Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 09:49, 27 May 2007

Help on contributing to this article

When editing this article please consider the following things which have been generally supported by the contributors to date (this should ultimately be edited by, or replaced by policies and plans drafted by, editors who are experts in this topic):

The article is filed under science and should not include a theological or religious discussion about intelligent design. Instead, if important religious people or theologians have made comments about the issue, they should be referred to in the article as proponents/opponents and links put to their pages on CZ. Perhaps there should even be a page Intelligent_Design_religious in the religion section to describe the religious debate behind the issue. [Sorry, but I don't really get this item. Why shouldn't theological considerations about intelligent design be permitted? --Larry Sanger 12:28, 26 February 2007 (CST)]

Hi Larry. Ironically, there are various arguments based on the authority of Scripture that ID will *not* demonstrate that there is a creator. I just don't believe such discussions are appropriate in an article filed under science. Moreover, the article is likely to become much longer if it is to nuance the views of all the important religious authorities who have commented on the issue, and finally the article will attract far more criticism and ridicule (= edit wars, vandalism, etc) if it seems to make theological arguments. I am not saying such things are not appropriate to be recorded in CZ somewhere, just not in an article filed under science. There isn't any reason why we can't mention that such views exist, however, and point to articles elsewhere in CZ that nuance the issues. Also, ID proponents have been quite religious about not making arguments from Scripture to support ID (at least not when speaking to academics and in the popular press), so I think it would be misrepresentation of the ID hypothesis to present religious arguments for or against it in the principal article on ID in CZ. William Hart 09:45, 27 February 2007 (CST)

William--this isn't Wikipedia. Vandals are banned instantly and permanently, and since we closed down self-registration, we have had no vandalism. Protracted "edit wars" with everything that entails would violate CZ:Professionalism and be grounds for removal; and ignoring of our neutrality policy is also grounds for removal. The question whether this article should report on theological arguments, therefore, should not depend on what is convenient for CZ, but what the facts are: are theological arguments in fact made by ID's leading proponents in favor of ID? If so, they should be reported. --Larry Sanger 09:24, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

Excellent. Regarding theological arguments, I don't believe the leading proponents use theological arguments (they do speak about ID at churches and in religious settings however). The actual components of the theory are scientific ones. What I was referring to is the debate that has occurred in religious circles over whether ID should be embraced. For example, some evangelical Christians believe that science can never reveal God. Others think ID does not go far enough, and on biblical ground believe that much more can be known about God from nature (but not necessarily revealed by ID theory). There is also the ongoing question of what the Pope thinks about ID. He doesn't seem to have made a clear statement endorsing or disendorsing the theory. But it sounds as if you are leaning heavily towards putting everything about ID in one article. If so, then let us make it so. William Hart 09:01, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

The article should not make arguments from authority, e.g. imply that all sensible/smart people have rejected ID as being religious (and therefore presumed irrational). It may, of course, state that most of the relevant scientists reject ID as unscientific.
- The article should not make any arguments at all, whether good or fallacious. It should only report them. But there is nothing wrong with reporting on an argument from authority against ID; it's just that, if ID proponents have a response, their response should also be reported. --Larry Sanger 09:24, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

There is no intellectual merit in an argument made from authority. What is more important is that it does not represent the best of the scientific arguments that have been made against ID. The article will need to be clearly partitioned if it is to report on every kind of argument made for or against ID, otherwise people will become upset that they are being misrepresented. We can do that of course. We just need to make the conscious decision to do so. William Hart 09:01, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Most philosophers and their texts which teach critical thinking disagree with you about the merit of arguments from authority. If someone really is a credible authority about topic T, and that person says P about T, then (given perhaps some other things), probably, P is true. That's the form of an argument from authority. There is certainly such a thing as a fallacious appeal to authority, as for example when you cite a philosopher to support your claim that, say, token physicalism is true, when many other philosophers, equally "expert" in the philosophy of mind, make contrary claims. Whether rejection of ID (or, to take a similar example in some ways, the anthropogenic origin of global warming) is the sort of thing that is properly supported by arguments from authority depends entirely on your views of the "authorities" in each case.

Besides, if an argument from authority is very commonly made, as I imagine it is in this case, we would actually be remiss in failing to report it. But in reporting it, you needn't actually advance the argument. Moreover, you can report replies made to it. So, for example, if some ID defender said, as I'm sure one has sometime, that surveys of scientists' reaction to ID amount to fallacious arguments from authority, and establish nothing, then we should report that. --Larry Sanger 09:26, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

OK, I should have said that there is no scientific merit in such an argument. Philosophers are certainly intellectuals. But I think what you are saying is precisely what the original bullet point said, that it is fine to say that "most of the relevant scientists reject ID as unscientific". What I was personally worried about was the style of argument which goes "ID is religious, and clearly all religion is bunk since all sensible people have rejected it, therefore ID is bunk". To me it is bias to go looking for someone "important" who has advanced a particular fallacious argument just because it is one that easily springs to mind. I feel that this is precisely why the WP article fails. It doesn't report any of the serious objections to ID, only ones that people suppose must be serious objections. But I take your point that if something is commonly reported as an argument against ID, we should report that. As for anthropogenic causes of global warming, I have been exhorting colleagues to lower their emmissions for some time, however between our collective hot air and passing wind, I have decided that maybe it is more convenient to blame sunspots. :-) William Hart 11:07, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

The arguments of proponents and opponents of ID should be made with specific attention to conveying the reasoning behind those arguments in a clear and lucid way and the readers should be left to make up their own minds. The article should not seek to provide rebuttals for or dismiss the arguments of either prominent proponents or opponents in the debate, unless they are quite common rebuttals and the argument space is balanced in any case. Nor should it seek to present any particular point of view as the accepted factual one at the presumed expense of other points of view.

In short we hope that the article will be pleasant to read, describing the issue in a compelling and accurate way as per CZ guidelines and not seek to enter the debate itself or rebutt every point that is made on either side of the debate. This sort of thing makes encyclopaedia articles extremely unpleasant to read.

Please also see the section below on things to possibly include in the article if you are thinking about contributing.

Typographical and other conventions

"quotes" for reported speech, 'emphasis' for emphasis???? .David Tribe 06:22, 26 February 2007 (CST)

Capitalisation?

(moved from later in the talk page) Bleh, does someone know how to capitalise Intelligent Design correctly in this article. Should there be a distinction between the movement and the theory? Should it just be capitalised throughout? Also what about the Theory of Evolution by Natural selection. Is that the correct capitalisation? William Hart 04:57, 17 February 2007 (CST)

Intelligent Design : A better intro than WP

I've added an introduction to this subject. The corresponding Wikipedia page has been the cause of bitter disputes and allegations of heavy bias to the point that the article is now protected and can only be edited by regular wikipedians. If Citizendium is to succeed where Wikipedia has failed, I am guessing this will be an interesting test case.

Some suggestions as to why Wikipedia might have had so much trouble with this article:

It quotes the opinions of individuals in order to make various points in a narrative style article. This is dangerous since almost anything anyone wants to say has been said by *someone* regarding ID, thus quoting those opinions can be a way of adding legitimacy to a personal argument about the issue. In other words, some of the opinons quoted may be prone to encouraging or entertaining the debate, rather than informing readers.
The article errs on the side of conflating creationism and ID, however the article should try to elucidate the distinction between the two concepts.
The article conflates the personal beliefs of many of the leading proponents and the actual statements that constitute the theory of intelligent design itself. In general there is a poor distinction in the article between the ID movement as a cultural phenomenon and intelligent design framed as a scientific argument.
A number of quotations appear to be used to give the impression that something which is not factual, is true. For example the statement that no scientific evidence supporting ID has been published in peer reviewed literature is very carefully worded, but quite misleading. An important case of an article which passed peer review but was later rejected amidst accusations of editorial misconduct (which the editor denies), does not appear to be mentioned.
Statistics are used rather wildly, for example a poorly constructed poll is admitted to evidence, and a statement about 70,000 scientists opposing ID is in fact really about a petition signed by only 9 people who may or may not hold the same views as the members they represent in their respective organisations (not to mention people possibly belonging to more than one of the organisations).
The article often uses phrases such as, "it is claimed that" or "proponents say that" or "so and so argues that", which is often used in the article as a literary device for advancing one side of the debate against the other. Instead of presenting the facts, the article is presented as a dialogue between opponents and proponents of the theory (which of course just degenerates into such a debate on the talk page).
The debate is entertained by the article rather than being reported in an unempassioned way from the outside of the issue.
Many statements in the article would be highly offensive to one side of the debate or the other, prompting more aggravation on the talk page and in edit wars within the article itself.

In summary, I believe that the article is neither neutral, nor encyclopaedic. Of course what I've added to the page on Citizendium is certainly not the latter, and quite possibly not the former either. But every article needs a starting point. In fact I think I have erred on the side of casting ID in a bad light rather than simply reporting what it is. If people agree, perhaps even more could be culled from my intro. In particular, I may not have recognized various connotations of the wording which seem to promote one side of the debate over the other. I welcome any and all changes designed to make the article more neutral. Please be kind. I'm going with the "be bold" slogan of Citizendium. William Hart 09:06, 15 February 2007 (CST)

What is the difference between ID and creationism? I don't ask for my personal information ;-) but because the article should make this clear. Mainstream monotheistic belief has it that God is the creator and therefore virtually all mainstream believers are creationists. But obviously not all of them buy into ID. --Larry Sanger 09:10, 15 February 2007 (CST)

I think that is a good point and I agree, the article should reflect that. Also on the flip side, there are occasional agnostics who support ID. So my guess is that creationism and ID are quite different concepts. I think the main distinction is that ID does not require a *supernatural* designer. The wikipedia article tries to brush this distinction aside by making comments about how an alien race or some other kind of natural designer could not have designed the universe and that the fine tuning of constants, though under the general purview of ID theory, could not have been achieved by a natural designer. The wikipedia article also puts forward the argument that a designer would be so complex as to require an intelligent designer of its own. Since I don't wish to be making a case for either side of the debate here, I won't try to analyse these notions any further, but I think it suffices to say that those arguments look like they have been added to the wikipedia article by those wishing to debunk ID rather than to present an article which simply reports the facts. As a result they dismiss, rather than describe, the major distinction between ID and creationism.

In short, I think that ID is more about detecting design in nature and arguing for it from scientific considerations (e.g. from considerations arising from a study of microbiology) rather than trying to establish the nature of the intelligent designer. In that sense, ID most certainly cannot be characterised as an argument for the existence of God as the wikipedia article begins. In other words, ID theory has nothing to do with the statement "life on earth was created by an intelligent designer" and has much more to do with the statement "design can be *detected* in nature". This is possibly the reason many Christians object to it. Though they believe in a creator God, they perhaps don't believe that the specific considerations that intelligent design theory makes point to intelligent design. Nor do they think there is any reason to expect such considerations to lead to a proof of design. Other Christians object, as I understand it, because intelligent design doesn't go far enough, and identify the designer as God.

OK. I should be adding this to the article, not the talk page. But how to add it!? The specific wording is pretty important, so as to avoid the endless arguments which have accompanied the wikipedia version. William Hart 09:44, 15 February 2007 (CST)

In order to avoid the basking such as this topic often gives rise to, I suggest adding a chapter to the article giving righ to people with different views on the topic, but and I stress but, it may not become a religious talk else this should in totality be placed under religion as being one of its proponents. Robert Tito | Talk 11:37, 15 February 2007 (CST)

I agree, there should be a section on various views on the topic. Probably even before that there should be a section on the actual content of ID theory. At present the article is pretty woolly. But for the section on views: what views should be added? Many of the views represented in the wikipedia article seem to just be personal views of people contributing to the article often supported by articles in the popular press where journalists appear to have had the same thoughts. I think when one begins to enter the debate in this way, one loses objectivity. I'd much prefer to see a section listing the primary *scientific* objections to the concept with references to peer reviewed scientific articles or statements made in reputable scientific sources by scientists opposing the concept. One could also include the primary philosophical and religious objections too. But that is only possible if someone is very familiar with the peer reviewed literature. Just making up arguments and supposing that they must be the ones that theologians or philosophers have advanced against it and then trying to find a quote somewhere, anywhere, where someone has stated that point of view is going to make the article look quite non-authoritative in my opinion. I'm not particularly qualified to make *that* literature search, so I hope some other contributors will add that. William Hart 01:59, 16 February 2007 (CST)

Added in afterthought: the Pope would be such a qualified theologian who has made statements about the topic. BUT, this article is filed under science. Thus, as you suggest Robert, a religious discussion such as this, should not be included in the article, but rather linked to as one of the proponents/opponents of the theory (actually, having read a little of what the Pope has said on the issue, I'm still not sure of what his formal opinion really is). I see now what you are saying, and I agree! This article should include only statements from the scientific community with a short additional section reflecting the other (non-science) opinions that are out there, linking to appropriate articles about such people/ideas.

Things to add to the article

Some things that could be added to the article on the science side:

Something about Werner Gitt's writings and his response to ID.
Something about Paul Davies' writings.
Stephen J Gould's opinion.
Simon Conway Morris' opinion.
Dembski's explanatory filter.
Behe's Irreducible Complexity argument (there's a hint in the WP article that this has been refuted in the scientific literature and that even Behe has backed away from it. But there are so few actual details given that one is hard pressed to see clearly what has happened to this argument. I'd like to see the issue properly exposed if there is something to say.)
Dembski's specified complexity and universal probability bound.
Guillermo Gonzales' (?) fine tuned universe.
The no free lunch theorem and Dembski's evolutionary search spaces and pairwise competitive functions.
The opinions of Hubert Yockey, Robert Sauer, Peter Rüst, Paul Erbrich, Siegfried Scherer, and Douglas Axe
The `conversion' of Antony Flew (perhaps not appropriate in the main article).
Raelians, biologists who believe the genome is an intelligent machine (i.e. able to anticipate design requirements or to impose semantic meaning on the genetic code) and deists who believe the universe has emergent or created intelligence.
Findings which have subsequently challenged Behe's supposed examples of irreducible complexity in biochemistry (anyone have sources for this?).
Recent speculative proposals from string theory and cosmology of multiple universes, evolving universes or new universes emerging from a dying universe.
Relevant examples from genetic algorithms (again, anyone have sources for this one?)
At least some mention of the competing proposals for an abiotic chemical orgin of life (e.g. clays) as examples of `mainstream' proposals

I can't think of any more for now, but there are many important things that should be mentioned on both sides of the scientific debate. William Hart 01:59, 16 February 2007 (CST)

Good luck. I'd strongly agree that, having made the distinction between ID and creationism, the article should steer clear of religious issues as best it can, and especially avoid the insidious practice of disparaging opinions by implying that they reflect religious (ie presumed irrational beliefs).

Personally I think the article needs to begin with a clear and simple account of the case for ID, and perhaps Paley's watchmaker analogy is a good and classic way to begin?

I am really nervous about arguments from authority, i.e. to the effect that this is rubbish because all sensible people (or all very clever people) think its rubbish. I think it must be an objective to explain the reasoning behind people's views, and then sensible people can make their own minds up. Gareth Leng 05:20, 16 February 2007 (CST)

Hi Gareth, yes I agree with your sentiments. I notice in your edits that you use the phrase "intelligent creator" a couple of times. I'd be wary of using the precise word "creator". Although I understand the sense in which you have used it, from the context, I'm uncertain whether it is the best word. Having said that, I don't have a recommendation for an alternative. William Hart 07:08, 16 February 2007 (CST)

Some problems to address

I note we have the following problems with the article (for which I don't seem to have a solution at present):

* The overview section makes mention of intelligent design being objected to as unscientific, a point which is made again fairly soon after. Is there a way to rationalize and avoid duplication without affecting the flow of thought of the article.

* The fellows of the Discovery Institute are mentioned before the Discovery Institute is put in context. Is there a way to rearrange the article to avoid this.

* The comment about ID being akin to the teleological argument has disappeared as has the precise distinction between the two. Simon Conway Morris for example believes that design is evident in nature, but rejects intelligent design theory. He would use arguments from evolutionary theory, such as the ubiquity of convergent evolution. I think the watchmaker analogy is a good starting point, but then we need to distinguish the two arguments.

* The summary of the teleological argument should be added to an article on the teleological argument. I think such a summary is also perhaps welcome here in abbreviated form, as a general introduction to intelligent design (or that topic should be expanded in the article on the teleological argument). William Hart 07:08, 16 February 2007 (CST)

Please restore or edit in any way you think is appropriate. I was just trying to present the argument for ID in a simple, clear and rational way at the beginning, rather than assume that the reader already understood what it was.Gareth Leng 07:27, 16 February 2007 (CST)

No your additions are good, since they accord well with the CZ policy of having compelling prose rather than a list of random facts. I don't have a suggestion for how to improve it, only questions about how we can make it better. I'll leave it for now (until I have a brainwave at least or someone (else) has a go at editing it). William Hart 07:31, 16 February 2007 (CST)

Some brief comments

At the moment I have no close analysis to offer except a causual reading of the text and an observation the flow is carefully neutral and measured so far. It will be interesting to see the structure of the concluding sections.

The way Popper is quoted seems to amount to arguing from authority, and although I am a personal fan of Popper, the key scientific issues for this are elsewhere. A key issue that comes to mind is whether ID hypotheses survive rigorous scrutiny, not what Popper thinks of other matters. David Tribe 06:49, 17 February 2007 (CST)

I would agree with the comments about Popper. I haven't personally reverted them or tried to change them, but if you feel they should be changed then please do so. William Hart 07:30, 17 February 2007 (CST)

Whilst I have attempted to get the article underway, I believe CZ has a policy of no one person owning or being responsible for an article. So I would have no more right to control the article than any other contributor. Actually, I think Gareth may be responsible for more of it on a word by word basis than myself, and I recall he has relevant credentials. I should mention that I am not personally committed to seeing this article through to a final version. I am merely interested in making a start which I believe is relatively neutral and seeing what happens to it after that, i.e. it is an experiment of sorts. William Hart 07:30, 17 February 2007 (CST)

Oh I see. I understand the direction better. It reads exactly like that. Please forgive my slightly more than gentle probing- but different kind of viewpoints have to meet somewhere. Some person previously (it doesn't matter whom) had mode a remark that "next CZ will have ID articles" and I though well why not. Its a good test of neutrality. By the same token their construction needs to be intensely and fairly scrutinized. Because they will cerataily get criticised by more hostile critivcs than myself if they are approved. We did something "unconventional on Biology and its attracted unfair criticism elsewhere through misunderstanding of our editorial decisions, and there is far more scope for that kind of trouble in ID. Thats on my mind, but I will also defend your neutral treatment of ID. David Tribe 08:14, 17 February 2007 (CST)

That's quite interesting because the final article on biology reads beautifully. I read it yesterday and it certainly raised my hopes for CZ. I wonder if the ID article can ever be substantive enough to be that well-written and interesting. But I hope that gifted contributors will push it towards that ideal. We certainly need a statement of the main arguments of ID and statements of the principal scientific objections to ID. William Hart 09:25, 17 February 2007 (CST)

I think it would be useful to mention genetic algorithms are being used in computing to achieve intelligent solutions, and the merits of selection from variability as a mechanism for providing functional apparent design. Eg the alternative hypothesis can be sensitively presented. The design of the bacterial flagellum of course is a particular ID case study, and EVOwiki is one place to go to find the counter position David Tribe 07:15, 17 February 2007 (CST)

I don't know all that much about (recent) genetic algorithms. Do you have references for genetic algorithms which came up with irreducibly complex designs without unrealistic design constraints being imposed on the system? If so, and if this has been advanced as an argument against ID by its opponents, I think it would be an excellent thing to add to the article. William Hart 07:30, 17 February 2007 (CST)

For the moment I don't think they are applied to "irreducibly complex designs". But the words trigger the idea that they are a tautology. The whole point is are the functional features "irreducibly complex" or not? Thanks for the encouragement to participate David Tribe 08:08, 17 February 2007 (CST)

Ha! Yeah, I should have put designs in inverted commas, or used the phrase "apparently irreducibly complex designs". Naturally that is subjective, but if someone important or qualified has stated that they do have the same appearance of being irreducibly complex as say the flagellum, then that would make them pretty relevant. I suppose one could test whether these designs were irreducibly complex simply by removing each component and checking that it ceases to function. I haven't kept up with the debate for about the last 6 months, so I don't know if such a thing has been done. At any rate I perceive that you are arguing that such "designs" are evidence irrespective of whether they are irreducibly complex. An interesting question: at what point do we consider such algorithms to be intelligently designed as opposed to random and purposeless, and when do we consider the algorithms themselves to be artificially intelligent? I guess that is not an issue the article, as a summary, wants to delve into in detail. William Hart 08:31, 17 February 2007 (CST)

Workgroups

Any idea which workgroups should be added to this article? Chris Day (Talk) 16:22, 18 February 2007 (CST)

Think it should be Biology?Gareth Leng 17:50, 21 February 2007 (CST)

I was thinking in addition to biology. It seems to have more breadth than biology alone, but whther there is a workgroup that caters to this I am not sure? Possibly philosophy too? Chris Day (Talk) 17:57, 21 February 2007 (CST)

Any science and related; any humanities and related. This is just one of those kinds of articles. Stephen Ewen 13:50, 22 February 2007 (CST)

I'm not sure about philosophy. Certainly the teleological argument belongs under that, however, is intelligent design an important issue for philosophers? I don't know, I'm not a philosopher. But I suspect it has far more to do with cosmology, physics, biochemistry, biology, mathematics, religion and current social issues. William Hart 09:55, 23 February 2007 (CST)

It belongs under Religion. It has nothing to do with science. Neville English | Talk 17:28, 22 February 2007 (CST)

What then of scientists who are IDers? Stephen Ewen 18:21, 22 February 2007 (CST)

There's nothing stopping scientists having interests in religeous matters. Neville English | Talk 06:25, 23 February 2007 (CST)

I don't see how a discussion for example of whether the bacterial flagellum reduces via a series of genetic steps to other functional related biological features would be appropriate in an article on religion. That appears to be a wholly biological issue and one which bears directly upon the question of whether irreducibly complex designs exist in biology. Irreducible complexity is a fundamental argument of ID proponents. The other principal arguments seem similarly related to scientific considerations, not religious ones. It has been suggested that a separate article be started to discuss the religious reaction to ID and the religious implications of ID theory and that the current article should be confined wholly to the *scientific* issues/objections. Granted the article does not currently deal with the principal arguments made from scientific considerations, nor the scientific objections to those arguments, but as the discussion above indicates, there are plans to include this information. Basically, you'll observe that it is scientists (biologists and a mathematician) who have been contributing to this article. It should remain under science. Leaving it there does not legitimize the scientific programme of Intelligent Design advocates any more than discussing the Bible in McDonald's makes the Pope a hamburger. William Hart 09:54, 23 February 2007 (CST)

I spent a couple of years on the ARN boards. There were no proposals that came anywhere near being science. For that to happen, you actual need to come up with a hypothesis that has some explanatory power; then formulate a repeatable experiment to demonstrate the hypothesis; and then specify the conditions which would disprove the hypothesis. None of this was forthcoming. One chap using the ID 'Mike Gene' seemed to be taking the idea seriously, although he never came out and said he was an IDer as such (as far as I remember). Most of the other 'IDers' were talking about human and dinosaur footprints on the same bedding plane and trying to demonstrate points using the 2nd law of thermodynamics (but failing to understand that you need a closed system for that to have explanatory power). No-one, but no-one, was talking about how the discovery of life on another planet, or in another solar system, would demonstrate 'design' of life on Earth if the DNA matched, or any other testable story. It was all attempts at disproof of existing theories or hypotheses, and in most instances the existing theory was identified as being 'the Theory of Evolution by means of Natural Selection'. However many times it was repeated that that theory was 150 years old, and that the target for 'ID theories' needed to be any of the thousand upon thousand of component theories and hypotheses that constitute the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, it always seemed to come back to Darwin, and his ideas. These people were just living in the past, and completely failing to exploit the potential of ideas like panspermia. I'm sorry, but ID is just religion. The people behind it are even betraying their Christian backgrounds by being deceitful in their presentation. I tried to stimulate discussion at one point by setting out criteria through which different 'types' of ID could be identified, such that any scientific investigation could be focused on identifying the stronger and weaker candidates. No-one was in the slightest bit interested: they were all bent on the negative of pulling down 'Darwinism'. ID is just religion. Neville English | Talk 18:25, 23 February 2007 (CST)

I agree, nothing I've ever seen on ARN comes remotely close to testing a hypothesis with explanatory power. You have to talk to younger researchers if you want concrete proposals. I also agree that many of the people serious about ID will not identify themselves as ID'ers. Younger researchers don't tend to hang around places like ARN. And, many of the ideas I've heard have come from people quite committed to evolution. They merely think it can't explain all features of nature and that some features are better explained by an intelligent designer. But they don't doubt the explanatory power of evolution. Invitation only boards, blogs, tearooms and private email lists are better places to inhabit. William Hart 08:15, 24 February 2007 (CST)

What is commonly ignored in the discussions is that, while individual ID proponents may oppose evolution, there is nothing inherent within the concept of ID that opposes evolution. Likewise the term "creationism" is thrown about as if it only referred to Young Earth Creationism, whereas there are many varieties of creationism, including evolutionary creationism (also known as theistic evolution). David L Green 00:08, 22 April 2007 (CDT)

As ID addresses issues of Biology and presents a challenge to Darwinism, I think it is wholly appropriate that this article should be overseen by the Biology workgroup. This article also presents a challenge to Citizendium neutrality. My view is that the motives of those who promote ID should be disregarded, they are irrelevant to the intellectual merits of ID as a theory, and the way to handle this neutrally is to characterise the ID position as clearly and as effectively it is possible to do while being academically honest and rigorous. My view is that to disparage any argument by denigrating the motives, or for that matter the competence honesty or intellect of those who promote, it intellectually dishonourable. If the arguments are unsound, and I think that they are, then make the arguments as strong as they can be and then display their weaknesses; to do less is to attack a straw man, which might make good rhetoric but not good scholarship. The issues raised by ID have been raised many times in many circumstances that, because they were not associated with creationism, did not arouse such venom. Hoyle and Wickramsingh for example promoted the theory that life had an extraterrestrial origin, and did so because of the issue at the heart of ID, the gap in our understanding of the origins of the vast complexity that appears to be needed for the most minimal known living system. This is a gap in our understanding, and not to acknowledge it would be dishonest, but to acknowledge imperfection in our understanding, with some humility, is not to surrender the path of reason to superstition. I give no more credence to the Hoyle view than to ID, but to disguise the anomalies that motivated it does science no service. I agree with Stephen that tracing the roots of the idea should be a part of this article. I would however disagree with him in that modern conceptions of ID are what will bring readers to this article, so not to make current notions the focus might obscure the issues and confuse the reader. Gareth Leng 06:01, 25 February 2007 (CST)

Argh! 'Darwinism' is pretty much meaningless in the context of biology. ID is contrapuntal to the modern evolutionary synthesis. What you seem to be talking about is a mixture of the two fields of biogenesis and abiogenesis. I'm sure that you could get a competent CZ biology workgroup editor to review those two topics, but any self respecting biologist wouldn't touch Intelligent Design with a bargepole. You'd be better of classifying it under philosophy of science, where a detached academic viewpoint could be achievable. Neville English | Talk 07:31, 25 February 2007 (CST)

I don't believe there is a philosophy of science workgroup. On the other hand, the biology workgroup is quite active, and doing an excellent job. They have also contributed to the article. I think you are underestimating the willingness of biologists to contribute to this topic. There is a distinction between writing decent articles and agreeing with the subjects of those articles. And if we can't find any self-respecting biology editors to touch the ID article, well we'll just have to find some without self-repsect. :-) William Hart 11:38, 26 February 2007 (CST)

I personally agree that the Biology group should have oversight. You've also persuaded me that the focus should stay on the modern theory of intelligent design. However we definitely need to broaden the article. What I had in mind was simply to insert terminology like "the modern version of the theory", or 'the recent movement", etc, when talking about Discovery Institute Intelligent Design as opposed to the various arguments that existed before the modern era. By simply acknowledging that the Behe/Dembski/Wells arguments are only a modern incarnation of an old idea we allow ourselves scope to expand the article without taking the focus completely off the modern debate. So I guess what I am suggesting is that the article see some rewording before we launch into describing the modern arguments and their weaknesses. I really don't want to see a WP type article where very weak versions of the principal arguments are presented, then knocked down with unscholarly rebuttal and then have the whole thing spill over into a debate on the talk page. One way to possibly diffuse some of the tension is to make the point that even if ID arguments are not strong, this does not imply that there wasn't an intelligent designer. Science may just be incapable of detecting this. By acknowledging frankly the gaps in our knowledge of the first cellular organisms we acknowledge that answering the question is currently at least partially beyond science. Berlinski has a very nice article on this issue. At every moment you expect him to say, "but there are all these problems with the current scientific proposals for the origin of life and therefore design is the better alternative", but he genuinely seems interested in exploring as far as science can take him, making the scientific case as best he can, then simply makes the gaps in our understanding clear. He never seems to use the word "but". I think this would be a good model (regardless of how well Berlinski manages it) for an article on intelligent design. Take the concept as far as it can go, lay bare its weaknesses and never use the word but. William Hart 06:47, 25 February 2007 (CST)

Any attempt to comment on the history of thought about the origin of life on Earth should be in an article so-titled, otherwise we just run straight into the problem that the phrase has become co-opted by the ID movement. The ID movement pretty much "owns" the phrase in modern parlance, and so trying to redefine it 'back' to a more general understanding runs the distinct risk of anything written in this article being 'original thought', and not encyclopaedic commentary of the phrase as it is currently used. Neville English | Talk 07:31, 25 February 2007 (CST)

I've never heard this before. I don't think ID owns that phrase. This article would not try to give a history of that subject, but would give a history of the design question as it relates to that subject. That is proper and right for an article such as this. William Hart 11:38, 26 February 2007 (CST)

"Intelligent design is not the same as creationism"

This statement, made as a bald fact, is deeply problematic. It's basically stating Discovery Institute propaganda as if it were true. Ruse, Pennock, Forrest and other philosophers of science have clearly called it creationist...enough so that the judge in the Kitzmiller trial ruled that it was religious and could not be taught as science.

ID was specifically designed to circumvent the Edwards ruling (that "creation science" was religious can could not be taught as science). To that end, it has been kept intentionally vague. While not all of its proponents are Young-Earth Creationists (there are even a few non-Christians), it's leading proponents have generally used explicitly religious terminology (like Dembski's characterisation of it as the Logos of John restated in terms on information theory (or something like that)) when addressing "friendly" audiences. In addition, you can be a creationist without specifically identifying the creator.

In the same section, the statement is made that very few ID research papers and monographs have passed peer review and made it to publication, underscoring the contentious nature of the issue amongst mainstream scientists. This is more ID propaganda. Despite having their own "peer reviewed" journal and various other friendly outlets, there is no evidence of research which seeks to support ID. There have been some attempts to point out "flaws" in the modern synthesis (or "Darwinism", as they tend to call it)...apart from the fact that most of these "flaws" are easily explained, the simple fact is that these things can only be taken to "support" of ID if the only options were existing theories or ID. Obviously, if you were to show that something cannot be explained by existing theories (as Behe has tried, and failed, with his anecdotes of "irreducible complexity"), all you are doing is demonstrating "not A", you are not showing that "B" is true. The Templeton Foundation, who provided a lot of early funding to the ID movement, offered grants for research into ID. There were no takers...because ID is not science, it's creationism counched in the language and forms of science. Ian Ramjohn 10:29, 23 February 2007 (CST)

ID does not attempt to identify the designer, nor does it attempt to establish the veracity of a particular narrative, as creationism does. One needs to separate carefully the personal beliefs, the agenda and the scientific programme of ID proponents. This article is only about the latter. If one takes the definition of intelligent design as given in the article, it is formally different to creationism. You want the article to say that ID proponents have a creationist *agenda*. This article on the other hand is about the scientific question of whether design can or has been detected in nature. The agenda of ID proponents and the academic questions raised by ID theory are two separate things, and I don't believe conflating them is a useful approach in an article designed to explain both sides of an issue which specifically sets out to divorce these two ideas. I also believe the article makes *abundantly* clear the controversy over whether the motivations of the leading advocates of ID are creationist or not. The article should be taken as a whole, because almost any single sentence, isolated and unnuanced can be taken as being overtly anti- or pro- ID.

As to your contention that there were no takers for the Templeton grants, you haven't demonstrated that it was because ID is not science, you have simply made the assertion, and as it begs the question, it isn't really admissible as evidence in your argument regarding ID publications. As for ID papers and monographs which are peer reviewed, you can't argue that they don't exist simply because they only show that the consensus view is flawed. If your contention is correct, then there are publications which have been accepted through the peer review process which argue that the concensus view is wanting. You assert that the problems are easily explained, but then you are saying that the peer review process was faulty, i.e. that the peer reviewer accepted an article when he or she should not have. If that is the case, then it is irrelevant whether ID theorists have published peer reviewed articles or not, since the process is faulty.

At any rate, the article currently makes very clear the fact that these publications contain "eliminative inference" as opposed to "positive evidence". I don't believe a neutral article can possibly hope to do more than that. Simply stating (as WP does) that there have been no peer reviewed publications, etc, leaves one with the impression that no Intelligent Design advocates have had publications pass peer review which were motivated by or related to their programme. As far as I can tell, this appears to be nothing more than an attempt to minimise ID, i.e. it is not neutral. This article attempts to point out that such publications exist, but that they do not provide positive evidence for ID. This appears to be uncontroversial and thus, neutral. Perhaps the wording can be refined to reflect this but the basic content of the statement is correct. That minimises ID quite enough without trying to be deceptive.

Arguing that they have had articles peer reviewed in their own journals or in friendly publications seems irrelevant to me. I think the same could be said of X concensus publications, where X is as big as you want it to be. Do we then decide all such publications supportive of the concensus view are irrelevant and do not contain valid science?

Essentially what I am saying is this article is devoted to the presentation of the scientific arguments made by Intelligent Design advocates and the rebuttals on academic grounds to those arguments. Most of the other wrangling is just debating tactics and irrelevant to the intellectual merits of arguments on either side of the debate. It is already an argument from authority to say that no ID articles exist which have passed peer review, let alone does it have any bearing on the intrinsic intellectual merits of the ID arguments. William Hart 11:47, 23 February 2007 (CST)

I'd like to add the following to the article: "On 4 August 2004, an article by Stephen Meyer, an Intelligent Design proponent, appeared in the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, questioning conventional evolutionary explanations for the Cambrian Explosion and proposing Intelligent Design as an alternative. However the Council of the Biological Society of Washington later retracted the article. The managing editor for the journal at the time, the process structuralist Richard Sternberg alleged that the article had been properly peer reviewed by three qualified referees and that, subsequent to its publication, attempts were made to make his position at the Smithsonian Institution untenable, including limitations on his access to specimens, extra reporting requirements, replacement of his supervisor, being deprived of office space and attempts to force the National Institute of Health (NIH) to fire him.

These allegations were supported in preliminary findings of the Office of Special Counsel. The investigation of his complaint was not concluded because the Smithsonian Institution declined to cooperate further in the matter, indicating that they would legally challenge the jurisdictional authority of the OSC on the basis that Sternberg was not legally an employee of the Smithsonian Institute but officially employed by the NIH.

Any action against Sternberg based on an investigation of his religious or political affiliations could constitute a violation of his first-ammendment rights. The OSC was not permitted to conduct interviews to see whether such an investigation had taken place, but they did make a statement to the effect that there was a religious and political component to the actions taken by Smithsonian Institute employees.

This example illustrates the contentious nature of the Intelligent Design issue amongst mainstream scientists. Proponents of Intelligent Design allege that the scientific establishment is making it impossible for peer reviewed publications on Intelligent Design to emerge, whilst many qualified scientists argue that Intelligent Design is a form of creationism without scientific merit and that the scientific establishment is under attack from those with a creationist agenda."

If this information is correct, (and other potentially more damaging information in the report from the OSC), then this article could not even hope to be neutral if it did not at least allude to the fact that few ID papers have emerged because of the contentious nature of the issue amongst mainstream scientists. Frankly, I think it is perfectly factual to make the claim, let alone allude to it. Nonetheless, I have removed the allusion from the article, since I think it constitutes the brunt of your criticism of its wording. I toyed with adding the above information in its place. But I think it is too argumentative. William Hart 14:23, 23 February 2007 (CST)

The concept of ID among scientists existed well before any of the political wrangling that Ian mentions! Stephen Ewen 15:43, 23 February 2007 (CST)

I would like to see the article include such information. But some of the very people who have made the design inference have spoken out about the Intelligent Design movement and do not want to be associated with it. The term has become dirty for intellectuals. The words, "career suicide" follow shortly after the words, "Intelligent Design". Basically the article needs to rise well above the political debate and the narrow focus it currently has before it can begin to discuss the concept of intelligent design in the scientific establishment before the modern movement began. William Hart 17:55, 23 February 2007 (CST)

A clear distinction should be set forth between "intelligent design" and "creationism" in the sense of Biblical all-in-six-days omphalic creationism. Strictly speaking, ID covers a range of possibilities from, at one extreme, a vaguely pantheistic universe in which some intelligent force occasionally provides a gentle "nudge" to an evolutionary process; to the other extreme of "Last Thursdayism", the tongue-in-cheek theory that "everything was created last Thursday" (or even five minutes ago), and all our memories and other indicia of age are forgeries perfected to the last detail. Brian Dean Abramson 11:44, 5 May 2007 (CDT)

It can't however, seen the experiences, be a scientific debate, simply by the all to evident lack of science by the defenders of ID. So what kind of debate do you want then? That debate then seems all to easy be some game of yes-no without any arguments either beinf brought upfront or being debated as such. Robert Tito | Talk 18:34, 23 February 2007 (CST)

In point of fact, conceptions of Intelligent Design began from at least Plato and Socrates. I would argue it began much before then. Intelligent Design as a contemporary debate should be only one section of this article, not its prime focus. Stephen Ewen 19:31, 23 February 2007 (CST)

I agree with this comment, ID is much more than the contempory version. I see it primarily as a philosophical debate, however, it would be naive not to acknowledge that religion and biology workgroups also have some overlap with this topic. Ironically we seem to have scientists saying "this is not science" and theologians (creationists for sure) saying "this is not religion". This is true but does not mean the debate has not spilled into those spheres, therefore, I suggest all three workgroups be included ((philosophy, religion and biology). If we restrict it to one group then the most logical home is philosophy. Chris Day (Talk) 12:12, 26 February 2007 (CST)

I was just suggesting, above, that there are in fact two concepts involved here, creationism and intelligent design, and they carry different baggage. It might or might not be the case that all intelligent design is a variety of creationism, but it is certainly the case that one can be a creationist without buying into the purportedly scientific claims of ID. That's not unlike the way you can be a theist without buying into the traditional arguments for God's existence. --Larry Sanger 12:20, 26 February 2007 (CST)

By the way, regardless of whether the doctrine of ID entails the doctrine of creationism, surely it is both important and not controversial to say that, probably, proponents of ID are in fact creationists. --Larry Sanger 12:47, 26 February 2007 (CST)

I don't concur on this point. Berlinski would certainly be very unhappy to be called a creationist. Then again, I am not totally certain that he actually identifies himself as an ID'er, even though he writes for the DI. I think it is probably fair to say that most people committed to the existence of an intelligent designer are probably creationists. But to say that all ID proponents are I think is untrue. Sorry, I don't mean to split hairs at all, but actually I think this is an important point. William Hart 06:38, 27 February 2007 (CST)

Magisterial Chris. Happy to concur. On Rob's point, I think the weaknesses in our understanding that ID exploits are clear enough, and I don't see why explaining these should be controversial. The weaknesses of the ID answer are also clear enough and aren't seriously in dispute - the main weakness being that there is no offered mechanistic explanation of "the Designer", so as an alternative explanation it simply replaces gaps with other gaps. The issue that is controversial (or not) is whether the gaps in our knowledge justify giving curriculum time to an explanation generally thought inadequate except by some of those whose belief in a Creator allows them to regard the ID explanation as adequate. Whatever we think of ID though, the weaknesses in our own understanding remain. The issue of irreducible complexity is an interesting one, and can be seen as a fair challenge to current theories - and indeed has been seen as a fair challenge. William's points are I think absolutely relevant and important to include in some form.Gareth Leng 12:36, 26 February 2007 (CST)

Hi Gareth, I agree with most of what you say here, but I do not agree that it is a weakness of ID that there is no mechanistic explanation of the designer. Although ID does not identify the designer, it does not rule out a supernatural one defying mechanistic description. What I would agree with you on however is that ID leads to a situation where there may be less *potential* for a mechanistic explanation of life or the universe, i.e. if it became the concensus view in science, it may be a rather worthless scientific theory on account of it not seeking further mechanistic explanations where science may otherwise have kept looking. Some have argued that science must of necessity be systematically committed to materialism and simply refrain from commenting on that which lies outside its scope to explain (something which unfortunately never happens in practice), i.e. keep looking for a mechanistic explanation for everything and simply admit when one doesn't currently exist. I personally think that the biggest deficit in ID theory is that not a single one of its propositions has been demonstrated with any certainty and even a few of the pieces of evidence drawn in support of ID have proved otherwise on close inspection. This in my opinion is why leading ID advocates don't want it taught in schools, they only want the weaknesses in the concensus view taught. William Hart 06:38, 27 February 2007 (CST)

On the issue Gareth and Chris are discussing here--we need to get Peter King to comment--but I would say that philosophers per se care very little about ID, except in two connections: (1) if ID is construed as necessarily a kind of creationism, so that the argument from design becomes an argument for ID, and (2) the question as to the scientific or religious status of ID--which is something that needs to be discussed in the article itself, and not assumed, as it is one of the most important and interesting questions about the topic itself. --Larry Sanger 12:51, 26 February 2007 (CST)

I do think this article is a very clear instance where it should fall under the purveyance of two or more Workgroups, at least Astronomy, Biology, Religion, and perhaps Philosophy and Physics. Also, I have invited Dr. Bernard Haisch here to offer commentary. Stephen Ewen 19:10, 26 February 2007 (CST)

Probably most if not all intelligent design proponents are also creationists

This statement can be demonstrated to be false, so I believe it should be altered slightly or removed from the article. Berlinski was at one point, as far as I can tell, an intelligent design advocate and never a creationist. He is now not pro-ID and only anti-Darwinian, but it is possible to find debates for which he held the pro-ID position. Also the Raelians are Intelligent Design proponents (though not as far as I know qualified academically) and are certainly not creationists. This is not something that has been imputed to them, but is their official position, i.e. they explicitly state that they are ID proponents and that many are atheists and not creationists. There are also various deists (as opposed to theists) who suppose that the Universe has some kind of emergent or even created intelligence and that life on earth is a product of that intelligence. I've also read essays by very qualified biologists who believe that the genome is a computer with emergent intelligence (they make quite cogent arguments for this). Thus there are many groups of people who make the design inference (whether they align themselves with the ID movement or not), but who are most certainly not creationists. One of the things that happens is that Christian ID proponents get a lot of press, because of the charged religious atmosphere in the US. Thus we only ever hear about the creationists who are ID'ers. I think it would be a shame to include a statement such as the above in this article and to not include the other information. I'm perfectly happy for the article to read "Probably the majority of intelligent design proponents are also creationists", but I would certainly like the other information to be added somewhere in the article to nuance this. I also question the usefulness of such a statement in the first place. We might consider the effect on readers with a deep seated hatred of religion, that such a statement has. My personal feeling is that to make too strong a statement about the link between ID and creationism is to bias the article by playing to the predispositions of a large segment of its readers. Also, as a general rule, I think it is unwise to make strong statements about no one holding a particular view, because for every possible opinion, no matter how apparently illogical or ridiculous, there is a proponent *somewhere* who makes a reasoned (though probably wrong) argument which advocates precisely that view. Such people may very well hold degrees in relevant disciplines. William Hart 09:11, 27 February 2007 (CST)

Most important, probably, we should support that statement with a citation or referring to a verifiable fact (which I suppose it is not possible).

I believe the sentence could be dropped, while it should be emphasized how some christian ID'ers are just trying to propose the old creationist dish in a new dressing (something which is probably possible to support with facts or citations? I'm not so deeply into it, so perhaps even this suggestion is not correct). --Nereo Preto 10:51, 27 February 2007 (CST)

I support William in this. The religious beliefs of any most or all of its opponents can and should be dissociated from presentation and consideration of the theory as a theory.Gareth Leng 11:40, 27 February 2007 (CST)

I take "creationism" to mean "the belief that the universe was created by God." Well, if it's a verifiable fact that some ID theorists explicitly reject the idea that the world was created by God (it was intelligently designed by something that doesn't deserve the name "God," apparently--the Devil, maybe?), then of course we shouldn't imply that, even maybe, all ID theorists are creationists. Edit away!

That admitted, and while I agree that theories should be presented independently of idiosyncratic features of their proponents, I also think that facts about the proponents of a view are very relevant to a full account of the theory. It is not at all irrelevant to this topic (intelligent design) that it might--and I strongly suspect, is--strongly defended by creationists because, at some level, they regard it as a way to defend creationism. It does not matter whether this is disrespectful toward ID theorists, because the suspicion is after all a very real suspicion on the part of the opponents of ID, and so long as there is some evidence for it--as there surely must be, not that I know much about this topic. Just as it would be biased against creationism to assert flat out that ID is merely a ploy to put the mask of science on creationism, it would also be biased in favor of creationism to propound the theory without ever pointing out that many scientists suspect that it is in fact merely a ploy to put the mask of science on creationism.

As always, if there's an important, relevant dispute, as there is in this case (about the motivation behind ID), it's important not to take sides in the dispute but to represent the sides fairly. --Larry Sanger 12:01, 27 February 2007 (CST)

Sure, and I agree, it is most relevant to point out that many opponents suspect that ID is a ploy. It is not only something which its opponents suspect, but something which its *proponents* have actually written. So there is certainly definitive evidence for this.

I have no in principal problem with making one very long article describing the whole issue of intelligent design from religious, cultural, scientific and philosophical perspectives. I just think it would lead to problems further down the track (such as calls for the article to be split) and it would make the scientific discussion of the issue look prejudiced and unscientific. William Hart 17:17, 27 February 2007 (CST)

OK, I changed the wording to this sentence. But I'm happy for people to change it again if it can be worded better or if people prefer to remove the statement altogether. Actually, in theory I don't like arguing over individual words or phrases, since it makes for awkward stilted prose. But I have to admit that I've complained about individual words more than once now. I'll try not to make a tradition of it. William Hart 17:26, 27 February 2007 (CST)

I agree that the creationist context is important for thearticle. My point was only that we must avoid appearing to denigrate the theory because of its association with creationism, but deal with the theory on its own meritsGareth Leng 11:14, 1 March 2007 (CST)

I think we have to capitalise Intelligent Design as this really stands for "the theory that life is the product of intelligent design" or something like that. Gareth Leng 06:25, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

Gareth, I tend to agree with you that the name of the theory should be capitalized because it is a name, and capitalizing it is a good way to mark the fact that it's a theory. But consider that the names of many other theories are written out lowercase. I think we need to consult the Chicago Manual of Style--anyone have a copy on hand? --Larry Sanger 09:33, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

Chicago Manual of Style, 15th Ed., rule 8.157: "names of laws, theories, and the like are lowercased, except for proper names attached to them." Examples: The big bang theory; the general theory of relativity (or Einstein's general theory of relativity); Boyle's law. Brian Dean Abramson 00:08, 6 May 2007 (CDT)

A coalition representing 70,000 scientists

I removed this quote from the article. The news article in question mentions only a handful of signatories. As I mentioned above in my criticism on the wikipedia article, using statements such as this from the press without investigating is not helpful. There is no mention of the fact that scientists may belong to more than one of the organisations and may hold completely opposing views to the handful of signatories to this document. Please do not put this quote back in the Citizendium article. There's already quite a bit in the talk page so far about using arguments from authority anyway. William Hart 07:31, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

I am of course happy to mention the original document in terms which accurately describe it, i.e. that 9 (or was it 11) heads of important Australian research organisations signed a petition against ID. The numbers of scientists who belong to those consortiums is also relevant to establish the importance of the people who signed the petition. The only thing I objected to here was that 70,000 scientists were represented. That is absurd and incorrect. As there was already mention of precisely this statement on the talk page, regarding the WP article, I felt the sentence was best deleted with an explanation rather than having the incorrect statement remain in the article. Instead of deleting that sentence, I should have edited it. But it needs a little research to get correct. It should all be fixed momentarily. William Hart 11:40, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

The importance of neutrality

We do have a neutrality policy. I haven't imported it from this old Wikipedia page, but that will be the basis for our policy.

There is a tendency on Wikipedia to use formulations that are decidedly unsympathetic in tone, and that is true, just for example, in the following section:

Intelligent Design is publicly controversial, largely because the theory is often used as a religious apologetic, i.e. as though it provides scientific evidence for the existence of God. Accordingly, a debate has ensued over whether Intelligent Design should be taught in schools as an alternative to the theory of evolution by natural selection. This has been viewed as a justification for introducing religion into science education.

Just by way of educating participants here about how to spot bias, or violations of the neutrality policy, let me analyze the above a bit. It is the first paragraph in what was (before I changed it) labelled "Controversy". The bare word conveys almost no information about what the section is about, and by itself implies that ID is "controversial." That it certainly is, but labelling a view as "controversial" is code, I think, for "not to be taken seriously." Something more neutral and straightforward would be something like "Criticisms of Intelligent Design".

That's perhaps a bit subtle, but the next items aren't the least bit subtle. The article says it's controversial "largely because the theory is often used as a [[apologetic | religious apologetic]"; now, is that something that ID's proponents would say? Perhaps, but probably not: to simply declare, as this line does, that the theory is used "as a religious apologetic" is to dismiss it. But CZ does not dismiss any theories, no matter how wrongheaded, unless they are uniformly dismissed by everybody. So this is a perfect example of a bit of text that needs to be attributed to someone or to a group. For example: "Critics of Intelligent Design object to the theory in large part because it is used as a religious apologetic."

This line is perhaps more obviously biased in tone: "i.e. as though it provides scientific evidence for the existence of God." The phrase "as though" here has a skeptical/dismissive force, which an opponent of ID would feel comfortable with, but which a proponent of ID would not. Again, if you feel you need to say this, the text really needs to be attributed to opponents of ID.

"This has been viewed as a justification for introducing religion into science education." ID has been viewed by whom as such a justification? Perhaps: "The opponents of ID believe that ID has been used as a justification for introducing religion into science education." That still would be a very poor way of expressing the situation. I think we can do better. --Larry Sanger 08:48, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

Hi Larry, thanks for pointing those out. It's ironic that I am probably responsible for much of what you object to here. It's ironic, because in aiming to be neutral I've actually made the article more dismissive of ID. After all, my main aim has been to make the article less dismissive of ID than WP. Actually, the hard thing is to communicate that ID has not received widespread acceptance and is highly controversial, without appearing to be dismissive. We've done better than WP which uses phrases like pseudoscience, but I see we have a way to go. I'll try and edit those particular sections and make them more neutral, if you haven't already. William Hart 10:23, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

It's really not as hard as you might think. The secret is to attribute controversial views to their owners, rather than trying to make the article "say" anything, and to maintain a neutral tone when doing so. We too can use the epithet "pseudoscience," and very probably should, but the word should be put in the mouth of some prominent opponent of ID. --Larry Sanger 09:14, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Probably, all the subsection titles need to be reviewed. "Is Intelligent Design science?" does not describe the focus of that section, which is much more narrow (at present), being concerned with legal and political treatment of ID. The Kansas Board of Ed proposal is not said (here) to have answered that question, and is perhaps better covered separately. More generally, it would be good to separate the intellectual debate from the related political and legal events. --Larry Sanger 09:16, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

Minor quibble

The article states that "the theory of evolution by natural selection" is "the scientific alternative to Intelligent Design theory". Strictly speaking, this is not necessarily so. Some intelligent design advocates (e.g. Paul Davies) suggest that evolution by natural selection is itself among the designed elements. Hence, evolution by natural selection is really only the alternative to Creationism, which is one possible form of intelligent design. The only real alternative to intelligent design is the assertion that the formation of the universe itself is a matter of happenstance, as is everything that has occurred within it. Cheers! Brian Dean Abramson 12:47, 25 April 2007 (CDT)

"The scientific community"

Please see my edit summary at http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Intelligent_design&diff=100098306&oldid=100098294 Stephen Ewen 16:31, 7 May 2007 (CDT)

??

The paragraph rebutting 'natural selection is undirected' is hard to follow, in part because this phrase itself needs some further explanation I think. I'd try to sort it myself but I'm not really sure myself about exactly what the ID argument is here.Gareth Leng 13:09, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

Intelligent Design Concept

So as to not offend those who object the terminology "Intelligent Design Theory" I've changed the disambiguation to point to Intelligent Design Concept. Will Nesbitt 08:11, 17 May 2007 (CDT)

Larry, I think you disambiguation is more elegant than mine, but I would hate to see this discussion devolve into an argument about whether Intelligent Design is a theory, a concept or a belief. Before we crank up the edit wars, I propose a discussion about the definition of a theory vs. the definition of a design or concept. Perhaps the result of this (that is: the definition of a "theory") debate is an important addition to the citizendium project. Will Nesbitt 08:40, 17 May 2007 (CDT)

Will, no offense please, but it's simply not good English to call it a "concept." That's simply a misuse of the word "concept," because concepts don't make claims. See Talk:intelligent design theory. --Larry Sanger 08:41, 17 May 2007 (CDT)

I agree, but you've still not addressed the concerns of those who hold that this is not a theory for their list of reasons. Will Nesbitt 10:57, 17 May 2007 (CDT)

Larry, Will. Scientists have generally a high opinion of what a theory is. I am convinced scientists believe a "theory" has to do with science. ID is not science (do we agree on this? I am missing this point). So it is DANGEROUS to title the page "Intelligent design theory". Scientists (including me) would take this as a demonstration that Citizendium is taking the wrong direction. If it become possible to file ID under "theory", i.e., together with general relativity, plate tectonics, evolution..., there is something badly wrong going on here.

So, please, change this title. My point, as you see, has a lot to do with outreach, recruitment, and so on: if we have a page titled "Intelligent design theory", good scientists will go away, scared.

Larry, you say "theory" is not the same of "scientific theory". Maybe. But then we absolutely need a very good article about theory, and a clear statement in ID pointing at that article, that nobody could reasonably miss.

I'm not against the forking. Perhaps, we could have a "Intelligent design" (i.e., the part you call concept, or theory), and a "Intelligent design movement". I suppose it is technically possible. --Nereo Preto 11:11, 17 May 2007 (CDT)

If we have to fork, and I'm not sure that is necessary, why not "History of ID" and "ID movement"? Chris Day (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2007 (CDT)

Or "Philosophy of ID" and "ID movement". I agree with Nereo's concerns here with respect to the use of theory in the title. CZ is already under the magnifying glass and this articles title could make or break the credibility of Citizendium before we have enough momentum. Chris Day (talk) 12:05, 17 May 2007 (CDT)

Nereo, I respectfully disagree with your statement that Intelligent Design "is not science". I understand why you think it isn't science, but I don't think that doesn't mean it isn't science. I'm quite convinced that there is nothing I could possibly type here that would convince you that it is a form of science, so I won't waste my time in that fruitless endeavor. I'll put a paragraph on my discussion page if you want to dig into why I think the way I think, but hopefully you can accept me at face-value (just as I accept you) when I say that I have rational (not faith-based or religious) reasons for my conclusions. However, there is something much more important than this.

The most important thing is that it really doesn't matter in this forum whether you or I think ID is science, junk science or religion. Instead of making value-judgements on the theory (something which is impossible herein), we need to stick to reporting facts which are "one-step removed" from theory.

Here is what everyone can agree on:

Some people think that ID is science.
Some think it is not science.
People have reasons why they think what they think.
The reader can judge for himself the merits of those rationalizations, because he's going to do that anyway.

It's a waste of time to craft the official Citizendium opinion on whether ID is science or not. Furthermore Citizendium should not even pretend to have an opinion on whether it's science or not. Citizendium need only report the facts I just bulleted above. This issue only gets complicated when we start trying to make value judgements and we start trying to convince others to think what we think.

Let's keep it simple by letting the reader make his own value judgements. Will Nesbitt 17:34, 17 May 2007 (CDT)

This whole "theory" business is a can of worms anyhow. Creationists sneer that "Evolution is just a theory", confident that most Americans believe that theory means concept, proposed idea, hypothesis, half-baked notion, etc. -- "I have a theory that if everyone drank one bottle of red wine a day everyone would live to be 100." To the more rigorously trained, theory means something completely different: so near to being an absolute fact that the distinction hardly exists -- "The existence of gravity is a theory." So anytime that "theory" is used in the title of this article, one way or another someone is going to get upset. Hayford Peirce 17:56, 17 May 2007 (CDT)

Thank you Hayford, this is exactly my point. I only see two ways to avoid making a value judgement on the meaning of the word "theory" and the concept/theory/idea itself. One way is to avoid this argument altogether with awkward words and phrases that attempt to satisfy fringe positions. Or you can just use the words that make sense and then insert a clumsy disclaimer which paraphrases you comment above. Will Nesbitt 18:12, 17 May 2007 (CDT)

What i dont understand is that if ID is a science, as you stated above, why wouldn't we only use the scientific meaning of theory when discussing ID? i see no reason for these disclaimers, just use it in the scientific context. If that is done then theory should not be in the title. Surely we can find an appropriate title without the misuse of theory. Chris Day (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2007 (CDT)

Chris, thanks much for this valuable comment. It motivates me to explain a little better and it illuminates just how easy it is to be misunderstood on this topic. It also shows how easy it is to get wrapped into non-productive arguments and value comparisons. Please allow me to narrow the disagreement and explain below. Will Nesbitt 20:48, 17 May 2007 (CDT)

Defining and Narrowing the Problem

I've seen this problem argued ad infinitum on other Wiki's and that's mainly because the arguement always revolves around the validity of Intelligent Design. I postulate that arguing about the validitity of Intelligent Design is a waste of energy and counter-productive in this forum. This is because intelligent, sincere and educated people have drawn a variety of opposing conclusions about Intelligent Design. Despite the fact that a vocal minority of kooks and fanatics have invested a great deal of time in trying to explain why their opinion is the "one true opinion" about Intelligent Design, we will never solve this argument in this forum. We need to recognize this fact, then as a community choose to avoid involvement in a destructive argument.

We must dispassionately avoid any attempt to establish or discredit the validity of Intelligent Design. Our mission is to report, not to make authoritative consensus decisions.

The problem is how do we discuss a collection of thoughts when we cannot even agree on how to classify these thoughts? We cannot even agree, nor can we establish with a degree of certainty, whether this collection of thoughts known as Intelligent Design are a group of facts, a theory, a philosophy, a religious docrine, psuedo-science, a myth, or flat-out unadulterated poppycock? I can easily find reasonable, educated and intelligent people who agree with any of these classifications. So how do we proceed to report on something, when we as editors can't agree what the something is?

I don't have the answer, but I can suggest ground rules. First we have to simply agree that it's a waste of time to convince someone who believes that ID is poppycock that ID is science. By the same token, we have to agree that it's a waste of time to attempt to convince someone who thinks that ID is a theory that ID is philosophy posing as science.

Secondly, I think we should avoid labels which imply bias. In other words, we shouldn't call Intelligent Design a theory or a fact or a philosophy. These words invite debate.

Thirdly, I think we should keep the presentation of ID apart from the criticism of ID. It's confusing to the reader and impossible to be fair. Then we need to stick to facts one step removed from the theory. In other words, it's a waste of time and counter-productive to represent a Citizendium conclusion about Intelligent Design. However, it's valuable and important to report that the conclusions that others have reached about the universe, life or any postulation made by anyone pro or con.

Lastly, if it's not an indisputable fact, then pitch it or label it. Example:

Intelligent Design is a theory. --- Disputable.
Some people think that Intelligent Design is a theory. Others think that Intelligent Design is not a theory in the scientific sense. --- Indisputable.

Sorry for lecturing and I hope this is helpful in explaining my philosophy (not about ID but about how we should edit this article). Will Nesbitt 21:21, 17 May 2007 (CDT)

As others have implied or stated above, I think here at CZ we're dealing with evidence and science rather than acting as journalists. We shouldn't dispassionately report controversies; rather, we should point people to the evidence. That could be scientific - that ID is not a testable hypothesis and that scientific evolution makes a better case - or even political (the recent case in the US in which a judge threw out ID as a form of science).

I'm sorry, I think if we adopted Will's recommendations on this, we'd be awarding legitimacy to ID and its adherents. I also think we should undo the page titling to remove 'theory'. I'd recommend calling it 'Intelligent design, pseudoscience', but perhaps that would be a little too controversial as well. John Stephenson 22:48, 17 May 2007 (CDT)

What about Intelligent design argument? John Stephenson 03:22, 18 May 2007 (CDT)

John, hopefully you or another more experienced editor will correct me if I am wrong, but according the Citizendium Policy Outline Article Standards:

Articles must not take a stand on controversial issues. They should report on controversies rather than engaging in them, reporting every side as sympathetically as possible consistent with the sympathetic representation of competing sides, and doling out limited space, where necessary, according to (in the case of mainly academic controversies) the proportion of opinion among experts or, in some broader controversies, the general public whose native language is the language of the compendium.

I'm not sure but I think this is almost exactly what I'm suggesting. This may seem to offend your sensiblities at first. I can understand that you don't to want to "award legitimacy" to something you think is illegitimate, but rest assured, we at Citizendium can't award legitimacy to ANYTHING other than ourselves. By the same token the only thing we can take legitmacy away from is Citizendium. How so?

Let's frame this thought inside another much less controversial topic and carry your idea to its logical conclusion. Suppose on the Citizendium article about Republicans we decided to "take away their legitimacy". That is, we would explain why Republicans are evil, greedy, racists and they don't deserve a single vote. They've only won elections by trickery and by taking advantage to dumb rural voters. We could certainly say that. We could quote experts on politics like Howard Dean and George Soros who would back up these assertions. We could make a rock solid argument. But doing so would not make take any legitimacy away from the Republicans. Instead, doing so would just take away Citizendium's legitimacy in the eyes of those who have voted for the Republicans, those who swing from side to side and those Democrats who are fair-minded.

Now, let's frame this thought inside another much more factually shaky controversy and carry this idea to its logical conclucsion. Let's suppose that on the article about UFO's we decided to "award legitimacy" to those who believe that UFO's are vessels which carry extra-terrestial undocumented workers. We go on to explain the differences between the "grays" and the "greens" and in general we take the position that UFO's are evidence that life from other planets have visited our world. Reporting this would not make UFO's any more or less real. Reporting this would not give the UFO movement any more or less legitimacy. In fact, the only thing such a stance could do is take away (or in the eyes of some small number, increase) the reputation of Citizendium.

Therefore, the label that we choose for Intelligent Design does so much identify Intelligent Design, as much as it identifies us. The label that we choose for this or any thing else will not change the immutable properties of that which is named. Instead, the label that we choose will identify us with some group of people who agree with that label. Others, who disagree with this label, will no longer see us as a credible source.

BTW, it's amazing how so few of us know anything concrete about the origins of the universe, but how many of us have firmly held beliefs about the origins of the universe. IMHO, the last place this project wants to be is in a position where we choose up sides in a debate as fractured as this one. In the end, I think we will only speak to the group that already agrees with us. The reason I'm excited about Citizendium is because I think the Neutrality Policy is exactly what I've long argued for:

Basically, to write without bias (neutrally) is to write so that articles do not advocate any specific points of view; instead, the different viewpoints in a controversy are all described fairly. This is a simplistic definition and we'll add nuance later. But for now, we can say just that to write articles without bias is to try to describe debates rather than taking one definite stand.

Lastly, this is NOT a scientific community. Scientific communities take definitive stands. We do not. We do not experiment. We do not research ideas or submit hypotheses. This is a journalistic community. That is, we write journals. Our journals are most valuable when we remain outside of the story.

In the end this argument is not about Intelligent Design. This argument is about the meaning of the neutrality policy and how the words and phrases that we choose can best reflect that policy. Will Nesbitt 06:42, 18 May 2007 (CDT)

We might not be a scientific community but if ID is presented as science we should use the scientific terminology. Despite reading what you write above i don't see how that is changed? Chris Day (talk) 07:41, 18 May 2007 (CDT)

We're not presenting ID as science. We're simply presenting ID. Will Nesbitt 07:46, 18 May 2007 (CDT)

So why do we need to split the article again? There is no doubt that there is a rich historical context for ID to be presented but to title it ID theory is misleading. Only a minority call it such. With one article there is no need to distinguish ID's historical context from it recent resurgance as a modern movement. Actually I think having two articles does not allow the richness of ID to be presented. Chris Day (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2007 (CDT)

A lot of us are scientists, journalists or whatever, and from other walks of life; what unites people on CZ is arguably a concern for evidence. The idea is not to be 'fair and balanced' to all sides regardless of the evidence; that would require publicising all kinds of hoaxes. The neutrality policy concerns taking a stand: calling ID a 'theory' certainly is taking a stand, whereas declining to discuss it in those terms is in line with the scientific and legal consensus. In addition, the policy mentions that we allocate space according to the "proportion of opinion" - and that means we can't place ID up there with true scientific theories. I don't object to having even a series of ID articles, but we must take care not to frame them the way ID's religiously and politically-motivated proponents want, such as talking about ID in scientific terms where no such science exists. John Stephenson 02:05, 19 May 2007 (CDT)

Let's say -for the sake of argument- the Citizendium is a textbook. E.g., a textbook of Science for lower grade students, or a textbook of biology. Let's say I am a teacher, choosing a textbook for my class. I open the textbook (fancy cover, with a key on it looking like a city skyline; sounds good!), I look for the contents. There is a chapter, titled "the Intelligent design theory". What shall I do? I'll pass to the next textbook, of course. This already happened somehow. American teachers of all grades already took strong positions against teaching ID in schools (in Europe the problem do not even exists).

Just an analogy, of course. Do not take it literally. But do you get my point? A majority of the educated people will just say Citizendium is crap on the base of the fact an article titled "ID theory" exists. Will Nesbitt seems the most pro-ID of us (and he is educated most probably, anyways, his arguments are not stupid at all), but he agrees the title should be changed. Will is right here. I also believe fork is not necessary, but this is not a fundamental point. Call the article "Intelligent design", and another article "ID movement". This will do it for everyone of us I suppose.

Please change the title. People out there is already watching us. --Nereo Preto 03:29, 19 May 2007 (CDT)

Nereo, I am willing to support a change in the article's name simply to appease those who fear and despise ID. I also agree that by labelling ID a theory, that we have at least partly chosen a side in this debate and that may alienate some people. But, I do not agree that the title should be changed.

I personally can't understand why ID is so feared and pilloried by some in the scientific community. I can understand why some people think that ID is nothing more than pseudo-science. But I can't understand why it is attacked in a way that I do not see divining rods, UFO's, and the Flat Earth Society attacked. It's not because it's dangerous. Many alternative medicines are pseudo-scientific and they are much more dangerous than ID, but they don't seem to generate the passionate attacks and debates that ID generates. In an article where we have almost as much verbiage deconstructing the idea, as we have explaining the idea, why is it so dangerous to call something a theory?

I do think a paragraph or so addressing this question is warranted, and most probably that paragraph belongs in the ID movement article. I also think that if the article is called Intelligent Design Theory that it is very appropriate to add a sentence in the "Criticism of ID" section which explains why (in your referenced and substantiated opinion) ID is not a theory in the scientific sense of that term.

I don't want to clog this discussion with my personal views, but I'm posted a quick disclaimer on my page to better explain my little POV. Will Nesbitt 06:37, 19 May 2007 (CDT)

Will, I don't know if ID is really dangerous. You are right when you write "many alternative medicines are pseudo-scientific and they are much more dangerous than ID". What I wanted to say is that many good scientists (the majority of them, but I do know personally at least one scientist who is pro-ID) are extremely suspicious about ID. So the title "ID theory" is -I believe- dangerous for Citizendium. The reason is: all those good scientists, the majority of them, who are suspicious about ID, will most probably be suspicious of any source implicitly including ID among theories. Then, of course, any good source needs a good article about ID. Title is critical, however. --Nereo Preto 09:18, 19 May 2007 (CDT)

Rather than having three pages, why not just have Intelligent design as the main page - without the word 'theory' - and another on Intelligent design movement. The main ID page could have a 'see also' at the top. John Stephenson 03:45, 20 May 2007 (CDT)

Nereo suggested this too. It sounds like a good idea to me. Chris Day (talk) 09:47, 20 May 2007 (CDT)

I object to the "see also" link. "See also"-style links at the top should be used for disambiguation when the meaning of each term is obvious; for example, the article prince might have a link to prince (musician) at the top. This should not be used for navigation among articles that cover different aspects of the same topic, as it can be highly confusing to a reader who isn't already familiar with the distinction between those aspects (or the editors' rationale for creating a distinction, as it is often an artificial one).

It is better to incorporate such links in the article text. For example, the introduction of this article could go "Intelligent design is bla bla bla and the intelligent design movement is bla bla bla". The article on the intelligent design movement could go "The intelligent design movement is bla bla bla that advocates intelligent design, the idea that bla bla".

If you want to be very explicit, both introductions could include something along the lines of "this article focuses on aspect XXX of intelligent design; for aspect YYY see YYY and aspect ZZZ see ZZZ". But that should go at the end of the introductory paragraph, which should first provide enough context that the reader can decide which article he/she is looking for. Fredrik Johansson 10:20, 20 May 2007 (CDT)

Just my view

I don't really think my opinions on ID really matter, but for the record, I think that ID theory is misguided. The theoretical issues are those relating to irreducible complexity and specified complexity, and although I believe the conclusions to be wrong, the arguments are not trivial and what in my view are errors are not obvious. In other words although I disagree with the theoretical case, I don't think it should be trivialised or demonised, but should be treated on its logical, objective merits like any other scientific thesis, (and I regard some other areas of science as flawed in a far more obvious way than ID theory). In other words objectively, but sympathetically in the sense of treating the arguments as honest.

The ID movement is (I think) something else; this is a movement (I think) that accepts the ID theory not on its merits but for its implications, and this is profoundly anti-scientific. However to dismiss the ID theory effectively by tainting it by association with some of its proponents is IMO also intellectually dishonourable.

So I do think that the intellectually coherent approach is to separate out the logical basis of the ID thesis from the movement.

But just because I think ID theory is flawed doesn't mean I have any problem with calling it ID theory. Gareth Leng 11:13, 18 May 2007 (CDT)

For the record, when i suggested one article I was not thinking from the perspective of 'tainting it by association'. But now you mention it I can see how it might happen. Let's see how the articles develop and worry about the names later, if it is still necessary. Chris Day (talk) 12:05, 18 May 2007 (CDT)

Sounds wise to meGareth Leng 12:13, 18 May 2007 (CDT)

How about "Intelligent Design Hypothesis"?

I dunno if this would fly, but my Merriam-Webster's Collegiate 11th says on page 613, column 2, under definition of Hypotheis, Syn: HYPOTHESIS implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation (a hypothesis explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs) THEORY implies a grater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth (the theory of evolution).... Hayford Peirce 12:04, 20 May 2007 (CDT)

Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 09:49, 27 May 2007

Contents

Help on contributing to this article

Typographical and other conventions

Capitalisation?

Intelligent Design : A better intro than WP

Things to add to the article

Some problems to address

Some brief comments

Workgroups

"Intelligent design is not the same as creationism"

Probably most if not all intelligent design proponents are also creationists

A coalition representing 70,000 scientists

The importance of neutrality

Minor quibble

"The scientific community"

??

Suggested Fork in Article

Intelligent Design Concept

Defining and Narrowing the Problem

Just my view

How about "Intelligent Design Hypothesis"?

Navigation menu

Revision as of 21:05, 20 May 2007 (view source) imported>Larry Sanger (Creating archive (104 K))	Latest revision as of 09:49, 27 May 2007 (view source) imported>Larry Sanger m (Protected "Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 1": Archived page [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
(No difference)

Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 09:49, 27 May 2007

Help on contributing to this article

Typographical and other conventions

Capitalisation?

Intelligent Design : A better intro than WP

Things to add to the article

Some problems to address

Some brief comments

Workgroups

"Intelligent design is not the same as creationism"

Probably most if not all intelligent design proponents are also creationists

A coalition representing 70,000 scientists

The importance of neutrality

Minor quibble

"*The* scientific community"

??

Suggested Fork in Article

Intelligent Design Concept

Defining and Narrowing the Problem

Just my view

How about "Intelligent Design Hypothesis"?

Navigation menu

Search

"The scientific community"