off-putting and gives the article a feel of unprofessionalism and bias from the offset. I propose that if you wish to put "non-scientific" into the introduction, I would like it to be referenced and elaborated on (something inherently unsuitable for an introductory sentence). To state later that there is a scientific consensus against IC, then to provide a reference, is more than enough to convey this argument, in my opinion.

"However, some evolutionary biologists have proposed various models by which such systems can in fact evolve." to replace "Evolutionary biologists have shown that such systems can in fact evolve, and Behe's examples are considered to constitute an argument from ignorance."

The sentence:

"It is rejected by the scientific community, which overwhelmingly regards intelligent design as pseudoscience."

reads as if it is refering specifically to irreducible complexity, but the references refer to intelligent design in general. I propose that it either be removed and the references transfered to the main ID article, or that the wording be changed to

"Intelligent design is rejected as pseudoscience by evolutionary biologists."

Either way, from a literary perspective, it looks out of place in an introductory paragraph describing IC.

82.132.248.167 (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"notoriety as a committed Darwinist zealot" among whom? Your fellow creationists presumably. Darwinist is not a term that sientists normally use. I merely pointed out that changes to an agreed text on a sensitive subject are best discussed first. I am not the one trying to change it.--Charles (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"Your fellow creationists presumably.""Darwinist is not a term that sientists normally use." Please don't try and destroy whatever credibility you may think you have with childish and presumptious comments such as this. And there is a first time for everything, even in your narrow world view. I'm sorry to upset your much coveted self-esteem here, but there *have* been concerns regarding your neutrality on this issue from people other than creationists. Now, do you have any objection to these proposed changes? 82.132.139.231 (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

What, 82.132.139.231, is a "Darwinist"? Please note our no personal attacks policy – allegations that another editor has "notoriety" as a "zealot" are unacceptable, and can lead to blocking. As for your proposed change, it doesn't reflect the cited source – while you may think your definition is better, such original research by you isn't suitable for Misplaced Pages – you're welcome to propose a reliable source for a definition, but not to make your own interpretations. Your proposal is also rather incoherent, though I think your intention can be grasped. Not an improvement. . . dave souza, talk 13:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

What is a darwinist? This used to be a term almost exclusively used by creationists. More recently (since circa 2007) it's being used by those among the evolutionary biology community who have raised concerns with the precepts of neo-darwinismn. For example, among those who attended the Altenberg conference in 2008, there are a spectrum of opinions regarding the viability of NDE; some, such as Stuart Newman, being very vocal that it is simply no longer tenable in the context of cellular physiological developments as of the late 20th century. 86.189.3.191 (talk) 10:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

As someone who is not a proponent of irreducible complexity, I still found the bias in this article more blatant than anything I've ever read on Misplaced Pages. Rather than rewording the opening paragraph, renaming the article "Criticism of Irreducible Complexity" seems like a more appropriate change. Also, the article has a bitter and condescending tone that falls outside of scholarly standards. Misplaced Pages's article on the flat earth model is far less presumptuous. In fact, I'd recommend reading http://en.wikipedia.org/Flat_Earth for an example of how to professionally present an idea outside the current scientific consensus. (Abbefaria (talk) 01:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC))

Do you have any specific improvements you'd like to make that you want to discuss here? Gabbe (talk) 07:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

@Abbefaria In light of your recommendation to make this article's tone more similar to the Flat Earth article's, might I suggest that this article make greater use of the past tense in its opening paragraphs? e.g. "Most pre-modern cultures have had conceptions of intelligent design", modelled on "Most pre-modern cultures have had conceptions of a flat Earth." Similar changes could be made throughout the opening paragraphs to reflect historical scientific ideas, and then the current consensus (i.e. the existing paragraphs) could be introduced. Carderne2 (talk) 12:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I have just made some slight changes to the first section to improve the neutrality of the article. In particular I made the following changes:

1. Opinions are opinions, not fact. Specifically removed label "pseudoscientific" from first sentance and relinked it in the second where it is more clearly rendered as an opinion.

2. Removed absolutes, specifically changed "rejected by the scientific community" to "rejected by a portion of the scientific community" as I'm sure we would agree, this is not unanimous otherwise there would be no argument on the topic.

3. Edited the statement that "systems can in fact evolve" to read "systems could possibly evolve" as this sort of evolution is not observed science but a theory.MrWalko (talk) 00:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Your edit was properly reverted. The claims you make above are the same as those that appear in many Internet forums and other non-scientific sites, and are simply wrong. Read the sources in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 03:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Why not just call IC what it is, an excuse created by religious people to support their claim that their god did it, which they decided before they even knew about the topic.--27.33.105.42 (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

From what I have read and been a part of on WP, any comments as to veracity or acceptability need their own section. A section entitled "Acceptance in the scientific community" would be the place for a brief relating of who criticises or supports within the community and what they say with adequate references. George (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree whole-heartedly with 82.132.248.167 that this article is in no way neutral, as an encyclopedia article should be. Suppose that this entire idea is bogus and that we discover evidence to debunk all Creationist thought. Suppose that what some once viewed as "irreducibly complex" were in fact perfectly reducible. But then suppose that the idea of evolution is wrong and that scientists over the past 150 years have been deceived. Sure, evolution is the accepted idea for modern scientists, but it could always be wrong. Spontaneous Generation was accepted dogmatically for thousands of years, as was the Flat Earth idea, but these were proven false. This article bears no hints of neutrality and is based on - as it would seem - the rantings of its various editors. If I were to read this article with no previous knowledge on the topic, I would leave thinking, "Irreducible complexity is a stupid idea imagined by deluded religious fanatics," and not, "Irreducible complexity is an idea derived by Creationists that many scientists refused, though there is still credible evidence in favor of it," as I should. As an encyclopedia article, this page should state facts and nothing else. Mwakin21 (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I added a break here, because this appears to be a new direction in the thread. Makes it easier to edit too. The article is about Irreducible complexity, not anything else. To be absolutely neutral, we have to provide reliable sources that support the scientific POV. We have to show that it is a fringe theory, but still describe accurate what is IC. In general, we state in the lead that a particular fringe theory is not supported by scientific evidence, community, etc. Then rip apart the fringe theory in a section of the article. If you don't think this is doing it well enough, add some lines, but make sure they're sourced. OrangeMarlin 23:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Mathematically identifying irreducible complexity

Did the proponents of this concept ever make any attempts to quantify irreducible complexity. The article includes a couple examples of attempts to qualify certain things as irreducibly complex. Was there ever any publication quantifying the reducibility of something? It would be worth including in the artcle if it existed. i kan reed (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe it is conceived as a binary quality, rather than a continuous quantity. Either something (generally a biological system) is irreducibly complex or it isn't. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 16:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no wonder it's easy to dismiss then. I'll avoid the WP:FORUM discussion, but that's a fairly indefensible concept. Very little modern science, especially biology, makes simple binary divisions of anything. I was thinking that they had to have some moderately complex mathematics to help facilitate the "you just don't understand it" defense and fluff up the scientific appearance. i kan reed (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Baylor paper on this topic

Dave Souza reverted my addition to the text using a recently published paper by a Baylor University medical professor who gave his opinion on the validity of the irreducible complexity topic. Now, I believe Dr. Kuhn's opinion is significant, because he is independent of the Discovery Institute, but represents academic opinion on the topic. Just the kind of source we should be eager to use for this article to explain the topic. I respect Dave's opinion, of course, if not his adept and nimble use of the revert button, so we need to reach some kind of compromise on the use of that source. Thoughts? Cla68 (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

RSN discussion. Cla68 (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

FTN discussion. Cla68 (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

1. rreducible complexity is a weakness in the theory of Darwinian evolution..."Functions and corresponding specifications of the DNA code are too inconceivably complex to have arisen by accidental mutation or change." Is this a contrary opinion, or is simply a restatement of the opinions expressed by Behe (and others) in the body of the article? We don't write articles by simply adding a new section to an existing article for each new source we find. Especially when they have nothing new to add to the topic.
2. Kuhn explained that when John Hunter and Darwin formulated their theories... How is John Hunter relevant to this discussion? What impact has Hunter had on the development of modern evolutionary theory? For that matter, why is Darwin relevant?
3. Why a... paper published by Baylor? It was published in Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings. And why link to the Google Docs version when the original article is freely available online? Doing so manages to conceal the fact that Kuhn sits on the editorial board of the journal and is, in fact, a former editor of the journal, and that the journal chose to publish two rebuttals of Kuhn's article...something that is rather remarkable, and certainly undercuts the article's (already shaky) credibility. Guettarda (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

One more thing: Thus, according to Kuhn "Such changes would require far more than could be expected from random mutation and natural selection". To begin with, while Hunter has been described as being ahead of his time in his evolutionary ideas, I don't think anyone (even Kuhn) claims that he was aware of natural selection. As for mutation - although Kuhn claims that "John Hunter proposed a gradual formation of species through mutation" and that "the basic tenets of Charles Darwin suggested that random mutations occur". Darwin, of course, had no idea how variation was generated, and I can't imagine that Hunter knew much more than Darwin. The fact that Kuhn doesn't seem to be aware of this is rather damaging to the credibility of his article. Guettarda (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you agree that the Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings is a peer-reviewed, academic, medical journal? Did my text give Kuhn's opinion in Misplaced Pages's voice, or was I clear that it was Kuhn's opinion? Cla68 (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Before asking any more questions, why not answer mine: Is this a contrary opinion, or is it just a restatement of opinions already expressed in the article? And, as I pointed out, you did not, in fact, report what Kuhn said accurately. You appear to have misrepresented what he said. Guettarda (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece by a non-expert in a journal with no competence in the area of evolutionary biology. The journal does publish peer reviewed medical papers, but this is not one of them (there is nothing to peer review, as it is not a research paper or review). There is no reason to believe that Dr. Kuhn's opinion had made any impact outside of the creationist community. Even as a creationist, Kuhn appears to be not notable except for this very paper. n short, Dr. Kuhn's opinion id not significant. Mentioning it would grossly violate WP:WEIGHT. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you are saying that Irreducible complexity is a valid theory on evolutionary biology, because you are arguing that only opinions from experts in that field should be included in this article. Do I understand correctly that this is what you are saying? Also, the opening sentence in this article states that the concept comes from the Discovery Institute as part of their campaign to push ID. This article is from an academic outside of the Institute, so do we need to change the wording in the intro? Cla68 (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Then get your hearing checked, because I said nothing of the sort. And of course we don't have to change the wording of the intro, because Dr. Kuhn's opinion is not significant. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Rather curious about why the fact that Kuhn isn't affiliated with the DI (which may or may not be the case - I haven't checked) would have any bearing on the intro to this article. There's nothing about the DI in the intro to this article. Odd. Guettarda (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Being an oncologist in no way qualifies you to comment on evolutionary biology. Since he's not a biologist he's not an expert in the field. Nformation 22:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics