Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 26

Intro: "Overwhelming majority"

"An overwhelming majority[3] of the scientific community views intelligent design not as a valid scientific theory but as pseudoscience or junk science.[4]"

I think this sentence is somewhat problematic in the way in conflates its two sources. The overwhelming majority of the scientific community "firmly rejects" ID; that is the takehome from the first source. In other words, they agree it is not a better explanation that evolution. But that is not the same as overwhelming agreement about the (pseudo-)scientific status of ID. The relevant section of the second source is this:

"Biologists aren’t alarmed by intelligent design’s arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they’re alarmed because intelligent design is junk science."

This only refers to biologists, and only to the biologists who are alarmed by (as opposed to indifferent to or ignorant of or simply think it wrong but not alarming) ID. Beyond biologists, much more of the scientific community is not alarmed by it, even if they do not accept it as valid. Thus, I think the sentence should be split into two clauses to reflect this. I thought this would be uncotroversial when I changed it originally, but it got quickly changed back so I think we should discuss it. If someone can produce a source that is more consistent with the statement as it stands, please do.--ragesoss 09:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Here we go again... Sorry, Ragesoss, but this issue has been discussed to death. I feel sorry for the editors every time this issue is brought up again and again and again.

Footnote 3 (overwhelming majority) is from Judge Jones' opinion/ruling.

Before discussing Defendants’ claims about evolution, we initially note that an overwhelming number of scientists, as reflected by every scientific association that has spoken on the matter, have rejected the ID proponents’ challenge to evolution. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ expert in biology, Dr. Miller, a widely-recognized biology professor at Brown University who has written university-level and highschool biology textbooks used prominently throughout the nation, provided unrebutted testimony that evolution, including common descent and natural selection, is “overwhelmingly accepted” by the scientific community and that every major scientific association agrees. (1:94-100 (Miller)). As the court in Selman explained, “evolution is more than a theory of origin in the context of science. To the contrary, evolution is the dominant scientific theory of origin accepted by the majority of scientists.” Selman, 390 F. Supp. 2d at 1309 (emphasis in original). Despite the scientific community’s overwhelming support for

[edit]

Page 84 of 139

evolution, Defendants and ID proponents insist that evolution is unsupported by empirical evidence.

Note that Judge Jones' quotes from several legitimate/respected/experts on the matter sources.

Footnote 4 seems to defer to just biologists but that's because this is specifically the field of biologists. As for the atheistic materialism portion, I'll think "assume good faith." Personally, I think we should do away with the 4th footnote and just follow Judge Jones' ruling.Lovecoconuts 10:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

We agreed to table this discussion for another time, now is not the time. Jim62sch 10:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yet nowhere in those quotes you've provided does it address the issue of pseudo-science or junk science. I don't think the "overwhelming majority" of the scientific community has taken the time to examine ID in detail, much less declare it pseudo-science. I suspect that if they did, that would indeed be the verdict, but as it stands I think the sentence is slightly distorting. Since this has apparently been beaten to death, I won't press it any further, but I do think the way the sentence is now misuses the sources, which establish separate claims. --ragesoss 10:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to archive this for now. When we are done with the rest of the objections to the article, we can reintroduce this subject. Jim62sch 11:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)