Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:52, 6 December 2011

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.

	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.
	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 the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative views High‑importance 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Creationism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism 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.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism Top This article has been rated as Top-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 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:Maintained

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 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Reverts by Farsight001

If you look at the concept of intelligent design, it came about a couple of years before Charles Thaxton, so I added this before his mention in the concept section, two scientists defended intelligent design in the 1980s and practically formed the early ID movement, Pitman in 1984 and Denton in 1985, this was three years before Thaxton. So I am not sure why this has been reverted, it is important information in the history of ID. Please explain. Thank you. Gutterpunks (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, this (to all involved) edit war (and your (Gutterpunks) violation of 3RR on top of that) will hopefully end right.... now. And now we'll move on to discussion. I hope. I'll be around if help is needed to mediate or moderate any discussion (or drop me a note on my talkpage if help is needed). Otherwise, I could just find the 3RR/WAR noticeboard

Seriously, no article is that important that we need to engage in edit and revert wars. Let's work this out instead. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 02:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Farsight001, you even cited BRD and continued anyway. :-/ (I did that once too... so, let's move on from there; forward though, not in these endless circles). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 02:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It happens (i.e. edit warring) and it's never pretty. But moving on, I appreciate that Gutterpunks has explained what he was doing. I think it is now up to Farsight001 to speak to his concern. Sunray (talk) 02:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Lemme know if you all need a hand. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 02:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

As I pointed out in the edit summary the first time, per WP:BRD, the responsibility is on YOU, Gutterpunks, to support your changes on the talk page after being reverted (and BEFORE re-adding them into the article). You were bold (B), you were reverted (R), now you start to discuss (D). That's how it works. It is your responsibility to provide a justification for your changes to the article, and then to make changes AFTER a consensus has been reached.

Also, calling my edits vandalism when they in no way represent vandalism is a violation of policy as well. I highly suggest you familiarize yourself with posting policies and standards before you try editing again, lest your account be very short lived. (and no, that's not a threat)Farsight001 (talk) 06:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

???? and you still give no reason why you reverted the edits? It looks like you actually have no reason. Can you explain your problem with the information which was added to the article? So far it looks like you are not even interested in this you just revert for no reason?. I am not understanding this! This is crazy! So let me get this straight - You actually have no problem with what I added to the article you have given no reasons at all for reverting, you have not even read what I added or looked at the references by the looks of it but apparently it is up to me to now come to a talk page to explain my edits? Good Edits which you have not even looked at? Never heard of this before! Is this new on wikipedia? And it is violation of policy if you are reverting peoples edits which are well referenced and giving no reason at all.

I am clearly wasting my time here but let me briefly go over the edits - Charles Thaxton in the late 80s wrote an early book on intelligent design this is mentioned in the article, but there were two scientists who used the concept of intelligent design in 1984 and in 1985 (these were the only two scientists) they were Micheal Pitman a biologist and Michael Denton a biochemist, we have reliable references for both which were put on the article, both of their books pre-date Thaxtons by 3-4 years, and both were crucial for influencing many advocates of the later intelligent design movement. You will need to explain why you keep reverting this information, what do you have against this information being added to the article?. It would help if you explained why you revert edits. Gutterpunks (talk) 10:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

DID YOU NOT READ A FUCKING THING I SAID?!?!?!? It is YOUR responsibility to support your edits, and it is YOUR responsibility to do that while the information is NOT in the article. This is standard wikipedia policy. Continuing to re-add this information without FIRST discussing it is considered disruptive editing and can enjoy your account a nice 24 hour block from editing. You really need to learn how it works here. So here's what's going to happen because it's how it is supposed to happen. I'm going to remove the information once again. We are going to discuss it. And discuss it. And discuss it. And then we will come to a consensus, which depending on the activeness of the participating editors, can take anywhere from a few days to a few months, and THEN, AFTER an agreement has been reached on what to add to the article, one of us can make the changes. Otherwise, enjoy your ban from editing.Farsight001 (talk) 12:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I have already discussed why I included the information about Pitman and Denton to the article, as explained they are important to the development of the concept of ID, see above and on the edit summary, and see the references which explain why. You have still not given your reason why you want the information not in the article and why you have reverted it. This discussion can only go forward if you explain why you do not want the information added to the article. Everyone else seems to be happy with it. So what is your issue with the edits? Gutterpunks (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, you're talking about the post you made just a bit up from this, which, btw, was made after your last re-addition to the article, so you really didn't explain at all and I don't know where you got the idea that you did. Even so, it doesn't exactly matter because you should't be re-adding the information while editors are taking issue with it in the first place.

As for my issue with your edits, that would be the bias wording, the poor placement, the lack of notability of your sources, the lack of expertise of your sources. (a biochemist is a chemist, not a biologist. He is no expert in evolution). In addition, the use of the term "neo-Darwinism" is incorrect. Though that may be the word the texts you cited used, it is still the wrong word. (which really just lends more credence to the non-reliability of your sources if they can't get such a simple word right). Farsight001 (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if material is contentious it should not be forced through. The first source doesn't mention intelligent design, due weight has not been shown. The review notes how poor his arguments are. The addition is also a WP:SYNTHESIS of the two sources. The second source is about a chemist, a non-expert, where due weight has also not been shown. Mainstream responses, where applicable, have also not been shown. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• The reference for Michael Pitman can be found in the New Scientist Magazine (mainstream) mentions that his book brings "arguement from design up to date" this was in 1984, Pitman also uses the concept of intelligent design throughout his book, he used the word "design" not "created", in the introduction of his book he says that his book can be seen as reviving Paley's arguement up until the present day - And you are saying this is not revelant to the history of ID?. Also see Doubts about Darwin: a history of intelligent design by Thomas Woodward pages 64-68 and pages 96 where Michael Pitman and Michael Denton are both mentioned and discussed (see the other reference for Denton where it says he practically launched the ID movement), they are mentioned along with Charles Thaxton as the earliest influences on the intelligent design movement. So to summarise:

• Michael Pitman - 1984 - Book Adam and Evolution: a scientific critique of neo-Darwinism
• Michael Denton - 1985 - Book Evolution: a theory in crisis
• Charles Thaxton - 1988 - Book Of pandas and people

These were the first three intelligent design books, and they should be mentioned in the concept section of ID on this article as they were crucial in the developent of intelligent design.

• It is also silly to say Michael Denton is not an expert, we are talking here about an intelligent design advocate not a mainstream evolutionary biologist, this is an article about intelligent design. Michael Behe is a biochemist and ID he is mentioned on the article, so why is mention of Denton not aloud? Even when it is well referenced? Gutterpunks (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

ID claims to be scientific, and thus it is under the scrutiny of the scientific field. In other words, we reflect mainstream scientific views on the subject per policy. Neither Denton nor Behe, nor Thaxton are mainstream. Sure, they're relevant because they are big names in the ID movement. However, they do not qualify as experts.Farsight001 (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

For some reason Gutterpunks omits Charles Thaxton's 1984 The Mystery of Life's Origin, we have expert opinion linking this to ID. This seems to have been published in January 1984, so is likely to be the first of the books under discussion.

The New Scientist review of Michael Pitman's 1984 Adam and Evolution makes it clear that this is an example of creationism seeking justification in the design argument: we already cover that point by noting that creationists frequently invoked the design argument to explain complexity in nature. There's no source cited for the claim that this is ID, so it's ruled out by WP:NOR.

I'm sympathetic to a mention of Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, though this 1987 review and the booksellers I've checked indicate that this is a 1986 book. Both Behe and Johnson apparently said that they rejected evolution after reading the book, but that only indicates that it supports anti-evolution. Angus Macleod Gunn says this "laid the foundations" for ID, but doesn't say that it was an origin of the concept. The 1987 review is clear that it typified creation science literature and creationist arguments. We know that ID is an extension of creation science and creationism, but there's no evidence that the specific concepts in the book were a source of origin of ID. A better secondary source is needed for this. . . dave souza, talk 16:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Charles Thaxton's The Mystery of Life's Origin was not an intelligent design book. It is a chemisty book written to discredit abiogenesis and the primordial soup theory nothing in the book about design. That is a 1984 book, but the book itself does not mention the word "design" in the book, it was a semi-creationist work regarding the earths chemical evolution, at the time Thaxton was a creationist, Intelligent design was rather unknown to him then and the book uses no intelligent design arguements, near the end of the book he even mentions God, this is not intelligent design. If we wish to be accurate the first modern era book advocating intelligent design is the 1984 book by Michael Pitman every page of the book is an update of the design arguement of Paley put into modern terms, it came out just before Michael Denton's book Evolution: a theory in crisis, Pitman claims there is a coded design in all plants and animals and left the identity of the designer open, he even uses the word "designer" many times, this was the first ID book it has all the classic signs of what the arguements the later ID avocates used. This really was the first Modern era Intelligent design book - If this book is not aloud to be mentioned on this article, then it should be put on the arguement from design article. The other influences on ID were Denton (1986 third printing as you say not 85) and after that it was Thaxton with his Of pandas and people in 1988. I will put up some more references on here. Gutterpunks (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

First, if Thaxton's book is a chemistry book about abiogenesis, then it has no relevance to this subject, so why bring it up? Second, ID advocates mention God on regular occasion. Third, even if everything you say is true, that doesn't justify adding what you actually added to the article. If what you say is true, then it would be pertinent to the development of ID as a concept, not as defense of its voracity.Farsight001 (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes Thaxton's 1984 book is a chemistry book it has no place in ID, i did not bring that up another user called Dave Souza did, he clearly has not read that book, it is a very boring chemistry book where in the last chapter God is mentioned it has nothing to do with ID, the word design or designer is not used once. Thaxton is already mentioned on the article with his book of pandas and people, so let's forget about him. The concern here is with Pitman and Denton, heres the question, what does it take to get Michael Pitman and Michael Denton mentioned on the article? I have already listed references which link them to the early origin of ID. Doubts about Darwin: a history of intelligent design by Thomas E. Woodward pages 64-68 and pages 96 link Denton and Pitman to the formation of the intelligent design movement. Gutterpunks (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Barbara Forrest: "The ID movement began in the early 1980s with the publication of The Mystery of Life's Origin (MoLO 1984) by creationist chemist Charles B. Thaxton with Walter L. Bradley and Roger L. Olsen." Worth reading on, perhaps we should say a bit more about this. It would also be good to get more expert views on the topic. As for Pitman's book, published third party expert views are needed to show any connection between ID and this creationist or creation science use of the design argument. That view has to be explicit, it's not enough to present a design argument and assume that this is in some way relevant to ID. . . . dave souza, talk 17:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow that is crazy, I can tell you now Barbara Forrest is wrong not suprising though "She is a critic of intelligent design and the Discovery Institute." = Not neutral, and her book on the history of ID has been criticised as innacurate by many ID adovates, she clearly does not know the history of ID before criticising it and making things up, of course to be expected if that is her agenda, as explained The mystery of life's origin has nothing to do with ID the book doesn't use the word designer or design once, it's a standard chemistry book with a theistic tinge on the end written by many authors a few of which were creationists, the ID movement did not begin with that book, some may say it was an influence, but begin? Her article is called "Know your creationists" clearly Barbara does not know. Regarding Pitman, theres no more references for him, you see theres two articles in the newscientist magazine and hes mentioned in Woodwards history of the ID book, but we have references for Denton. Evolution in the Antipodes: Charles Darwin and Australia By Tom Frame page 195 mentions Dentons book as an influence on intelligent design and "launching the movement" big words indeed, oddly enough it also mentions Thaxton's chemistry book from 1984, and concludes regarding the book "but it did not launch the contemporary intelligent design movement". Poor Barbara. Gutterpunks (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Barbara Forrest's work has stood up well to scrutiny, unlike ID apologists such as Thomas E. Woodward whose opinions on science as an evangelical theologian "defending intelligent design and refuting Darwin's theory of evolution" should only be shown in mainstream context. Tom Frame as "the director of St. Mark’s National Theological Centre and a regular media commentator" looks more mainstream, it will be interesting to consider his views as a whole rather than snippets taken out of context. . dave souza, talk 17:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

lol from the way this conversation has gone, it looks like we may have one sentence on denton added and that is it. I am happy with that, I am finished here, It would be best if someone else could add that sentence in a couple of days, I will let other users discuss that. Gutterpunks (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion, sources for improvements

I have never seen it, but The Mystery of Life's Origin does not seem to be a textbook, but does, apparently, suggest intelligent design. See here. Excerpts and back cover. Scott and Matzke. (Do a page search for "Thaxton.") Scholarly review. (Subscription required.) Yopienso (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks, Yopienso, even before checking the others, the Scott and Matzke paper looks invaluable. Thaxton et al.'s MoLo can be credited with originating "specified complexity" of "genetic information" which they claimed showed evolution contradicted the 2LoT, and something more general about "no new information" by A. E. Wilder-Smith also inspired ID proponents. Buell's FTE begun in 1981 had two project, a critique which was published as MoLo, and a school text which became Pandas of 1989.
Interesting point: "Although ID proponents point to The Mystery of Life’s Origin as being the foundational publication for the movement that came to be called intelligent design, it was just one of many books written in the early 1980s that represented attempts by believers in biblical inerrancy to develop a creationist science that avoided the pitfalls of more traditional creation science, such as hostility to an old earth (71–74)."
So, a good basis for improvements. Will try to come back to this, if anyone can use this before me as a basis to improve the section that will be very helpful. dave souza, talk 20:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You know, other than specific mention of ID in the phrase, "Michael Pitman who wrote a book defending intelligent design in 1984," I didn't have a problem with the text added by Gutterpunks; I don't know why this got so heated. My main concern is adding a bunch of information to an article which _still_ needs to be split. It seems like everyone lost interest in that though. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we're on the same wavelength about Pitman not mentioning ID, synthesis to link creation science using the design argument to ID is just bloat. Amusing to find from Numbers that around 1942 Henry M. Morris "would sometimes study the butterflies and wasps that flew in through the window. Being familiar with structural design, he calculated the improbability of such complex creatures developing by chance and concluded that nature as well as the Bible argued for special creation." Hey, that's Behe and Dembski but about 50 years earlier! My synthesis, so not allowable. Agree about the split discussed earlier in relation to a different section, why not do it? . . dave souza, talk 22:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If I recall, the last time Hrafn asked for support of splitting the article we had three supporters, himself included, and two dissenters. Now, I think we responded well to the concerns of the dissenters (though, who wouldn't? :P), but the motion didn't seem to have enough support to pass. I didn't want to do a whole lot of work parsing the information if it was going to be rejected out of hand. I'll add a new section and ask for support again; we'll see how it goes. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Protected

Protected for 3 days - resolve it here rather than edit warring. Vsmith (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 17:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Split the article

Okay, it's been a while since this motion has been presented, so I'm going to rehash the case all over again. I want to see how much support we have for splitting the article into two: Intelligent design and Intelligent design and science. The latter article would consist of information within the current "Creating and teaching the controversy" section of this article, as it contains a lot of information, not much of which is necessary here. This section currently contains 1) a very brief introductory paragraph about the "Teach the Controversy" campaign; 2) descriptions of tangentially related beliefs (neo-creationism and theistic science); 3) a couple of paragraphs about Christians, who comprise the vast majority of ID supporters, reaching out to other religions and faiths for support; 4) a "definition" of science which details attributes that bring an explanation closer to the ideal scientific theory; 5) six paragraphs stating that ID proponents haven't published work in reputable scientific journals(!); 6) three paragraphs on whether or not intelligence can even be detected scientifically; 7) and two characterizations of ID arguments as logical fallacies (arguments from ignorance and god of the gaps).

Whew. So that's the information within the "Creating and teaching the controversy" section. As you can see, there really isn't much to do with the "Teach the Controversy" campaign, but instead an heavy emphasis upon ID's relationship to science and the scientific community. This is the reason the title Intelligent design and science has been chosen to represent this information, though suggestions are most welcome. Also, this article's size is 181,895 bytes (177KB) and the rule of thumb states that articles over 100KB "lmost certainly should be divided." I think this simple change will greatly improve the article, so... how much support do we have for this? Thank you, everyone, for your time! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Fully agree with the split, though if possible this should comply with WP:SUMMARY leaving a brief mention of the main points. The title suggested wouldn't cover all of the topics, as some are more about religion or theology. Perhaps split these to form two sub-articles, or possibly relationship of intelligent design to science and theology. . . dave souza, talk 18:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave. I took a closer look at the material in the section and you're right, we have a variety of material here. Referring to the numbers in my previous post, we have 1) an ID campaign to teach religion in public school science classes, 2) related religious beliefs involving science, 3) religious outreach, 4-6) science, and 7) logic. It seems to me that 1, 2, and 4-6 could go into a new article (Intelligent design and science), but I don't think there's enough information in 3 and 7 for another new article. I guess we could make a stub article from it(?). Or maybe we can leave those within this main article? The subsection on religious outreach could be moved to the "Movement" section, and the logic subsections could be moved to... a new "Criticism" section?

Oh, and I absolutely agree with the WP:SUMMARY bit. Actually, maybe that could be summarized within a "Criticism" section as well? Here's what I'm thinking...

• Rename "Creating and teaching the controversy" to "Criticism"
• Move subsections related to science into a new article titled "Intelligent design and science" (1, 2, 4-6)
• Briefly summarize the newly created article within the "Criticism" section, as a subsection entitled "Scientific criticisms"
• Move "Inter-faith outreach" to the "Movement" section (3)
• Leave "Arguments from ignorance" and "God of the gaps" as their own subsections within the "Criticism" section (7)

This should keep the section limited to criticisms of ID and cut the overall filesize down substantially. What do you think? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm opposed to removing the scientific take on ID from the main ID article as it would then leave a pseudoscientific article with undue weight, though I'm not sure if that's what being proposed . If that's not what's being proposed, would you mind elaborating what the ID umbrella article will look like? Thanks. Nformation 20:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it sounds like it may become a POV fork. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I think a lot of the size is due to the references, notes and further reading (they contain full quotes etc). IRWolfie- (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Noformation and IRWolfie, we do not want to remove the scientific perspective and leave only the ID perspective. Instead, what we're proposing is a removal of excess, non-vital material. At the moment, we're talking about the "Creating and teaching the controversy" section: the title suggests the contained information will be about the DI's "Teach the Controversy" campaign, but the information has little to do with this campaign. Also, note that we're not talking about removing anything from other parts of the article, which means the scientific perspective will not be removed. Instead, we'd move both the scientific and ID viewpoints within this section only to a new article and summarize that information here, again preserving both perspectives (i.e. no net change in weight). I hope this makes the proposal and our intent clearer. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

@ MisterDub, your comment at 15:52, 2 November 2011, looks good to me. It's a sensible way forward, with the clear and obvious understanding that care will be taken to properly summarise any sections that are removed, thus maintaining the due weight in the article. My feeling is that there's a lot of detailed discussion and repetition that can be concisely summarised to give a clearer article, with ready access to the linked detail for those interested. . dave souza, talk 21:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Support as well now that it's been clarified. POV fork was what I thought at first as well but it's clear that's not the case here. Nformation 02:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Since the proposal seems to be well supported this time, I'll begin drafting the new "Criticism" section in my sandbox so everyone can view and comment before the change is made to the article. Thanks, all! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so I've got a draft in my sandbox worked up that I think is a pretty good start. Please read and comment. Also, I've copied the information from the main article's "Creating and teaching the controversy" section and placed it in its own article in my Userspace. This page needs a well-written lead, though I'm not sure what kinds of standards I should follow for it (e.g. do we bold "Intelligent design and science" as the first phrase of the lead, as in other articles?). The good news is that the WP:SUMMARY version is less than half the size of what is currently in the article: 25,773 bytes (25KB) versus 59,364 bytes (58KB). Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I must say I have a knee-jerk reaction against a section named "Critisism" in an article as good as this one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not particularly fond of it either. Do you have a suggestion for a title that better represents the information within the section? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I´m sorry, I can not come up with a good name for this section.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't heard any criticisms or objections to the proposed changes, so I guess I'll make the change at the end of this week. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

New atheism

I reverted this edit by user Stephfo due to the following concerns:

• The topic of new atheism isn't mentioned in the article, and therefore does not belong in the lead section, which should be for providing an overview of the article.
• The edit appears to take a quote from Dawkins out of context to imply that Dawkins somehow supports the idea behind ID (that the existence of an intelligent designer is a scientific question). Dawkins' views are well known.
• The edit references a source by a neurologist that appears to be a self-published work, not peer reviewed.

If I misunderstood anything above, I apologize, but those were my justifications for reverting. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Concur totally with with point one

As for point two, Dawkins has stated "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question, even if it is not in practice- or not yet- a decided one." However, this can in no way be construed as an endorsement of ID as a valid scientific approach to the question. The use of the source here is thus misleading, and irrelevant to the article.

As for point three, the source has indeed been published in a peer-reviewed journal, Science and Eduction. Nevertheless, it also does not support or endorse ID as a valid scientific approach to the question, as is thus irrelevant to the article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

1. The central part of lead section brings up a topic of relation between science and supernatural explanations, not topic of New Atheism. It specifically mentions attitude of mainstream science towards such supernatural claims ("The scientific community rejects the extension of science to include supernatural explanations"). Thus, you really misunderstood the topic, IMHO, article is trying to push a POV that supernatural claims are per se scientific oddity, but hiding that members of scientific community often regarded as so called mainstream, namely New Atheists, commonly declare supernatural claims for unequivocally a scientific questions, what is then highly controversial as it was also correctly mentioned in the text. This is evidence for a bias in article, IMHO. Please advise if you suggest to move the text to the body of article in case you oppose its presence in the head part on grounds that it is not mentioned in there.
2. Please explain how in your opinion the original context affects the validity of claim by New Atheist Dawkins that in his opinion "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence" that this article IMHO referrers to as "the hypothesized intelligent designer", believed "to be the Christian God", is "unequivocally a scientific question", if you believe so. Are you trying to suggest that he was not honest in this proposition? Do you suggest that there is a difference between "creative super--intelligence" and "Intelligent Designer"? In what sense? The article claim and claims by mainstream scientific New Atheists are in direct contradiction and I believe WP should correctly advise WP reader about this controversy. IMHO, to state "The edit appears to ... imply that Dawkins somehow supports the idea behind ID" after reading "Controversially, although generally rejecting the concepts of ID, so called new atheists assert that many supernatural claims are scientific claims in nature" is clearly impossible, unless a strong bias would be applied against the given edit. We can use stronger wording like "although completely rejecting the idea of ID" if you wish, pls. advise.
3. If you accept argument by D.V. below , pls. note contrary to his claim the text does not suggest whatsoever that given source endorse ID, but addresses the article bias wrt. controversy in attitude of scientist towards supernatural claims (in line with "When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Rather, balance it with what you think is neutral." WP:DR), what is a topic present in the lead section.

Thanx for your understanding--Stephfo (talk) 10:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I first want to say that the edit was rather poor and extremely POV ("Controversially", "so called New Atheists", attributing the second source to New Atheists when atheism isn't even mentioned other than in the bibliography and keywords). Even if we decide to keep the information in the article, this would need one hell of a rewrite. Second, if the point of this is to show that science can test supernatural claims, then perhaps this would be best placed in the new Intelligent design and science article proposed above.

That said, we already have sourced information in the last paragraph of the "Defining science" section which addresses the same topic, without mention of "New Atheists." Furthermore, this section, and others discussing the relationship of ID to science, is to be moved into a new article, so it wouldn't exist here anyway. In light of this, I find the new information superfluous and easy to drop, though perhaps others would like to amend the section I mentioned previously to account for these sources before the section is moved. The latter is fine by me, the former preferred. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Pls. explain your point: "extremely POV ("Controversially", "so called New Atheists", attributing the second source to New Atheists when atheism isn't even mentioned other than in the bibliography and keywords" in more detail: What is actual POV that you identified as "extreme"? Do you deem that there is no controversy between:

• the claim that "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question" and
• that "the hypothesized intelligent designer" as in fact supernatural claim referred to in sentence: "The scientific community rejects the extension of science to include supernatural explanations"?

Please explain how these two claims match together w/o driving the discussion to distraction, if possible.

• Add. "attributing the second source to New Atheists" - what source? What is actually wrong here in your opinion?

General note: Pls. note you have not demonstrated whatsoever that any WP rule would be by given edit violated, what is the very basic requirement when revert is made. (WP:IDONTLIKEIT policy states: "Such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion") Thanx--Stephfo (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo, please don't slip into that habit. Just because we haven't "broken any rules" including the content doesn't mean we should include it, or indeed that consensus can't form that it shouldn't be. Users here have given a few solid reasons for opposing inclusion, which do not fit WP:IDLI. I'll also point out that quotes like this, particularly the one by Dawkins, are an explicit attempt to combat Non-overlapping magisteria, because Dawkins feels that supernatural claims have already failed investigation (either by being ludicrous, or tested and false). Therefore, to take the quote out of that context and imply that Dawkins is pushing for more investigation into the supernatural, as though there may be something there, is quote mining and OR.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

1. Mann_jess, please don't slip into habit of attributing me a position that I do not hold. When I declare that some response is not in line with WP policy, namely on removing content, I by no means suggest that consensus can't form that shouldn't , but rather make a call to keep discussion in a structured way, if possible, and definitely avoid such controversial claims as that "the edit was rather poor" not supported by any explanation, a fortiori if the text does not contained anything more than Dawkins claim 1:1 and stripped version of text already present at New Atheism page (so that it implies the given page is poorly written, what however, controversially nobody minds).

2. Pls. explain how "Dawkins feels that supernatural claims have already failed investigation" and at the same time declares that is "unequivocally a scientific question" that "is not in practice- or not yet- a decided one." If something is not yet decided it could not fail investigation already, unless Dawkins would be a prophet seeing the future, IMHO.--Stephfo (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Steppfo, please post responses to the discussion at the bottom of the discussion. Otherwise, the conversation will very quickly devolve into fragmented replies taken out of context. I will respond to you there. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I should have added a fourth objection that almost goes without saying. The passage I reverted ended with "many scientists are investigating the possibility of supernatural causes." Completely unsourced assertion.

The fact remains that the lead section of an encyclopedia article should provide a concise overview of the rest of the article, not introduce new claims or assertions that are not described later. The connection with New Atheism isn't mentioned anywhere in the article, and therefore does not belong in the lead.

The question of whether it belongs in the body is a different matter. Probably not, as this seems only tangentially related to Intelligent Design.

The main objection, however, is the misrepresenting of quotations from scientists to push a POV that scientists "assert that many supernatural claims are scientific claims." Jess is correct, this is quote mining. Nothing in the passage from Dawkins asserts "many" supernatural claims are scientific. If you read the quotation in the context of the entire section of that book, it is clear that he is simply arguing that science should not be excluded from addressing the question of the existence of a super-intelligent creator — and his consistent position as a scientist has always been that no such being exists. The selective quotation and positioning in the article imply that Dawkins somehow supports the notion that underpins the Intelligent Design movement is a bit far-fetched, constitutes WP:OR, and isn't relevant to this article.

I was mistaken about the peer-review status of the final source provided by Stephfo. However, Dominus Vobisdu is correct; the article doesn't support ID as a scientific approach to the question, so it is not relevant. It may fit better in a different article. Even so, minority viewpoints should not be given any prominent weight, especially in the lead.

Finally, balancing a perceived bias by what you think is neutral doesn't mean it's appropriate to introduce opposing bias, particularly when it's giving WP:UNDUE weight to what appears to be a decidedly minority viewpoint, and especially when taken out of context. As to rules that were violated by this edit, it seems to me that WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:LEAD were all violated. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Before I will continue with further points, I'd like to ask you regarding your point "I should have added a fourth objection that almost goes without saying. The passage I reverted ended with "many scientists are investigating the possibility of supernatural causes." Completely unsourced assertion." if this will cause the same zeal within you to remove the given claim from New Atheism page from which it was taken or if the claim becomes "Completely unsourced assertion" subject of your objection only when this claim is not serving right my follow atheist editors (hopefully unbiased and with good faith/intention). Thanx for clarification --Stephfo (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo, the adjective "controversially" is unnecessary and implies that there is an actual controversy where there is none (WP:OR and WP:WEIGHT). As is explained in the final paragraph in the "Defining science" section, methodological naturalism is an a posteriori criterion, not an a priori one: the fact that supernatural claims have failed to stand up to scientific scrutiny does not indicate that they are inherently unscientific. If you read the "Defining science" section, you will see this supported by several sources.

The adjectival phrase "so-called" is also unnecessary and implies that the label is false or otherwise inaccurate. This is not supported by any source and is therefore WP:OR.

You use the second source to support the claim that "he New Atheists believe science is now capable of investigating at least some, if not all, supernatural claims, ..." yet the source never mentions New Atheists or atheists at all. This is also clearly WP:OR. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

But I provided a hyperlink to New Atheism#Scientific testing of religion page where this exactly same claim seems to be tolerated by our fellow editors and no one proposes to remove it on the same grounds like you here, does it mean it should disappear from there in your opinion per your reasoning presented in here?--Stephfo (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Stepfo, a number of reasons have been presented as to why this content is unacceptable, but you've fallen back into the behavior of repeatedly asking that simple statements be explained over and over. It has been explained quite adequately why "the edit was poor", so suggesting that no one has explained their reasoning at all is unhelpful. I'll repeat a few objections, and I hope that if you wish to continue the discussion, you respond to them appropriately. 1) This content is not in the body of the article, and so is not appropriate for the lead, which aims to summarize the body. It simply cannot be included where you have proposed. 2) The text includes claims which are unsourced, including "many scientists are investigating the possibility of supernatural causes." We can't include controversial unsourced statements such as this. 3) The prose includes words which push a POV not presented in reliable sources, namely that there is a controversy about supernatural explanations in science. This weasel wording, and editorializing in the prose must be removed to present an encyclopedic view of the topic. 4) Your proposal draws a link to New Atheism and atheists generally which is not presented prominently in the sourcing, and not relevant to this article. If it is relevant to a different article, that is not our concern here. 5) You appear to be synthesizing sources in order to include this content. Do the sources say anything about ID? If so, do they draw the connections you are? There have been other concerns as well, but these are the most prominent to my view. Please address them, without simply demanding that every editor explain their position in more and more detail.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Attitude of science towards supernatural claims mentioned in the lead section

I made a new section as the article became difficult to edit and also because user misunderstood the reason for edit:

• The central part of lead section brings up a topic of relation between science and supernatural explanations, not topic of New Atheism. It specifically mentions attitude of (perhaps mainstream) science towards such supernatural claims GENERALLY (i.e. regardless of ID: "The scientific community rejects the extension of science to include supernatural explanations" {as such, irrespective of ID}). Thus, article is trying to push a POV that supernatural claims are per se scientific oddity (what might be well the truth, personally I do not know), but at the same time hiding the fact that members of scientific community often regarded as so called (we can removed "so called" if someone does not like it) mainstream, namely New Atheists, commonly declare supernatural claims (AS SUCH, irrespective of ID) for unequivocally a scientific questions, what is then highly controversial as it was also correctly mentioned in the text. This is evidence for a bias in article, IMHO, and make it legitimate subject of NPOV balancing: "When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Rather, balance it with what you think is neutral."
• 1. This content is not in the body of the article, and so is not appropriate for the lead, which aims to summarize the body. It simply cannot be included where you have proposed.

Problem can be easily solved by extending article body with this content if this is the only problem. Agree? If not than I suggest that this is not your real objection worth of spending time with.

• 2. The text includes claims which are unsourced, including "many scientists are investigating the possibility of supernatural causes." We can't include controversial unsourced statements such as this.

This is 1:1 copy from New Atheism. Pls. advise if you could include such controversial statement there in. If the missing source would be found there, I suggest to move it here to satisfy your concerns in this respect.

• 3. The prose includes words which push a POV not presented in reliable sources, namely that there is a controversy about supernatural explanations in science. This weasel wording, and editorializing in the prose must be removed to present an encyclopedic view of the topic.

Again, after your multiple visits at New Atheism page you seem not attack any reliable sources there in. As for controversy, there is eye-striking discrepancy between two claims (question on presence of super-intelligence is unequivocally scientific question, but the very same intelligent agent is suddenly a non-scientific question) that is impossible to hide unless someone would claim that atheist have right to declare anything they like out of supernatural claims for scientific question or not how it suits them and there are no objective criteria for supernatural claims. WP readers are not stupid to notice that, and thus encyclopedic view should be to help them notice this controversy and try to help to explain why it is there and how they should come to grips with it. Moreover, controversially, the same community that seems so strongly and endlessly harping on (term used by JamesBWatson) reliable sources when it comes to obvious claims not in favour of atheism, seem to be utterly tolerable to claims that are completely invented and that attack Christianity in unfair way like one that "Creationists often claim that public support of creationism is a sign of its validity as a scientific theory." Let it be so if they like it that way, I just register this bias, not attack anybody (this is meant to be just footnote in between lines). I just noticed that many people started to regard WP for having liberal atheist bias and it is impossible to disagree with them.

• 4. Your proposal draws a link to New Atheism and atheists generally which is not presented prominently in the sourcing, and not relevant to this article. If it is relevant to a different article, that is not our concern here.

I agree that New Atheist are not relevant to the article which is dedicated to ID, however fact that they are New Atheists is not important whatsoever in my effort to point out that in relation between science and supernatural claims there are groups of scientists (I believe you will have no problem to agree they are mainstream) who commonly regard supernatural questions for being unequivocally scientific questions. Please do not cast red harrings on New Atheism but focus on relation between article claim on relation between science and supernatural claims which only matters in here in my effort to balance it out and explain for common WP reader.

• 5. You appear to be synthesizing sources in order to include this content. Do the sources say anything about ID? If so, do they draw the connections you are? There have been other concerns as well, but these are the most prominent to my view.

ID is irrelevant as in relation between science and supernatural claims it does not play any other role than it belongs to that group of supernatural claims, in the same way like any other supernatural claim regarded by group of scientist such as New Atheists for scientific, what is by all means controversial. If you deem there is objective criterion (with proper sourcing) which makes distinction between ID as supernatural claim and other supernatural claims wrt. their perception by New Atheists who regard supernatural claims for being scientific questions, I advise to include it into article.

• 6. Pls. note the claim "ID seeks to redefine science in a fundamental way that would invoke supernatural explanations, a viewpoint known as theistic science" does not have any citation whatsoever and you seem not to mind it.

Thanx in advance for your understanding --Stephfo (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The article correctly cites and summarises a number of sources, including that the IDM’s goal is to replace science as currently practiced with “theistic and Christian science", and "Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based upon empirical evidence are not part of science." If supernatural claims can be observed or measured then they're open to scientific investigation, which is all that the "new atheists" are claiming. Source: Whether ID is science as cited. . . dave souza, talk 22:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo, you claimed above that when you were reverted, it was "not supported by any explanation". I responded with a list of just a few of the explanations editors had given. That does not make what I said a "red herring"; these are legitimate objections to your proposal, so saying there was "no explanation" isn't helpful. You said above "ID is irrelevant as in relation between science and supernatural claims it does not play any other role than it belongs to that group of supernatural claims" (emphasis mine). This article is about ID. If ID is irrelevant to your proposal, then your proposal doesn't belong in this article. You are trying to make a point about New Atheists and science which simply isn't in the sources, and doesn't belong in this topic. If you want this content included, please find a source which explicitly says what you want to say.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This however I do do not fully understand, please advise why you hold a view that "a creative super-intelligence" has nothing to do with ID, to me the article seems full of references exactly to such subject, referred to there in as "intelligent cause/ intelligent agent/creator" etc..--Stephfo (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Possibly useful in sub-article

• Stephfo rather misrepresented the sources with the proposed edit, these may be useful for a detailed discussion in the proposed article on ID and science, but should not be given undue weight in this main article. The little known Yonatan I. Fishman (not "new atheists") examines Dawkins' arguments against Non-overlapping magisteria which are already well covered in that article. Fishman concludes "Thus, contrary to the positions expressed by Judge Jones, the AAAS, and the NAS, the reason why supernatural or religious claims, such as those of ID/Creationism, do not belong in science classes is not because they have supernatural or religious content, but rather because there is either no convincing evidence to support them or science has debunked them." and subsequently "there is ample justification for the conclusion of philosopher Bradley Monton" that “ID should not be dismissed on the grounds that it is unscientific; ID should be dismissed on the grounds that the empirical evidence for its claims just isn’t there.” That's an interesting argument about religion and science, but a clear misunderstanding of the US Constitutional objection to establishment of religion. As for "many scientists are investigating the possibility of supernatural causes", that's sourced to Stenger who is pointing to the efforts made by nstitutions such as the Mayo Clinic and Duke University to test whether prayer has any effect. Not "new atheists". Stenger is however notes that
  "Philosophers of science refer to the self-imposed convention of science that limits inquiry to objective observations of the world as methodological naturalism. It has worked well and it would still apply to prayer studies since any positive healing effects would be measurable events. The dispute is not over the experimental procedures but rather the theoretical interpretation of the data."
  The issue is not whether supernatural claims can be examined by science, which they always have been, but whether supernatural explanations have any merit as science. Both these authors are arguing against NOMA, and in doing that seem to be misunderstanding that aspect of the Kitz. judgement. . . dave souza, talk 20:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Wrt. "Stephfo rather misrepresented the sources with the proposed edit" I did nothing else just copy &paste of the edit from New Atheism page thus, if the sources are misrepresented, it is weird that many editors visiting that page (incl. for example frequent visitor ♥) have not discovered it yet.--Stephfo (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Your misrepresentation is that any of this has anything to do with Intelligent Design, the subject of the present article. The paragraph in the New Atheism article does not mention Intelligent Design. That association was synthesis on your part. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Funny you're pointing me out. Anyway... the content in the New Atheism article also includes a good amount of context before and after the prose you've picked out. Without that context, and in a completely separate topic area, you're implying things which are both unsourced and inaccurate. You also didn't just "copy and paste from New Atheism". You added your own words and content, which has been widely objected to above. For instance: "Controversially... so called new atheists". We can't use that sort of wording without proper sources backing it up.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I did not add anything else, apart from 1:1 citation from Dawkins, than what was absolutely necessary to point out that there is a direct contradiction between two claims, one in article on ID and other in article on New Atheism. Apart from that, I was only stripping the actual instances of supernatural claims used as examples. If you look at the "Scientific testing of religion" in New Atheism, there is demonstrably no good amount of context before or after the text I took. "The New Atheists assert" is the first sentence both there and in my text, IMHO. --Stephfo (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

For my part, I had never even heard of the term "new atheist" until Stephfo introduced it into this article. So please don't assume that other editors have visited that page. If that page has problems, those problems should be fixed rather than spread to other articles. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

So now when you know that that page has problems that you were able to explain so well, are you going to fix them or you do not bother if there will remain there in? --Stephfo (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The problems, Stephfo, is that you're misusing "new atheist" arguments. They correctly state that supernatural claims can be tested by science. The lead of this article correctly states that supernatural explanations cannot be accepted in science. Spot the difference? The "new atheist" argument at most amounts to stating that empirical tests do not support supernatural explanations, so ID is pseudoscience as it fails to provide any empirical evidence. Both articles appear to be correct in their context. . dave souza, talk 22:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to suggest that ID is not supernatural claim, because if it were, it could be tested by science ("new atheist" correctly state that supernatural claims can be tested by science)? What it is then, scientific claim? --Stephfo (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

ID is a supernatural explanation presented with some claims that there are empirical features which they say science can't explain. Science can explain these features, so to that extent ID has been tested and falsified. However, no-one can ever disprove the non-empirical explanation that Goddidit, or that malaria has been created for the unknowable aims of The Designer. These are religious beliefs that lack any empirical justification and hence are not science. . . dave souza, talk 23:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Jess and Dave. Removed of their context and inserted into this article they represent synthesis not supported by the sources. In the New Atheist article, they are placed in proper context, and do not need to be changed. There is no inconsistency here between the two articles. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Would it be then the correct conclusion that many supernatural claims are scientific claims in nature, except one, namely ID, and there has been unknown objective criteria applied when making such conclusion? Pls. advise.--Stephfo (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo, you said: "I what was absolutely necessary to point out that there is a direct contradiction between two claims". That is the definition of WP:SYNTH. We don't "point things out" on wikipedia. We report what the sources say. Our sources don't say that.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with you, if you look at the Level of support for evolution, the sources absolutely do not say anything about "Creationists often claim that public support of creationism is a sign of its validity as a scientific theory" and the very same people that are willing to lay their lives on battlefield while using far-fetched WP:Wikilawyering as weapons, to put it in humorous terms, are perfectly able to live up with that notion not bothering whatsoever. WP by far does not contain only 1:1 claims from sources but also a great deal of common sense should be applied, if possible, at least sometimes. --Stephfo (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not doing synthesis, but rather bringing attention of WP reader on the two claims that are in mutual contradiction, a fact that can be denied only by denying the rules of logic. I leave up to WP reader to make comclusion for himself/herself w/o proposing any POV that he/she should take. --Stephfo (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

While we use common sense for little things (like that "Intelligent Design" and "Inteligent Design" probably mean the same thing and don't warrant separate articles), we absolutely do not use common sense to violate core principals such as WP:V, particularly when in an effort to make a point. The argument that "another article did it" is not a good one, as has been suggested a number of times now.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I can remove the section on controversy if this is the only your problem and cite Dawkins 1:1.--Stephfo (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're proposing. I (and others) have listed a host of problems above, which all need to be addressed. I'm not sure some of them can be. What "section on controversy"?   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe you have noticed that you counted "a host of problems above" 1-5. To declare "need to be addressed" sounds to me as mockery as this is exactly what I did in the section above. The same cannot be stated about the opposition to my edit, I'm sure you have managed to read my call for answer:

• "Please explain how in your opinion the original context affects the validity of claim by New Atheist Dawkins that in his opinion "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence" that this article IMHO referrers to as "the hypothesized intelligent designer", believed "to be the Christian God", is "unequivocally a scientific question", if you believe so. Are you trying to suggest that he was not honest in this proposition? Do you suggest that there is a difference between "creative super--intelligence" and "Intelligent Designer"? In what sense? The article claim and claims by mainstream scientific New Atheists are in direct contradiction and I believe WP should correctly advise WP reader about this controversy. IMHO, to state "The edit appears to ... imply that Dawkins somehow supports the idea behind ID" after reading "Controversially, although generally rejecting the concepts of ID, so called new atheists assert that many supernatural claims are scientific claims in nature" is clearly impossible, unless a strong bias would be applied against the given edit. We can use stronger wording like "although completely rejecting the idea of ID" if you wish, pls. advise." Pls. advise where is the answer, my fellow collaborating editor.
• As for "What "section on controversy"?" - this one can go out:

Controversially, although generally rejecting the concepts of ID, so called new atheists assert that many supernatural claims are scientific claims in nature. They argue, for instance, that the presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question, even if it is not in practice – or not yet – a decided one. The New Atheists believe science is now capable of investigating at least some, if not all, supernatural claims and many scientists are investigating the possibility of supernatural causes.

• 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 Creationism articles
• Top-importance Creationism articles
• WikiProject Creationism articles
• FA-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• FA-Class Skepticism articles
• Unknown-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles