Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 65

Archive 60

←

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

→

Archive 70

Liberty University

This article does not mention Liberty University. I'm surprised by this, since they've been accredited by SACS. I'm surprised it isn't mentioned here, because it seems like there is a link between ID and liberty, and if it's an accredited university, I'd want to investigate this and add some things about Liberty in the article. However, if this doesn't seem relevant to you all, I'm not gonna waste my time digging into this matter. Helemaalnicks (talk) 11:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The answer is that although ID may be important to LU, LU does not seem to be important to ID. None of its most prominent advocates are affiliated with it (Ross is only 2nd or 3rd tier), and none of its milestone conferences, etc occurred there. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you give more information and sources regarding the link that exists? That would make it easier to understand the applicability. PERSONAL OPINION REMOVED, I haven't heard a lot about LU's publications. i kan reed (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

What Hrafn said. After skimming the Liberty University article, it sounds like they're more associated with YEC and AIG. User:Helemaalnicks also put similar proposals at Talk:Creation–evolution controversy and Talk:Neo-creationism; I think it could be worth a mention as an example of Neo-creationism, and as proponents of YEC (although I thought I read somewhere today that they have also endorsed ID). Mildly Mad^T_C 13:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I will elaborate on why I think there is a link between ID and LU, and why it is important, since Hrafn questioned this. For sources I need more time, I first wanted to know whether this might be an interesting idea to find data about. The wikipedia (and the name) of LU suggests that LU teaches creationism alongside evolution. LU is accredited by SASC, and you can major in biology http://www.liberty.edu/academics/arts-sciences/biology-chemistry/. This would mean people get a biology degree by learning about creationism (alongside other things of course). However, it is not hard to see a link between a movement that searches for acceptance of ID/creationism as a scientific theory, and an accredited university that teaches it as a scientific theory to people who get a degree in biology (if they pass the tests). A number of biologists, with a university degree, who agree with ID and/or Crea proponents that creationism is a scientific theory, could make an impact on the way biology is taught in the classroom, which is an important purpose for the movement (neo-C and/or ID). The wikipedia for LU suggests they work with AIG, however, this is not me citing sources, this is me proposing the idea itself, I'll need more time to answer the (obvious) sources question.

The first part of the ID article seems to contradict itself. "ID is a proposition"... "ID seeks to redefine science in a fundamental way that would invoke supernatural explanations". How can a proposition seek to redefine science, doesn't that make ID a movement as well?

I agree that it might be more appropriate for Neo-C-article though. Helemaalnicks (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Helemaalnicks: nothing that you said actually links LU to ID/neo-creationism, as opposed to creationism more generally, let alone prominently so and/or by third party sources. LU has played little or no role in the wider development and promotion of ID. ID is both a proposition and a movement that promotes that proposition -- it is the latter that "seeks to redefine science" as part of its promotion of the former. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

That's called personification. It's described as having motives because there is motivations behind the construction of it. That does present a problem, as personification is a kind of rhetorical device, and encylopedias, in general, should avoid such language. _{did you see what I did there?} i kan reed (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that nothing I said links LU to ID/neo-c, but you explained what I need to do to prove a link, and I understand why this needs to be done. Thanks, although I sense some hostility, I'm just a newby with a general proposal. Helemaalnicks (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem, if there is a link then it would be useful to find reliable secondary sources discussing the issue so that we can cover it without falling into the pitfalls of "original research which is proscribed by WP policy. It's not clear that Liberty U actually teaches "creationist biology" as one would hope that would end their accreditation in that subject. As for the famous proposition, it presents an argument that necessarily involves a redefinition of science to default to supernatural explanations. Just like creation science did before ID. The language is OK, but if you like we could try discussing a way of improving it without changing the clear meaning of the sentence. Thanks, dave souza, talk 15:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

So would a source like this http://www2.newsadvance.com/news/2009/feb/15/liberty_university_refuting_evolution-ar-213489/ support the claim that LU is an important proponent? It states creation is being taught to >50.000 students http://voices.washingtonpost.com/college-inc/2010/02/liberty_university_tops_50000.html. Am I on the right track? Or does this not prove they're influential, thus important to the movement? EDIT: of course I didn't mean 'prove', I'd need more sources, however, am i on the right track? Helemaalnicks (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

{e/c}They're YEC, according to this. ("The universe was created in six historical days.") Here's a non-RS with links or clues to RSs. And here's "Intelligent Design and Public School Cirriculum [sic]" presented by Behe at a law school symposium and dinner, of all things. Yopienso (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

No these wouldn't. The first source creates no more of a link than that Behe spoke there (he speaks at hundreds of venues), the second makes no link to ID at all. What is needed is sources that demonstrate that LU has aplayed a prominent role in the development or promotion of ID. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• I would point out that Biola University has played a far far more prominent role in the development and promotion of ID (numerous prominent advocates are faculty there -- e.g. William Lane Craig & J. P. Moreland, it has hosted numerous events prominently promoting ID), but (as yet) gets no mention here. It seems rather odd then to concentrate on LU. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Hmmm... How much article space is appropriate for discussing associated institutions? As a political movement, such associations are more important than they are with actual science articles. WP:WEIGHT would tend towards most such information being about the DI, but I don't see how an "assocations and organizations" or something similar would hurt. It wouldn't really be a tangent section. There might even be parts of the article as it stands that would feel more at home in a section with that title. i kan reed (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Might work better at Intelligent design movement, which already has a section for organizations. Yopienso (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking the same as Yopienso. Remember though that solid sources ae needed to verify that an actual association exists between LU and the DI, and that this association is notable and not just something like cosigning a document or something like that. THew has to be proof of substantial collaboration and a positive active contribution on the part of LU to the cause of the movement, not just "moral support". As far as I can tell, LU is more YEC and is associated more with AIG. It should also be about LU as a whole, not just about Ross. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that article existed. Better for there by far. Helemaalnicks, would you like to continue this discussion at that article? i kan reed (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at that article seems more appropriate to me, now that I've been informed about its existence and about the arguments against my proposition. Helemaalnicks (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment request on Wedge Strategy

MissionNPOVible has called for additional comments about his proposed changes related to ID on talk:Wedge strategy. Additional input would be welcome. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually I called for additional comments from editors who - like me - were fresh to ID rather than having strong positions. I doubt this is the ideal place for that. MissionNPOVible (talk) 07:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You have one of the strongest positions I've ever seen on the subject, Mission. You have no room to talk. Also, getting outside opinions doesn't necessitate that they are "fresh" to ID, but rather fresh to the discussion at hand.Farsight001 (talk) 08:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Farsight! You're talking to me again! Be still my beating heart... MissionNPOVible (talk) 10:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:AGF, Mission. Also, WP:NPA; stalking is a loaded word. i kan reed (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe u kan't reed. MissionNPOVible (talk) 07:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops, thought I apologized for misreading a few days back, sorry about that. Must not have clicked save. I'm sorry for misreading your statement. i kan reed (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

No probs IKR - I apologise for not putting a smiley at the end of my reply, I didn't mean it harshly!MissionNPOVible (talk) 07:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Leading proponents

This edit appears to be edit warring, is clearly against the consensus, and introduced nonsense: "The Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank,[n 1][6]asserts the designer is the Christian God." is blatantly untrue. MissionNPOVible (talk · contribs) seems to be getting increasingly disruptive. . dave souza, talk 11:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Please address the edits, not the editor, on an article talk page. "I don't agree with MissionNPOVible's recent edits because..." is sufficient. Cla68 (talk) 13:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but Mission is developing a pattern of injecting unsupported statements, removing references, and similar activities without discussing it on the talk page first. Especially in the lede. Calling the user disruptive is a personal attack, but asking Mission to stop the particular recurring disruptive behavior is not. i kan reed (talk) 13:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, yes, it's all about ME!!! Anyway, back to WP... If understand the consensus here (dubious I know, but I'll try) this article is all about DI ID. There's even a hat note explaining that now. So I believe it is redundant to talk about leading proponents of ID when we are supposedly talking about DI ID, not proponents of ID per se. So sharpening that sentence makes sense, since there are other proponents of ID who do not think the designer is the christian god, so a reader might reasonably infer from the unchanged sentence that ALL proponents of ID think the designer is the christian god. I'm not sure I see the blatant untruth that my version contains, perhaps that could be explained to me. As for my evil "pattern", I am following WP:BRD, as distinct to variations of WP:BRDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD. MissionNPOVible (talk) 07:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Your belief is misplaced. ID, as propagated by the DI, could well have other leading proponents not affiliated with the DI, but it doesn't. That seems surprising to many people, which is why it was a significant issue discussed at Kitz. If I can try to explain, it's blatantly untrue that the DI asserts the designer is the Christian God – the DI itself doesn't say much, its offshoots like the CSC assert that the designer is unknown, and knowing or understanding the Designer is a matter for theology which they say is outwith ID. As for WP:BRD, it doesn't mean keep reverting until you get your way: you've been bold, you've been reverted so discuss rather than reverting back to a version others don't accept. As for these alleged other proponents of some other form of ID, evidence is needed for verification: please provide citations on this talk page. . dave souza, talk 18:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

As discussed above, Rael proposes a non-DI version of ID. So do Nagel and Monton. Also Roger Olsen, Percival Davis, nor James Barham are not associated with the DI but are ID proponents. The point is, however, that this article is expressly about DI ID - so it is irrelevant to this article what other non-DI proponents of ID say. Therefore it is redundant to say "All of its leading proponents are associated with the Discovery Institute" - what else would they be if this article is about DI ID proponents? It should be rephrased, either along the lines I put in place, or something like "All of the DI's leading proponents of ID believe..." - this is much more precise. As it stands it is both redundant and somewhat misleading for anyone who hasn't quite understood the narrow terms of this article (i.e. explicitly and only the DI version of ID) and they could mistakenly believe that all proponents of ID are associated with the DI and believe the designer is the Christian god. I think such confusion should be avoided, certainly in the lead. MissionNPOVible (talk) 09:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, we have no solid evidence that any of these are prominent (i.e. "leading") advocacies of ID. Third party sourcing demonstrating their prominence? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

What exactly does "solid" mean in this context? They all either have WP pages or are cited/mentioned in WP pages, so they are prominent as opposed to non-notable. They all talk about ID. Obviously, if you are correct, that DI is the main version of ID, then they must be talking about a fringe ID by definition, and so we can't expect them to have the same kind of prominence as DI proponents. Yet they are all published in WP:RS's about ID, and a reader could easily be misled into believing that they too believe the designer to be the christian god. What exactly is the problem with making this sentence more accurate? MissionNPOVible (talk) 11:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

(i) Wikt:solid. Work it out for yourself (hint: WP:RS & WP:DUE would be good places to start). (ii) No. As should be obvious to anybody with even half a clue, having a Wikipedia page does not mean that they are prominent for advocacy of intelligent design -- it will quite frequently mean that they are prominent for things completely unrelated to ID. (iii) Like a large number of others, I am sick to death of your constant WP:DEADHORSE-flogging time-wasting -- so either provide reliable third-party demonstration of prominence, or go away. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
This editor makes NO BONES WHATSOEVER about his desire to "inhibit" MissionNPOVible's endless Energizer Bunny-like disruptive WP:DEADHORSEing, both here and on Wedge strategy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The sentence in question should be eliminated or completely re-written. According to The Best of the Public Square, "Berlinski is embraced by proponents of Intelligent Design for the persuasiveness and vigor of his arguments but also because he is an agnostic." Besides David Berlinski's agnosticism, we also know of the Judaism of David Klinghoffer, who is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute. According to Perspectives on science and Christian faith: Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, Volumes 59-60, "David Berlinski is an agnostic, secular Jew; William Dembski is an evangelical; Michael Behe is Catholic; Jonathan Wells belongs to the Unification Church; and Phillip Johnson is a Presbyterian." The current version of the sentence is in violation of WP:NPOV and the sources that I have listed demonstrate this fact. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 03:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

1. David Berlinski has explicitly disavowed advocacy of ID -- he just supports their evolution-bashing.
2. David Klinghoffer is hardly a "leading proponent". Simply being a Senior Fellow, and writing the occasional op ed, isn't sufficient.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

• Compromise proposal: From what I'm seeing, the "All" needs to be dropped from the sentence. So, it should read, "Leading proponents of ID are from the Discovery Institute." That way, it's not making the debatable assertion that every, single leading proponent is from that organization. Is this an acceptable compromise for everyone? Cla68 (talk) 04:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the "all" is too over-reaching. One exception makes it inappropriate. Bill Davis will do. Yopienso (talk) 04:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The current language is accurate, well-sourced and informative. I see no need to change it. The word "all" is important because it emphasizes the small size of the organization in question, and the fact that it is very centralized, with practially any action of note originating from within the DI itself. There is not much ID outside the DI, and what there is is mostly of the "moral support" sort rather than active engagement. All of the major movers and shakers are indeed directly associated with the DI. The few proponents that aren't are not leading figures in the movement by far. I therefore oppose any move to drop "all" from the article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, in addition to the points above, I don't think including the word all really adds to the informativeness of the article. I think, regardless of the sources, synthesis or any other argument for keeping the "all", there's a pretty strong parsimony argument for dropping it. It's not a case where dropping the all, really changes the meaning of the statement. remoiving "all" does make it briefer, helping get straight to the point. Eschew surplusage. "Its leading proponents, who are associated with the Discovery Institute". Or even briefer: "Its leading proponents, associated with the DI". The semantics of the statement are important, but the syntax seems long ignored and overfluffed. i kan reed (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

@I kan reed: I wouldn't strongly object to your wording, "Its leading proponents, who are associated with the Discovery Institute", although the second variant you give is TOO parsimonious. I do strongly object to any wording that makes it appear that the ID movement is larger and more diffuse than it is, though. I'll have to see the proposed final version to give a definite opinion. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It appears that all but one editor agree with removing "all" from the sentence. With this consensus opinion, I'll go ahead and remove it. Good work at compromise and cooperation. Cla68 (talk) 05:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That would be a hasty conclusion. You just made this proposal 24 hours ago, and I'd still like to hear from other editors before proceeding. I'm therefore reverting your change until sufficient time has elapsed to establish consensus. The proposal was buried at the end of a cluttered section, so I've moved it to its own section for visability. Give it a few days. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Well just for the record, I agree that dropping all is appropriate. There are other 'versions' of ID, which is why this article has been dedicated to the DI version, therefore it is confusing and demonstrably inaccurate to claim "all". MissionNPOVible (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You keep bringing that up, but all references to the term "Intelligent design" exactly as such have been at least indirectly linked back to the Discovery Institute, and usually directly. I don't feel as though "other IDs", should they exist, meet the notability requirements for even a passing mention at this point. i kan reed (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• I would consider "Its leading proponents, who are associated with the Discovery Institute" to be acceptable -- as it accurately reflects the fact that you'd have to go down to third or fourth rung proponents (who have not contributed any prominent concepts of the idea) before you got away from the DI -- and that's not "leading" by any stretch of the imagination. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I, too, wouldn't mind dropping the all so long as the sentence reads well, and Cla68's change to "Leading proponents of ID are associated with..." did so. We could also just get rid of the first two words in that sentence without changing the structure of it much: "All of Its leading proponents are associated with...". I support either change. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 14:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• "All of Its leading proponents are associated with..." looks good to me. One nit fewer for concern trolls to pick at. I doubt a single reader in a hundred thousand will parse the absence of "all" as saying the DI is larger or more pervasive than it is. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. It's pretty clear where consensus lays now. I'm changing the wording. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Bravo! :) Yopienso (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing a single leading proponent who is not associated with the DI. Has anyone located one? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

There are none of which I'm aware, but the change will hopefully prevent arguing about whether or not a particular person is a leading proponent, which is a common occurrence here. This also helps resolve the ambiguity of exactly who constitutes a leading proponent, as it is not clarified in the sources. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 16:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, there's my point on brevity. The existential verb already implies logical universality. The phrase is cleaner this way without impacting its meaning. Implied redundancy is just wasteful. There's no need to prove that there are leading proponents who aren't associated with the DI, because the summary is not being changed to even imply otherwise. "Its leading proponents are associated with the discovery institute". What's false or misrepresentitive about that, even in correspondance to the sources we're currently using? It's just better English.

Also your revert was unreasonable. 6 editors is more than most discussions on this talk page even get total. 2 days is long standing enough for objections to be aired. At this point it would be more appropriate to raise your concerns, then revert later. The "long standing" version of the article is not some sort of sacrosanct platonic ideal, it just represents the best version we've found until the next change. i kan reed (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Co-author of Of Pandas and People, Bill Davis has been mentioned. I will leave it to those who care more about what "leading proponent" means in this context to declare whether he is one or not, but it is still debatable, and could lead to more time wasted in defending an unnecessary three letter word. If someone shows up with a more valid defense than "we didn't discuss it enough yet" then there might be grounds for putting it back. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you saying that insufficient input/discussion is not a valid objection? Please clarify. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. A change can be made. Reverting without sufficient discussion is bad, as that is edit warring, but making a change is perfectly ok, unless there is something wrong with that change. That everyone has weighed in yet or not is completely irrelevant. There is no arbitrary threshold of "discussed enough". No policy or guideline says as such.

If a change is seriously contended that's a different matter, but there's nothing wrong with being bold and changing the article when an idea has broad endorsement at a particular time. So far, the only concern raised is by you, which is that someone might be concerned. We've had several editors endorse the idea, with no clearly stated disagreements. Assumming it hasn't already been done, I'm going to revert your revert. If you want me to support changing it back, you're going to have to provide a reason the old wording is one of the following: more accurate, more informative, or better writing. i kan reed (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

(after ec) My question was specifically to Just plain Bill, and was about his choice of words, not an opening to debate the recent change to the article.

Regarding Ikanreed's two paragraph post, above, it is incorrect in several specifics: several have objected, above this section, within the last week. "making a change" is not "perfectly ok" when the change is to a very long standing consensus on an FA with many editors, with minimal input and a hasty decision that there is now, with less than two days discussion, "broad endorsement". To call half a dozen quick posts "broad endorsement" on such an article is laughable. And it is those wishing to make this change, not I, upon whom the onus rests for achieving said "broad support" which has yet to occur. Finally, in your first sentence, did you actually agree that there is no validity to the concern of insufficient input and/or discussion? That there is NO validity to that ? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'd say that nine editors agreeing to drop an unnecessary word without any voiced opposition constitutes sufficient input/discussion for making this trivial change. It's extremely rare for so many editors to agree on a change in this article (even if we can't agree on the reasons for it) and we have most of the frequent editors stating their support, so it's rational to assume consensus. If objections are raised, which has yet to occur, we can certainly revert the change. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 19:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

"We didn't discuss it enough yet" would be a valid objection, if there had indeed been a short skimpy discussion without clear support one way or the other. This section is a follow-on to the previous one which started five days ago, and one would be hard pressed to claim that this page is seldom visited by those with an interest in the topic. I see consensus amongst the usual suspects, and I believe the version without "all" is valid as a safe-mode default until we can arrive at ironclad sourcing for "all leading proponents." As I mentioned above, the word "all" is a tasty-looking bait for concern trolls, and we are better off without it and the lengthy tiresome useless quibbling it can lead to. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I see at least two editors in the section above who disagreed with the change. I do not see that their concerns have been addressed nor that they have either changed their position nor withdrawn their disagreement. I do not count 9 who agreed but perhaps I am missing someone. I make 3. That is a maximum of 9 in favor of a change, 3 against, or 75% in favor of the change so far. Your primary argument for the change seems to be that it is "troll bait", is that correct? also, I am still waiting for you to specify whether you actually meant to tell my my concern is not a valid concern. Are you calling me a troll? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Davis isn't a convincing example, as we have expert testimony by Forrest that all ID's leaders are associated with the DI given in the afternoon, when she'd given testimony about Davis earlier that day so was clearly well aware of him. She also discusses Davis on pp. 4, 14 and 19 of her expert witness report. So, possibly she had evidence of an association we've not found. Alternatively, she didn't consider him a leading proponent, and unlike us she's a published expert on the topic. Her testimony is a reliable source for use of "all of its leading proponents". . . dave souza, talk 19:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Not calling KC any kind of troll. Notice I used Twinkle's AGF button for the revert. As you know, a concern troll is someone who comes along with words like "let's work together to make this better" and proceeds to slant the article their way.

I have numerous concerns, and if you want me to designate one as primary, it would be the lack of truly bullet-proof secondary sourcing that says all leading ID proponents have close ties to the DI. That is a chink in this article's armor against concern trolls and others with devious reasons to change it. Dave Souza just offered Forrest as a RS (although with caveats) so maybe that should go in the talk FAQ. With that, I'd hope we can close this for a good long while. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

thanks, I appreciate the clarification. In the future, if you don't want to insult someone, you might consider not implying or saying that a concern they raise is "not a valid concern". KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Be clear, Forrest is a reliable source for the "all' wording. Others have suggested Davis as a possible "leading proponent" without associations to the Di, but Forrest clearly knew of Davis when she made her assessment. There's always the theoretical possibility of some new leader emerging and we'd need new evidence of their relationship to the DI, but that doesn't apply for Davis. As far as him being a leader, he's an undisguised YEC and so his lead in that hasn't been followed. . dave souza, talk 20:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I accept Forrest as a RS, but we need a secondary source, not a trial transcript. Also, since this is a matter of some contention, we need one or two more RSs. Yopienso (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... nine by my count: Cla68 suggested the compromise, Professor marginalia agreed, Yopienso gave an example to support his agreement, Dominus Vobidsu initially objected but relented a bit and now seems to have conceded any lingering objections (he reverted the change for being too hasty, then later implemented when his idea of consensus was met), i kan reed and MissionNPOVible both agreed, Hrafn mentioned the change was acceptable, and Just Plain Bill stated that my proposal to change the text looked good. dave souza had a valid objection to the change made before Cla68 suggested the compromise, but hadn't posted since (until just recently). Even if we assumed dave would object, that would be 9:1 and just about as good a consensus as possible to my eyes.

dave, do you think the all is really necessary? I'm cautious about it for a few reasons. First, the sentence in question makes two claims about "All of its leading proponents": they are associated with the DI and believe the designer is the Christian God. We have Forrest's expert testimony to support the first claim, but not the second. Second, the term leading proponents is ambiguous. We have no sources differentiating a leading proponent from any other proponent, and this muddled area doesn't seem to deserve such an absolute as all. Third, though the explicit mention is no longer there, the sentence still implies that the claim applies to all of ID's leading proponents. This last reason is the clincher for me, as it makes the change trivial in content while avoiding unsubstantiated or ambiguous claims. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 20:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

-> 9:1? Both Dave souza and Hrafn objected, above. I am three. I still make it 9:3, or 75%. And that's 75% in favor of changing a long standing consensus, and so far the only argument I've seen specified which has not been refuted is that "its troll bait". KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I hate to quibble, but Hrafn said, "I would consider 'Its leading proponents, who are associated with the Discovery Institute' to be acceptable," which would bring the total to 9:2 (~82%) including you (whom I didn't include previously, hopefully for obvious reasons). And what about the three concerns I just listed? Don't they count?

Hrafn, please let me know if I'm misrepresenting your view here. I think I'm justified in stating your agreement (acceptance?) according to your previous comment, but I give you permission to smack me if I'm out of line. :P -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 21:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Dave, I recognize you as a reliable aggregator of well-selected sources in this area, and it ought to be clear to anyone watching that you are one of the outstandingly energetic contributors here. However, sooner or later someone else will come along and say "but he wrote the book on it!!!!1!!" and we start up again. Whether Forrest recognized him as a "leading proponent" or not, he is a highly visible figure in an ID context as a result of that authorship, even if he has no direct disciples in the movement. I really do not want to tease out all the nuances of what "leading" means. I can hardly believe I'm tapping so many keys about three letters and a space. Put them back in if you like, and it won't be long before we see this all over again. I will now move slowly away from the keyboard... __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Poor little participle, doesn't anyone care about the "of"? I agree though, this is much ado about nothing. It falls into the class of things that are basically true, and wouldn't really be worth arguing about on any politically non-contentious article. i kan reed (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua and everyone, what we have here is a good example of editors of this article working together to reach a consensus on a compromise proposal for the article which was implemented (although what Dominus added used slightly different wording than mine, that's ok). I hope this sets a new paradigm for interaction on this article talk page. If you've checked the page ratings for this article, you'll notice that it scores very poorly (currently 2.3) under "objective", which is remarkably low for an article that's classified as a Featured Article. Working together, hopefully we can rectify this. Cla68 (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Cla, I did a straw poll of people in my office a few years ago. I asked about 20 people what they thought Intelligent design was. Without exception, they thought it was an alternative scientific theory, developed by scientists. Every single one of them. Given that, I can only quote Tony Sidaway, and say the general public's opinion on what is "objective" is sometimes influenced by their ignorance. "Wikipedia was always intended to be a high quality free encyclopedia based on the neutral point of view. Reflecting the prejudices of the stupidest people, of whatever nation, has never been an aim of this project." -- Tony Sidaway

KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua, I won't insult you by asking you to read WP:NPOV. I will say, however, that I think it's one of the most important, if not the most important, editing standards in Wikipedia. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, we don't care if people believe that Intelligent Design is a valid theory of evolution or not. We don't. We are supposed to present an article that explains the idea without taking either side. Are you willing and able to do that? Cla68 (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think any would disagree that NPOV is a very important policy. "We don't care what people think" was indeed my point; we are not supposed to ignore the UNDUE part of NPOV to the extent that we "present both sides" of arguments such as Flat earth, Hollow earth, Phrenology, or Intelligent design. To do so would be a clear violation of NPOV#UNDUE. I certainly am not prepared to flout policy in such a manner, and am surprised you ask me that. I can only think you were less careful than usual in your phrasing. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Presenting the side of the people who believe in the idea, such as ID, is certainly not "undue", as they are the ones promoting the idea in the first place. I think the fact that this article doesn't do that as well as it could might be one of the reasons for its low "objective" rating. Cla68 (talk) 01:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, thinking of people who disagree with us as "the stupidest people" is incredibly condescending and arrogant. I'm sure you and Tony Sideaway aren't asserting that you are smarter than other people, are you? Cla68 (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I can see no positive outcome from replying to this bit of baiting, which is a bit inappropriate on this discussion page even if it were not for the leading nature of the phrasing; so I'm going to simply let it pass with only this, as my acknowledgment that I have seen the post and decline to wade into the mud with you. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps I'll take it to your talk page. In the meantime, we can continue working here on improving the "Objective" score for this article. If anyone else has any suggested changes, please start a new section below and we can get to work on it. Cla68 (talk) 01:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not rework the sentence and include Forrest's words in quotes? "All of the leaders." Just an idea. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Might work, but not in the lede. Please see my reply above to Dave's comment of 20:12, 10 August. Yopienso (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• In answer to earlier queries, I am not nail-my-colours-to-the-mast-and-go-down-in-flames wedded to the word "all". I am however very strongly of the opinion that the article needs to give a clear articulation of the almost-perfect overlap between the DI and the IDM's senior leadership, such that all the most prominent leaders (and particularly all its top theorists and strategists) are extremely closely associated with it, and you'd have to go down very far in the ranks to find somebody unassociated with it. "All" expresses this point, as do some other articulations. Other articulations however do not. I have already agreed to one such alternative ("Its leading proponents, who are associated with the Discovery Institute"), I would however disagree with the more-watered-down alternative ("Its leading proponents, associated with the DI") and with making it a quote-only-of-Forrest (per WP:YESPOV: "Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion." -- nobody has brought to light a leading proponent not associated with the DI). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 01:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn, do you object to the text placed there currently or is that an acceptable alternative? -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 04:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable, at least at first glance. I do however find it odd that its exact wording was only mentioned here on talk once, and after it was edit-warred over briefly (which is why perhaps I missed it). I would suggest that such controversial material should be explicitly discussed and explicitly agreed upon first. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Some proponents of ID believe in evolution

I just thought I should say that some proponents of ID actually believe in evolution, but they only believe that abiogenesis was the resulting cause of an intelligent designer. They believe that molecules bumping into each other would never produce the complexity of genetic information we see. Also, the intelligent designer doesn't have to be a religious deity, but it can be an extraterrestrial designer. But of course few believe in that theory. Nashhinton (talk) 05:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not intelligent design. That's Theistic evolutionFarsight001 (talk) 05:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right Nashington - Nagel and Monton discuss exactly that point, but for some reason people are wanting to exclude the kind of ID that is not considered a part of core DI beliefs. I think it is confusing to a reader coming to look for information about ID to be given such a myopic account of the topic in WP. I have no object to there being an article on DI ID, but I think it should be labelled accordingly, and that 'ID the concept' be allowed to be written about neutrally in this article. Given the restrictive views I've encountered here so far, it may be easier to just start another article called ID the concept - and no, I don't mean the teleological argument, I mean ID. MissionNPOVible (talk) 07:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I can assure you that were you to start such an article and it survive deletion attempts, it would become just the latest target for soapboxing against ID (sometimes in the voice of Wikipedia as if whatever is being soapboxed is an incontrovertible fact). If BLP articles. of all things, are targeted for the coatracked soapboxing against ID (see, for example, Stephen C. Meyer), you can be sure that a 'ID the concept' article would be. Drrll (talk) 08:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Drrl, sadly I see the truth in what you say. I am starting to console myself that the glaringly POV nature of this article is so over the top that any neutral reader will spot it for the anti-ID fanboyism that it is and look elsewhere for information. The problem the die-hard editors here fail to realise is the disservice they do to themselves, and others, by making the DI look good! It seems the DI has outsmarted them with some sophisticated attempts at influencing public policy and debate, while they come across as frothing at the mouth a bit, and actually alienate people who are open minded on the topic, driving them to the DI for what sounds like neutral and reasonable analysis. They might be better off coming up with their own Wedge Document and putting a little thought into their efforts - because the way this article reads it will only appeal to those who are already convinced that ID is bunk. A classic case of singing to the choir! Oh well. MissionNPOVible (talk) 09:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right that such over-the-top hysteria and attempts at proselytizing will drive open-minded readers to other sources--including the DI. BTW, one regular editor on ID topics is on so much on a crusade that he can't even leave alone the article for the old religious children's cartoon McGee and Me!. Drrll (talk) 10:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, this grandstanding against the article needs to stop, unless all y'all are going to offer up some concrete suggestions for improving it. Simply claiming WP:ATTACK isn't good enough--please show specifically where the article(s) violate WP guidelines. I also suggest a careful reading of WP:FRINGE, keeping in mind that ID falls squarely under WP:FRINGE/PS #2 ("considered pseudoscience by the relevant academic community"). Thanks, Mildly Mad^T_C 11:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Offended readers don't matter; allegations of article-wide bias fix nothing

If we offend readers by presenting a well referenced, scientifically accurate article, and drive those readers to another source, then we're dealing with readers who don't want facts. The claimed tone of the article would be a concern if there were any demonstratable factual errors or opinions presented as fact. The objections in this case appears to be as non-specific as they come and oriented at providing credibility to the article's subject. That's not what wikipedia's for. Of this whole thread only "Frothing at the mouth" seems like any sort of specific concern, and I can't find any section of the article that presents that demeanor. These "the whole article is biased" discussions never go anywhere, not just because of some imagined inertia, but also becaues by the nature of wikipedia, changes are concrete and specific, so non-specific discussion does not prompt or validate by consensus any past or future edits. These discussions are an endlessly repeating waste of time. i kan reed (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Who said anything about offending anyone? Talk about straw men! Anyway, apologies for the diversion, afterall this is not a forum. MissionNPOVible (talk) 06:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I admit poor word choice on my part, but that was still the jist of what you said. What you actually said was exactly thus: "I am starting to console myself that the glaringly POV nature of this article is so over the top that any neutral reader will spot it for the anti-ID fanboyism that it is and look elsewhere for information." Readers who feel the article is biased when in fact every single statement is well supported with reliable sources, are not interested in facts. My point still stands, and I don't believe WP:FORUM is applicable. We were talking about improving the article in the context of reader feelings, and I had to make the point that being informative and factually correct is more important to wikipedia's misison than protecting the sensitivities of creationists reading the article. I don't think your point was bad, just that you were wrong. WP:FORUM only applies when the off-topic discussion is off the topic of improving the article. The discussion of offended readers is an important one to have, but I don't think you're going to have consensus on your side about this.

As to the allegation of POV, we come back to my original statement, if it were true, there would be really biased and/or false statements in the article. We have one such argument below where drrl's(sorry to call you out in an unrelated discussion) only argument is "because I say it's biased"(not a straw man, that's literally the only argument I've seen). i kan reed (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You are still sliding toward thinking that I am talking about people's sensitivities ("protecting the sensitivities of creationists" in particular). That is not my point. As a living breathing example, I came to this article with only a mild interest in the topic area, but my response is documented above. I was genuinely surprised that this was supposed to be an example of a FA. It wasn't that my latent creationist sensitivities were offended, it was that it clearly presents only one side of what was obviously a two (or more) sided debate. There are biased and/or false statements in the article - some of which have been raised above (I'm referring to the use of "all" and "is" specifically) - but even if this wasn't an issue, "facts" in and of themselves do not make something NPOV. For instance, it is a fact that your wrote the following sequence of letters in your reply: f u c k   y o u   t u r d   f a c e. Just because that is factually correct does not make it an accurate reflection of your comment. I believe that this article gives a skewed version of ID - the details of which only became apparent once I got involved on the talk page - and I think that a more NPOV version would provide the concepts and rebuttals rather than the 'intellectual inoculation' version we have. MissionNPOVible (talk) 01:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Neocreationism

OK. What about the declaration in Wikipedia's voice that ID is neo-creationism, not simply that some characterize it as such? You need very strong sourcing to make such an unqualified declaration as that. What is the sourcing? One book by the executive director of an anti-ID advocacy group and one article by an old-school creationist (seriously, that is accepted as a reliable source by editors here?). Drrll (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Your description of the sources is kind of unfair, but even so, this is two reliable sources with different viewpoints alledging the same basic fact. In addition to that, it's a factual statement. Intelligent design is undeniably a kind of creationism(i.e. that some specified set of things are created rather than naturally occurring). The sources in question pare to that down to neo-creationism. This is a specific concern I'm sure most editors are willing to discuss further. But if you look at the neo-creationism article, there are numerous more sources that link ID to neo-creationism. At this point in the debate, it's your burden of responsibility to present other, less biased, more reliable sources that present the contrary claim that ID is not neocreationism or more generally that ID is not a kind of creationism at all. And let's not forget the whole cdesign proponentists debacle, that demonstrates the creationist origins of ID.

Now while you may not personally buy the refutation I just presented. Surely you agree that it was only possible because the point you made was specific and it drives home the point that unspecific complaints don't help improve the article. i kan reed (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This whole issue seems to stem from the continued conflation of the argument from design with intelligent design. I've repeatedly called attention to this (as others have), but we're still working against this misconception.

MissionNPOVible, you say you want an ID the concept article and "no, [you] don't mean the teleological argument, [you] mean ID." However, it is resoundingly clear that you don't understand that the teleological argument is "ID" the concept. This is occasionally, informally labelled as an argument for intelligent design, but this is not the specific Intelligent Design of notoriety (the one perpetuated by the DI and the subject of this article). Details of this informal, philosophical teleological argument belong to the article on the teleological argument. This is not that article. This article is about the only well-known Intelligent Design out there, which happens to be the neo-creationist, pseudoscientific ID chronicled here. Nagel and Monton have looked at what these creationists have composed and analyzed it as if it were a scientific test of supernatural influence, ignoring the many facts that conclusively prove that ID is a smokescreen for Biblical literalists to introduce the Christian creation myth into US public schools. Philosophers are known to play around with and morph these kinds of concepts to achieve logical congruence, but the original "theory" is still being paraded as science by ID proponents. Why? Because they don't care about logic or even science, for that matter; they care about teaching religion.

Now, I've said previously that ID may become a valid, scientific hypothesis in the future, and this is exactly how that happens: the concept gets co-opted and revised by others (philosophers, in this case) and then scientists will test the specific predictions of this new, valid hypothesis. This has yet to occur. Currently, the only specific, "scientific" ID is the neo-creationist ID firmly associated with the DI and the political movement to circumvent legal precedent barring creationism's teaching in US public schools. This is the subject of this article. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 15:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I have yet to see anywhere near the level of reliable sourcing that would justify the unqualified pronouncement in the voice of Wikipedia that ID is neo-creationism / creationism. That is a subjective assessment, not objective truth. "It is a form of neo-creationism" needs to be reworded to maintain NPOV. The burden of proof for such a sweeping statement lies with those supporting its inclusion as is. Show me better sourcing. Drrll (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

How many sources do you want to say that before you accept its inclusion? I'm fairly certain I can find many sources stating this fact (probably many of the sources already cited in the article), but wonder how many inline citations you think we need after that particular sentence. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 17:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, no goalpost moving. Tell us exactly who must say this, and how many such people or this point is going nowhere. As to why it's "bad", I don't find any problem. Neo-creationism is neatly defined, and it doesn't seem subjective at all to take that definition, see that ID matches it exactly, find reliable sources who say the same thing and treat it as fact. It doesn't violate WP:RS, we have people saying it. It's not untrue, ID is almost the definitive example of neocreationism. There's no conflicting sources. As I said, the burden of proof here isn't on us. At this point, to throw the idea into doubt, you have to present one of the following: 1. Solid reasoning that it's not true. It's ok if this is original research for this first stage. or 2. Reliable sources who contradict that fact.

To reiterate, you can do any of three different things to move this argument along at this point, but none of them is just restating your point. No more of this handwavey "it's bad because it's not good enough" stuff, please. i kan reed (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

With manufactroversy in mind I would posit that no amount of RS is sufficient to make ideologists susceptible to reality.--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 17:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Several sources already cited in the article support this basic assessment that ID is a form of creationism, some describe it more specifically as neo-creationism. For a general overview, An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching About “Gaps” and “Problems” in Evolutionary Theory are Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier Forms of Creationism . . dave souza, talk 17:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This language from WP:NPOV policy applies:

Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view.'

One extraordinary source would be sufficient to demonstrate the extraordinary claim that ID is neo-creationism / creationism. A solid source that demonstrates that the consensus of the academic community supports such a claim would be adequate, although it still needs to be stated that it is the consensus view, rather than it is. Drrll (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

How is the Scott reference not exactly that? His book is an academic publication on the nature of creationism. The source is reliable, the content unambiguous. Scott did not say it was his opinion that ID was neocreationism, he gave an entire chapter defining the subject exactly and tying ID into that. As I intoned already, we'd be very happy to have a relaible source that contends this "other viewpoint" about what intelligent design is. Surely there must be some source somewhere that suggests intelligent design is not a creationism rebranding, specifically and clearly. You keep saying it's not true, and the sources aren't good enough. If that were truly the case, there would be better sources saying the opposite. i kan reed (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that the Scott reference is adequate by itself, with sufficient support in it to demonstrate that such a view is consensus, we still address the NPOV issue by saying that it is the consensus view rather than it is. Drrll (talk)

We could do that, but why should we. So far I have only your contention that it's otherwise. Where is the argument that it is not neo-creationism, or preferably a reliable source that says otherwise. Otherwise we are taking a brief to the point sentence and adding pointless verbiage to it. Nothing you have presented here gives any basis to make this change.

1. Where is the ambiguity about it being a factual statement in the sources given? My answer: nowhere, the sources we have right now are completly unambiguous about the fact.
2. What logical reason is there to conclude that intelligent design is not neo-creationism? My answer: none, it fits the definition to a T.
3. Where are the sources that claim something else is the case? My answer: I don't know of any, but I'd be happy to consider any that are to be found.

Seriously, before you complained about it, I'd never researched into neo-creationism, but the facts don't seem to be on your side. I'd be happy to support a change like that if there were any evidence that it was wrong. I have a natural antipathy towards weasel words, and would rather have a factual tone of voice if that's what the sources say. i kan reed (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Why should we? Something like two of the three core policies of Wikipedia--NPOV and verifiability. It would be helpful if you or someone else could provide specific quotes from the Scott book. It's not sufficient to simply declare that a chapter in that book proves the point that ID=neo-creationism is indisputable objective truth. If I wanted to assert something in the article like ID =/= neo-creationism, then yes, I would need to produce a reliable source. BTW, specifically attributing a contention in WP does not fit WP:WEASEL. Drrll (talk) 02:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Why should you???? Because every source we know of says that it is unequivably true. To suggest there's contention about that fact, you'd have to provide reliable sources that say so. Just because you personally believe it is not neo-creationism(and, so far, I haven't even heard you personally declare it's not true), does not mean that is a commonly held opinion or academically contentious at all. So far all I've seen you say is "we should call it contentious because NPOV". That's not how NPOV works. Contentious statements tend to be, well, contended. So far, you have said nothing, at all, that supports the idea that this statement is disagreed with.

Let's take another tack, if it were contentious, it would be hard to find more sources alledging the exact same thing. I just did my best search for people claiming that ID is not neocreationism. I couldn't find a single source, not even a fringe blog. Whereas... on the other side, here's one, here's one from william saffire, the New York Times writer on language news. The list could go on and on and on. And in all my searching, and all this very public discussion of the concept of neo-creationism, not one voice has stood up and said "ID is not neocreationism". As I've said almost a half dozen times now, Even 1 source is good enough to talk about this being possibly false. If you make even one more argument from personal incredulity, I'm going to start reverting your talk page edits per WP:FORUM. We don't need pointless off-topic debates about what you personally think. Find some sources. i kan reed (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The question of whether ID is neo-creationism is inherently a matter of opinion, not fact, regardless of whether the opinions on this are from academics or not. In the case of the reference now in the article, it is the opinion of Eugenie Scott that this is the case. The same is true for Massimo Pigliucci in the first link you provided and Leonard Krishtalka, Alan Leshner, Charles Krauthammer, and Philip Kitcher in the second link you provided. In that link, Safire says that those individuals contend that ID is neo-creationism; he, as a recognized expert on language (primarily political language) does not state that ID is neo-creationism/creationism. BTW, that very Safire article is a source that says that someone else contends that ID is not creationism (Stephen Meyer). So does this straight news story (William Dembski). Can you point to some straight news stories, as opposed to op-ed or other opinion pieces, in reliable sources that flatly call ID neo-creationism? Drrll (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Where all independent academics take the view that ID is a form of creationism, or neo-creationism, we state that without misrepresenting the overwhelming majority view by highlighting dubious exceptions. Both Meyer and Dembski have been part of the deceptive presentation of ID as though it was science: the 2001 news story is entertaining, but superseded by subsequent investigations. Note carefully that Dembski says "It is not creationism. There's not a commitment to Genesis literalism." – he's distancing it from literal Biblical creationism, or Young Earth creationism, but that doesn't stop it being another form of creationism. Bold Bill Dembski didn't stand up very well in court, which is why it's worth taking account of the Kitzmiller findings. Similarly, the Saafire report doesn't support your view: Meyer says "This wasn't stealth creationism. . We wanted to separate ourselves from the strict Darwinists and the creationists but this rather ambiguous claim was before the Kitzmiller finding that these claims were deceitful. . . dave souza, talk 19:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I find that sweeping statement a little hard to believe, given the number of academics. What exactly qualifies one as an "independent" academic? What kind of organizational associations are OK and which aren't? Scott is associated with an organization that vigorously fights ID. Is she "independent"? The Kitzmiller decision may have had an enormous impact on the teaching of ID in the US public schools, but it is one court decision by one judge. What makes it the indisputable voice of God, so to speak? Can you point to straight news stories in the NYT, for example, that flatly call ID neo-creationism or creationism? Drrll (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Not every source that refers to it as such needs to do so flatly. There's already been a Times piece brought up that refers to ID, roughly speaking as neo-creationism. We have a source that flat out states it literally with a supporting description, we have a source who supports creationism who states it, there are hundreds of available references that state it without equivocation. Such as this source, arbitrarily plucked from the a google search like some kind of creationist daisy, and you have yet to present even one source stating otherwise. I consider this discussion closed. You're wasting time here. There is nothing supporting your argument. At all. i kan reed (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you can't produce a straight news story from the NYT that flatly refers to ID as neo-creationism or creationism. If such were so self-evident, why wouldn't they? They are not exactly known for being sympathetic to religious right causes. Yes, there are specific academics who clearly assert that ID is neo-creationism/creationism, including someone who runs an anti-ID advocacy organization. You say that I haven't presented any sources stating otherwise, but I produced a NYT source that quotes an academic who asserts otherwise and I pointed out that the NYT source you provided earlier also quotes an academic who asserts otherwise. No, those sources don't say ID is not neo-creationism/creationism, just like they don't say that it is. If I wanted to close this discussion (since I posed the initial question) or an uninvolved admin wanted to, fine, but you shouldn't unilaterally do so just because you may not care for the discussion. Drrll (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No. Absolutely not. You're just not making a point at all. You're wasting everyone's time and I refuse to continue this farce of discussion without at least one source from you. i kan reed (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

“ The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[n 35][79][n 14] ”

So, you're looking for this then? -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 19:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

No he was specifically looking for the term neocreationism. The fact that it's also a different class of complete nonsense won't deter his line of reasoning. i kan reed (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the definitive nature of some of the phrasing could all be justified if we make it clear that this article is about DI ID in the lead. Several editors have been at pains to emphasise that in the talk page, so I think we should be bringing it into the article to avoid any confusion. Otherwise it will always be possible that we have missed something that renders the absolutist language as being incorrect - some of which have already been mentioned previously. So by explicitly making the focus of the article on DI ID - and saying that in the article - a lot of these kinds of problems will vanish. MissionNPOVible (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Very explicitly, right above the lead, the article states For other uses, see Intelligent design (disambiguation). For the philosophical "argument from design", see Teleological argument. There seems to be a dearth of evidence of any notable other "intelligent design", though the phrase has been used in some other contexts: for example, a New York kitchen design business. . . dave souza, talk 19:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

But Dave, that mechanism assumes that the reader already knows how to distinguish between the different kinds of ID. Even some editors here think that DI ID is the only ID there is, so a reader coming fresh to the page is likely to assume that this article is about all the ID's that exist while the consensus view here is that only DI ID is to be included. And perhaps if you'd followed your own advice you would know that Rael has a prominent book about ID. And if DI is the only ID, then Nagel and Monton clearly should be included. MissionNPOVible (talk) 00:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave, I've mentioned this several times before, most recently on 28 July and before that I quoted from an entirely secular photography book that perceived design by "Nature, the sculptress." No, it doesn't use the term "intelligent design," but the human brain interprets it as so. (I'm not looking for the previous diffs, which are buried in the archives.) As has been noted repeatedly, a person who comes to this article for the first time would not be aware its scope is so narrow. Most people "know" that for millennia man has "seen" an intelligence behind the design of the world. The reason "For other uses, see Intelligent design" isn't enough is because the reader assumes, as MNOVP points out, that he's on the right page. Confusion ensues. I'm absolutely fine with the article's scope SO LONG AS IT IS CLEARLY IDENTIFIED AT THE OUTSET. I believe the failure--and it begins to seem stubborn--to do so gives rise to many of the charges of bias. Until I immersed myself in this article and its editing process I could not understand what its subject was. It is difficult for editors who have worked on it for years to see this. Please believe the scores of us who say so. The question here isn't who of the WP editors can most nitpickingly parse the argument, but what will best serve our reading public. Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

@Yopienso: I see your point, and have modified the hatnote accordingly. Hope that helps. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Very much obliged. :) Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 22:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources characterizing ID in relation to creationism

Here are examples of how some sources characterize ID in relation to creationism.

• NYT straight news story here: "Critics argue that Intelligent Design has no basis in science and is another iteration of creationism."
• NYT straight news story here: "An evolutionary biologist and geneticist at the University of California, Irvine, he speaks often at universities, in churches, for social groups and elsewhere, usually in defense of the theory of evolution and against the arguments of creationism and its ideological cousin, intelligent design."
• Washington Post straight news story: here: "Opponents say it and other arguments for intelligent design are creationism in disguise."
• Washington Post AP straight news story here: "Intelligent design advocates say that life is so well ordered and "irreducibly complex" that it must have been created by a higher power -- an argument evolution supporters say is merely repackaged creationism."
• Book by geneticist Francis Collins, an opponent of creationism and intelligent design here: "The emergence of ID coincided with a series of judicial defeats to the teaching of creationism in U.S. schools, a chronological context that has caused critics to refer to ID uncharitably as "stealth creationism" or "creationism 2.0." But these terms do not do justice to the thoughtfulness and sincerity of ID's proponents."

Four of these sources characterize ID as being cast as creationism by its critics. The second NYT source calls ID an "ideological cousin" of creationism, not a form of creationism. Drrll (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

First, thanks for the new section, and getting some sources. Now we can have a conversation.

1. Read the article we have for neo-creationism. Seriously do it. It's not about being identical to creationism. It's about being a similar concept meant to feign being scientific, and dodge allegations of being religious. This is what neocreationism has always been. Being an ideological cousin with creationism doesn't disagree with the allegation of being neocreationism. One of neocreationisms characteristics is being distinct from relgious creationism in one or more ways.
2. Just becaues these sources don't explicitly say it is neocreationism, doesn't make that false. I imagine I can find all sorts of sources that talk about apples without mentioning that they grow on trees. What we have now are sources that allege one clearly stated fact, that, to me, appears almost a tautology. What you're wanting is to restate that as not-factual. To do that, at this point, with as many sources as we have available supporting that fact(it's more than just the 2, I imagine I can provide dozens of RELIABLE sources stating exactly that), you'll need to provide a source stating the contrary. "contrary" is a flexible term, but not so flexible as taking sources that almost state the definition of neocreationism without using the word when discussing ID.
3. I still don't know what you personally think is wrong about the statement, and I've grown curious. What about ID makes it not neocreationism? Is there some characteristic that makes you think it doesn't fit the basic definition to a T?

Regardless, I don't exactly see your point supported here. Below are a few random google books search results for the search: "neocreationism" "intelligent design"

• [1]

Enter neocreationism, or intelligent design. Not as obviously a religious conceit as creationism, intelligent-design creationism has made a case that, to the public, appears much stronger

• [2]

Neocreationism refers to the post-Edwards repackaging of creation science largely to avoid its legal ... It includes proposing alleged " alternative scientific explanations" to evolution, such as Intelligent Design

• [3]

has established beyond any doubt ID's true identity as neo-creationism

The list keeps going, but I don't personally own any of these books, so it would a personal pain in the butt to get them to properly reference them in the article. The point is that none of the dozens of books discussing this issue make any bones about the fact that ID is neocreationism. None. At all. They state it very clearly. All I want is someone saying "these guys are wrong, ID is not neocreationism" i kan reed (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I did read the neo-creationism article and it makes clear that neo-creationism is, unsurprisingly, a type of creationism, just like the creationism article does. Interestingly, "neo-creationism" does not appear to have a lot of notability as an objective word. The Merriam-Webster dictionary does not include it (they just have "creationism"--does the Oxford English Dictionary have it?). The Encyclopedia Brittanica does not include it. Neither the New York Times nor The Washington Post ever use the word, not even when quoting someone. Rather, it seems that the term originated purely as a derisive polemic of anti-ID advocates: "To counter the sophisticated branding experts who flummoxed establishmentarian evolutionaries with intelligent design, opponents of classroom debate over Darwin's theory have come up with a catchily derisive neologism that lumps the modern I.D. advocates with religious fundamentalists: neo-creo." (from the NYT article "Neo-Creo"). "Neo-creationism" appears to simply be a variation of the derisive neologism.

Besides ID opponent Francis Collins, Ronald Numbers also disputed that ID was creationism: "University of Wisconsin historian Ronald L. Numbers, an ID opponent and author of "The Creationists," agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID movement. But, he adds, it's "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design."" (see here).

I'm not trying to get rid of the statement entirely, nor to state that ID is not neo-creationism / creationism. I'm trying to see a re-wording that more accurately represents the fact that this is the characterization of the opponents of ID rather than objective truth. Something like:

Intelligent Design is regarded by many opponents of ID as a form of creationism or "neo-creationism," a characterization disputed by ID proponents and by ID opponent Francis Collins.

"Just becaues these sources don't explicitly say it is neocreationism, doesn't make that false." You're right, but it's also doesn't make it true.

BTW, the neo-creationism article does something quite amazing--it purports to divine the motivations of ID proponents. Imagine the reaction if someone tried to add a "motivations" section to the naturalism article! Drrll (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I think your wording is better - but then anything is better than the kind of definitive statements used currently in such a contentious article. As for the prominence of neocreationsim, here are some google hits that shed some light on the matter:

"intelligent design" neocreationism 5,600

"intelligent design" "neo-creationism" 13,500

"intelligent design" "neoDarwinian" 4,000

"intelligent design" "neo-Darwinian" 63,000

None of these is anywhere even close to the kind of hits generated by creationism ("intelligent design" creationism 4.6 million), so I suspect the phrase is more specialised usage, and if there are RS's that use it (presumably the basis for the WP neo-creationism article) then I'd say it's reasonable to include - but as you say, descriptively rather than prescriptively. MissionNPOVible (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

@Drrll, I was going to post something else, but then I realized it was a pile of passive aggressive tripe, and you sort of have a point. Your proposed rewording is terrible and biased towards the statement being wrong, which is not the overwhelming consensus, but there is a source that disagrees. I'd like to hear from at least a few other of the common editors here about what we should do. You've met my immediate requirement and I'm not sure what the next step should be. Side note, Mission, cut that "google math" out. Google does not work that way, and it proves nothing. Thanks! i kan reed (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Another source casts doubt upon the non-polemic use of the word "neo-creationism." Ronald Numbers' book The Creationists, updated in 2006 (well after the coining of the neologism "neo-creo" in 1999), uses the term "neocreationism"/"neo-creationism" exactly once--in a footnote referencing the title of the aforementioned article by Young Earth Creationist Henry M. Morris.

How about some suggestions for modifying my proposed wording change? Drrll (talk) 02:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's start with your first statement. Like I said before, not using the term when discussing ID doesn't imply the term as being incorrect. It doesn't mean anything. I can talk about emergency vehicles all day without mentioning fire trucks, there's a lot to discuss. There are numerous aspects to every social phenomenon, and not every writer is going to be concerned with the history and categorization of ID. Not every writer is going to use the exact same vocabulary. To say that it's even relevant that Numbers doesn't refer to neocreationism is a pointless asside. We have numerous sources that, in an academic context, and an authoritative voice, declare ID to be neocreationism without mincing words.

Now as to what I think should change, I'm not entirely certain. Collins doesn't say that ID isn't neocreationism. What he says is that "creationism 2.0" is an doesn't do justice to the proponent's thoughtfulness. From what I can tell, he doesn't like the idea of rejecting a theory just because it has religious underpinnings, a recurring idea in his books. It doesn't especially make the case that ID is not derived from creationism, it just argues that it needs to be deconstructed and rejected scientifically. He procedes to do that in the following section. I could see the change "but physician Francis Collins does not see that as inherently unscientific-cite-". That seems wordy, being twice as long as the sentence as it stands. Ledes need to be to the point, worrying about defining the subject. Like it or not, neocreatoinism is an important component of the definition of ID. I don't really think it needs to change. So, as I said before, I'd like to hear from a few other editors regarding this source before continuing. i kan reed (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand the concern that the statement is worded too strongly, but I don't think it should be changed. Not only do we have Eugenie Scott (a staunch opponent of creationism) coining the term and Henry Morris (creationist and "the father of modern creation science") accepting her terminology and the distinction it entails, but we have Judge Jones's ruling in the Kitzmiller case (emphasis added): "... we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." Additionally, the historical aspect of ID clearly shows its origins in creationism and creation science. To me, this more than supports the boldness of the claim in question. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 16:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You make a good point that the strongest, and most definitive sources we have do support the statement quite clearly, and in a way that makes the relevance extremely clear. So, that affirms my position about not chaning the lede. What about deeper in the article, or possibly on the neocreationism article? Is it worth a passing mention? i kan reed (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

First, my familiarity with the neo-creationism article is meager at best, so my opinion on that matter should be taken with a grain of salt. That said, though Francis Collins does explicitly state that the ID movement "deserves serious consideration" (p. 183), he immediately thereafter recognizes the failure of ID to distinguish the unknown from the unknowable (p.188) (upon which both Behe's irreducible complexity and Dembski's complex specified information rest) and concludes that "the ID movement constitutes a new version of Paley's 'argument from personal incredulity,' now expressed in the language of biochemistry, genetics, and mathematics." (p. 186) He continues, "ID is a 'God of the gaps' theory, inserting a supposition of the need for supernatural intervention in places that its proponents claim science cannot explain." (p. 193)

Also note that the quote presented earlier does not claim that ID isn't creationism (please excuse the double negative), but that the terms stealth creationism and creationism 2.0 "do not do justice to the thoughtfulness and sincerity of ID's proponents." (p. 183) In other words, he is not denying (nor confirming, mind you) that ID is creationism, only pointing to the fact that ID proponents sincerely wanted to give the teleological argument some scientific backing and deliberately packaged ID so as to achieve this end. Furthermore, Collins recognizes the history of the ID movement as one "not born from the scientific tradition," (p. 184) in part because "Phillip Johnson, the founder, was driven not so much by a scientific desire to understand life..., but by a personal mission to defend God against what he perceived as growing acceptance of a purely materialistic worldview." (p. 183)

If my opinion is not yet clear, I see nothing in this source that questions the claim that ID is creationism and, therefore, I see nothing that merits mention in this or the neo-creationism article. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 18:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright, Drrll will be welcome, of course, to present a rebuttle, but that sounds like solid reasoning. i kan reed (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• I would point out that the fact that Numbers subtitled the 2006 Expanded Edition of The Creationists "From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design", and added a chapter on ID more than outweighs a rather ambiguous statement made in The Fayetteville Observer back in 2002 (which may have muddled his views). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Got anything to say about the Collins reference? That's the one that really prompted the request for more input. I generally agree that the argument Drrll made regarding Number' statement was not really conclusive towards his point, but the collins one does raise the possibility that there is at lesat one expert who may be making a statement that suggests that neocreationism is an inappropriate term for ID. i kan reed (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• It would appear to be another ambiguous statement. Like Numbers he is not stating unambiguously that ID is not creationism, merely that the label does not offer the full picture. "do not do justice" ≠ "is untrue" but rather means 'is less than the full truth'. To state that "it does not do justice to Freddy Mercury to state that he was the frontman of Queen" does not mean that he was not the frontman of it -- but rather that he was also a spectacular singer and songwriter in his own right. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

My point in bringing up the Numbers book is that some regard the book as the definitive work on the history of creationism. Why would such a work ignore the concept of "neo-creationism" if it were such an established concept? I concede that "neo-creationism" is in fact used in a number of scholarly articles, but it is used comparatively little. A rough measure of its usage in scholarly publications can be determined by using Google Scholar (GS does include some non-reliable sources). The raw numbers are 238 articles for "neocreationism"/"neo-creationism", compared to 29,000 articles for "intelligent design" and 24,000 for "creationism." And the difference in the use of "neo-creationism"/"neocreationism" over "intelligent design" & "creationism" in non-scholarly publications is even more stark. Performing a LexisNexis search of its "Major world publications" category ("news sources from around the world which are held in high esteem for their content reliability. This includes the world's major newspapers, magazines and trade publications which are relied upon for the accuracy and integrity of their reporting.") yields a grand total of 5 articles referencing "neo-creationism"/"creationism", including 4 opinion pieces by non-scientists (1 of which quotes geneticist Steve Jones using the term) and a single news story. On the other hand, "intelligent design" yields an unspecified number over 3,000 articles, as does "creationism." With its lack of use in the Numbers book and its relative lack of use in scholarly and non-scholarly publications, not to mention its apparent derivation as simply a variant of the derisive neologism "neo-creo," I suggest that we primarily stick with "creationism."

BTW, Collins is far more known for being a geneticist than a physician.

I disagree that the current sourcing is strong for the definitive statement that ID is a form of neo-creationism. Both individuals referenced have vested interests as leaders of advocacy organizations--hardly neutral observers. And the Morris article isn't even sourced to a reliable source.

As to the Numbers statement being "ambiguous" and perhaps "muddled" (without any evidence), that is nonsense. How is "University of Wisconsin historian Ronald L. Numbers, an ID opponent and author of "The Creationists," agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID movement. But, he adds, it's "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design" ambiguous? The source for this quote is actually the Associated Press (via LexisNexis), not The Fayetteville Observer, which simply ran the AP story. If you can find a more recent reliably-sourced statement where he contradicts his earlier sentiment (including from the expanded edition of his book), then provide it. Drrll (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright, how about we add the source that says "Despite denials by proponents of intelligent design (ID) that ID is creationism, critical analysis by scientists and scholars, as well as statements by the proponents of ID themselves, has established beyond any doubt ID's true identity as neo-creationism. "(emphasis mine) "Beyond any doubt" from the Journal of Integrative and Comparative Biology. By a biologist without any major political history in the ID debate? Would that seal the deal on the reference list for you?

Secondarily, the idea is the idea that its ambiguous comes from a two fold point. 1. He never flat-out says its wrong. That's definetly a kind of ambiguity. 2. He was specifically arguing that ID was a complex argument, and reducing the rejection of it down to it just being creationism didn't allow a proper scientific rebuttle, which he procedes to make.

There's a lot of room for interpretation there, and it's a simple one-off statement, not the focus of the section. At best, it's an extremely weak opposition to the idea of calling ID creationism. At worst, it's a completly irrelevant source to this discussion. There is overwhelming scholarly consensus on this fact, and I think WP:FRINGE is going to have to come into play. There just aren't sources that endorse the idea that intelligent idea is NOT neocreationism. Not strongly. Definetly not clearly. And really definetly not as thoroughly, completely, and academically as the souces we have that say it is. There's a real preponderance of evidence here. i kan reed (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Drrll, I think it will be impossible to find a source without vested interests regarding the use of neo-creationism: ID proponents will say they're not because their goal is to present God as a scientific alternative to an established theory, and ID critics will say they are because, well... because they are. Do you have a reliable source from an impartial party claiming that ID is not creationism? Collins's book didn't say this and the article with Numbers's opinion seems to stand in direct contrast to his own book, which suggests that the article was either missing pertinent information as to Numbers's actual opinion on the matter or was given in the responsible journalist's voice. I believe this is the ambiguity to which Hrafn was referring. If you really want to hang your hat on this AP article, it seems easy enough to get his opinion from his book (or any source with a more detailed description of this particular issue) for clarification purposes. We can definitely head along this route, but I think a different source contesting the usage of neo-creationism would be more appropriate. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 19:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

1. An argument from silence is always a fairly weak argument, and this form is one of its weakest. There could be a wide range of reasons for Numbers not using the term "neocreationism" that do not imply that he believes it to be in some way "wrong".
2. I would further point out that Numbers' main field of specialisation is older forms of creationism, and he's written comparatively little on ID. The main authors on ID have been Forrest and Pennock -- both of whom do use the the term 'Neo-Creationism'/'New Creationism'.
3. The Fayetteville Observer does not quote Numbers directly (leading to the possibility that his views have been slightly distorted), and is ambiguous -- so it is better to rely on his more recent, more direct, and unambiguous statements that ID is indeed creationism.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see a refutation of my arguments calling for use of "creationism" over "neo-creationism", given its comparative lack of use in scholarly and non-scholarly sources. Nor did anyone address why we are using a non-reliable source (The Institute for Creation Research!) for half of the sourcing for a definitive statement.

Contrary to the assertion that Numbers is primarily an expert on old-school Creationism and not on ID, the University of Wisconsin-Madison describes him as an "Expert on the history of science, medicine and religion, especially creationism and intelligent design" (see here. Being an expert on "especially creationism and intelligent design," it is significant that in a definitive work on the history of creationism, he does not utilize the term "neo-creationism" even once As far as the unambiguous characterization by the AP that Numbers views the creationist label as inaccurate for ID, if anyone can produce a more recent statement by Numbers contradicting his earlier sentiment, please do so. The burden of proof for demonstrating that a reliable source with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking (AP) is somehow distorting his views lies with the person making that suggestion.

"Do you have a reliable source from an impartial party claiming that ID is not creationism?" Yes, that AP story about Numbers, an opponent of ID (as that story indicates). Yes, Collins, another opponent of ID, does not specifically state that ID is not creationism, but he does state that characterizing it as a form of creationism does not do the idea justice and disassociates himself from such labeling.

The "beyond any doubt" language may have appeared in the Journal of Integrative and Comparative Biology (actually in the abstract to an article there), but it wasn't "By a biologist without any major political history in the ID debate." Quite the contrary, it was by a professor of philosophy who is knee deep in the politics of ID--Barbara Forrest.

"There is overwhelming scholarly consensus on this fact" (that ID is creationism/neo-creationism). Please list several specific scholars in relevant academic fields who have not been politically involved in the ID debate, like Scott and Forrest have.

Again, I point to the language of the core WP policy NPOV:

"Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view."

Drrll (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Beyond the chapter in the expanded edition of The Creationists, what prominent pieces can you point to written by Numbers on the specific topic of ID?
• No the AP pieces does not say that Numbers states that ID is not creationism, nor does the Collins.
• Barbara Forrest was accepted by a federal court as a legitimate expert on the history of ID.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I was going to post all that, then edit conflict. But yes, Drrll, exactly as Hrafn says. But also you're being disenguinous, as I posted other excerpts that were just as clear. You're also attempting to abuse WP:NPOV as a cudgel to get a viewpoint that, academically speaking, does not exist, into the article. If there's a dispute, how about a source that alledges this fact as being in dispute? This is not a controversy is the same way that there is no real controversy between evolution and ID in the first place.

You've asked for several scholarly sources, I've already listed 3, who are completely, unquestionably clear and completely academic on that fact above and beyond the perfectly adequate ones already in the article. I can, if it would seriously change your mind, easily list a dozen more. I will only go through that effort if you make the serious promise that that would convince you. I'm not going through some infinitely high standards for validing facts, with infinitely low standards for rejecting them.

Also, you've been very disenginuous regarding Dr. Forrest. As far as I can tell, Barbara Forrest's involvement with ID has been the following: publishing scholarly articles about the subject(if you believe that makes you biased, you're engaging in circular reasoning), and being an expert witness in the Dover Trial, as a result of those publications. Her basic credentials are excellent. She's not some editorialist engaged in politicking, on the opinion page of some newspaper. If you have evidence of her engagement beyond simple publication, I'd ask you to present it. Where's the evidence of her political involvement. Publishing critical examinations about ID is not being politically involved. i kan reed (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Numbers article "Darwinism, Creationism, and Intelligent Design," was published by The Paleontological Society and reprinted in the book Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism. So you view the University of Wisconsin-Madison's characterization of him as an expert on "especially creationism and intelligent design" as inaccurate?

Sorry, but Numbers does assert that ID is not creationism: "Numbers, an ID opponent and author of "The Creationists," agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID movement." Does only an exact quote from him saying "ID is not creationism" count? No one has been able to produce anything by Numbers contradicting his assertion.

i kan reed, you did in fact post other excerpts that were just as clear. One was written by Scott, another by Forrest, and the other by two physicists (not a relevant field).

The AP story makes clear that there is a dispute on whether ID is creationism: "...agrees the creationist label is inaccurate." I suspect that there isn't a source that uses the exact word "dispute," but it's clear that Numbers disputes the labeling of ID movement as creationist.

I don't doubt that there a dozen or more sources that assert that as fact. The question is, what evidence is there that that is the scholarly consensus in relevant fields? How many other relevant scholars are there besides Scott, Forrest, and Pennock that assert that as fact? And how many of them are not heavily involved in ID politics?

I don't dispute that Forrest is a "legitimate expert" on ID or that her credentials aren't excellent, but that hardly means that she is not heavily involved in the politics of ID. Forrest does not limit herself to scholarly refuation of ID; she wades into personal attacks against ID proponents, going after their motivations, views on religion, views on politics, friends and associates, and organizational associations. She did this in her book Creationism's Trojan Horse, as well as a piece in Synthese, focusing specifically on Francis Beckwith. Although Beckwith is not an ID proponent, he apparently does not have sufficient hostility toward ID proponents, so she attempts to tar him as an ID proponent. Her personal attacks were so over the top that the Editors-In-Chief of Synthese actually issued a disclaimer to the print edition in which her piece appeared:

Statement from the Editors-in-Chief of SYNTHESE

This special issue addresses a topic of lively current debate with often strongly expressed views. We have observed that some of the papers in this issue employ a tone that may make it hard to distinguish between dispassionate intellectual discussion of other views and disqualification of a targeted author or group.

We believe that vigorous debate is clearly of the essence in intellectual communities, and that even strong disagreements can be an engine of progress. However, tone and prose should follow the usual academic standards of politeness and respect in phrasing. We recognize that these are not consistently met in this particular issue. These standards, especially toward people we deeply disagree with, are a common benefit to us all. We regret any deviation from our usual standards.

Johan van Benthem

Vincent F. Hendricks

John Symons

Editors-in-Chief / SYNTHESE

Forrest apparently does not see any irony in attacking individuals because their views on religion and politics may not be mainstream. She promotes several far-left websites as sources of "accurate news" on her main page at SELU (here) and lists several organizations hostile to religion on which she either serves on the board and is a supporting member in her CV (most of which are quite politically active in opposing ID). Drrll (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

So she might be liberal, based on your own interpretation of some news sites she reccomends, and that has nothing with having a history of political activism in the debate of intelligent design. That's a weak argument. This whole debate over this section has been a pile of barely relevant concepts with the intenet to undermine a clearly factual and widely supported statement.

None of the following are relevant

1. Any percieved political biases you suggest published experts in various fields have unless that's supported by a published statement highlighting that fact.
2. The statements people don't make in particular sources. Not every discussion of ID needs to include mention of neocreationism for that fact to be 100% true
3. People who point out that ID is not exactly creationism. We already know that they aren't the exact same things, ID includes intentional differences for the sole purpose of not being labled unscientific.
4. That the people describing ID as neocreationism are not biologists, as ID, broadly speaking claims to invalidate branches of science as far ranging as cosmology, geology, biology, and physics. Physicists are, in general, well qualified enough in the philsoophy of science to identify the identify the characteristics of something claiming to be science.
5. WP:NPOV as the basic contention that anyone has said ID is not neocreationism explicitly is just NOT OUT THERE.

I am really sick of you taking any "flaw" with a source that supports this statement clearly as justification for rejecting it as fact, whereas you take any source that is even remotely related to being contrary(just 1 as far as I have seen, which doesn't even directly contradict the statement) as the Holy Canon of God Himself. I know you want this to be false or shown to be opinion somehow because that will validate your original argument that the whole article is biased, but there's a whole world of directly supporting evidence, and at best one almost contravening point tangentially listed in a book deconstructing the scientific legitimacy of ID. _{Unsigned by i kan reed, I forget the datetime}

• Apology: I'm sorry for engaging in moving the goalposts here. After re-reading the whole discussion, the initial request I made with regard to this subject was too broad given the ammount of sources supporting the statement as given in the article. I knew upfront that request any source contending that ID was not creationism would be insufficient, but I asked for that anyway for reasons I am not sure of. It wasn't healthy debate. Sorry about that. That said, I still think the threshold of a source outright dismissing charges of neocreationism really is called for here. i kan reed (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. At the beginning, I thought that when you asked for sources that dispute the claim that ID is creationism, you were dismissing those claims in reliable sources by ID proponents, solely because they were ID proponents.

I was hardly saying that Forrest or anyone else was involved in political activism with regard to ID simply because of their views on politics and religion--I was simply pointing to the irony of Forrest attacking individuals on the basis that their political or religious views may be out of the mainstream. I also wasn't saying that those who simply advocate for or against ID should be disqualified on that basis.

What I am saying is that it is far preferable to use scholars who have not been heavily involved in the politics of ID, by either being significantly involved in organizations that are politically active in the fight for or against ID (Scott, Forrest, Pennock, and Morris), or being significantly involved in personal attacks against ID proponents or opponents (primarily Forrest), since that is a political tactic rather than a scholarly critique. In addition, we should use sources by individuals most qualified by their specializations to characterize whether ID is creationism or not. Those specializations seem to be the philosophy of science and the history of science, which would not include Scott (physical/biological anthropology), Morris (hydraulic engineering), or Collins (physical chemistry and genetics).

Even though there are a number of reliable sources by scholars that clearly state is ID is creationism/neo-creationism, what evidence is there that there is overwhelming support among scholars in the relevant fields that ID is a form of creationism (even when we include those active in ID politics)? For that matter, where is the evidence that this is the consensus view more broadly in the general fields of philosophy and history? And why the effort to ignore the views of one of the top historians of science, Ronald Numbers (awarded the George Sarton Medal by the History of Science Society) that ID is not creationism? Drrll (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

That's the crux of the matter, actually. We don't need someone saying that the consensus is X. Academic consensus, at least abstractly, can be assessed by editors. What we have here is an amazing preponderance of sources talking about neocreationism featuring ID. We don't need a source saying it's a consensus, because that's not what the article is stating. The article is stating, in a factual voice(the original dispute as I'm sure you recall), that ID is neocreationism. We have a number of quite qualified experts saying exactly that, exactly as factually in tone. None of the sources we have present it as an opinion, but as a natural conclusion from the information they present, or as a pre-understood preposition for a history of ID. As such, it makes more sense, and is more faithful to the sources we have that it is treated as a fact. Now, when contesting that factual tone, there were two realistic things to use to question that usage. One would be a reliable source directly contesting the use of the term. Another would be a source referring to the idea of ID being neocreationist as an opinion. That's why the Collins source didn't really make sense for a basis for change. He didn't really contest the definition, only the usage as a means of dismissing ID. Can you buy into that, as a general basis for why it is how it is now? i kan reed (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

But we do have "a reliable source directly contesting the use of the term"--the AP story where Numbers directly contests the notion that "creationists" accurately describes the ID movement. No one has produced any evidence that demostrates he actually believes otherwise.

Stating in WP that academic consensus exists requires a high level of sourcing verfication, not simply the assessment of particular WP editors:

The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors. (see academic consensus policy).

Stating as absolute fact that ID is a form of creationism (regardless of whether "creationism" is used or the relatively unused in reliable sources "neo-creationism" is used, which simply denotes a newer form of creationism) goes even beyond saying that there is an academic consensus on the issue. It says that there is no dispute in the relevant academic fields about the matter. That fails both from the standpoint of verifying a source that says that there is no dispute on the matter and from the fact that there clearly is a dispute on the matter in relevant fields--from a leading historian of science. Why would stating something as indisputable fact require inferior sourcing than simply saying that there is academic consensus on the matter? Is there a systematic review on the matter or even an opinion on the matter by academic bodies in the relevant fields, such as by the History of Science Society?

Do you agree that we should look to the specializations that are most qualified to answer this question? Philosophy of science and history of science seem to fit the bill most precisely. We don't look to climatologists to answer questions about biology, even though climatologists likely have basic knowledge of biology. Can you think of other specializations that would be well qualified to answer the question? Drrll (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Drrll, the biologists, scientists, and philosophers of science have a great deal of expertise in ID, since they've had to defend against it. And seeing as how ID is a mostly US phenomenon, the US court decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District seems like it would also be appropriate, especially due to its reliance upon the aforementioned experts in the relevant fields. All of these sources identify ID as a creationist ploy to teach religion in public schools. The National Academies even states this as fact on their website: "'Intelligent design' creationism is not supported by scientific evidence." ([4]) One tiny blurb in a news article seems insignificant in this light. Furthermore, Numbers is the author of a book titled The Creationists, which was later expanded to include Intelligent Design (The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design). This fact seems to directly contradict the comment made in the AP's article. I've tried looking up the relevant chapter on Google Books, but it's blocking me out of the pages I need (pp. 380-392). Also, my library doesn't have the expanded edition, so I'd have to purchase it to read this chapter. I'd appreciate if someone with this source could access these pages for Numbers's opinion on whether or not ID is creationism. If it makes a point that ID is not creationism, we can change the sentence, but until then, I think the sources speak for themselves. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 19:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The bigger problem I have with the numbers source is that he says ID is not literally creationism. It's absolutely true that the two have distinctions, but that's not what neocreationism means. Merely finding a source that disputes the bare "creationism" term's accuracy, doesn't deal properly with the creationist roots that "neo creationism" really means. A search for scholarly sources saying that "Intelligent design is creationism" returns essentially no results. That's because no one(in an academic setting) argues exactly that. All the books I can find using that phrase immediately add a qualifier like "in disguise." I know I've made this argument several times already but: creationism!=neocreationism. It's similar but different. That's why it doesn't say "ID is creationism" in the article, because that would basically be indefensible. And please don't point to the J Grimm sources as a counter-example of what I'm saying, as he is just framing what some common simple arguments people pose are, and isn't making a direct contension about ID as a result.

ALSO the term neocreationism is fairly widely used. I have demonstrated that there is no shortage of sources using EXACTLY that language.

Side effect of your argument, I had to research for my own interest how many different relevant subject areas I could find people rerring to ID as neocreationism

• Sociology Creationism, American Style a book discussing the cultures involved in creationism, and how ID was brewed up to circumvent religious prohibitions.
• Theology Evolution & God: 150 Years of Love and War Between Science and Religion
• Anthropology Creationism in the colonies: science, religion and the legacy of apartheid in South Africa(you'll have to beleive me that the blurb I found searching included the assertion or find it yourself, as there doesn't appear to be a way to include that in a link.
• Philosophy of science Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science
• Botany Symposia, Conferences, Meetings
• Microbiology Divergence of the Flagellar Hook and Filament
• Evolutionary biology (naturally) The Emergence of Life on Earth-A Historical and Scientific Overview
• I was hoping for a psychologist, but no such luck. Se la vie.

Now, not all of these are what I would call appropriate citations for what we have currently in the article because, some of them, like the Numbers reference you cling to so tightly, are quite offhand and don't strongly and clearly assert that ID is neocreationism. This is still a broad number of appropriate fields where people make this connection. Come on drrl, this isn't some out-of-nowhere concept. It's really part of a broad understanding of people(where ID came from), philosophy(the core components of what ID is), science(how ID attempts to project itself). Barbara Forrest is the only Philosopher of Science mentioned in this whole discussion and she's stated quite clearly that ID is neocreationism. Your only argument against using her as a reference here is that she doesn't like ID politically(an unproven assertion, which also happens to be irrelevant). i kan reed (talk) 21:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm failing to see it, too. No offence, Drrll, but your writing could do with a lot more conciseness and focus, and with a lot less verbosity and rambling. I'm still not sure about what you want to change because you've basically buried it in words.

If you're trying to divorce ID from its creationist roots, forget about it. The reliable sources OVERWHELMINGLY report otherwise. If you're trying to say that ID is not neocreationism, again, the reliable sources are overwhelmingly against you. That's petty clear cut and indisputable.

On the other hand, if you are trying to say something else, say it clearly and succinctly. It's frustrating to have to wade though so much verbiage trying to find the thread of your argument. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Mister Dub, The National Academy of Science and the Institute of Medicine putting out a book (Science, Evolution, and Creationism) saying that ID is creationism seems to be a definitive statement by two prestigious academic bodies, but not by academic bodies with purview over the fields of philosophy, history, sociology, and anthropology--the fields most qualified to answer that question.

i kan reed, yes, the exact phrase "ID is creationism" can't be found anywhere, just like "ID is not creationism/neo-creationism" can't be found anywhere. That doesn't mean that those sentiments haven't been fully expressed--they have, just in different words. Numbers said that ID is not creationism by expressing that it is not accurate to label the ID movement as creationism. On the other side, other individuals do say that ID is creationism by using such phrases as "creationism in disguise" (as you mentioned), and "stealth creationism." That is clearly saying that ID is creationism, not just neo-creationism.

Every bit of evidence I've seen suggests that "neo-creationism" is a neologism, limited to a comparatively small proportion of specialized publications, and almost entirely outside of the mainstream as an established word/concept. That it is merely a neologism (for the purpose of derision) is supported by:

• William Safire's determination of "neo-creo" as a neologism
• outside of a handful of opinion pieces, "neo-creationism" is completely absent in reliable news sources
• there are only 114 instances of "neo-creationism"/"neocreationism" appearing with "intelligent design" in Google Scholar results, compared to over 15,000 results with "creationism" appearing with "intelligent design"
• "neo-creationism"/"neocreationism" is completely missing from virtually all dictionaries, from the definitive Oxford English Dictionary online and the more up-to-date Oxford Dictionaries online (which includes the New Oxford American Dictionary) to Merriam-Webster to over 1,000+ others accessible via http://onelook.com. On the other hand, many other words prefixed by "neo-" appear in those dictionaries, including some rather esoteric ones

That Forrest is heavily involved in ID politics is rather indisputable--she's very active in advocacy organizations that work to defeat ID in the political arena and she engages in personal attacks against ID proponents. Surely you wouldn't argue that we should use references from such Discovery Institute Fellows as Stephen C. Meyer (Ph.D. in philosophy and history of science) and Michael Newton Keas (Ph.D. in history of science) that dispute ID as creationism simply because they have appropriate specializations, ignoring their activity in an advocacy organization that works to promote ID in the political arena.

I can see sociology of science and anthropology of science also being applicable specializations, along with philosophy of science and history of science, but not others. I think we should stick to those sources from individuals with those specializations since they are most qualified to answer such questions.

Dominus, what I'm proposing is something like:

Intelligent Design is regarded [by some] as a form of creationism [cite philosophers of science, historians of science, sociologists of science, and anthropologists of science]," a characterization disputed by ID proponents and by historian of science Ronald Numbers.

Drrll (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Why are you lying? "Intelligent design is not creationism" can be found on the DI's FAQ. There's a book with that title. It's the entire point of ID to claim that. I thought we were having an honest debate about improving the article, but I'm done. Outright fabrications deter me from dealing with this anymore. I didn't mind disagreeing with you, but you've just demonstrated a completely unreasonable level of dishonesty in your arguments. I consider this conversation over, barring meaningful input. i kan reed (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for assuming that I'm lying, as opposed to not stating something as clearly as I could have. Why would I make a easily demonstrable clearly false statement on a very active Talk page read by many individuals with a substantial knowledge of ID and research skills (which could actually be uncovered by anyone who can use Google, regardless of knowledge of ID or research skills)? What I meant, but didn't state, is that "intelligent design is not creationism" can't be found anywhere in reliable sources by uninvolved parties--unless you consider the Discovery Institute, Stephen Meyer, or Michael Behe reliable/uninvolved sources. I could just as easily assume that you were lying when you said that "There's a book with that title." Checking Google, Google Books, Amazon, and worldcat.org, I couldn't find a book with that title. So should I assume you were lying or is it possible that you misstated what you meant? Earlier up in the discussion, you said the following:

Alright, how about we add the source that says "Despite denials by proponents of intelligent design (ID) that ID is creationism, critical analysis by scientists and scholars, as well as statements by the proponents of ID themselves, has established beyond any doubt ID's true identity as neo-creationism. "(emphasis mine) "Beyond any doubt" from the Journal of Integrative and Comparative Biology. By a biologist without any major political history in the ID debate?

Should I have assumed that you were lying, since the source was written by Forrest--not a biologist and hardly without "any major political history in the ID debate"?

Drrll (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

@Drrll: I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Your proposed version is a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT, WP:GEVAL and WP:DUE. I highly doubt you'll get consensus for any of it considering that the relaible sources are practically unanimous that ID is a form of creationism. I kan reed's version is MUCH closer to what the reliable sources say: "Despite denials by proponents of intelligent design (ID) that ID is creationism, critical analysis by scientists and scholars, as well as statements by the proponents of ID themselves, has established beyond any doubt ID's true identity as neo-creationism."

Forrest's political leanings do not disqualify her as a reliable source on the matter. I've just reread this whole section, and I don't find any of the arguments you have made in the last eleven days particularly compelling. Sorry to be so frank, but that's the way I see it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Drrll, I understand your arguments, but it's just not that clean cut. Philosophers certainly would be more adept at answering the question of whether or not a particular idea is categorically creationism, but ID is more than an idea, it's a political movement focused on supplanting an extremely well-established, scientific theory with unsubstantiated, pseudoscientific, religious doctrine. Due to its purported status as a scientific hypothesis and the extreme strain its placed upon the scientists who've had to defend our science curricula in the courts, the scientific community is, by far, the most knowledgeable of what ID actually is. Of course, we needn't rely solely upon the scientists; philosophers such as Barbara Forrest and Robert T. Pennock--from memory, I don't care to waste time searching for more--again fall into the mainstream view that ID is creationism.

Also, we don't exclude DI Fellows due to their involvement in the political debate; in fact, we make explicit mention of them aside from the mainstream view (i.e. that ID is creationism) because of WP:FRINGE. We cannot exclude Forrest simply because she is involved in the politics. In fact, any professional with a modicum of knowledge about ID should be involved in its politics, as its a purely political movement to teach creationism in public schools.

And check out this cool source I found! Totally unexpectedly (insert eye-roll here), Ronald Numbers's opinion isn't how your source made it out ([5]):

“ As [Numbers] views it, there are significant differences between scientific creationism and intelligent design. First, adherents of intelligent design scrupulously avoid biblical arguments to undermine evolutionary theory and argue instead that the subcellular complexity of life demands a knowing designer. What's more, many who subscribe to intelligent design theory have no problem accepting the great antiquity of life on Earth. ”

Did you notice that the differences Numbers mentions are the distinguishing factors between creationism and neo-creationism? I hope so. And finally--I've just noticed it again myself, only just before i kan reed mentioned it in his reply--we have a FAQ section at the very beginning of this Talk page that explicitly states that ID is creationism. Can we put this to rest now? -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 20:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Dominus, so the current definitive declaration "It is a form of neo-creationism", which exceeds even a claim of academic consensus and is sourced to two activists with little or no training in relevant specializations, does not have WP:WEIGHT concerns, but my version, to be sourced to experts with appropriate specializations has problems there? WP:GEVAL requires demonstrating that a view is mainstream in relevant fields (which has hardly been done, despite the number of statements mostly by individuals not in a scholarly position to determine such). We can describe it as the dominant, mainstream, or consensus view--if that can be established by a source demonstrating such.

Actually the "Despite denials by proponents of intelligent design (ID) that ID is creationism, critical analysis by scientists and scholars, as well as statements by the proponents of ID themselves, has established beyond any doubt ID's true identity as neo-creationism" language is not i kan reed's proposed version. It is a direct quote from the abstract to a journal article by a general philosophy professor with little expertise in philosophy of science, but much expertise in activism--Barbara Forrest. I never said her political leanings disqualify her as a reliable source (she's the one that plays that game). Rather her activism casts doubt upon her scholarly objectivity. I just reread the whole section as well, and I ran across several points I made that have yet to be refuted:

• Historian of science Ronald Numbers, an expert on creationism and ID, contends that it is inaccurate to describe ID as creationism. He is hardly a fringe academic, winning the most prestigious award by the History of Science Society for "a lifetime of scholarly achievement" (see several paragraphs down for confirmation in another source that this is Numbers' view)
• Baffling insistence that we use as half of the proof of a definitive declaration, an article from Young Earth creationist Henry M. Morris, a hydraulic engineer with a vested interest as leader of an advocacy organization--sourced to the highly unreliable source Institute for Creation Research of all things
• Substantial evidence (recently stated above) that neo-creationism is a a neologism. Note also that Numbers not only doesn't discuss the concept of neo-creationism in his 2006 expanded edition of The Creationists, but he also doesn't do so in any of his books covered by Google Books or in any of his articles covered by Google Scholar. Another place where the word doesn't appear is Encyclopedia Brittanica.
• Stating as indisputable fact--without direct support in a source--that ID is a form of "neo-creationism" violates all 3 core WP policies of NPOV, NOR, and V, as well as not meeting academic consensus guidelines, even though the statement exceeds the bounds of claiming academic consensus, by suggesting that there is no academic debate on the issue

MisterDub, ID as an idea certainly carries with it political and religious dimensions, but so do a whole lot of other ideas (take philosophical naturalism). That doesn't change the fact that it is the philosophers, historians, and sociologists who are looked to in making definitive assessments of ideas and movements that are within their purview of specialization. Robert Pennock certainly is qualified to make such a judgment about ID as a philosopher of science.

The view that ID is not a form of creationism has hardly been established as the WP:FRINGE position within relevant specializations, so WP:FRINGE could not yet be applied to Discovery Fellows. Their activism creates questions about whether their scholarly objectivity is compromised by their apparent conflict of interest. The same goes for individuals like Forrest and Scott. Wikipedia strongly discourages conflict of interest editing; editors should likewise avoid supporting a statement in an article from a source with a conflict of interest, or at a minimum, disclose the conflict.

Actually, the Numbers source you found directly supports the AP characterization of Numbers' views--in a more clear-cut fashion in its characterization and in utilizing a direct quotation from Numbers:

Scientists and other proponents of evolution, tend to conflate creationism and intelligent design. "They see intelligent design as little more than gussied up creationism, despite the significant differences," Numbers says.

The FAQ here on this Talk page is just the opinions of a small number of editors regarding previous Talk page discussions: "These FAQ answers reflect the decisions found in the talk page archives. Please feel free to change them in light of new discussion." It just has the appearance of incontrovertible consensus given the tone of its language. Drrll (talk) 03:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Drrll. I still don't find any of your arguments at all convincing. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

That kind of a response is an easy way to avoid refuting any of my arguments. Drrll (talk) 12:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Argumentum ad nauseum does not make your argument any more compelling after multiple articulations of it -- it does however make those who disagree with you considerably less interested in offering (yet another) detailed rebuttal. Like DV, I also "still don't find any of your arguments at all convincing." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It's an easy way of not prolonging a dead horse argument. Your arguments have been refuted several times, by several different editors. I see no point in rehashing the discussion. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but there has been no refutation of, among other things, the characterization of Numbers position on whether ID is a form of creationism by the production of a contradictory statement by him, the indefensible use of a Institute for Creation Research source, or the position that "neo-creationism" is a neologism. I wouldn't have to restate them if they weren't so assiduously avoided. Drrll (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The Numbers-quote issue has already been done to death, that Morris was a very prominent and influential creationist is not in doubt (and really needs no defence), nor is the fact that neo-creationism/'New Creationism' is a term of art used by by a number of prominent commentators on ID. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

"been done to death"--without the production of a contradictory statement by Numbers. That the ICR is an unreliable source and that Morris had no credentials in relevant specializations "is not in doubt." "term of art": according to WP:MOS, "Neologisms are expressions coined recently or in isolated circumstances to which they remained restricted. In most cases, they do not appear in general-interest dictionaries, though they may be used routinely within certain communities or professions. They should generally be avoided because their definitions tend to be unstable and many do not last." "Prominent commentators on ID" is exactly right. Commentators, not experts in relevant specializations. Drrll (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems like this thread has degenerated into a dead horse argument about whether it is a dead horse argument. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Drrll, there is no academic debate on whether or not ID is neo-creationism. The only thing you have to go on is a very brief and very poor comment in an AP article. It's quite clear that the distinguishing factors Numbers mentions between ID and traditional creationism are the exact same distinguishing factors between traditional creationism and neo-creationism. So what if neo-creationism is a neologism? So what if Numbers never technically uses the term? He precisely identifies the differences the term suggests and therefore falls into the mainstream view that ID is neo-creationism.

As for Morris, he's an outsider to ID and a traditional creationist, which is why his opinion here is relevant; he's commenting on neo-creationism from a creationist perspective and even chastises ID for not specifically identifying the designer as God!

You're wrong. You're flat-out wrong. And we're all tired of beating this dead horse. Please let this discussion end. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 15:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Dembski a theologian?

Just count the number of times the words theology or theological turn up in his article. I think we can call WP:DUCK here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no reason to call WP:DUCK. Dembski has a Masters of Divinity in theology, and teaches at a theological seminary. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Which bit of his writing on specified complexity is in his capacity as a theologian? Where is he employed as a theologian? Why doesn't the article refer to his professorship? My point is that this petty kind of dog-whistle labelling does nothing to boost the NPOV nature of this article. MissionNPOVible (talk) 11:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.

— William Dembski

--That "bit", I think. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

From his article here on WP that is sourced with his own CV, Dembski has a Masters of Divinity in theology at the Princeton Theological Seminary. Starting in June 2006 he became a professor in philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas. Since taking up a position within Southwestern's School of Theology in June 2006, Dembski has taught a number of courses within its Department of Philosophy of Religion. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Dembski himself. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Is most of his published work pre-ID theological? This is a synthesis for my own understanding, not for material to include in the article. Is there an easy way to check that? i kan reed (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Google scholar has a hidden date range feature, if you munge the url. Turns out he has only one pre-"pandas" publication about chaos theory, I guess. It was his PhD thesis. Not a lot of theological stuff, there. i kan reed (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that The Design Inference was a revision of his PhD thesis, I don't think he has much "pre-ID" work. Unapologetic Apologetics: Meeting the Challenges of Theological Studies (2001, which he co-edited) certainly seems theological. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

These questions on his bio some time back indicated to me some editors were trying to minimize Dembski's achievements and abilities in order to disparage him. It was decided not to call him either a mathematician or a theologian, except to say the DI describes him as a mathematician and philosopher. Let's try to be consistent and neutral across the various articles and do our best not to try to present him in any particular light. I think it's accurate to call him both a mathematician and a theologian. Yopienso (talk) 13:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I've no problem with mathematician -- he doesn't have a particularly strong publication background in the field -- but it clearly is co-equal with theology in forming his worldview. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Hrafn. If I get around to it I'll adjust his BLP according to whatever gets hashed out here in the next few days. This is backwards, though, isn't it? The BLP should be definitive and this article should reflect that one. Ah, well, at least we're making improvements.  :) I'll be busy elsewhere these next few days. Yopienso (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I certainly don't care whether Dembski is a theologian or not, but as Yopienso alludes to, I am left with the impression that his list of qualifications is designed to highlight his religious qualities over his academic credentials - so I would suggest that being a professor is considerably more relevant to the ID debate than classifying him as a theologian - and I note that adding the indisputable Professor qualification to the article has been reverted already. This is a simple NPOV issue and I see no reason to try and classify him at all - why not just refer to him by name and let readers follow the link if they want to know more about the man? Either that or else refer to him by the title he uses, since it is up to him to come up with his title, not us. MissionNPOVible (talk) 05:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

So Dembski's MDiv, theological writings and the fact that he's spent the last 6 years (and two positions) teaching in seminaries doesn't have anything to do with this? Actually, given that he has described his Baylor period as an 'extended sabbatical' (or similar -- due to the lack of any teaching responsibilities), it could very easily be argued that this seminary teaching is head and shoulders the most important part of his academic career to date. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Look at Dembski's CV. His theological/philosophical work far outstrips his meagre mathematical output. Hiding the fact that he is a philospher and theologian, and publishes almost exclusively in these areas, would be a serious ommission and violate WP:NPOV, as would be ommitting the fact that he is a mathematician. We don't routinely put "Professor" before names on WP per WP:CREDENTIALS. We DO NOT allow people to self-describe themselves on WP; we report how reliable third-party sources describe the subject. In any case, Dembski certainly does not hide his theological background himself. We most certainly do not rely on an unreliable source like the DI's website for information like this. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, good. Which is the RS that states that Dembski is a "mathematician, philosopher, and theologian"? Let's get more accurate and rely on sources rather than editorial flourishes. So far I've got "Research Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Richard Land Center for Cultural Engagement" from http://www.swbts.edu/index.cfm?pageid=800&enc=495E4B4A5433392C23442550435120415379, MissionNPOVible (talk) 07:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you even read the source you provided? The first section VERY SPECIFICALLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY states that he has degrees in mathematics, philosophy and theology, and has worked and taught in those fields. Before landing the job at SBTS, he was a "Professor of Theology and Science, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Ky." Like I said, if you have any doubts, you'll have to take them up with Dembski himself. It's his CV, published on the page of the theological seminary at which he teaches, and I see no reason to question its veracity. As far as I know, no one has ever questioned that he is a theologist. He clearly discribes himself as a theologist in his own CV. Can you provide any reliable sources that say he is NOT a theologist? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you read where I asked for a source saying he is a "mathematician, philosopher, and theologian"? A list of qualifications, prizes, and former positions is not the same as a source describing him in that way. As I said, I am not disputing his credentials, I am disputing the cherry picked version that appears to carry a particular message - why else was mention of his professorship reverted? So how about coming up with an actual quote from an actual source that actually describes him in a particular way rather than relying on editorial OR. MissionNPOVible (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to provide such a source. "professor" was removed in accordance with WP:CREDENTIALS, as you have already been informed. If you have a problem with the statement, feel free to take it to WP:NPOVN. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah but the Evil Atheist Conspiracy™ must have built a time machine to go back in time and make up WP:CREDENTIALS in a fiendish plot to deny the Great Dembski his rightful seminarian-but-not-theological Professorship. >:) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

That still leaves his seminarian-but-explicitly-theological Professorship at SBTS in Louisville to clean up. I'll have to fiendishly get in my TARDIS to remedy that. EXTERMINATE. EXTERMINATE. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh the hilarity. Anyway, I've tweaked it thus: "..."specified complexity" was developed in the 1990s by William Dembski. Dembski, a mathematician, theologian, and research professor of philosophy states that... ", which satisfies the theological twitch as well as WP:CREDENTIALS. MissionNPOVible (talk) 10:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• It would be appropriate to describe Dembski either by his interests "mathematician, philosopher, and theologian William Dembski" or by his position and affiliation "William Dembski, Research Professor of Philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary". It makes no sense, and is rather clumsy to try to do a bit of both. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

{e/c}For MissionNPOVible: Six years ago Time magazine wrote, Still other advocates, including mathematician, philosopher and theologian William Dembski. . . Both here and at the BLP we need to avoid OR and SYN by agreeing on definitions such as Oxford's or on secondary sources. Yopienso (talk) 10:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that Yopienso. Can we get something similar for Thaxton? MissionNPOVible (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Dembski's own words (upon his appointment at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary :"Theology is where my ultimate passion is and I think that is where I can uniquely contribute ... I am looking forward to engaging students and theological students have always been my favorite to deal with because for theology students, it’s not just a job, but a passion, especially at a place like Southern, because they want to change the world.”Desoto10 (talk) 03:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

So, here, we have reliable primary and secondary sources saying he's a theologian, no sources saying he's not. Given that, according to wikipedia's standards, it's true, the other question is this: when is it relevant? If the section in question is not about the connections between religion and ID, does the fact the demski is a theologian need to be included? While I do see very good reason to include the statement if it's relevant, there hasn't been an in-depth discussion of relevance in this section. The fact is broached in the "Specified complexity" section, which, as it stands, I can't exactly see the relevance. i kan reed (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly no less relevant than referring to him as a mathematician and philosopher. All the more so since this is why he primarily identifies himself as, and, among the ID group, is by far the most unabashedly theological. Furthermore, his specified complexity is very much so a variation on a theological proof for God's existence, the argument from design. More so than other ID proponents, he makes very little effort to hide that fact when addressing sympathetic readers and audiences. It would be disingenous to refer to him as a mathematician and theologist, while omitting the fact that he is first and foremost a theologist. Then one would have to question whether referring to him as a mathematician and philosopher is relevant in the first place. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Boosting the Objective Score

Obviously some of the concerns around this article's objectivity stem from activism of an either pro-science or pro-religion nature. FWIW my interest in ID is from the perspective of the actual ideas of ID and I have no interest of the politics of it, so I was startled by all of the overt political posturing when I first read it - so much so that I thought I could help improve it (how naive was I ?!?). So I think one of the best approaches to improving it is to either go whole hog with the political analysis, or cut it out entirely. This half-pregnant approach is unhelpful in my view and just alienates those who do and those who don't want to know about it. However, if that is too ambitious, then the concepts of ID should be included in the first paragraph of the lead and the political comments shifted to the second and third paragraph. I think this would immediately help boost apparent objectivity. MissionNPOVible (talk) 07:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You have been told many times that the concepts of ID cannot be divorced from the political and legal wrangling in which they are used, nor can they be divorced from their religious and creationist origins. The main claim to fame of the concepts of ID is that they were specifically crafted as tools to use in the political and legal arenas. To hide this or play it down would be a major breach of WP:NPOV, as would be portraying ID as a sysematized, organized, well-developed "scientific theory" rather than a slapdash ad hoc collection of poorly developed and totally unsupported assertions that can be compared side by side with the scientific theory of evolution, which would violate WP:GEVAL. For the last time, if you are not interested in the politics of ID, you are in the wrong place. ID is in its very essence political. Even with the details of the political and legal wrangling treated in the sister article, mention of its political and religious nature cannot be avoided here. The article you are looking for is Teleological Argument, and there is a section of ID there. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

e/c Much as I like to do and believe as I'm told, I'll just stick to working things out for myself :-) ID has a political dimension - and as far as I can tell there are lots of articles about them already - but my point here is that this article comes across as lacking objectivity because it pushes the politics hard whilst setting up the expectation that the article is actually about the ID concepts. The article I am looking for is the one called Intelligent Design. The one people insist on turning it into is the Intelligent Design Movement. I'm not sure how it is that you think I want to avoid mentioning the political or religious aspects, I agree that they should be included, it is a matter of emphasis. And the fact that the lead breaches the relevant WP guide is symptomatic of the emphasis being wrong in this article... as does the twitch to painstakingly label everyone advocating ID as a creationist, or theologian etc. MissionNPOVible (talk) 11:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It's going to be very difficult for you to contribute anything useful to this article if you remain unfamiiar with the topic and haven't read at least the main reliable sources quoted in the article. As it is, you are relying on your own imagination about what ID is supposed to mean, in your opinion, rather than on what reliable sources say it is. You're going to keep shooting in the dark, unaware that your targets are armed with night-vision goggles (reliable sources). Dembski IS a theologian, first and foremost, and has never to my knowledge denied that. The fact that everyone of note that is advocating ID is a creationist and is religiously motivated is very well supported by numerous reliable sources; exceptions are extremely rare and not notable. Creationist sources are not reliable and carry very little weight here on WP, as they have a proven track record for inconsistency and prevarication. Please also read up on WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:PSCI. Here, too, it appears taht you are relying on your immagination rather than on what the policies actually say. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand that you believe you are absolutely right and that I am absolutely wrong, and ignorant to boot! However, I may be the closest thing to a fresh pair of eyes this article has seen in the last few weeks and I would encourage you to heed the objectivity score information. In other words, it's not just me. It's just that I'm one of the few who has been dumb enough to try and explain it to those editors who have rusted on views about the matter. MissionNPOVible (talk) 11:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want others to seriously listen to you here on WP, you had better arm yourself with a good working knowledge of the topic and back up your proposals with solid, reliable sources, especially on a controversial and high-watched article such as this. Otherwise, you're just farting in the wind and will continue to be overridden or ignored by those editors who do know what good sources have to say on the topic. You'll end up being more disruptive than constructive. Have you considered finding a WP:MENTOR to answer your questions, rather than just blindly forum shopping? I think you might one day turn out to be a contructive editor, but you still have a lot to learn about how WP works. A mentor could save you a lot of time and grief. Right now, you should be more concerned about boosting your knowledge base, and leave boosting the objective score for another day. Please check out WP:COMPETENCY. You will find it very helpful. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Is the objectivity score a reliable measure of anything?

One would not, for example, rely on Facebook "likes" to evaluate the effect of the Wonthaggi desalination plant upon the Growling Grass Frog. What informative value, if any, do several dozen button-pushes from random a self-selected set of visitors really have? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I share Just plain Bill's concern. While I agree that we should attempt to describe ID clearly, and accept Cla's suggestion that we might be able to improve the article in that regard, I don't think it should necessarily be one of our goals to notably improve the "objective" metric from the self-selected visitors to this page. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It's also important to note that this is not just a featured article, but one about a popular, pseudoscientific proposition. This indicates that those who fall into this popular group would A) dislike its accurate representation as both pseudoscience and creationism and B) be emotionally charged enough to put in the extra effort of voicing their opinion as to the objectivity of this article. Though we obviously want its objectivity rating as high as possible, we have a duty to accurately represent ID according to the sources, not public opinion. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 16:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• The voters are wrong, wikipedia is not a democracy for very good reasons. It's very easy to believe something is wrong or biased, it's much more difficult to present a meaningful, fact-based case for said bias. It's a recurring theme that creationists like the idea of popularity overriding fact. i kan reed (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• Argumentum ad populum is listed as a fallacy for a reason. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes of course - all wikipedia readers are dopes and editors know best. I would be interested to see how this article would fare at a FAR, because I was genuinely shocked that it is supposed to be an example of the best WP has to offer - and while many of you seem to think I'm some sort of creationist sympathiser, I can assure you I am not. I happen to think creationism is one of the narrowest, dumbest, clutching at straws version of reality I've ever come across. That doesn't mean I can't spot spin and hype when I read it though, whereas lots of people around here can't seem to tell the difference between anti-bias and pro-ID. So naturally they think the objectivity scores are wrong and misguided rather than providing a valuable insight to the skewed tone of this article - afterall, it's just all them creationists voting!! MissionNPOVible (talk) 09:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

A few comments. I'll have to read the article a bit more carefully, but in regard to the politics of the topic being intertwined with the subject matter itself, that seems inevitable. What I've read in works published by reliable sources (e.g., OUP-published books) indicate that ID is less an attack on science and more a struggle for who gets to decide what gets taught in American schools. In that sense, the political aspect of ID should not be handled completely independently from its central claims. I'm not stating that the article is completely NPOV though; I haven't yet read it closely enough to say.

I also think the "objective" score is difficult to interpret in a contentious article such as this. Wikipedia policies aside, by moving along the "objectivity" scale to please people on one side of the bias seesaw, the article will probably degrade the objectivity ratings of people on the other side of the scale. My guess is that in an article of this type, you will never be able to maximize the "objectivity" rating. That's just a hypothesis though. MissionNPOVible, you could test that by looking at other contentious high-quality (on the Wikipedia scale) Wikipedia articles. For example, If you find one or more contentious FA or near-FA articles that have very high objectivity scores with over 50 "votes", that could indicate an issue here. Just an idea. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

MissionNPOVible, bias is often in the eye of the beholder, and hyperbolic pejorative dismissive emotional rants starting with language like "all wikipedia readers are dopes and editors know best" do not really help your case. For one thing, the separating line between readers and editors is hazy, and rightfully so. What would help is a list of specific instances of bias as you see it in the article. I mean snippets of the actual wording of the article, not vague pronouncements about pervasive intellectual inoculation. Some of us (naturally I can only speak for myself, but I can also imagine) are getting tired of this, and a bulleted list of particulars will get our attention much better than will a wall of text couched in general terms. Even better if you can bring reliable sourcing for the points you'd like to make. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I just wrote a longer-winded version of the exact same prior to an edit conflict. Mission, in your entire statement there, there was nothing that could even potentially be used to improve the article. i kan reed (talk) 14:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you've missed all of my other contributions on this talk page and reverted edits on the article? This section is labelled "Is the objectivity score a reliable measure of anything?", so I was responding to that. Perhaps you could explain to me the specific improvements that can be gleaned from the responses of other editors in this section? Or am I the only one expected to do that... MissionNPOVible (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Keeping the context within your "Boosting the Objective Score" section containing this subsection, I see you saying things like:

• "overt political posturing"
• "this article comes across as lacking objectivity because it pushes the politics hard whilst setting up the expectation that the article is actually about the ID concepts."

Others have explained about politics being part and parcel of ID, which is essentially a political stratagem. Kindly point out examples of "overt political posturing" and "push[ing] the politics hard" that you would like to see rectified. Yes, making that list is pretty much your job, together with anyone else who is dissatisfied with the status quo in that regard. In your other comments on this discussion page you seem to be asking for an article describing ID without mention of its refutation, hardly a neutral point of view.

This page has been around long enough, and been contentious long enough, to have accumulated sources for the rebuttals which ID has encountered. Are there still any that need {{citation needed}} tags? Since "boosting the objective score" is not something for which I see editorial support, a focus on specific improvements is more worthwhile, as you may have just hinted. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 02:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. Let's look at the lead, and let's remember this article is called ID. Of the ten sentences in the lead, only three relate to ID per se, the other seven relate to the politics surrounding ID. The article itself has a similarly bizarre proportion: about a fifth deals with the concepts - perhaps a third overall might be said to deal with ID proper (including discussion of the its origins). The other two thirds deal with political matters relating to the movement (nearly a fifth), a full third on 'teaching the controversy' (including a long section defining science for some reason), and then nearly 10% on the K trial and another 10% on the status of ID outside of the US. Much - perhaps all - of this political material is already covered in the IDM article, the Teach the Controversy article, the Wedge Document article, the Creation–evolution controversy article, and the Creation and evolution in public education article... to name a few. To my mind that makes this article over burdened by the political dimension - even if the political dimension is presented in an NPOV tone, which it isn't, which is why it strikes me as pushing the politics hard. I would much prefer to see the this article focus on the origns/concepts sections with the remainder replaced by relevant short overviews and links to the other articles. MissionNPOVible (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You ignore the point, that has been explained to you before several times, that ID is not a scientic theory. Is is not involved in any sort of scientific debate at all - there simply is no scientific debate about the fact of evolution. Instead, ID is IS a political movement that dresses itself up in pseudo scientific clothing in order to fool people into thinking it's real science. The purpose of that is so it can get around the US Constitution and get creationism into American science classrooms by the back door. Thus any balanced NPOV article about the subject of ID will of necessity contain a great deal about what it truly is - a political/religious movement - and not very much about what it is not - a scientific theory. - Nick Thorne ^talk 03:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Examining each of the ten sentences one by one, the first defines ID, and the second further defines it. The third, "Its leading proponents are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank, and believe the designer to be the Christian God," arguably is "political" in that it notes the DI as politically conservative, but, as per the notice at the top, is essential to the argument in associating it with the DI and giving a brief description of the DI. That's the first paragraph of the lead.

The next two sentences briefly lay out the argument, and the sixth reports its reception in the scientific community. All this is essential, and the second paragraph is a wrap.

The seventh sentence dabbles into the political aspect in mentioning a court case, but is essential in that it shows from where the ID argument arose. The eighth tells of the foundational text, Of Pandas. The ninth explains how the proponents formed the movement, which is important for its relevance and the hyperlink to the other article. The tenth, mentioning K v D, is also arguably "political," but if I were coming as a first-time reader I would want to know where things presently stand.

My bottom line wrt the first ten sentences is that they are necessary and appropriate to the article.

I will go over the rest of the article as I have time to see if I see objectionable material later in the article. Yopienso (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

My understanding of the lead is that it should summarise the article and give a snapshot of the topic. This one doesn't really do that, but rather than quibbling with your assessment of the lead, my central point is that while there is clearly a political dimension to ID, this is already covered extensively in other articles dedicated to those aspects of ID, so a much smaller version would be relevant here. For instance, irreducible & specified complexity are two central ideas to ID but get barely a dozen sentences each, and these are considerably more central to the idea of *ID* (note, not IDM) than the political shenanigans. Perhaps a contrast would help, for instance, abortion has a very strong political dimension to it, but the WP abortion article devotes around a third or less to the politics. A similar ratio of concept:politics can be found in the vegetarianism article. Considerably less of the IQ article relates to the associated politics, and somewhere around a third of the eugenics article focusses on the political dimension (although there is a lot of history there), and the astrology article devotes less than a fifth to the politics. Even the articles on Irr./Spec. complexity contain very little of the politics! MissionNPOVible (talk) 12:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I would point out that, per WP:LEDE, a lead does not just summarise the article, it also "establish[es] context". ID has a very strong political context, therefore it would be highly misleading for the article's lead to fail to mention this. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to summarize ID without mentioning both evolution and American politics. I've been tumbling the idea around in my head for the past day or so, and I just can't come up wiht a summary that really tells someone what ID is without those elements. I mean, I'd like to see an example that proves that idea wrong, but I just can't come up with one that seriously distinguishes it from the content of a apologetics 101 course. The closest I could come to doing so was to focus on the purposeful vagueness. I made 2 serious attempts at this on paper, and honestly could not come up with anything satisfactory. i kan reed (talk) 13:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

MissionNPOVible, as odd as it may sound, those subjects aren't as political as ID. Abortion is a medical procedure, which happens to be extremely contested in the political arena; vegetarianism is a diet, occasionally fueled by a political/ethical dimension; IQ is a measure of intelligence; eugenics is a kind of selective breeding. ID, on the other hand, is a political movement. Its proponents' goal is to stop the "evil, materialist evolutionists" through an organized campaign of deceit, with the prize being the unconstitutional teaching of Christianity's Special Creation by God in public schools. It is therefore logical that the majority of this article will describe the politics of ID.

As for the IC and CSI articles, it makes sense that they would go into more detail and be less political. When I go about describing IC (or CSI), I definitely want to give a nod to the DI and its history, but the focus of the article will be on what IC is (who originated the idea, what it says, supporting evidence, etc.). Here, we simply introduce it as a core concept of ID and refer readers to the article for further information. Sounds like everything is working like it's supposed to. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 14:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

So how do you distinguish between ID and IDM? It sounds like they are synonymous in your mind... MissionNPOVible (talk) 08:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at now. If the politics are so inseparable, why do we have an separate article for the politics? Does kinda seem like a content fork. I'm going to stew on that for a while before I give a full response. i kan reed (talk) 13:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think I've mentioned before (following a previous post you made, MissionNPOVible) that I see no extremely strong reason to have two separate articles. If I recall correctly, I stated that the only reason the articles should be separated is due to article length; I'm not really familiar with the policies/guidelines about article length, so I left it up to others and it seemed to get dropped (or go completely unnoticed). Assuming the article length is not an issue and barring any persuasive arguments against, I would support a merger. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 14:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

That's still basically true, the ID article is quite long, and has a good deal of distinct information from the ID movement article. After reviewing both, there doesn't appear to be a POV fork, or anything that compromises the quality of the articles. There's a largish, but not extraordinary ammount of duplicated content, and I could see that as a merge rationale, but the ID article is too long to justify that, really. I'd be happy to have a proper discussion about merging the articles, but the applicability of the split to the objectivity score is pretty irrelevant. i kan reed (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• WP:LENGTH: "> 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided" -- this article is currently 187k. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  This article therefore needs slimming down, not merging up. What I would suggest is that we get agreement on what key subtopics need to be discussed in this article, and what ones can be left to subsidiary articles per WP:SUMMARY. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Consensus was solidly against a merge when it was proposed seven months ago [[6]]. Length was indeed the primary concern. I doubt that consensus has changed that much in the meantime. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thaxton

Is a couple of post-doctoral programmes (verifiable only to the DI website & Thaxton's own, as far as I know) sufficient basis for calling him a "historian of science, and molecular biologist"? Seems rather sketchy to me (particularly when we had people querying Dembski's "theologian" when he had a full MDiv+several books+working in a seminary). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I see no degree at all in history of science or in molecular biology. He only held the two post-docs, hardly enough to qualify him as an historian of science or molecular biologist. Post-docs are not equivalent to degrees. I might be persuaded if he published any notable peer-reviewed papers or monographs in those fields, but as for now, I am removing them from the article. Again, first and foremost, he is according to all reliable sources, including himself, a leading proponent of ID, and was a leading creationist at the time in question. To leave that out would be a serious ommission, so I've reinstated that. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Haldane's dilemma: character vs characteristic

Raul654 has recently edited the "Haldane's dilemma" section and changed the word character to characteristic, though the source cited used character, and the Phenotypic trait and Haldane's dilemma pages also use this term. My personal opinion is we should be more specific to the field of Biology and continue to use character, not the more general characteristic, but I thought I'd ask in case I'm just being too picky. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 19:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Further information about the term can be found on the Encyclopaedia Britannica website. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 19:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I endorse using character based on what the sources say. It seems like a simple enough reason for a revert, that I'd say go for it. We can talk it out here if there's some reason to keep it that's not ocurring to us. i kan reed (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Did. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 20:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Raul654 is correct. "Characteristics" is indeed much more commonly used in the biological literature than "characters", which sounds quaint (the paper was written in 1957, after all, and Haldane was no spring chicken at the time). Google gives 444,000 hits for "phenotypic charateristics", and 61,700 for "phenotypic characters". Our article on phenotype uses "characteristics or traits". FWIW, that's my personal experience, too, as a biologist and scientific translator who has translated hundreds of articles using the term. I see no reason to prefer the term used in the source over the term that is more commonly used by biologists. I support reverting it back to Raul654's version. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

If that's the more appropriate terminology, then let's definitely use it. I've been out of the game for a long time (I switched to computer programming), and thought the sources were using a more specific term. I've gone and reverted my revert. Thanks for settin' me straight, Dominus! -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 22:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem, Dub. It really is an improvement. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

What is Haldane's dilemma doing here at all?

Haldane's dilemma isn't one of the big ID concepts, and Walter ReMine is a really really minor player, so why does this get more than an inclusion in the 'see also' list? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good place to cut to me. I had never even heard of Haldane's dilemma before this article. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 21:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It isn't a core ID concept, and ReMine is not a notable ID proponent. The section can be cut in it's entirety. There's nothing worth saving. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

David Berlinski

As David Berlinski:

1. Has neither originated any prominent idea or claim within ID, nor written any particularly prominent articulation or advocacy of it; and
2. The claim "At the same time, David Berlinski, who is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, while critical of evolutionary theory, is a Jewish agnostic who refuses to theorize about the origins of life." actually makes no explicit mention of ID,

...I see no reason why this material should have prominent mention in the article's lead. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

He describes his attitude towards ID as "warm but distant. It's the same attitude that I display in public toward my ex-wives."

[7] Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The "warm but distant" quote comes from an interview he did about his book "The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions" and referred to his relationship to Judaism, not to ID. A Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture is, by definition, a leading figure in ID. The mission of the center is stated as "challenging Darwin's theory of evolution and promoting Intelligent Design." The sentence: "Its leading proponents are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank, AND believe the designer to be the Christian God," is not true on its face because there is at least one leading proponent who is associated with the Discovery Institute AND DOES NOT believe the designer to be the Christian God.--Sanya3 (talk) 06:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

(i) See above quote -- it is clearly about ID. (ii) Not all the CSC's Senior Fellows are particularly active in ID -- Benjamin Wiker for one, has a negligible profile. Berlinski's a bit higher profile, but by no means a leading proponent -- as he's done nothing that has made any particular splash in the ID debate. He's simply a 'supporting actor'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

That sentence is actually false in another way - Discovery Institute is not so much conservative in its political orientation as it is libertarian (with a small "l") and I would also add technoutopian at times, at least in some of their articles about the wonders of technology.--Sanya3 (talk) 06:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm really not interested in unsubstantiated WP:OR assertions. And nobody else seems to be interested in your claims. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, "I don't want you to play in my sandbox and nobody else does either..." :) I can dig up the original of where he says it, but don't have the time now. Maybe later.--Sanya3 (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure he just meant that things you believe aren't exactly what the talk page is for(and definetly not the article). Please feel free to make an argument with sources that support what you're saying. For this particiular thing, a primary source could even be acceptable(depending on how it's used). i kan reed (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The claim that Berlinski is a leading figure in, or even a supporter of, ID is blatantly false. In his own words (emphasis is mine) [8]: "I have never expressed support for theories of intelligent design, much less for creationism, and my essay, far from representing a change of mind-no bad thing, in any case-does nothing more than amplify objections I have long held and often voiced." -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 20:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thermodynamic argument

Why does this warrant a mention? It is not a core argument, its principal proponent (Granville Sewell) is not a particularly prominent ID proponent, and neither of the cited sources (American Spectator & TOA) are especially prominent. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I looked into it and can't really see a good reason for its inclusion either. I know this fallacy is a common creationist argument, but I haven't heard any prominent proponent of ID use it. The DI did publish Sewell's book, In the Beginning: And Other Essays on Intelligent Design, but other than signing the DI's A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism petition and writing one of the "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design" (this claim is contested, perhaps because it appears in a Mathematics journal), he has no place of prominence in ID or the DI. I don't see why we need to keep this. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 15:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Given your & DV's (below) support, I've been WP:BOLD and eliminated it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The DI's website has 2 separate pages dedicated to thermodynamics plus a third "phantom" with no info: 1, 2, 3. I would think that would mean the section should be included. Yopienso (talk) 03:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

"The DI's website has" hundreds of reprinted articles like this -- that does not mean that each topic covered deserves mention in the main ID article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

@Yopienso: I wouldn't call those "pages dedicated to thermodynamics". The first is a reprint of an article from an external source, not original material created for the DI website. The second is only a blurb and a link to Amazon.com. In other words, they are the equivalent of WP's external links. Objections on the basis of thermodynamics are common among creationists in general, not just IDers. I've read Sewell's article, and it is basically just a rehash of general creationist objections. The book was published in 1984, and in the years since then there is no evidence that the DI has made thermodynamic arguments a central or important part of their strategy, or that they have developed the arguments to suit specific ID purposes. I see no evidence presented on the DI site backing up the second sentence in this claim in the book blurb: "The second law of thermodynamics has been misused by creationists who failed to treat the fact that Earth is an open system. But Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen takes this point into account as they argue that thermodynamics is eminently applicable to assessing whether unguided chemical reactions can organize matter into life." Actually, the fact that there are only these two very low-level references to thermodynamics on the DI page is srong evidence that they do not consider thermodymic arguments to be a significant element of their strategy. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I reversed the second and third links; sorry. I'm offering info here to you and Hrafn in case it interests you in editing this article; I am uninvolved. The Panda's Thumb thinks thermodynamics is a big deal in the ID camp. So does Uncommon Descent. So does Mark Perahk. These three all comment on Sewell's argument, which make them reliable secondary sources. Take them or leave them. :) Yopienso (talk) 08:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I've read them through, and, though they provide evidence that the DI does indeed use the thermodynamic argument, they do not support the claim that they are a central or ID-specific part of the DI "package" to a similar degree that Specified Complexity or Irreducible Complexity are. At best, they are a minor component of the whole "package". FWIW, from my own reading on ID and the DI, SLOT arguments are used LESS by the DI than they are by other varieties of creationism. This is probably because the DI wants to maintain some level of scientific credibility, and using SLOT arguments is counterproductive in that endeavor. Andy McIntosh is one of the DIers that uses thermodynamic arguments, and his scientific credibility was severly compromised when his own university issued a press release distancing themselves from his creationist activities [[9]]. From what I gather, the DI does not consider arguments based on the SLOT as particularly effective in achieving their goals. I admit this is my own personal take on the matter, and that I may be wrong. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

TPT often covers quite minor goings on in the IDosphere, as does Talk Reason -- and I really don't want to think of what areas UD wanders into without a hazmat suit. None of this demonstrates any prominence to speak of -- and certainly no reason to include it in an already-overstuffed summary article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. What's "SLOT"? Yopienso (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Second law of thermodynamics. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Duh. Thanks! Yopienso (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Article size & slimming

The article is currently 187k and has 6 substantive sections:

1. History: 20k
2. Concepts: 25k
3. Movement: 25k
4. Creating and teaching the controversy: 65k
5. Kitzmiller trial: 10k
6. Status outside the United States: 14k

Given that WP:LENGTH recommends that articles should generally not be >100k, I would strongly suggest we look at slimming the article down, by moving (per WP:SUMMARY) or removing non-essential information. The 'Creating and teaching the controversy' section would appear to be the obvious place to start -- it's a large article in its own right, size-wise. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

One of the main problems with 'Creating and teaching the controversy' is that, it's title notwithstanding, it has very little in common content-wise with Teach the Controversy, so there's currently nowhere really to spin the content out into. What we really need is a subsidiary article on ID's pretensions to being science (which is what most of the section is about). Can anybody think of a good title? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Topic tree

Intelligent design

1. History (Timeline of intelligent design)
   1. Argument from poor design
   2. Teleological argument
   3. Watchmaker analogy
2. Concepts
   1. Irreducible complexity
   2. Specified complexity
   3. Fine-tuned Universe
   4. Thermodynamic argument Is this a major concept?
   5. Intelligent designer
   6. Haldane's dilemma Is this a major concept?
3. Intelligent design movement
   1. Discovery Institute
      1. Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns
         1. Teach the Controversy
         2. (Numerous other campaigns with articles)
   2. (Numerous other organisations with articles)
   3. Intelligent design in politics
4. ID's pretensions to being science Should this have its own article?
   1. Neo-creationism
      1. Theistic science
   2. Sternberg peer review controversy
5. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
6. Status outside the United States

I think the above tree helps us see where we can WP:SUMMARY & farm out the details to subsidiary articles. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion

The first three paragraphs of the "origins of the concept" section could go, in my opinion. I've deleted them before, and don't understand why Dave Souza reverted and rewrote them. I still don't see any great loss to the article if we delete these paragraphs and start with "Philosopher Barbara Forrest....". The Thermodynamic stuff can also go, as you've suggested, in my opinion. It belongs more in "Objections to Evolution" than here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that this section should only be hitting the 'high notes': Aquinas, Paley, Edwards, Pandas, Johnson ... would be my hit parade. Probably just a sentence each on the first three, then starting to get a bit more depth. I personally wouldn't include The Mystery of Life's Origin -- it might be the technical start of the IDM, but it has had little long-term impact. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm reading through the "Creating and Teaching the Controversy" section still, but right off the bat I'm struck by how much information we have before we even get to its subsections. There are seven paragraphs, some of which are quite substantial, and seem to simply say that ID is presented as science. I don't see why this would take seven paragraphs. Some of the subsections, too, are rather long-winded and should be trimmed.

Should we perhaps draw up some sandboxes for these different sections ("divide and conquer")? Or just go through it a section at a time? I'm just trying to think of the best way to accomplish monumental task like this on such a contentious article. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 15:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we'd be better off deciding a structure for 'Creating and Teaching the Controversy' before throwing it into a sandbox. As your comments indicates, one of its main problems is that it simply meanders -- and I don't think general sandboxing/trimming is going to help that much without a structure to trim to. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

A lot of that initial sprawl should probably be boxed off into sub-sections on Neo-creationism and Theistic science (from which much of it can hopefully be WP:SUMMARYed out to those subsidiary articles). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been pretty busy today and haven't really had a chance to wade through everything yet, but I just wanted to say I like how you've split the section so far, Hrafn. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 19:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I love those first three paragraphs, DV, but they were what confused me when I first came to this article since they have so little to do with the DI. They are well written and informative; I suggest incorporating them as much as possible into Teleological argument, either in the lede, or as an introduction to the history section. Yopienso (talk) 03:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure they confused a lot of people. After I added the hatnote, I thought about deleting these paragraphs again, as they became essentially superfluous. At the time, I rewrote a much shorter, concise version that is pretty much in line with what Hrafn has just proposed:

"The teleological argument on which modern Intelligent Design is based has long been advanced as a logical proof for the existence of a devine or supernatural entity that either created the universe, or at least set it in motion. Among those who used the argument were Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and many philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment, in particular William Paley.

Proponents of Intelligent Design use the argument without specifying the supernatural nature of the designer in order to circumvent court rulings that Creation Science is in fact religious in nature, and thus cannot be taught in public school classrooms."

I propose that, if consensus is not to remove the paragraphs entirely, they be replaced by my condensed version. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The proposed text sounds good to me (after some minor, grammatical revisions) and helps cut down the article quite well. I would also prefer to use that text than to simply remove the three paragraphs in question, as they explain how ID evolved from the teleological argument for God. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 21:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Should we get rid of the subsections under "Movement" as well? It seems like the five paragraphs under this section would suffice, and we could move anything that's not duplicated in the IDM article to it. I think that would really help lower the character count. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 20:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but we should first make sure that everything important is summarised in the main section. I would suggest that a paragraph each in that section on the DI, ID & religion and ID & other creationists would be appropriate. Polls can go altogether & Expelled can be relegated to a see-also. Anything important relating to ID & science should be moved to the section currently titled 'Creating and teaching the controversy'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps after we create the article for which a title is being discussed below, we can move any material relating ID to science there, then summarize the remaining information and throw the excess into the parent article, Intelligent design movement. Sound like a plan? -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 18:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)