Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 70

Archive 65

←

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

→

Archive 75

Non-Religious ID: Needs a Separate Name Then

I read in the archives a brief about Non-religious ID, but left its reading unsatisfied. We are constrained in this excellent article in our definition of Intelligent Design - to be specifically that of a machination of the Creationist movement, lacking theory, testability and evidence, in order to fairly assign it the classification of a pseudoscience, and thus derive the special Wikipedia pseudoscience NPOV rules. This being the case, and I being a fair minded Evolutionist, while rejecting God or Religious Intelligent Design, I have not ethically ruled out the placeholder for a theory comprising the participation of non-terrestrial/non-deity life forms in some aspect of scientifically valid Naturalist Darwinist Evolution whether extant, direct, indirect, interventionary or not. Now certainly such a theory has a limited amount of possible data (S) and predictive testing which could be applied, and certainly could come nowhere near to any form of competitive falsification testing under the scientific method; so at best the construct could only stand as a placeholder. Be that as it may, such a construct would still stand distinct and integral from this article's definition of Intelligent Design, requiring that it be tendered a name.

We cannot simultaneously be constrictive on this definition of Intelligent Design, in order to give it the designation of 'Wikipedia Pseudoscience' and then, upon application of the term, suddenly use it in the unrestrictive context, so that the modified strictures of Pseudoscience NPOV can thus now be applied to anything which is not nihilist naturalism (a religion). That is like driving a screw with a flat head screwdriver, and removing it with a phillips head screwdriver, so that we can do whatever we want, whenever we want, based on who we do not like; and not based on the ethics and discipline of the scientific method. Let's be consistent, either ID encompasses all, or it does not and these placeholder constructs need disambiguation.

I would suggest we ethically assign a disambiguation name to non-religious and non-theistic single common ancestry evolution which is influenced by something other than purist stochastic generational culling nihilist naturalism. I personally favor this latter, a form of explanatory evolution, but - my favoring it, does not constitute science. Dodger27 (talk) 07:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

This article is about Intelligent design as promoted by the Discovery institute. It is a featured article, and changing its scope at this stage is unlikely to meet with much, if any, support. You are speaking of Alien intervention in the development of humans, yes? I'm not sure if we have such an article yet. Perhaps others who read this page will be more knowledgeable. Any such article must follow WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, so it would necessarily not be written from a sympathetic point of view. KillerChihuahua 12:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you thinking of something like Directed panspermia? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Alien interventionism isn't fundamentally different from religious beliefs in any meaningful way. That's the thing no one wants to say out of a social understanding of respect for religious beliefs. The mechanical details with respect to ID are negligible because no testable hypothesis exists to measure such intervention. Ironically these "two" distinct forms of ID share a common ancestor. i kan reed (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

That "isn't fundamentally different" may be true in some respects, but massively different / wrong in other respects. Asserting illegitimacy of (only) one of them is a direct front assault against deeply held beliefs of the majority of the people in the world. North8000 (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

No, they're both equally bogus. Hope that helps. i kan reed (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

@ Dodger27, the terms "intelligent design" and "creationism" have booth been co-opted by religious opponents of the science of evolution, and our articles show these common meanings of the terms rather than an ideal non-religious concept which may or may not exist. If verification from good enough sources can be found for such a concept, then it could become the topic of a new article. . dave souza, talk 20:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

p.s. "non-religious and non-theistic single common ancestry evolution" is covered by the science of evolution, "purist stochastic generational culling nihilist naturalism" sounds like a long-winded way of saying atheism, which is outwith science. . dave souza, talk 20:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

IMHO the logical scope of an "intelligent design" article is the set of common meanings that are similar enough that non-experts consider them to be essentially the same meaning. This would be those that are overtly or covertly religious / theistic explanations or implications for the current universe. This article has been put through contortions and deletions to further narrow that to only the DI versions. I mostly gave up on efforts to change the latter. I think that extra-terrestial intelligent interventions applying (only) to earth are outside of this common meaning. North8000 (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thinking of Non-Religious ID

Let's simply cut off the ET interventions, since that brings up with another question: how does the ET origin? The answer loops back to the old "origin of life" question.

The universe supports life in such a complex way that people believe the complexity in life(or everything else) can be the signature of creation. I expected to see a good discussion on this topic. But this kind of discussion always go to religious. In my opinion, even if there is a designer, it is definitely not the God claimed by religious people. It does not care about the moral, religious, or any of human values. The most likely case is: the designer creates a mechanism that enables life(perhaps by directly designing a cell or more likely, creating the environment where life spawns--and this environment could be the whole universe rather than earth--I mean, life forms are not limited to cells and DNA). How can you expect this designer to care about an individual's happiness as the Bible said? How can you expect it to care, like a human does?

I think the idea of Intelligent Design is ruined by religion. Rovermills (talk) 05:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

"The universe supports life in such a complex way that people believe the complexity in life(or everything else) can be the signature of creation" is a religious view, a belief supported by the teleological argument. The idea of an uncaring creator is deism, quite a common concept of belief shared by many early scientists, several of the founding fathers of the United States, and Charles Darwin who was "inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance." See also Spinoza's god. . . dave souza, talk 06:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that the concept of an intelligent entity designing the entire universe is inherently / by definition theistic/religious. This isn't from some grand philosophic source of truth, it is just from definition of terms such as "god". North8000 (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The articles on teleological argument and deism is helpful to me, thanks dave. I think Richard Dawkins put it all right that, if assuming a designer(whether a caring one or not), it must "be far more complex and difficult to explain than anything it is capable of designing". So the designer assumption actually explains nothing, the same way ET intervention does not explain the origin of life. Now it becomes clear to me that the idea of Non-Religious ID is paradoxical in itself(@North8000, thanks), and that the universe without a designer is a simpler assumption. BTW(this might be a little far from the ID discussion), how do you think about this idea, that at some point, universe might eventually evolve into a conscious, intelligent object by combining the evolution process that is taking place here on earth and somewhere else? Is there any articles about this?Rovermills (talk) 06:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Gaia philosophy goes some way towards that, but any idea of consciousness is pretty much science fiction or a variant on Spinoza's god. . dave souza, talk 10:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

New external links

I can't see anything that indicates that "arguing with atheists" is a notable website. What's the rationale for adding it? Guettarda (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The website appears to be of rather minor significance as far as the topic of the article is concerned. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I just fixed the title on another website from SciAm editor in chief's "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense", and same seems to apply.

Content seems to also be of minor ignificance and not mainly on the article topic of ID. It better fits to creationism and is already at that wikipage. Will delete link. Markbassett (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Earliest use of "Intelligent Design" and "Intelligent Designer"

Well faid, fir!

Found: earliest usage of terms "intelligent design" and "intelligent designer" found in old freethought newspaper. Issues from 1901, 1904, and 1906. See link: Blue Grass Blade (Library of Congress) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.70.37.153 (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"Intelligent designer" goes back to at least 1793. Garamond Lethet
c 21:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Nife find, I fuppofe we could add that to footnote 27, with due credit to Joseph Butler (bp. of Durham.) . . dave souza, talk 22:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, fir. Let me poke around a bit more and see if I can find a better source than a google books search. Garamond Lethet
c 22:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I fee nothing wrong with ufing a reference from google books, if the article requires fuch a reference. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"Intelligent Designer" by Joseph Butler in 1740, 3rd Edition (can anyone find the 1st edition) - I propose the following text:

In 1740, Joseph Butler inferred a designer from design, noting: “The appearances of design and of final causes in the constitution of nature as really prove this acting agent to be an intelligent designer”DLH (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

From Joseph Butler's "Works", the first edition was in 1736. Propose inserting this summary between Aquinas and Paley.DLH (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

What indicates that any earlier uses of the phrase "intelligent design" have anything to do with the subject of this article? Why would they be relevant and why should they be included? We know exactly where Thaxton got the name, and it has absolutely nothing to do with these earlier uses. This article is not about the phrase "intelligent design". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that it should be about the the closely related set of meanings commonly associated with the phrase "intelligent design". Origin of life / the universe implying a deity behind it. And this is from me, an atheist. North8000 (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

And, as you have been told countless times before, that is beyond the scope of this article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The scope of the article should be open to discussion, not dictated by a few folks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with DLH and North8000: the reference is certainly pertinent to the intellectual history of intelligent design argument applied to evolution. Put the sentence in. Plazak (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It's the religious history of creationism. This earlier use of intelligent design was not picked up by its current proponents and bears mention only as an earlier and unrelated use of the same phrase. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Plazak, do you have a reliable source linking the earlier uses of these words to he present usage? Of course not, because Thaxton clearly explained where he got the name from (he heard some scientist use it at a conference in the 1980's). And that is exactly when the history of the term started as far as the subject of this article is concerned. Earlier uses are coincidental and unrelated. This article is not about creationism in general, or about the teleological argument in general, but about a specific brand of creationism created by the principals of the Discovery Institute. Material that is not directly relevant to that topic belongs in the articles on creationism or the teleological argument, and probably is irrelevant even there. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the tussle here has been between two schools of thought regarding the scope of the article:

1. The article should cover the closely related set of topics which (explicitly or implicitly) posits that life/ the universe was created by a deity, either directly or by "setting the stage", i.e "intelligent design" as covered in sources, wherever they lead us.
2. The article should cover only the version/effort promulgated by the Discovery Institute

IMHO the former is the best choice. North8000 (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

And just to clarify, for the gazillionth time, the article you want already exists at teleological argument. Sorry, but the name "Intelligent Design" is currently owned by the Discovery Institute, and because the overwheming majority of mentions in the scholarly and popular literature refers exclusively to the DI's product, they get dibs on the article under that name per WP:COMMONNAME. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME doesn't really say or support your assertion. It is a guideline about naming articles, not defining their scope. North8000 (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOR defines the scope in that a reliable secondary source is required, relating this to the subject of the article. Since DLH's source is hidden, the issue is that in 1740 Joseph Butler, Lord Bishop of Bristol, presented an argument for the existence of God using the words "intelligent designer”: The Analogy of Religion, Natural and Revealed, to the Constitution and Course of Nature, 3rd Ed. London, John and Paul Knapton, MDCCXL (1740). Obviously a primary source, and we already show good secondary sources for the earlier version by Aquinas. . dave souza, talk 06:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• We don't discuss multiple topics together simply because they use the same name. Any connection to this article appears to be a synthesis. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

@Dave souza, no you are mistaken. Wp:nor does not say that, that the rs must state the relation to the subject. Not that it is relevant here, because the question is what the subject (scope) should be. And IRWolfe, your comment pre-supposes your preference as being the answer to that question. I'm signing off on this thread for now. For me the artificial narrowing of the topic to the Discovery Institute version of intelligent design in this article is not a serious enough of a problem to be worth long painful exchange, and folks mis-quoting policies instead of discussing the merits of the two different scopes is an indicator that it is becoming that. I would think that the fact that the group here has had to continuously remove or keep out reliably sourced material described by the source as being on intelligent design, or change it's name from what the wp:rs says it is (intelligent design) to something else ("telelogical argument") that the wp:rs does not call it in order to keep it out of this article would be an indicator. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Which bit of "synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors" didn't you read? WP:SYN no more. . . dave souza, talk 16:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

(being forced to respond to the insult) Well there's a false implied premise (that the phrase that you quoted supports your point or refutes mine) hidden in a second insult which has a second false implied premise (that I didn't read some part.) Nice try. North8000 (talk) 11:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any "narrowing" here. Earlier uses of the term have nothing with its current politicized use as a substitute for creationism and the conflation of religion and science, and expansion of the article is a totally inappropriate synthesis. I would argue that folks trying to put it in are trying to (POV) make "intelligent design" more than it is. This is a case of less is more. This earliest use is a trivia point at best where article content is concerned, here. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 13:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Since it is clear that there are enough editors here to block adequate coverage of the pre-Discovery Institute intellectual history of ID, those editors who believe that it deserves a fuller historical treatment should put it into another article. How about History of intelligent design? Plazak (talk) 03:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Intelligent design as the phrase occasionally appears used in the 19th and most of the 20th century is covered in Teleological argument. "Teleological argument" or "argument from design" (which redirects to the teleological argument article) were the far more commonly used terms than "intelligent design" then so "Teleological argument" is the appropriate title for that article. Guidance is offered at the top of this article to readers looking for information about it.

The historic antecedents or "intellectual history" of "intelligent design" as the term came into common usage about 1990 through today were not from the philosophical teleological argument stream, but instead the real world "evolution versus biblical creationism" conflicts going on in schools and courtrooms. That intelligent design we have today comes by way of the Discovery Institute, full stop, and it stems more directly from the creation science movement. In other words, the history of intelligent design that we are familiar with from newspapers, court battles and buzzing around our ears from the cultural mainstream ties back more to the creation science debate than any philosophical debates over the teleological argument.

This has been explained innumerable times here. And been documented again and again. The sound scholarship backing this up is voluminous-there are easily scores (more likely multiple scores) of references corroborating this for every stray find someone digs up from dusty old book nobody remembers showing "intelligent design" used in a sentence before the Discovery Institute came along. And yet for whatever reason I keep seeing some familiar faces back here who refuse to accept it. They brush aside the mountain of solid, cited, and relatively accessible reference materials to focus on this "truth" which has somehow been suppressed because "there are enough editors here to block adequate coverage". Professor marginalia (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Well said, professor. I'll also note that creating History of intelligent design because one doesn't like the way it's covered in this article is called a WP:POVFORK and these are prohibited. Sædon^talk 06:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

And a content fork as well. The content already exists at Teleological argument. The history of ID is well kow and presented well in the present article. A big part of the problem is that some people think ID is somehow a profound philosophical concept or even syestem of though. It's not. It's a set of ad hoc legal and PR ploys to sneak creationism into US classrooms. I guess a lot of peole ae disappointed when they come here and expect to see deep philosophy and see that ID amounts to legal wrangling and public deception instead. They expect to see a long "history" when the actual history started in the 1980s. However, they are redirected to the Teleological argument both in the hatnote and in the body of the article, and the history they seek is already there. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Some history is at Timeline of intelligent design. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

QuentinUK (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Featured article

Here's the revision history for the day it was featured, Oct. 12, 2007. It was tweaked and vandalized and restored throughout the day. On Oct. 3, editor Chaser protected it in anticipation of the 12th. Didn't work, for some reason.

From the Oct. 3 version

• A side panel identifies it as one of six kinds of creationism treated in WP.

• First paragraph: Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, believe the designer to be God.

• Third paragraph: "Intelligent design" originated in response to a 1987 United States Supreme Court ruling involving separation of church and state.

I specifically request that the section "Origins of the term" in the 2007 featured article be restored in the present one. This adds depth to the article and satisfies those readers who have an historical bent. Yopienso (talk) 06:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

We know exactly the origin of the term. Straight from the horse's mouth. Thaxton overheard it used by some unidentified NASA scientist at a conference. That's where the trail starts as far as this article is concerned, and there is no way of tracing it any further back without asking the NASA scientist where he got it. As far as we know, he made up the term himself, totally unaware that anyone else before him had ever used it. The term has undoubtedly been independently coined several times in the past, and the similarity with the term the NASA scientist used may be totally coincidental, which is exactly what we have to assume lacking any evidence to the contrary. Previous uses are irrelevant and unrelated to this article, and it would be OR to link them to the DI usage. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Gosh, how did the FA reviewers miss that?

Oh, they didn't--the section actually shows the occasional earlier usage was unrelated to the DI usage:

Prior to the publication of the book Of Pandas and People in 1989, the words "intelligent design" had been used on several occasions as a descriptive phrase in contexts that are unrelated to the modern use of the term.

And,

The modern use of the words "intelligent design", as a term intended to describe a field of inquiry, began after [1987].

Restoring the section should clarify for readers why the modern term "intelligent design" is distinct from the traditional teleological argument by pointing out specific examples that are unrelated to the DI usage. Yopienso (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree. I think the FA section is an off-topic essay packed with OR and synthesis. I fail to see anything useful in it. The present terse wording is more than sufficient. As for users that are interested in history, there is no history that we could possibly document prior to Thaxton's hearing the term. I don't understand how mentioning previous unrelated uses is going to clarify anything to the reader. If anything, it's likely to confuse them. And I can't see how that can be done without OR and synthesis, or wandering far afield from the topic of the present article.

I see what you're trying to get at, clarifying to the reader the distinction between ID and previous incarnations of the teleological argument, but I don't think that focusing on the usage of the term is an effective way of doing so. The real distinction is that the DI version drops explicit mention of the conclusion of the argument in order to disguise the fact that is is a religious argument. Usage of the term is of peripheral significance, at best, since it makes no difference whether the previous incarnations made use of the exact words "intelligent design" or not. It's trivial that some of them did. The distinction is between ID and all previous incarnations of the teleological argument, not only those that utilized the exact words "intelligent design". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Some of it appears SYNTHed (earlier versions) but Safire's a secondary source used linking others. (Safire's still there-just shifted to the Panda's subsection.) By the same token, the current article makes the claim, "While intelligent design proponents have pointed out examples, they have failed to show that these usages had any influence on those who instigated the intelligent design movement." That needs a notable secondary source, for sure. And can we find a better published version to source the claims there than this blog of Matzke? Articles packed with snipes get people's backs up and just help perpetuate some of the strife back here on the talk page.

These earlier usages are trivial, but we're talking about a handful of *sentences* appearing deep in the article.  ??? I don't think for a minute that this is what all the fuss is about. The very first FA version and the featured version were both completely about the DI brand of ID. The two "origins" sections simply provided historical backdrop to DI's ID and are still here. As the Safire reference emphasizes, the term was never in wide use and vanished into obscurity 75 years or so before Thaxton coined it. This exchange may demonstrate the real dilemma here. The notion that DI's ID has pushed non-DI ID off the page since the FA was awarded isn't true. Throughout this article has always been approx 30 pages of DI-ID with a handful of quotes or references to earlier uses of the term in the Origin of the term section. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

"The very first FA version and the featured version were both completely about the DI brand of ID." Precisely; that's the reason for my three bulleted points above--to show the article has always been about DI's ID.

For me as a layperson interested in this stuff, the material I requested to restore is clarifying. I am extrapolating from my experience that it would also be clarifying to other non-specialists who have heard about intelligent design and want to know more about it. Yopienso (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Right. I'm opposed to OR or synthing any content there, but what is linked with secondary sources is fine. (I'd prefer another source to this particular blog post by Matzke-he's a RS, but as is often the case in blogs, this piece is laced with snark.)

But, I'm saying, we need to be realistic. That content sat in the article for years while the disputes over DI went on, regardless. The disputes didn't spring up because the content was removed. Instead it seems some of the disputants pointed to those refs to rationalize plumping up non-DI related content and eliminate much of the DI related content--as leverage, in other words. And as a result, the content was removed as being a source or furthering of confusion/dispute here. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

{ec}I don't have much to say, so I'll just throw this out there and fade out: I think the 2007 "Origins of the term" section is unnecessarily lengthy (do we need to list every instance in which the phrase was used?). Perhaps instead of reinstating this section, someone can propose a trimmed edit thereof. Just a suggestion. I like that the section explains that the term intelligent design, before its adoption by creationists, referred to the teleological argument. I think this is the most important aspect of this proposal: it must be clear that the term has been used in two distinct subjects, and is not the common name for the teleological argument (as it is with ID).

Also—as even more of an aside—I share Professor marginalia's concern that this discussion delves deeper than was made explicit. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I looked the version just at it became article of the day. But the wording from both that one and the Oct 3rd one (correctly) only claim the DI version is the primary (but not sole/only) instance/version. And they both also contained the sourced earlier history material which has since been removed. North8000 (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Initial FA version (intro) : "Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,"
• Featured version (intro) : "Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute"
• Today's version (intro) : "All the leading proponents of intelligent design are associated with the Discovery Institute "

Distinctions without any difference, imo. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they all use qualifiers (e.g. "leading" and "primary") which make it clear that it is not a claim that the DI is sole. North8000 (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

And so...what's the difference again between those FA versions and this one? Professor marginalia (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

If you mean this part, it is that the current wording essentially claims that DI is the only version of ID, the FA version (rightfully) does not make that claim. North8000 (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

"current wording essentially claims that DI is the only version of ID"-sorry. Still not seeing it. "All the leading proponents are" is the same as "its leading proponents all of whom are" is the same is "its primary proponents all of whom are". Professor marginalia (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• If you say "A motorcycle is a vehicle with two wheels" you are making a claim that all motorcycles have two wheels.
• If you say "the most prevalent type of motorcycles has two wheels" you are not making that claim.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

We don't have "a motorcycle is a vehicle with two wheels". We have three virtually identical variations on "the primary form of a motorcycle is a vehicle with two wheels" and an attempt to explain why two of them are okay but the third isn't. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, we were talking about two different things here (the confusion is my fault). The particular sentence above from the current version is not problematic. The one that claims that "a motorcycle is a vehicle with two wheels" is "Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute" North8000 (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. For background, that edit was discussed here and was made to resolve another disputed edit adding the adjective "religious" someplace. The wording came from the "This article" qualifier that's been there for years, and resolved the "religious" edit by more prominently identifying it as a form of "creationism" here.

But restoring it to the original featured article version doesn't resolve the issue over DI because the lead sentence read, "Intelligent design is the claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." And that's DI's definition, pure and simple. Paley's argument had nothing to do with natural selection or "best explanation" of natural phenomenon, and these other names raised here from time to time such as Collins, Gingerich, etc, do NOT agree with it. They accept natural selection etc. DI's the "first cause disproves natural selection" view. So it would be equally misleading to apply it to these others that editors propose as non-DI exceptions.

So it comes back to THIS article being about DI's ID-and everything in it pertains to that ID. It alway has been, and going back to the featured version doesn't change. If we're talking about changing the wording a bit or rearranging so it doesn't sound so sweepingly, absolutely, definitive as "there is no thought but DI's about an intelligent design in the universe" let's just take care of it. But I don't support overstressing either. I don't support overstressing the notion that DI universally applies in absolutely every case where the phrase "intelligent design" is used, but I also don't support overstressing the obscure exceptions or devoting any of the article to pedantically documenting one-off instances of the term used where the words are merely used together to illustrate a loosely related argument. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The ID brand

Previous uses of the words "intelligent design" are a side issue, generally referring to the design argument but not to the ID brand. That brand arose at a specific time, as a rebranding of creation science in 1988. Safire covers that: "The term intelligent design came up in 1988 at a conference in Tacoma, Wash., called Sources of Information Content in DNA," recalls Stephen Meyer, ... "The phrase became the banner that we rallied around throughout the early 90's." Safire notes John Morris taking up the phrase as an explicitly creationist reference to Paley's design argument, and "the marketing genius within the phrase".
As Padian and Matzke note, "Contrary to Paley, the whole point of ID is to establish that miraculous supernatural intervention was required in the history of life. The possibility of a lawgiving God is not good enough; what is desired is scientific confirmation of an Old Testament God, actively and personally interventionist. ID is not a generic religious apologetic for the existence of God; it is a specific apologetic for the existence of ubiquitous miracles".
We should clarify that point, rather than obscuring it with primary sources that happen to use the same phrase, but lack good secondary sources relating it to the term as used in this article. We should briefly note earlier use of the term for the teleological argument (or design argument) for the existence of God, but not give a list of examples: if that can be well enough sourced, it could form a sub-article rather than reintroducing the extended coverage this article had at one time. . . dave souza, talk 17:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that the heading "WHY THE DI’S VERSION IS NOT YOUR FATHER’S ‘ID" from the Padian and Matzke source you just referenced says it:

• ID existed before the DI version,
• The DI version is a version (i.e. subset) of ID.

North8000 (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

This is why I think we should include the Oct., 2007 section on the origin of the term: to show, as per Padian and Matzke, page 30, "how it [DI's ID] differs from classical ID theology." Yopienso (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

{ec}North8000, I think you're giving too much stock into creative license here. In that section, the author specifically refers to William Paley and "Paleyism," which is the teleological argument. And yes, ID is a subset of the teleological argument. The problem here is that you are conflating the teleological argument and ID, leaping from the facts that ID is a subset of the teleological argument and that the latter has used the phrase intelligent design, to an unsubstantiated claim that ID is therefore the common name (or brand, as dave souza put it) for the teleological argument. The teleological argument already has an article. If you want to rename it, request a move of that article. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The rename was just a suggestion for a quick solution. My real proposal is to, revert it (in the problematic areas) to the version that achieved FA. North8000 (talk) 18:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

You want to revert the entire article? And lose 4+ years of improvements? I don't see that as a beneficial change and would suggest smaller-scale proposals. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)North8000, what you're doing here is classic WP:SYNTH. What you're saying is that the section title implies the existence of other things. This is, however, your conclusion, not something that's actually supported by the text. The fact that it's a dubious conclusion, (you seem to miss the meaning of the quotes around "ID") is incidental. You're going beyond the source, you're reading your own preconceptions into the section title. Guettarda (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

You might want to strike this comment, Guettarda; it's unproductive. Certainly the subtitle WHY THE DI’S VERSION IS NOT YOUR FATHER’S 'ID' implies the existence of "your father's 'ID'." Part of the reason for P & M's article and for this WP article is to explain the difference. We should neither deny the existence of the one nor conflate the other with it. Yopienso (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd missed the point that the issue is fully covered under Intelligent design#Origin of the concept. To clarify the connection, I've added "including instances discussing the earlier teleological argument that appearance of design shows the existence of God" to the Origins of the term section. Darwin's letter covers this, and shows Herschel's footnote discussing "intelligent direction". This extract from a book about ID discusses Darwin's comment, Bowler 2003 pp. 202–204 discusses that comment in relation to Paley's design argument. . dave souza, talk 10:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Guetarda is correct. The quotes areound "ID" are there for a reason. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

But "ID" is in quotes. "Your father's 'ID'" isn't ID, it's the teleological argument. He's contrasting the teleological argument from ID. The teleological argument is a different subject that has its own article. It has used the phrase intelligent design, but is not commonly known by that name.

Here's my problem with this suggestion: the proposal seems to change this article into a copy of the teleological argument. So, are you folks suggesting that the teleological argument should be renamed to "Intelligent design," and this article renamed to "Intelligent design (Discovery Institute)"? Because, if so, this discussion will need to be brought to the attention of the editors on that page (the teleological argument) as well. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

No, the use of logic to arrive at conclusions is common and allowed in talk pages (e.g. conclusion such as that a talk page argument is unsound) . If one creates articl space contente out of that conclusion, then it is wp:synth. North8000 (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The thesis of that section wasn't about "which idea does the term 'intelligent design' legitimately apply to" but "the idea called intelligent design today is not your granddaddy's (Paley's) argument from design". The key distinction they are making is that ID not being presented as a theological argument for existence of God (traditional argument from design) but a scientific, empirical theory competing against scientific, empirical evolutionary theory to describe origin and diversity of life the natural world. We go round and round about this, but always end up back at the same place: WP:COMMONNAME Professor marginalia (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

North8000: if it can't be used in the article, you shouldn't waste people's time with in on the talk page. I've asked you before what your actionable suggestions were. You said you wanted to rename the article, but when I asked you to stop talking and make a proposal, you refused. Now you say that you're making arguments that you admit can't be used in the article. Please read WP:NOTAFORUM and abide by it. Guettarda (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

And to everyone else who's engaging - it takes two to tango. If North8000 wants to speculate about the hidden meaning in Nick's choice of a section title, don't engage him. Guettarda (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

You posted while I was writing my note to you above. Yopienso (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

@Guettard, it's not a "hidden meaning" in the title, logically it is explicitly expressed in the title. North8000 (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Only if your grasp on the English language is tenuous at best. Please see Quotation_mark#Irony and Scare quotes for an explanation of exactly why these quotation marks are being used as they are. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

It is also explicit in that section of the article that the "design argument" (or "argument from design") is the common name for "your father's 'ID'." North8000, you appear to be getting increasingly tendentious. . 21:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

As usual, I understand Professor Marginalia's comments and generally agree with them. So I will bow out of this conversation now, endorsing his views (which are compatible with the majority's, I believe.) Yopienso (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

While having a look for relevant sources, I found Forrest's testimony which draws an explicit link with earlier published uses of the phrase "intelligent design", so added examples together with this source. Now all we need is a bio of Richard Bliss. . . dave souza, talk 22:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Add Definition Section ??

I'm feeling the article is in need of a prune but more immediately references cite to supporting material that define the topic. Per Q3/A3, 'papers that support ID should be used as primary sources to explain the nature of the concept' but also 'The article as it stands does not cite papers that support ID' so ... WP is saying this goes on for 36 screens and about 200 cites of criticisms but never defines the concept being criticized ?

I have seen the archive 20 part 27 chasing this, and the archive 31 'bamboozled' view of strawman that ended with just put whatever it is in, and the archive 53 'semantics III' and such. Would it be feasible to add a 'definition' section like Irreducible complexity has or to put in a section to explain why no definition is being posted  ? Markbassett (talk) 18:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly sure what you mean. The concept is pretty simple. What would you like to see added that goes beyond the first three sentences of the lede? Which sources would you use? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

As said, the WP guidance in Q3/A3 is that 'papers that support ID should be used as primary sources to explain the nature of the concept' -- and WP also says this does not, which is obviously visible because the article starts at a conclusion "is a form of creationsism", and first cite is NCSE ('defending the teaching of evolution') website to their summary of Kitzmiller conclusions. From the talk pages it seems that it is not feasible or acceptable to start with a primary source definition of the topic like 'Intelligent Design, as promulgated by Discovery Institute, is <insert DI definition> <insert cite to DI item>' and THEN move on to article about that topic. How "as promulgated by Discovery Institute" or this "form of creationism" differentiates it is getting left unstated. So is a para talking about definition para as done for Irreducible complexity an acceptable way forward ? Or is there some other way of addressing documenting the definitional difficulty ? Markbassett (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Long story short, it was a decision by some editors to limit the article to the DI version, and other non-DI ID material was removed. So far, that is just an article scope decision. But as you point out, the first sentence (which essentially equates the two in both directions) is not RS'ed, and is probably not RS'able as written. North8000 (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Your speculation lacks reliable sources. . dave souza, talk 23:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Which talk page discussion item is the type of thing that you are saying would need to be sourced:

1. It was a decision by some editors to limit the article to the DI version of ID
2. Other non-DI ID material was removed
3. #1 & #2 is just an article scope decision.
4. The first sentence essentially equates ID and the DI version of ID the two in both directions
5. The first sentence is not wp:RS'd
6. The first sentence is probably not RS'able as written.

All 6 are about this article. Are you saying that I should have to find a wp:RS that has written about this Wikipedia article?

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is not helpful as only actionable proposals lead to action. If someone has a suggestion, please just make it. That is, what text should be added or removed or changed? A brief "why" and some sources would be good. Johnuniq (talk) 00:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

"Viz. creationism, politicization of" would make for a succinct article. Long day, grumpy. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

As Johnuniq said, specific changes ought to be proposed here. I have to admit, I'm not quite sure what Markbassett is talking about: the definition of ID by the DI is the second sentence in the lead ("The Institute defines it as the proposition that 'certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.'"). We have the definition, but no definition section. I kinda doubt we have enough material for a whole section, but if anyone feels up to the challenge, please propose something. If I recall correctly, we did have the definition as the first sentence for quite some time, but we transposed it because the most recognizable feature of ID is its religious association (i.e. it is widely regarded as creationism).

North8000, some comments/questions:

1. Yes, but not arbitrarily. We're informed by WP:UCN.
2. What material was removed? And was the subject of this material ID or the teleological argument?
3. Sure... but again, this is informed by Wikipedia policy.
4. It does?! How?
5. The lead does not need RSs.
6. I very highly doubt that.

In any case, the answer is the definition is there; it's the second sentence in the article. Is it not enough? Should it be moved? Specific proposals will move this discussion forward. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggest expanding the scope to origin-of-life/universe-ID identified in RS's as such. Without that it gets a bit awkward, but something along the lines of "In 19XX, the DI began an effort to promote their version of ID........ This has become the most prominent form of ID. North8000 (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

For that, you'd need sufficient reliable secondary sources using the term intelligent design to identify the "versions". Primary sources referring to the teleological argument and happening to use phrases such as "intelligent design" are obviously insufficient. WP:UCN applies, and the same applies to kitchen suppliers using "Intelligent Design" as their brand name. . . dave souza, talk 19:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem is just that the way Q3 is written is confusing. The ID definition already here does come from the appropriate primary source. The FAQs "article as it stands does not cite papers that support ID because no such papers have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals" refers not to which sources are appropriate to the "definition" of ID but which sources are appropriate to describing the "science" behind it (or more appropriately, the absence of these sources). And intelligent design and irreducible complexity are not the same things-they naturally have different definitions. Irreducible complexity is defined in this article, and its stand-alone article is wikilinked where the term appears in the lead. I think this is the best way to handle it. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Sorry-I initially misread the OP's meaning referring to IC. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

So I made a brief comment, and then somebody inappropriately implies that the comment is deficient for lack of sourcing. I gently question/call them on that. Then someone says that anything but a suggested change in not useful, so I give a couple ideas on ways to fix it. Then Dave pretends that I never included the origin-of-life/universe qualifier in my suggestion and thus invents a straw man version (all instances of the term "intelligent design" including kitchen cabinets) to mis-characterize and insult my idea. This is descending into old ways; I can see that my thoughts are not wanted by some here, and so I'll sign off on this thread. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

North, your patience with these guys still amazes me. Haven't you learned by now that they have no interest in having their POV removed or modified in the article? Even though the term "intelligent design" has existed long before the Discovery Institute, the DI has usurped the term ID and these editors fully support that POV. Because of DI's misbehavior, then it makes it easy for them to negatively color the broader (and older) concept of looking for (and testing) evidence of design in the universe that long precedes the emergence our species. Anyone, no matter what their credentials are (again, I bring up John Polkinghorne, Freeman Dyson, Owen Gingerich), if they make any association with the concept of design, this article will immediately stain that with the antics of the DI. It's like the editors here doing that are collaborating with DI, which has the effect of false association that both groups like. (DI has it's reputation raised when they are falsely associated with reputable scientists that happen to make reference to the term: "intelligent design" and the anti-ID editors can simply write off authors that challenge their way of representing intelligent design by simply and falsely associating them with DI). It's hopeless, North. 71.169.180.23 (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

(Added later) I think that that is an accurate assessment. Other non-DI ID material was removed. Being an atheist myself, I am obviously not bringing up these issues to pursue a RW POV. I believe that the topic of (origin of life/universe-related) intelligent design should be fairly and properly covered as such. Defining it as limited to a recent prominent semi-political variant is most likely an effort to deprecate it, which I believe is not proper for a Wikipedia article, despite the fact that I do not agree with any form of ID. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, I don't think this a confusion over old references to "intelligent design" vs DI's ID. It's a confusion about what Q3 means or how to apply it. The definition pf ID in the lead has two cites-one to the NCSE but the other to DI (a primary source as alluded to in Q3). And I assume the NCSE cite has slipped out of place because the quoted definition doesn't seem to come from there. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't the Teleological argument article cover all the stuff this one by design (heh-heh) omits? "Long story short, it was a decision by some editors to limit the article to the DI version, and other non-DI ID material was removed. So far, that is just an article scope decision." (Posted above by North8000 on 17:19, 13 May 2013.) Seems to me that everything people wish were in this article is in that one. Yopienso (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

But then the article is mistitled, perhaps "Intelligent design (Discovery Institute)" is more accurate. But, as it is titled, the topic matter must include whatever "intelligent design" meant before the DI ever existed. That line does not necessarily lead solely to DI. There are other reputable thinkers with creditials that have written about the term and take a different position than DI. It is manifestly not neutral to axiomatically couple the notion of "intelligent design" to whatever DI says it is, or only authors associated with DI. It is conveniently biased. 71.169.180.23 (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

John Polkinghorne used the term "intelligent design" to refer to DI's intelligent design as well.

Look, the issue at hand isn't "scope" (as North8000 pointed out), but Q3 and sourcing. The source is now consistent with Q3. There was also a question about whether a definition section as in irreducible complexity is appropriate, and we've had several posters point out that it is premature to recommend adopting one here before having any sourced content in hand to put in it! The "definition section" in irreducible complexity consists of 3 quotes, 2 from the same fellow, both men quoted are affiliated with DI. Here we have one analogous quotation in the article, from DI, and now that the source is cleaned up, I myself don't understand what anyone else finds lacking with it. Can we please not hijack this thread grousing over extraneous issues? Professor marginalia (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

IP, it appears that you want Wikipedia to reflect three separate, distinct subjects: the teleological argument, ID, and ID (Discovery Institute). Do you have sources—I'd say they'd pretty much have to be secondary for this level of organization, but maybe someone will correct me...—detailing the differences between ID and the teleological argument? Or ID from ID (Discovery Institute)? I did a brief search and couldn't find anything other than Owen Gingrich using uppercase letters for the DI's ID and lowercase letters for the proposition he supports (which, from cursory glance, looks like the teleological argument).

Also, could you folks please stop with the persecution syndrome? There is no concerted effort here to protect a POV page; you just haven't sufficiently supported your assertion with reliable sources. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I was fading out, but now you are calling my well-reasoned comments and observations (e.g. about non-DI ID material having been removed) a "persecution syndrome". The artificial narrowing, and the unsourced and unsourcable OR wording (the one-to-one equation of ID with the DI version) is based on nothing but what the proponents of this here have decided. Such is a significant error at best. North8000 (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

North8000, that's not what I said. I was not referring to your observations about the article, but the rude and/or disingenuous comments made to insult fellow editors. We did not arbitrarily title this page "Intelligent design"; it was not just a whim decision we had one day. We are operating under Wikipedia policy, and that phrase is the most prominent name for this subject. Nor are we excluding information due to personal bias. I have asked for sources, and I'm still asking for sources. What is the unsourceable wording? What are the sources talking about an ID that is both distinct from that of the DI and the teleological argument? You say you're an atheist, so you must recognize the persuasive power of evidence. Provide the evidence... change our minds. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 03:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

"The artificial narrowing, and the unsourced and unsourcable OR wording (the one-to-one equation of ID with the DI version) is based on nothing but what the proponents of this here have decided. Such is a significant error at best." In response I'd characterize the accusation itself as "significant error at best".

As has been repeated a hundred times at least-there are separate articles for the DI launched intelligent design and the teleological argument. Those battles over which of the two is more deserving of the auspicious title "intelligent design" can go on ad nauseum- fair enough. But that's a battle over the TITLE. Meanwhile the DI's intelligent design article (whatever it is called) is poorly served by editors who are so fixated on the unfairness of it bearing the TITLE they can't see passed it! It's that simple. Separate the battles over the title from the battles over content! Because these efforts to leverage the title away from the DI brand of intelligent design by exploiting every point raised as an opportunity to win territory, to wedge in non-DI related material does not leave readers better informed. It presents them a crazy quilt of lazy crap research! DI intelligent design warrants a stand-alone article, and wikipedia's readers deserve it be described accurately.

So-those of you that think THIS article does not deserve the title, more power to you. Fight to change the title. But fight fair. But don't dumb down the content of the article under the title, don't dismantle the legitimately focused content in this legitimately separate article in order to accomplish it. OK? Professor marginalia (talk) 05:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank for that response which, though I don't agree with all of, is very thoughtful compared to the inflaming maneuver-ry tactics employed by some. I think that I will respond by answering your one question and then fading out on this thread (unless someone stokes it again with another insult), leaving the big discussion for another day. The unsourced and unsourcable statement is that of a one-to-one correspondence between ID and the DI version. To illustrate I'll use a more mundane topic example. Let's say that some editors decided that the motorcycle article was to cover only the 2 wheeled versions, and that the three wheeled versions would be covered in the "Tri-wheel argument" article. (The Tri-Wheeled Motorcycle Club would be rightfully angry but that is a different topic) A statement that "A motorcycle is a 2 wheeled vehicle" is a statement that "motorcycle" includes only 2 wheeled vehicles, would be an incorrect and unsourcable statement. So, the statements that say "ID = the DI version of ID" are unsourced and unsourcable. North8000 (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Eh? We show multiple sources defining ID as a form of creationism, and making it clear that it differs from the traditional design argument by attempting scientifically to demonstrate repeated miraculous intervention in the history of life, while claiming to be science and not a religious argument. Your analogy fails: you seem to be arguing that motor tricycle should cover motorcycle because it's a subset of the broader category. Interestingly, motorcycle gives little coverage to motor trikes: the ID article gives quite a lot of coverage to relevant aspects of the design argument. Starting with the first paragraph of the lead, which notes that it is a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God. . . dave souza, talk 15:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your first sentence, but logically it does not refute or even directly address either the main or sidebar point in my post. Using the "set" terminology, this article:

1. (sidebar point in my post) Makes a poor choice of having the superset as the title and having the scope being only the subset
2. (main point of my post) Makes an inaccurate, unsourced and unsourcable statement that the superset is the subset

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to get or give ulcers over this. I'm taking a break on this. If anyone wants me please ping me. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

North8000, again this discussion appears to boil down to how we apply WP:UCN to these two subjects: ID and the teleological argument. Your claim that the superset (the teleological argument/"i.d.") is presented as the subset (ID/the DI's ID) seems to be a matter of interpretation. I don't see anything explicitly stating that the former equates to the latter (in fact, the third sentence in the lead distinguishes the two), so it looks like the problem is merely semantic; the title, "intelligent design," is equivocation only if you've already presupposed that this phrase is the common name for the teleological argument. This may be the case, but you haven't substantiated it. Please provide sources illustrating that ID is indeed the most prominent name for the teleological argument. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Just looked up "Intelligent design" in Britannica. "Intelligent design was formulated in the 1990s, primarily in the United States, as an explicit refutation of the theory of biological evolution advanced by Charles Darwin (1809–82). Building on a version of the argument from design for the existence of God advanced by the Anglican clergyman William Paley (1743–1805), supporters of intelligent design observed that the functional parts and systems of living organisms are “irreducibly complex,” in the sense that none of their component parts can be removed without causing the whole system to cease functioning." Its 2006 Year In Review specifies, "The ID movement took shape in the early 1990s with the work of Phillip Johnson, a legal scholar, and first came to national attention in 1996, when Michael Behe, a molecular biologist, published Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (2nd revised ed., 2006)." Both go on to describe its presentment as a scientific refutation of Darwinian evolution, and its organized activism to see ID introduced as a scientifically sound alternative in public school science classes. It's clearly the same DI-ID described in Britannica as described in this article, although this one goes much more in depth.

If there are sources inappropriately used here referring to a different "intelligent design", the non-DI affiliated "intelligent design", they should be cleaned out. But are there any? Can't be many, I'm sure. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

History

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Stale, lacks sourced proposals for article improvement

A minor clarification; as the article shows, ID was morphed from creationism/creation science in 1987, the ID movement came together in the early 1990s and joined up with the DI in 1993 to gain funding and support. Thus wrong to say "the DI launched intelligent design" but otherwise completely correct that ID is a distinct version of the teleological argument: the current articles are correctly titled, and cover the relevant issues. . dave souza, talk 08:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Do ID proponents agree with this version of its history and basis? If not, then I think we need to include a definition which expresses their side. Cla68 (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC) I guess I should explain what I'm thinking here. IMHO, any article on a religion, philosophy, or scientific theory, whether it be theistic science or not, should be primarily presented as the adherents of that belief see it. Then, later in the article any criticisms that exist can be added. This way, the idea is presented more neutrally and fairly for the reader. The observer can then read the rebuttals or criticisms in the lower part of the article and decide for themselves. Cla68 (talk) 23:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Once again, Cla, you apparently fail to understand NPOV and want to promote pseudoscientific views out of their mainstream context. Look for reliable third party sources. . dave souza, talk 10:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC) Dave souza is quite rightly correcting me above, not any misstatement made in the article. I used the phrase DI launched above on the talk page, but it's more correct to describe that within a few years the young movement established its home at the DI. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Once again, Cla, the biased and non-neutral editors of this article that insist on portraying ID in the article simply as they perceive it (as a creation of the DI or of those who founded the DI), are turning the principle of NPOV on its head. Doesn't matter what the history is (the history is that ID existed, as a concept and in writing) long before DI, long before Dembski, Behe, " Of Pandas and People", Kitzmiller, or any of that. Doesn't matter that others, much more scientifically respectable authors than DI, have referred to ID in a manner differently than the DI does. All this doesn't matter because these authors insist on equating their personal POV as "NPOV". Unlike other contentious articles (e.g. Political status of the Palestinian territories), no opposition nor moderation to this controlling POV is tolerated. If you press too hard, the editors here will label you "disruptive", and will get you Community banned, even using other false accusations to bolster their justification. They have done this before and they may do it again. This is a biased article, and the biased editors like it that way. And they own the article.71.169.180.121 (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Perfessor, you've just proven my point: You cannot tolerate criticism and opposition, you make up "facts" (I am no banned user) and you act to silence criticism or opposition. 71.169.180.121 (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC) SPI pending. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC) IP, instead of posting whiny diatribes, provide sources. I don't know how many times I've asked for this. Sources, sources, sources! WP:V!!! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC) I've done so many times (citation of authors who have referred to the subject in a context other than DI and sometimes specifically separating themselves from DI). I'll add one more: Francis Collins. "Whiny diatribes" is just more evidence of a biased mindset. You're not listening. 71.169.180.121 (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Names are not sources. Please provide sources (i.e. titles of published work). -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Source: Collins's own Language of God describes ID almost exactly as it's described in this article--as a new movement founded by Phillip Johnson circa 1991, later joined by Behe and Dembski, and presented as a scientific theory, though it fails (per Collins) to qualify as one. Collins describes its aims (to upend the "atheistic/materialistic worldview" that's supposedly a consequence of science's methodological naturalism) as outlined in Johnson's Wedge of Truth and DI's "Wedge Document". Professor marginalia (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Good grief, the atmosphere on this article's talk page sure could be improved. For example, I gave my opinion above on how I think the article should be constructed, and another responded by insulting me, "Once again, Cla, you apparently fail to understand NPOV and want to promote pseudoscientific views out of their mainstream context." Then, an IP has his remarks repeatedly lined-through before an SPI is conducted. Is this article currently under any ArbCom discretionary sanctions? If not, it appears to need some administrator intervention. Cla68 (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Please point out where you made a constructive proposal to improve the article? I see nothing of the sort. What I do see is a proposal that is completely at odds with our policies and guidelines, and Dave was correct in pointing that out. And for pointing out that this is not the first time that you have made proposals that do not conform to our policies and guidelines. If you want your proposals to be taken seriously, they must be 1) backed up by reliable sources, and 2) conform to our policies and guidelines. Otherwise, you're just farting in the wind, wasting your time, and ours. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC) @Cla68 - The IP is obviously user:Rbj who has left the same diatribe here essentially word for word, dozens of times, since being banned. (Diatribes, which, you should note, are certainly "insulting" to editors here). The IP's two posts were lined thru once - one at a time - and came after I privately advised them following their earlier return here to appeal the ban if they want to edit again. The theatrics over this action anyway aren't justified. It's SOP. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Cla68, I'm unaware of any administrative action, but if it will finally bring an end to this discussion, I whole-heartedly welcome it. We have this same conversation every few months, starting with a random person making any suggestion about changing the article, followed by North8000 claiming that the scope of this article is too narrow, followed by the IP composing a long-winded indictment on the rest of the editors here. No sources are ever offered, North8000 fades away because he doesn't care enough to pursue the case further, then we wait another few months to have the exact same conversation all over again. I'm sorry about the attitude, but hopefully you can understand the frustration of literally having the same discussion over and over and over and over. I appreciate your opinion, but dave souza is correct: we cannot present a failed hypothesis (at best) as a viable, scientific theory. Take a look at Flat Earth ("an archaic belief") and Phlogiston theory ("an obsolete scientific theory") for example; we simply cannot, in adherence to Wikipedia policy, proffer ID as a valid scientific hypothesis. If you feel that the subject can be better explained, please propose changes supported by reliable sources. Contrary to popular belief, we welcome improvements to this article. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 06:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC) You keep having the same discussion over and over because a big mistake was made back when which which an immense amount of / continuous stream people have pointed out and which the same 4-5 editors keep fighting off and fighting off the repair of the repair of. Artificially narrowing the scope, improperly renaming all other intelligent design as "teleological argument", removing sourced material on intelligent design because it does not conform with what the 4-5 people prefer ID to mean. Maybe a thorough, friendly, intelligent RFC would resolve it. Alternatively the whole thing could be fixed in 1 minute by renaming the article to be the DI version of ID instead of ID. Then the 4-5 here could have this article scope be the way that they want it, which is limited to the DI version. Then an article on ID in general could someday sprout. North8000 (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC) It would be helpful if you proposed sourced changes. Commenting on other editors without proposing changes isn't productive. Guettarda (talk) 12:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC) Recognizing the problem with the article IS useful, and is at the core of what I said, so quit the crap of pretending that I was just talking about editors. But here is s specific change that would fix it: Change the title to "Intelligent Design (Discovery Institute)" and tweak any conflicting wording to align with that. The would render the other issues moot. North8000 (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC) Yes, we know what you think, but... sources!!! I don't understand how this is difficult. Would someone--anyone--please provide sources illustrating that there is another ID! Everytime I ask for sources in support of this change, the only person to respond is Professor Marginalia... with strong citations against changing the name. Sources, sources, sources!!! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 13:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC) I consider that to be an evasion. Titling the article to match the content that YOU want in it does not require sources. North8000 (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC) North8000, this is a featured article. It does not reflect the personal view of any one editor (or several editors) it is a neutrally written article which reflects the consensus of the reliable sources used. If you have a suggestion, bring it with a source, or preferably several, since this is one of the best sourced articles on Wikipedia. If you intend to continue your low-level personal attacks on editors, look forward to your upcoming block. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua 15:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC) Actually, if the article were to be reverted (in the problematic areas) to the way it handled it when passed as a Feature Article, that would solve the problems. North8000 (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC) What in what I said above would you consider to be a "low-level personal attacks on editors," and second, severe enough to merit a block? North8000 (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Still waiting for an answer on this question. North8000 (talk) 10:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Still waiting for an answer on this question. North8000 (talk) 11:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC) You might be waiting for a long time. It still won't stop them from drumming you outa here (on the charge of "personal attacks") anyway. 12.226.82.2 (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Still waiting for an answer on this question. North8000 (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Terribly rude of KC to be diagnosed with cancer and have surgery without making sure that she answered all your questions first. Guettarda (talk) 00:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Nice try playing that card. That started months before she came here, and she started the conversation here and dropped the above bomb here during that. Also see her talk page, has been active blocking people; the last post was about reversal of one of those. Still waiting for an answer on this question. North8000 (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Bizarre remark, North, your pestering KC came after the onset of her illness had been announced, and she'd be well advised to ignore what looks like trolling on your part. If you don't think "I consider that to be an evasion. Titling the article to match the content that YOU want in it does not require sources" is a low level personal attack, then I'm sure you can find an uninvolved admin to help explain it to you. But not on this page, which is for properly sourced proposals to improve the article. Enough. . . dave souza, talk 14:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC) I'm not playing any "card". KC responded to your comment the day she got the results of her biopsy. While other people, whether they agreed with her or not, wished her well and let her have some peace while she wrapped her mind around that (and had her surgery) you kept complaining about the fact that she hadn't answered you. You posted that shit the day after her surgery. One day after her surgery you're pestering her for an answer to your demand for a response. One day? FFS man, get over yourself. Guettarda (talk) 02:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC) No, the entire history has been of KC pestering me and me trying to disengage. What they did on this page is an example. North8000 (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC) It's not an evasion; it's Wikipedia policy (emphasis mine): “ Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title resembles titles for similar articles, precisely identifies the subject, and is short, natural, and recognizable. This page explains in detail the considerations on which choices of article title are based. It is supplemented by other more specific guidelines (see the box to the right), which should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies, particularly the three core content policies: Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view. ” To be clear, you, North8000, are the one using WP:OR to try and change a title you want to be something else, despite any rational reason for doing so. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC) North8000 - so you're saying you want to make a move request? There are instructions at WP:RM. Do that - make your case and we can start afresh. In the meantime, I think it's best if we end this conversation - it doesn't strike me as going anywhere useful. Guettarda (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC) OK, now that someone has mentioned FA status above, here's a better way to fix it. Revert it to the form it had when it attained Featured Article status. That version had none of the current problems that everyone has been raising. For example, it contained the other sourced non-DI ID material which has subsequently been removed, and it's wording said that the DI version is just the prominent instance of ID. North8000 (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Please identify one significant difference that such a change would make, and outline why it would be beneficial, with sources. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FWIW--A scholar refers to ID

In the recurring conflicts over the definition of ID, the following paragraph from Mario Livio's immensely readable popular history and assessment of mathematics, Is God a Mathematician? (Simon and Schuster Paperbacks, 2009, p. 84) may at some point be a useful ref. I've bolded the most relevant part of Livio's comments wrt to Pope John Paul II's 1992 "rehabilitation" of Galileo:

To be fair, the Pope found himself in a no-win situation. Any decision on his part, whether to ignore the issue and keep Galileo's condemnation on the books, or to finally acknowledge the church's error, was likely to be criticized. Still, at a time when there are attempts to introduce biblical creationism as an alternative "scientific" theory (under the thinly veiled title of "intelligent design"), it is good to remember that Galileo already fought this battle almost four hundred years ago--and won! Yopienso (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Yopienso, an interesting thought. Without the book to hand I'm a bit unsure of the context, as the Galileo affair was rather more complex than the common Galileo gambit would suggest. However, the point does stand that there have been problems in the past of reconciling religious doctrines with the findings of science, and biblical creationism/ID takes one approach, which is to deny the science. . dave souza, talk 06:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

My thought was to quote a scholar of Livio's stature who refers to ID as a thinly veiled title for bibical creationism. The back cover (and our BLP) note he "is a senior astrophysicist and head of the Office of Public Outreach at the Hubble Space Telescope Science Institute . . ." The context was in relating the "Galileo Affair" toward the end of a brief (23-page) examination of Galileo's life and, specifically, his contributions to mathematics. The reference to ID was entirely an aside.

Type "intelligent design" into the search feature on this page to see pp. 81-84 (and lots more!)

I read Livio's book on the golden ratio several years ago, and find this one perhaps even more fascinating. It's a fun summer read for the layman--nothing technical to wade through, perfect for a history buff like myself who likes to know ABOUT math and mathematicians but doesn't have the brains to actually DO math. :-) Yopienso (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Revert warring on intro

[1] Does the Discovery Institute or other advocates of ID state that they intend it to be considered as a scientific theory? If so, then the intro should say something like, "Intelligent Design is promoted as a scientific theory by its proponents, but described as creationism by critics and observers" or something like that. Otherwise, it appears that we're taking one side's opinion and putting it in WP's voice. Cla68 (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

We go by what the reliable secondary sources say. The DI is not a reliable source, even about itself. They have a long and sordid, and well documented, history of misrepresenting themselves and their motives in their promotional materials. Basically, anything they have to say about themselves or their product has to be treated with extreme suspicion, per WP:SPS and WP:REDFLAG, and filtered through reliable independent secondary sources. Whether the DI considers ID a scientific theory is immaterial, as no one else does. It is an extreme fringe and unduly self-serving claim. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, what you are proposing would not conform to WP:NPOV, especially WP:UNDUE and WP:GEVAL. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Cla68, I suspect that would be presenting "pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views," which is prohibited per Wikipedia policy. I believe the following passage from the guideline on Pseudoscience and other fringe theories most accurately describes our situation. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

“ 2. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. ”

Did you guys read my suggested sentence? It presents the idea in a neutral fashion by explaining how the idea's proponents AND critics see it. That's NPOV. It does not put it as a scientific theory in WP's voice and it makes it clear how critics regard it. Also, doesn't the article point out that DI is not the only organization which promotes and supports ID? Cla68 (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, your interpretation of what "neutral" means here on WP is grossly divergent from what our policies say. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Is DI the only proponent of ID? Also, would you consider what you said above about DI, "They have a long and sordid, and well documented, history of misrepresnting themselves..." as a neutral interpretation of their actions on this issue? Cla68 (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Your question was irrelevant. And yes, what I said above is well borne out by the reliable sources. And, I might add, by the DI itself. See the Wedge Document. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Cla68, I did read the sentence you proposed, and I felt it presented a pseudoscientific, fringe view on equal footing as the scientific consensus. That's why I stated as much. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 00:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The scientific consensus is that the proponents of ID don't propose it as a scientific theory? That appears to contradict what the sources say. Cla68 (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Cla, your sentence fails WP:GEVAL. As I'm sure you know. If you're going to propose changes, please do so with an appropriate discussion of sources. Guettarda (talk) 01:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Cla68 if what you mean is that we should comment on the fact that the proponents of ID push it as a scientific theory, then this is already stated in the second sentence of the WP:LEAD: "It is a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins"rather than "a religious-based idea"". Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 01:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Guettarda, WP:GEVAL, IMO, doesn't apply here because the proponents of ID are not the minority view. They are the majority view (of ID, not evolution vs creation). This article isn't directly about the overall debate between evolutionism and creationism. It's about the philosophy of intelligent design. Therefore, the article should present the philosophy as its believers present it, as well as the criticisms of it. It's their idea. To present the topic from the stand point of discrediting it from the outset is not a neutral presentation. The NPOV policy requires that nonjudgmental language be used. This article and talk page is full of pejorative, judgmental language favoring one side over the other. A good example above is the statement by Dominus Vobisdu justifying his position in which he/she says, "They have a long and sordid, and well documented, history of misrepresenting themselves and their motives." Would you say that this is an NPOV statement? Cla68 (talk) 04:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Cla68, please do not misrepresent my statement again; that is extremely dishonest. The scientific consensus is that ID is pseudoscience, therefore, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, and as I stated earlier, we cannot present it as an equally valid view. The fact that ID is purported to be scientific by its proponents—a fact that is already in this article—is entirely irrelevant. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 05:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Cla68: Your mistake is in thinking that ID is some sort of "philosophy". It isn't. It's a legal ploy to skirt a supreme court decision and fool gullible politicians, school board members, and members of the uninformed general public that it's more than just plain old Creationism. Look behind the curtain, and there's absolutely nothing there. No science, no philosophy, just plain old Creationism in a pretty package.

Sorry, but you're coming across as woefully ignorant about the topic of this article, and that you're relying almost entirely on your imagination of what ID is. Your view is definitely not based on what is written about the topic in reliable sources. Quite the opposite. As you've been told before, you are conflating ID with the Teleological argument, which, unlike ID, is philosophy.

Second, your reading of our policies, especially WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE is so divergent from that of your fellow editors that it any suggestions along the line you have been taking for the past year or more are likely to be taken as nonsensical. We do not provide a free platform for fringe proponents to present their product as they themselves describe it. That is against our policies.

Last of all, please stop making proposals that are not supported by reliable sources and do not conform to our policies. That is disruptive, and an abuse of the article talk page. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Cla, your proposed text is Intelligent Design is promoted as a scientific theory by its proponents, but described as creationism by critics and observers. This puts the proponents of ID on equal footing with "critics and observers". But the people you describe as "critics and observers" not only represent mainstream science and philosophy of science, they also represent the bulk of people who have written scholarly work about what ID is.

• WP:GEVAL, IMO, doesn't apply here because the proponents of ID are not the minority view - the question "is ID science" was the basis of the Kitzmiller trial, and the conclusion was clearly and unambiguously against them. There's a wealth of scholarly work on the topic as well, both pre- and post-Kitzmiller, which have looked at this question - Pennock, Forrest, Sober, and others. We should refrain from supplanting high-quality scholarly sources with your opinion.
• Therefore, the article should present the philosophy as its believers present it, as well as the criticisms of it. It's their idea. To present the topic from the stand point of discrediting it from the outset is not a neutral presentation. Again, I refer you to WP:GEVAL: Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. This comes directly from our NPOV policy; the policy exists as it does precisely because of topics like ID.
• A good example above is the statement by Dominus Vobisdu ... Would you say that this is an NPOV statement? - Really? You're arguing that NPOV applies to talk pages? That's tedious nonsense, if not outright disruption.

Again, as I asked you in my last post, please stick to a discussion of appropriate sources. Your (unsupported) opinions are not an appropriate substitute for sourced content. Guettarda (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Cla68 should know all that by now, which makes Cla's comments look like trolling. The requirements are also well covered at the WP:WEIGHT and WP:PSCI sections of NPOV policy. However, Cla's heading raises a question: what revert warring? Diffs required, and note the plural. . dave souza, talk 17:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

It is true that "DI is not a reliable source ... about itself", but they are a reliable source about what they say and what position they represent. The DI are the sole reliable source about what their own position is. If these biased editors insist on making the article about solely what ID means to DI (which they shouldn't because the concept, even the precise term, has existed long before DI), then they should faithfully represent what DI says ID is and qualify it as such. But, of course, that is not their intention and you, Cla68, as well as many other serious editors who have objected to the obviously biased tone of the article (not to mention content, a violation of WP:NPOV that would not be tolerated in any other major article in Wikipedia), have identified the clear inconsistency with their professed intent. While it is true that "DI is not a reliable source ... about itself", so also it is true about these editors who esteem themselves as neutral. While it is true that DI has "a long and sordid, and well documented, history of misrepresenting themselves and their motives...", it is also so about these editors. And neither DI nor these biased editors are willing to come to terms with the fact.

Watch out Cla. "trolling" ... "disruptive" ... "outright disruption". They're angling to ease you out. And if you don't take the hint, your exit might have less ease in it. 12.226.82.2 (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Please stop whining. We are acting according to Wikipedia policies, even those you conveniently omit in your posts (i.e. WP:GEVAL, WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE, and WP:PSCI). If you don't like how this article is handled, take it to a noticeboard. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

History sections

I had removed the material in what is now the "origin of the concept" section before as tangential to the topic, and would like to know why this cannot be better handled simply by a VERY brief treatment relying essentially on wikilinking to Teleological argument, Watchmaker analogy, and Creation science, with a very brief mention that Creation Science is the direct parent of ID and was likewise a ploy to circumvent court decisions.

There are several problems with the stuff on the teleological argument, the main one being that it equates the legal and political ploy of ID with the theological concept of the teleological argument, in other words, it equates apples and oranges. ID is not a form of the watchmaker analogy, nor is it a form of the teleological arguement in general. It merely uses a castrated teological argument as a tool.

Another problem is that it confuses the reader about the scope of the article.

Also, can anyone give a good reason why the discussion of earlier unrelated terms should be kept in the "history of the term section"? If they are unrelated, then they don't belong in this article. The only link I can see is that ID'ers have sometimes deceptively pointed out these sporadic unrelated usages as proof that ID has a long history. However, that's pretty much trivia, in my opinion. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The arerelated to intelligent design and the arehistory of the term. But, per the above, the previous much more encyclopedic,well sourced and less problematic version of that section should get restored. North8000 (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Mere assertion, giving undue weight to primary sources and your synthesis. . dave souza, talk 11:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with North8000 and encourage the editor who removed the section to restore it. I don't agree that it is undue weight to primary sources and I don't believe that North8000 is engaging in inappropriate synthesis. Cla68 (talk) 12:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Unsurprising, but your argument lacks merit. . dave souza, talk 12:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

@Dave Souza: Actually, I was particularly interested in your input when I started this thread. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, in my opinion it was a useful trimming of unrelated content which, by going through each item in detail, gave undue weight to the unsupported supposition that earlier use of the words in connection with the design argument had anything to do with the introduction of the term as a synonym for creation science. . . dave souza, talk 12:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Where did the "your synthesis" come from? I'm talking about (and listed) well sourced encyclopedic material was long-standing in the article and somebody removed it. I didn't write any of it. North8000 (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

"The arerelated to intelligent design" when any relation to ID needs secondary sources: the article covers that concisely. . dave souza, talk 12:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

There are no "are related" statement by editors. This is coverage of intelligent design by sources, and sources using that name. North8000 (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

@North And this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary.

@DV I think a brief mention of other uses of the term is warranted. I think the article does this appropriately now. The ID crowd often say that the term predates them, so summarizing and linking to the appropriate articles covers that point. It might be appropriate to trim the section further (I'm not saying it is, I don't really know), but I wouldn't say removing any mention altogether would be an improvement. Just my opinion.   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Jess on this: the information already in the article is useful and appropriate. Instead of continuing this unnecessary arguing, though, I say we wait for North8000's RfC. We've been through this all before and we know how it's going to shake out; no sense rehashing this again. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree. North8000 (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I think DV might be right here. The first two paragraphs of the "origin of the concept" section should go, or be cut down heavily. I think we shouldn't be addressing claims - we should simply say what sources say about the origin of the term. Specifically, I think Nick Matzke's chapter in the 2009 edition of "Is it science?" would probably be a good source to tap here. Guettarda (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing this with a bit more time in hand, I think the first two paragraphs of the "origin of the concept" section cover essential points: what began as a theological argument became part of developing creationism and then creation science, successively adapted to evade laws on teaching religion in schools. Readers have to be informed about Paley's design argument and how ID differs by requiring repeated miraculous interventions, as did earlier forms of creationism. If they can be tightened while keeping these issues clear, that will be good. . dave souza, talk 19:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The "concept" behind ID is not the teleological argument per se, but the strategy to skirt court rulings using a castrated version of the teleological argument. The history of the teleological argument is thus peripheral to the concept. I'm going to try rewiting the section as a history of evolutionism/creationism in public education, culminating in the replacement of the words "creation science" with "intelligent design" in Pandas and People. The problem with the section as it now stands is that it makes ID seem like a philosophical concept instead of a legal one. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

These are fair points, I've tried merging the first two paragraphs and putting the creationist context first. This then shows how Creation Science attempted to introduce creationist teaching in schools, using the venerable design argument which is at the heart of ID but, unlike Paley's version, demands repeated miraculous interventions. This highlights the legal context which was there from the outset. . dave souza, talk 18:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Removal of the citation needed tag

I added a "citation needed" tag on a far reaching unsourced claim, essentially that the historic usages of the term "intelligent design" are unrelated to the modern usages of the term. Someone deleted the tag twice, their first edit summary cwas a incorrect claim that it was already sourced. When I pointed out that that was incorrect, with their second removal they basically said "it's sourced elsewhere in the article, go find and source it yourself". This is a direct violation of wp:verifiability and wp:nor. North8000 (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

He actually said, in quotes, no less, "it's sourced elsewhere in the article, go find and source it yourself"? Or is that something you just made up. (Hint: redact or ANI). Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's the exact quote from the edit summary: "Already abundantly sourced in the rest of the article. If you want, copy those cites here." North8000 (talk) 02:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to be abundantly clear, if I ever see you misquote any editor again, I will personally drag your sorry little ass to ANI. Capisce? (Hint: that was a formal warning). Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Nice try. It was an accurate paraphrasing, and the "basically said" means that it is such and not an exact quote. Now, back onto the topic. Are you going to revert your removal of the tag? North8000 (talk) 02:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with North8000 and Dominus Vobisdu, you owe North8000 five cents for threatening him. Cla68 (talk) 05:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

If that 'threat' is worth 5 cents, what's your threats to out me worth? Surely you should attempt to pay your own debts before trying to bully other editors. Guettarda (talk) 05:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Good grief, more insults. Is this a common theme on this article talk page that editors insult those who they don't agree with? If so, then would some adult supervision, including to me, be justified? Cla68 (talk) 12:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Cla68, your reference to "adult supervision" is a silly insult, please desist and comply with talk page guidelines. . dave souza, talk 12:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

More insults? Sorry if I was being to subtle with my comment. Cla - your comment to DV was off-topic bullying, the kind of misbehaviour you have a long history of, both on this page and on Wikipedia in general. That sort of behaviour is unacceptable. Please stop abusing Wikipedia to advance your own agenda. Clear enough? Guettarda (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

North, read Nick's article, don't just search it for the word "unrelated". It clearly supports this assertion. Specifically: In a desperate attempt to obfuscate this basic historical point, ID guys have dug up various random instances of the words “intelligent” and “design” placed together (although they missed the 1861 Darwin letter, and the 1847 Scientific American article), most of them with absolutely no evidence of having influenced the actual actors in the 1980s who created the ID movement (there are some legitimate precursors, but they are in explicitly creationist works, e.g. Lester and Bohlin’s (1984) The Natural Limits to Biological Change, so the ID guys won’t cite them post-Kitzmiller). If you can find a better way to phrase that information, feel free to suggest it. But claiming that the statement is unsupported by the text is simply untrue. Guettarda (talk) 05:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Setting aside the policy issues for the moment (that it has to be specifically sourced where it is put in) I don't see where it even addresses much less supports that claim. What they are clearly saying is merely that DI guys have been digging up prior uses of the term and that there is no evidence that most of the ones that dug up influenced the DI people. This is not even 1/4 of the massive claim in the article which is that there is no connection with historical uses of the term and modern (DI and non-DI) uses of the term. North8000 (talk) 10:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

What "massive claim in the article which is that there is no connection with historical uses of the term"? Please read the article carefully, and quote it exactly. . dave souza, talk 11:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

(added later) Here it is, straight from the article: "The phrase "intelligent design" has been found in literature unrelated to the modern usage of the term" North8000 (talk) 13:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

And that statement is supported by the source. So what's your point? Guettarda (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Even DV abandoned the wp:snow claim that the sources cited for the sentence support that claim. And the non-cited source given on this talk page also does NOT support that claim. North8000 (talk) 11:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

That's rather back to front. Obvious things (like that Darwin wasn't proposing creationism when mentioning "intelligent design" 150 years ago) don't need gold-plated sources, while someone suggesting that Darwin's words are connected with the topic of this article would need highly reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 11:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

That's the problem with removal of the historical section. The article would be more NPOV with explanations of historical use of the term and philosophy. Cla68 (talk) 12:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The article covers these in full accordance with NPOV, and you're mistaking a historical phrase for the modern term. . dave souza, talk 12:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Should we propose to change the title of the article to "Intelligent Design (modern term)?" Are we positive that DI and its members are the only proponents of the term in recent history? Cla68 (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

We should follow reliable sources, as the article does. . dave souza, talk 12:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Should we ... change the title of the article to "Intelligent Design (modern term)?" Nope. This is the primary topic and there's a dab page that deals with other usages; cf. Wikipedia:Article titles.
• Are we positive that DI and its members are the only proponents of the term in recent history? Are you saying that you have sources that suggest otherwise? If so, share them. As you must know, it's not about being "positive", it's about reflecting what sources say, in an appropriate manner. Guettarda (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

@Johnuniq, that is mixed up. Your incorrect premise is that the statement/claim is that historical uses are unrelated to the topic of this article. Unless you are acknowledging that this article should cover all modern ID, that conflicts with the actual statement which claims that historic uses of the term are unrelated to modern uses of the term (not to just DI). North8000 (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll be mostly off wikiki for several days and am in no rush. That should provide some time for Dominus Vobisdu to revert their removal of the tag, an action that is in clear violation of policy. North8000 (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Source: "And Pandas, first published in 1989, was the first book to systematically use terms like 'intelligent design,', 'design proponents,' and 'design theory.' It is true that occasional instances of the concatenation 'intelligent design' of 'intelligent Design' can be found in the creationist literature, and even (rarely) going back to Darwin and before, in discussions of teleology and the classical argument from design for the existence of God. But Pandas is the first work to enshrine the term 'intelligent design' in a glossary, and the first work to disavow a connection between 'intelligent design' and creationism. Before the Kitzmiller case made the fact embarrassing, Jon Buell, in a 2004 preface to the 3rd ed of Pandas, noted proudly that Pandas was 'the first place where the phrase intelligent design appeared in its present use'." Matzke, ed. Ruse and Pennock, 2009 p 379. That should do it. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that informative and thoughtful response. If I read it correctly, you are saying that the source supports (I would call it bolsters) the statement that the DI version of ID is distinct from the historical use of the term. I would argue that such still falls short of the farther reaching statement "unrelated", but the DI ID aspect of the question is just a sidebar to the most dubious unsourced inclusion/assertion in that statement. Since it is a claim that historical uses of the term of unrelated to modern uses of the term, the claim does not limit itself to the DI version. And so it is also an unsourced claim that the historic uses are unrelated to the "teleological argument" modern uses of the term intelligent design. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The entirety of the Matzke article makes it very clear they are not the same. The teleological argument is a religious, theological argument for God. ID proclaims that it is not the same-they insist it is not a theological claim about God but rather a scientific theory which best explains certain features in nature. You don't teach theology in a science class--proponents of ID are demanding to be taught in science class. You can't teach religious doctrine in public schools-it's unconstitutional. Proponents of ID are working to assist and support teachers who teach ID as an alternative scientific theory to natural selection. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with everything which you just said, but it does not address my point which is that the sentence essentially make the same claim for non-DI ID. A tweak would sufficiently settle it, and if someone removes the tweak, that would make the issue clearer. If nobody removes it I'll consider the whole issue 80% resolved which would be enough to not worry about it. North8000 (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Geuttarda just (re) expanded the "unrelated" claim. While it removes the resolution of the issue, such will help clarify it. I gave the unsourced (and unsourcable) expansion a citation needed tag. I will be mostly or fully off wiki for a week. North8000 (talk) 10:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

"Discover Institute usage"?

I reverted this edit by North because it creates a neologism and fails in terms of factual accuracy. Replacing "modern usage" with "Discovery Institute usage" is problematic - sources don't call modern usage "DI usage". We don't just invent terms.

Equally importantly, "DI usage" isn't an accurate descriptor for what we're talking about here. Pandas was published half a decade before Chapman was even aware of intelligent design. Darwin on Trial was also published before the DI got involved with ID, and Dembski (and Behe, iirc) were well on their way to formulating their ideas about ID well before the DI got involved with it. While the DI has become the leader in the ID movement, the major intellectual pillars of the field were erected before it had anything to do with ID. Speaking of usage "unrelated to the DI usage" would be misleading, since it could easily include Thaxton, Kenyon and Johnson. "Post-McLean usage" might be more specific than "modern usage", but that would still need to be very carefully phrased to avoid inventing new terminology. Guettarda (talk) 07:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

So, this article isn't about the DI version, it's about the Post-McLean usage version? North8000 (talk) 10:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Haven't you read the article? All the leaders are associated with the DI, some of these same leaders published Pandas and Darwin on Trial before they joined the DI and the DI then became central to promulgating this relabelled creation science. . dave souza, talk 17:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

North, your distinction makes no sense. What you choose to call the "DI version" is a subset of the "post-McLean" version. The pre-DI versions did not suffer the fate of the Cathedral of Chalesm. Real history is not retconned. Guettarda (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Sources don't or support what you just (re) expanded the claim to, that historical usages of the term are unrelated to ALL modern usages of the term. This is absolutely unsourced and as a SIDEBAR comment, false. I am going to be mostly or fully off wiki for a week. North8000 (talk) 10:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that we discuss changes people make to the article before revert-warring the changes, as apparently happened here. It's more civil and more in-line with WP's policies. Cla68 (talk) 11:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Cla68, your suggestion is at odds with policy. Again. We don't keep attempts to overturn a consensus and introduce misinformation.. . dave souza, talk 17:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Cla, you're familiar with WP:BRD. You know that it's standard editing to revert well-meaning edits that introduce factual inaccuracies. All you're doing here is trying to poison the well and pick fights.

Cla68...has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring, inappropriate use of sources, and comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality

The fact that this isn't a climate change article doesn't mean that you're free to engage in the same sort of behaviour here. Guettarda (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

More insults and confrontational language directed at me. All I did was make a suggestion and the response was an attack on my character. Just wondering, is this the norm for this article's talk page? Cla68 (talk) 07:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Cla, all you did was complain about actions which are fully in accord with policies, while introducing your own curious idea that inaccuracies should be left in articles until discussions have finished. Wrong, and uncivil on your part. Please desist from your Civil POV pushing. . dave souza, talk 09:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Ever helpful, I've reviewed the sourced information and avoided the term "unrelated", which seems to be the focus of this dispute, in rephrasing our summary to follow the source more closely:

"The words "intelligent" and "design" have been found put together in earlier literature discussing the teleological argument that appearance of design shows the works of God, but while intelligent design proponents have pointed out some examples, they have failed to show that these usages had any influence on those who introduced the label in the intelligent design movement."

Hope that amicably resolves this argument, . dave souza, talk 17:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

comment

this article is blatantly biased. seems like there's a darwinist on a serious agenda here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.137.229.20 (talk) 10:39, 18 August 2013

You are correct on your first statement: Wikipedia in general is biased towards reliable sources. On subjects of biology reliable sources generally come from scientists, sometimes philosophers, and less often well researched journalism. Being that ID is taken seriously by neither group the article is quite in line with site guidelines. If you are looking for a perspective that eschews research/evidence based perspectives on science you might find something like Conservapedia more to your liking. Either way, you should read the FAQ at the top of the page as it's almost guaranteed to answer any concerns you might have.

On the second part, "darwinist," I'm not sure if you know this but Darwin died many many years ago and evolutionary research has far surpassed the general outline he provided in Origin, so I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who subscribed strictly enough to Origin such that they could be called darwinist. "Biologist" works just fine, or even better "Wikipedia editor." N^oformation ^Talk 12:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm Darwinist (assuming that by that you mean a believer in evolution) and an atheist but agree that this article in the incorrect state of being a "hit piece" against beliefs otherwise. Due to the situation here, it will take time and outside eyes to fix it, so interested persons should put it on their watch list and participate. North8000 (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

This is very vague, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Darwinist?? While I do of course accept the importance of selection, here we try to be neutral, or at least nearly neutral. But I digress. What article improvements are proposed, with reliable sources? . . dave souza, talk 17:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

See above proposals, which are a start. North8000 (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Alternative draft

I've started a new draft here: User:Atethnekos/IDdraft. Right now it has a draft lede section, some headings and a partial bibliography. The contents of the bibliography as they are now I think are good examples of the sort of sources that are appropriate for this alternative version. I invite anyone to help build it or even just deride it. I don't expect the draft to develop quickly, but I think it could be quite good when it is completed. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, will try to find time in a day or so to have a look. You might find the first link below of interest, it's a book about Schiller which specifically notes the DI's claim, and says Safire has the publication date wrong. . dave souza, talk 10:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Ha, couln't resist a peek so have suggested a more accurate title, and a minor correction. . dave souza, talk 10:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Atethnekos. I'll probably place comments on the talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you're trying to duplicate the Teleological argument under a new name. Why not just move/delete this page and redirect there instead? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I reverted your title dave, but I am sympathetic. Maybe in the end it could get a title Intelligent design and philosophy of science? I don't know what the final form of the draft would be! So I can't say for sure. Philosophy of intelligent design just seems bizarre to me: it really suggests that there is some distinct form of philosophy with respect to intelligent design just like there is a philosophy of science, or philosophy of mathematics or philosophy of art, but any "philosophy" of intelligent design is just philosophers of science writing in the normal modes of their field.

MD: A teleological argument would be one of the forms of argument used by advocates of intelligent design, but just like I said above, they are not the same thing. For the same reason, Presuppositionalism would not just be a duplicate of transcendental argument for the existence of God, although certainly presuppositional apologists use that argument. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 17:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Atethnekos. Do you have sources that support this claim? I looked at one of the sources you have on your page (the one you've used to define the concept) and it states:

“ Teleology in biology is making headline news in the United States. Conservative Christians are utilizing a teleological argument for the existence of a supremely intelligent designer to justify legislation calling for the teaching of "intelligent design" (ID) in public schools. Teleological arguments of one form or another have been around since antiquity. The contemporary argument from intelligent design varies little from William Paley's argument written in 1802. Both argue that nature exhibits too much complexity to be explained by "mindless" natural forces alone. ”

I invite everyone to also take search the Encyclopedia Brittanica for "intelligent design" and "argument from design." These are the subjects people expect to see when they visit their respective pages, and I don't see any sources yet produced that contradict this expectation. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Which claim? That the teleological argument and intelligent design are not the same thing? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I think even the source you quote supports that, as it is saying that a teleological argument is used to bring it about that intelligent design be taught in classrooms. I do not believe Ariew is in any way implying that intelligent design is used to bring it about that intelligent design be taught in classrooms, nor that a teleological argument is used to bring it about that a teleological argument should be taught in classrooms. I think it's clear that he distinguishes intelligent design from the teleological arguments that are used to establish it. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. It appears to me that he is equating the teleological argument with intelligent design with these two, paired sentences: "Teleological arguments of one form or another have been around since antiquity. The contemporary argument from intelligent design varies little from William Paley's argument written in 1802." In other words, teleological arguments have a long history, and the contemporary version (i.e. intelligent design) varies little from one of the most famous examples thereof. They are the same thing. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you could justify that reading. The contemporary version that you call "intelligent design", he calls "the contemporary argument from intelligent design". I think it would be just wrong to read "contemporary argument from intelligent design" as equivalent to just "intelligent design". That implies either that Ariew holds that intelligent design is a contemporary argument from itself, or that really Ariew has two definitions of "intelligent design" which he uses side by side in a paragraph but never makes the distinction between them explicit. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes these debates become harsh sounding. I just want to say I'm glad you raise these concerns, and I just disagree because I have my own opinions. I think I'm right, but I don't mean to imply that I know with absolute certainty that you're wrong. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Please note one of the pre DI references I found above referred to the "argument for the existence of God from intelligent design". It seems clear to me that people develop short form names for these arguments and sometimes might use just the word "design" or term "intelligent design" to stand for the "argument from...". But technically, intelligent design is a term used within this argument and not the argument itself, nor even its conclusion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing links

Ok, Safire seems to have gotten the date wrong, and evidently the DI were promoting Schiller as an antecedent,[2][3] but F. C. S. Schiller does provide a useful link when we find that his essay "Darwinism and Design", published in the Contemporary Review for June 1897, evaluated the argument from design in the light of natural selection, and said of objections to teleology grounded in natural selection, "it will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of Evolution may be guided by an intelligent design."pp. 128, 141 Also, Forrest points to the significance of a 1970 book by the young Earth creationist A. E. Wilder-Smith – it specifically uses computery calculations of complexity to support Paley's design argument, and talks of "the intelligently designed part of nature known as man". So have boldly updated the "Term" section accordingly, while using footnotes as discussed earlier to avoid cluttering the text with slightly offtopic detail. . dave souza, talk 10:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Move the article

In the spirit of compromise and achieving a solution everyone will despise equally, what if we moved this article to Intelligent design creationism, and made this one a redirect to Intelligent design (disambiguation), where we will need to add the newly moved article? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It appears the IDC page is a redirect to Neo-creationism at this time. I think, if a move is rejected, we should at least redirect IDC here instead of neo-creationism. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

One thought.....if the scope of this article remains limited to the DI version, would it not be better to reflect that in the title? E.G. "Intelligent design (Discovery Institute)" And if not (and presumably it would then cover the closely related meanings ID to some extent ) that the title should be broad enough to cover them? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no "DI version." ID is not inextricably linked to the DI, it merely happens that the DI is the main purveyor of the creationism that uses the name ID. So no, we don't want to name the DI in the title. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Not pushing any particular idea, just talking......At the beginning of the article it says "This article is about the form of creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute." That actually defines it via the Discovery institute. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

promulgate (v): promote or make widely known (an idea or cause) -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I thought about that before I posted. (assuming that you are pointing out that promulgate doesn't mean own) My point is that the article scope is officially defined via the DI. I.E. if DI is promulgating it it's in scope, if not not. North8000 (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

ID isn't necessarily linked to the DI, but many have made the point that, because this is so often the case, it is important to note. This was a particularly important fact in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case in determining that ID is not science, as is purported by its proponents. The DI is merely the most prominent organization promoting ID, and their definition accurately conveys the anti-evolution sentiment that characterizes this type of creationism. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that if I practiced what I preach and treat the disambig line as just that (and not an official definition of scope) then what I said before is not valid. Then "form....promulgated by the Discovery Institute" the "DI" is just a useful indicator of "which ID". North8000 (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Source searching

• Interesting to note that googling the fuller name "argument from intelligent design" gets a lot more non DI hits, (plus a lot which link DI ID to other types). Also this as a possible keeper concerning the ultimate origins: [4]. For those interested to search for works on the Greeks, the Greek word translated as "design" in the named passage appears to be gnōmēs which implies English "by design" (by intention, on purpose, marked). The word I find translated sometimes as design in Plato's Timaeus is paradeigma, more implying that there is "a design". In Plato and Xenophon, it should perhaps also be noted, words such as "intelligent" are sometimes translations of phronēsis and related words, not only nous and related words. (Aristotle made a clearer distinction, and indeed had a rather special for of this argument.) The Xenophon passage also repeats the metaphor of the craftsman (demiurge)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Interesting source, and as you point out translations doesn't seem to be straightforward. Ahbel-Rappe makes the statement that "In one passage, Socrates makes what appears to be the very first argument from intelligent design to demonstrate the existence of an intelligent creator god." However, Ahbel-Rappe then quotes the passage in a translation which makes no mention of intelligence – it compares things with "no sign of what they are for" with "things which evidently serve a beneficial purpose", one being the product of change and the other of design. Straight out of Paley, with the emphasis on teleology (purpose). Ahbel-Rappe then describes this as "a distinctively unscientific theology", far from atheism. Compare and contrast with ID. . dave souza, talk 09:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Here is a nice analysis of the Xenophon passage aiming to explain Socrates' "religion". It uses the term intelligent design.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I should perhaps have mentioned, given Dave's comment above, that this second source also tells us which Greek word in this exact passage discussed above is "intelligent design" or design. It seems pretty authoritative, as versions of this paper have been printed into various collections. Sedley discusses the exact same passage.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe worth mentioning that this source, like many others, does NOT use scare quotes around "intelligent design".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Continuing on the above search, I found this [5] by Ayala. I mentioned Ayala and Larry Arnhardt above as two writers I have heard of being teleologists but believing in evolution. Anyway, his paper more or less equates the "argument from intelligent design" of Aquinas (his 5th proof of the existence of God), Paley, and ID - maybe not the exact arguments, but he clearly thinks the term means the same thing in all cases. He notes that the ID movement deny the necessity of concluding there is a deity, but says they are not being honest about that. So he is consistent with many other sources, but his exact use of words and clarity makes this a useful source.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Great find, this is a very useful source. Note its sub-head: "THE ARGUMENT-FROM-DESIGN". In the text, he uses argument-from-design when describing the arguments of Aquinas and Paley, but when discussing Darwin's attempt to solve Paley's problem, "Organisms exhibit design, but it is not “intelligent design,” imposed by God as a Supreme Engineer, but the result of natural selection..." – note how he puts "intelligent design" in quotation marks. He then uses the phrase without quote marks as a term for Behe's ID. Bottom line: the general term is the argument from design, ID is called intelligent design and includes Behe's attempts to claim scientific validity. . dave souza, talk 09:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, looking around to me it is clear and open that careful authors are now having to be careful about using the term "intelligent design", because it can be taken to mean the movement. That is effectively what WP is doing as if it is a new consensus, but apart from the problems this can cause for our coverage old sources, we still have post DI sources who stick to using the term for pre DI ID even today, and we have sources explicitly saying that pre and post are one thing, and hence there is no clear consensus to grant DI the term. Indeed "argument from design" is clearly still a short form where "intelligent" is understood and is a word that has always been found in the same discussions (so definitely not a coincidence). And another problem is that to the extent we use DI as the authority, they are deliberately not clear what they mean by the term. All that is clear is how they use it politically. This is all very challenging for us to find a way to give the right weights to things of course, and to decide how to divide coverage over the various affected WP articles. Eventually we might need a broader RFC, but for now I think we are still grappling with it. Maybe in the meantime we will find neat consensus solutions. I like the idea of Atethnekos's draft page because it gives a place we can play with ideas.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Just noticed that on the title page of a work like this one [6] the Library of Congress category is marked as "1. Intelligent Design (teleology) 2. Philosophy, classical". The work also uses the term intelligent design in classical contexts, and clearly sees it as a terms with a constant meaning, but I am getting used to seeing that in dozens of sources now.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

"Intelligent Design (teleology)" could be a good title for the article on this philosophical usage, as could "Intelligent Design (philosophy)" or perhaps even "argument from intelligent design". However, first it has to be shown that this more generic philosophical usage differs significantly from teleological argument. .dave souza, talk 09:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• The big old Oxford dictionaries are helpful. They show that "design" as in argument from design goes back at least to the 1600s in translations of Grotius which of course brings us back to the time when people were writing in Latin and transferring Latin terms into English as terms which could be understood by readers. There are not many e-texts I can find so far. The Oxford entries also show how designare in Latin had a similar range of meanings to gnwmh in Greek.

• Sorry, I should have given the detail. It was specifically Thomas Manley's 1665 translation of de rebus belgicus, Annals and History of the Low-countrey Warres.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Something to be careful of: it is pretty clear that books and journals in recent decades are sometimes using blogs, progaganda, and wikipedia itself as their source for the origins of this loaded term. Keep this in mind especially before invoking COMMONNAME.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

For example, you give a link for the title page of Creationism and Its Critics in Antiquity by D. N. Sedley, who notes on p. xv of his preface that the book is based on lectures he gave in the U.S. in the context of the American creation/evolution debates. It doesn't invalidate his credentials or the book, but does indicate why he might refer to "intelligent design" on occasion. . dave souza, talk 10:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes he is creationist I think? But I do not see any sign he is using WP, blogs, etc as a source. He sets out his explanations based on the original sources, and is not I think even consistent with the DI take on the history of the idea. You'll also note that on Atethnekos's draft that for many/all of his points I was interested to cite I have found multiple sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

His preface suggest he's not an anti-evolution creationist, indeed he finds that belief obsolete among his colleagues, but a feature of the U.S. debate to be considered when lecturing there. Hence his use of the phrase 'intelligent design" when explaining arguments in that context. Have not had much time yet to look at Atethnekos's draft and comment there. . dave souza, talk 13:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure you aren't mixing him up with another of the sources I've mentioned? He does not do this as far as I can see. He just uses the term without scare quotes.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, my use of quote marks, not his. Sorry about the misunderstanding. The point is that p. xv he describes a portrait of Paley, "author of the classic version of the Argument from Design.' [his capitals] making it pretty clear that's the generic term for Paley's argument. He then discusses Darwin's destabilising "Paley's confident arguments for intelligent creation": another term! He writes that 'In today's Cambridge it would hardly ever occur to me to check with my colleagues whether Paley's arguments trump Darwin's", and goes on to talk of touring the U.S. in the creationist context. On p. xvii he describes the Stoics as having developed the battery of creationist arguments broadly known under the label "The Argument from Design" [his quote marks] then at the foot of the page defines what he means by creationism, involving "postulating at least one intelligent designer, a creator god." A descriptive phrase rather than the term intelligent design. Writers like to use synonyms to avoid too much repetition. . . dave souza, talk 19:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks Andrew, for (re)stating the obvious. Unfortunately the editors who think they own the article don't care. Since they say that ID is DI, then there is nothing about ID that exists before the DI exists, and that's that. Don't attempt to reform the article as nasty consequences will result. 12.226.82.2 (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Well to be honest I disagree that all of what I am saying is or was obvious, and I don't think these sources were discussed here before? There is a good argument for cautious step-by-step discussion about this subject, and the first step is trying to gather sources. I think it is a bit unfair to blame other editors for thinking they own the article when they appear to all be following policy and the most obvious sources. It is one thing to have a feeling that there must be some sources somewhere which give a bigger picture, but what I have seen is that it is not easy to avoid being overwhelmed with the mass of circular obfuscating references which the legal debate in America has created. Just to repeat a point I've made, concerning the subject of the precedents of the term ID, before DI, the DI-debate sources are hard to use as RS, because both sides were trying to make a point about the precedents, and neither side was really filled with experts in the history of this term (at least not the sources we've been using). (Biologists are of course reliable about their claims that DI is not biology for example, but that is another question.) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

And of course the IP misrepresents what editors have been saying, where we've repeatedly made it clear that creation science was relabelled intelligent design about five years before the DI got involved. Misrepresenting their opponents is a common tactic of creationists. . dave souza, talk 10:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

There gave been some of the issues that the IP noted. But hopefully we can just move forward and hopefully we are doing so. North8000 (talk) 10:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes I'm happy to assume good faith on the above IP posting.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course I assume the IP is posting in good faith, though their "own the article" accusation is a failure on their part to AGF. Their mistake is presumably just an unfortunate lapse of memory or a failure to look through past discussions. . dave souza, talk 13:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Here is Larry Arnhardt's webpage: [7]. This is another teleologist who believes in evolution. Of course it is better to use materials published as books or journal articles, but it seems a likely place to track things down.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I quite like Larry Arnhart, tho haven't read him so much lately, but not sure why you think he's a "teleologist who believes in evolution" – he undoubtedly respects evolutionary science and accepts Darwinian concepts, but "belief" can incorrectly imply religious faith. For a philosopher's blog, you might find John S. Wiljins of interest. . . dave souza, talk 17:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC) (e.g.) 17:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It is also a while since I read him, but I believe that's how he sees it? I seem to recall he is someone who feels he's developed another kind of teleology consistent with biology and somehow gotten around Hume. That does not mean he has anything to do with intelligent design arguments. I'd really need to spend more time on him to confirm his position. But as a conservative who is not ID he is like the Thomists useful for getting another perspective.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Edward Feser [8] appears to be one of the most vocal of debaters insisting upon the incompatibility of Thomism and Paley. He seems to equate Paley with DI ID.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposal and question

Could we put one "brick" in place by deciding that "Intelligent design" does have significant closely related meanings and usages outside of what was/is promulgated by the DI? Then we could move on from there. North8000 (talk) 12:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

(EC, but maybe worth posting) Can you put your proposal in more concrete terms? Just reading the words you have written I would object that "intelligent design" as such is one thing, and it varies only according to which evidence you point at, and which exact conclusions you come to. The DI movement might seem to make it "another thing" but they are apparently not consistent in this, and no one believes them. I think that is being hinted at already in the article as it stands, but I guess we should be slow and careful in building it up.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that you are right. The intention of my proposal was to go only half way there. (to merely say that non DI ID exists). But I fear that I have inadvertently included an additional implied premise in there (that they are distinct) which makes my question faulty. North8000 (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Question: So then, regarding organization of coverage, the question arises, what is the fundamental distinction between that promulgated by the DI, and other TA based stuff. It looks like most would say that the DI ID (with respect to the belief or theory) is really the same thing, except they are avoiding saying that "God did it" (in order to try to get it taught in schools) , even though we know that's what they really believe. That would mean that their actual belief set is no different. Would it not be more accurate to describe the main entity of the current article as an initiative (= maneuver) that uses the term "ID" as its talisman, rather than as a sort of belief set? North8000 (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Well in recent days Dave and I made some small tweaks to the way we report one of the many Matzke sources, and I think that such tweaks may continue. Already these tweaks are allowing a bit more flexibility, or in other words, we are softening the over-strong and slightly confusing (IMHO) position WP has taken concerning the newness of DI ID. One thing is improving the caution with which we word citations from Matzke. (WP is effectively "imagining" him saying more than he really seems to say.) But a longer run discussion here is that we need more sources than just Matzke. With all due respect to him he was a player in the DI debates, and he does not show much knowledge or interest in non DI usage of the term, at least not relative to the level of energy and knowledge he shows when it comes to DI matters.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

See my proposals on Atethnekos's draft page, for what I think at the moment.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Where is that? Would it not be better to handle that here? Thanks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Atethnekos/IDdraft. It also has a talkpage. I think for now it is a good idea to have a separate page where we can discuss more radical ideas. This talkpage is being loaded up enough, and I think it makes sense to come here with proposals that have been worked on a bit first.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Just to answer the initial question, both ID and creation science share the design argument, but differ from other formulations of the design argument. For an example in philosophical terms, they use a "two model" argument which Pennock describes as a logical fallacy, something also covered by Johes at Kitzmiller. The question is if and how intelligent design in this broader sense differs from teleological argument. If there's to be a new article on this, we need sources showing it is distinct. Of course improvements can always be merged into the TA article. . dave souza, talk 13:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the question of making sure we do not divide our efforts over too many redundant articles is a bigger one than just the one you mention. I think you agree, but I just add it to what you say.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, for me it's not so much an issue of dividing effort, as the danger of a split article becoming a WP:POVFORK. That's why we need sources showing that the topic has distinct differences from the coverage of teleological argument and design argument, which generally appear to be synonyms for intelligent design in the broadest sense. ID remains distinct, as discussed above. . dave souza, talk 13:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Well I guess that merge/split discussions always are a balancing act. We do not want to have BIG blocks of materials in several articles, because what then naturally happen is that the quality decreases. But on the other hand the danger very much in my mind is that if we split the wrong way WP can effectively create "wikitruth" by accidentally censoring based on editor interests. As long as we all avoid the extremes many solutions can work.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Dave, perhaps describing the main complaints in a shorthand version, (along with notes on severity) may show some grounds for graceful resolution.

• Complaint #1: The common meaning of ID in this context is a closely related set of meanings. The article takes the broad title which gives it the impression that it is covering that, when in fact, it only covers the DI relation versions/initiative. For clarity on the next point, let's call the DI version the "political maneuver".

• Complaint #2 It seems to be deprecating non DI-related ID to say that it's main coverage is under an article named "Teleological argument" Renaming a belief set to an "argument" (even it is an argument used to support it) is sort of deprecating.

• Complaint #3 The wording inevitably (and possibly unintentionally) ends up essentially saying that Intelligent design (a term which has a broader common meaning) is (just) the political maneuver. So it reads like a bashing or denigration of Intelligent design in general, that it is just a political maneuver.

Complaint #3 is quite visceral, whereas it is mostly folks dealing with structure etc. that have been raising concerns #1 & #2. And #1 and #2 have led to and are used to support #3.

Concern #4 (added later) I believe the newest concern (expressed by Andrew) is that it is inaccurate to make a distinction between ID as promulgated by the Di, and other ID.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

As Encyclopaedia Brittanica shows, the expected meaning of ID now is the much promulgated creationist version. No one disagrees that the phrase has been used in the past with reference to, or as a synonym for, the argument-from-design or the teleological argument. Indeed the link with the design argument has consistently been shown by those opposing creationism. It's a contested phrase or term, in just the same way as creationism. Theists who consider themselves creationist without rejecting evolution have just had to accept that the term has generally, though not entirely, been commandeered by anti-evolutionists. You may think it's a Great Wrong, but Wikipedia isn't here to right such wrongs. If you prefer argument-from-design as less denigrating, then make the case at teleological argument to move that article. . dave souza, talk 14:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, odd to complain that it's a "belief set' which is surely wrong: it's consistently shown as a theological argument. If theologists have another term for argument, used in this general context, do please provide a source showing it. . dave souza, talk 14:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's not use denigration of editors and inventing false motives for them (e.g. your "Great Wrong" crap) as a way to forward one's opinions. But, addressing the rest of your post, I don't see how your earlier sentences address the core issues. And none of the above concerns take issue with what is in the TA article. Finally, I relisted them not to reopen them here as arguments, but possibly to help find some mutually agreeable ways to resolve them. For example, if the article followed your preference (cover DI version only) and were very clear about doing so (in it's title and wording) the most visceral complaint (#3) would disappear. North8000 (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

What Dave said... in spades. This namespace is the proper place for the creationist ID. Assuming there is another ID that is distinct from the teleological argument--please pardon the fact that I have yet to look through all the sources Andrew presented above--people still expect to see this subject when they search for "intelligent design." And when it comes to the creationist ID, the term was chosen because Thaxton thought it was "a good engineering term," and he "went back through [his] old copies of Science magazine and found the term used occasionally." As far as the sources go, there is no reason to suggest that Thaxton, or any other who helped adopt the term for this neo-creationism, did so because of its history in philosophical and theological literature. To suggest otherwise is SYNTH. Again, this isn't to say that "intelligent design" doesn't have a history; it just doesn't belong in this article. I think the crux of our argument is the common name for these two subjects, and I honestly don't see that getting resolved without outside assistance (hence the DR/N). Maybe we can do something like this though...

• If this article is about the creationist ID, the history of the phrase "intelligent design" beyond Thaxton's adoption of it is unrelated.
• If this article is about philosophical/theological uses of the phrase "intelligent design," then the current article needs to be moved to its appropriate namespace (Intelligent design creationism?) and a new one created.

And North8000, WP:GREATWRONGS is a Wikipedia policy that is pertinent here; I don't think dave souza was speaking ill of fellow editors. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

(added later) They were (falsely) accusing me of having that motivation. Not only out of line, but off topic, and an ad hominem approach. What legitimate purpose is there for putting such a false accusation in the middle of an otherwise real discussion? North8000 (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to say I think North's logic is fine and I want to make it clear that I see no justification for saying that WP policy is against him. In fact this is clearly NOT the case. I'd say the current way WP has divided up discussion of this subject is almost entirely to do with the interests of WP editors.

• In the current article, this is being done on the basis of basically one author-source who, (a) as I have shown, has been twisted to fit a way of thinking which was clearly already in the minds of WP editors, not him (b) was a party in the politics of the thing, and is not an expert on the area he is being cited for in this particular concern (PRE-DI ID). His own off hand remarks make that clear (c) we are leaning especially hard on a fairly casually written blog article (at least it is casual with respect to this particular subject concerning us now.)
• If we look at ANY discussion of the DI ID what definition do we find? Well, what we find is pretty strong agreement that DI's ID is either just the same as old ID, or when they try to deny it, that they are being dishonest. So all our sources point to this being one term.
• Dave, the new source you are bringing in is an online tertiary source. This is also not strong.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC) ADDED: it is also an online version which looks to me like it has been derived from online sources, possibly including WP.
• Thaxton. I can not see how we can report this as anything more than an aside because clearly here we have a source that every other source disagrees with, including creationists! And we have good sourcing to say that the DI people obfuscated.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, it appears that you are talking about Matzke with your first bullet-point, but the source I quoted above was directly from the Discovery Institute. Also, yes, ID is a teleological argument, even though the DI denies any creationist/theological ties. This is because they want the "theory" presented as science so it can be taught in public schools. Regardless of the DI's dishonesty, however, there is no source yet provided that shows the term for this neo-creationism was chosen for any other reason than it sounded good to Thaxton. For Wikipedia to present these two subjects as if they are the same thing simply because they use the same phrase is SYNTH. There are sources you and Atethnekos have presented here that talk about both subjects together, but these sources speak of the difference between them, often referring to the creationist ID as the "contemporary version." This makes perfect sense because ID is a contemporary version of the teleological argument (what you folks are calling ID), but it is both unique and notable enough to have its own article.

{ec} "I can not see how we can report [Thaxton's adoption of the term] as anything more than an aside because clearly here we have a source that every other source disagrees with, including creationists!" I don't recall seeing any of these sources that disagree with this history. Could you please provide these? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It depends what you mean to source maybe. If you mean that he is a good source for what he has claimed in public, sure, but that is something for the movement article, ie the one about the politics, not this one. He is not a good source for how the ID movement came along with the term because we have a lot of sources to show that they tried to obfuscate their connection to past creationists. And anyway, even if his memory can be trusted it is only then about Thaxton, and not necessarily notable. It is clear that even in the DI movement people know that they are using an old term. Matzke even complains about them claiming this in the blog post already being cited by our article. (And I notice he attended a creationist forum to tell them they were silly to run a competition to collect early uses of the term.) This is a case of WP:REDFLAG. Concerning providing sources, apart from just reading the pre-existing sources more carefully, also see my posts above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

If I may, I think you are claiming more than the sources allow. The Matzke source says ID proponents got their arguments "from creationist sources," not that they knew they were using an old term. Even without Thaxton's account, I think it's still SYNTH to equivocate the two subjects. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that a core question is not whether there is some difference, or failure to prove DI acknowledgement of the "roots" (which seem to be the main points of your last two posts) but whether or not the meanings are close enough to 1. Allow 2. Be a force for coverage of all in an article titled "intelligent design". North8000 (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, it comes down to a fundamental difference in UCN. If ID is as you say it is--and I disagree--then yes, you are correct. That's why there is a section for ID in the article for the teleological argument. That's also why it appears that you are just trying to create another TA article here, under a different name. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

No Matzke is clearly talking about the term, and the meaning, but especially the term.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Upon reflection, and to avoid misunderstanding, and maybe even create some understanding, an extra remark: Matzke is clearly talking about earliest use of the term (he is reacting to a creationist posting somewhere), but I DO agree that in this BLOG post, he screws up and confuses whether he is writing about the term or something other than the term. A strong impression I get, which I think is very relevant to our discussion here, is that he is MAINLY saying that he does not care. This is backed up by what apparently happened next. A creationist blog reacted by announcing a competition to find early uses of the term, and Matzke (who joined the competition) criticised them for bothering with this. Therefore we can not take his blog as a strong source at all when he says there that the words only appeared a couple of random accidental times in history. (As part of the competition, he himself found more.) As a general point mind you, citing what is effectively an online debate, is not best practice for most types of information.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• As well as Matzke's article, we also have Meyer's account, reported by Safire, which attributes the term to Thaxton in 1988. We also have copious evidence that the term was introduced in 1987: see cdesign proponentsists. There is also the point that Pandas was the first place where the phrase "intelligent design" appeared in its present use, as stated both by its publisher Jon Buell,[14][36] and by William A. Dembski in his expert witness report.
  That deals with the etymology of the modern term; some of the discussion above conflates the origin of the term with the meaning of the term. As discussed before, sources show that ID differs significantly from the classic design argument. Hence two articles: even if we accept that intelligent design appears or has appeared in philosophy texts as a synonym for teleological argument or argument-from-design, that just make three terms to be covered in the same article and a preponderance of sources show that intelligent design usually refers to this form of neo-creationism. Covering all three in an article called 'intelligent design" is misdirection, or a POV fork. It's toasted. . dave souza, talk 17:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Dave, it looks very much like all these reports about Thaxton come from the same place? Secondly, we know, really we know, that this term did not start to be used with Panda's Thumb. What you are referring to is the way moment in which there was a political decision taken within a political movement to use this term in preference to creationism. But where is your source for saying it thereby got a new definition? This is the thing you have yet to explain using sources. As far as I can see the term is always used the same way, both pre and post Panda? The term always means the same thing as far as I can see, and what varies is for example the person saying it, what they think is convincing evidence of ID, and what conclusions they draw from it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Two sources with rather different accounts of Thaxton picking the term, plus the more generic point that someone changed the term: Thaxton was the editor in chief, Davis and Kenyon as authors might also be suspects but less probable. The DI tried to obscure the change, but were uncovered in court. As for the meaning, multiple sources: Padian and Matzke's paper, and the Kitzmiller conclusion come to mind. The expert theologian Haught notes both the connections and some of the differences, Pennock's Tower of Babel also discusses differences. There are other sources on this issue. . dave souza, talk 19:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, I think you are focusing too much on the phrase rather than the subject(s) to which the phrase refers. The term was around before Of Pandas and People, certainly, but that is inconsequential (WP is not a dictionary). The creationist ID is a teleological argument, so in that sense yes, they are the same. The difference is that ID is a "contemporary adaptation of the traditional theological argument from design for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as 'an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins' rather than 'a religious-based idea'". The difference is that ID has a traceable history to USian creationism. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Please give a source MisterDub, which explains the new definition that DI has given to the old term. I have not seen anyone give such a source, DI or otherwise. I have given sources which say that it has not changed in meaning and that the DI term just means what it always meant. I have seen no source to the contrary, pro DI or contra DI. There is no burden of proof upon an editor to prove that a term in one language which is the same and has the same definition is a new term, but in fact I have already given such proof.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Andrew, I missed the sources which say that it has not changed in meaning and that the DI term just means what it always meant: the sources I've seen use the phrase to refer to the design argument, but don't say that ID is identical to the design argument. Could you start a new section showing the sources which specifically say they're identical? . dave souza, talk 07:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Subsection for sources: the teleological argument presented as science

Of course it means what it always meant. It means, "I don't know... uh... God!" But Wikipedia is still not a dictionary! This article isn't supposed to cover the history of the term (because it's still not a dictionary), it's supposed to cover the history of a subject. The subject, in this case, is the teleological argument presented as science so creationists can get their Christian theology taught in public schools, which just happens to be commonly known as "intelligent design." The name was chosen because it sounded good. The end.

• Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. "Context". p. 24: "The concept of intelligent design (hereinafter “ID”), in its current form, came into existence after the Edwards case was decided in 1987. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child."
• Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross. pp. 5-6: "This book is about the newest form of creationism, named by its proponents 'intelligent design' (ID); but it is, especially, about the organization of the system of public and political relations that drives the movement."
• Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design is Wrong for Our Schools. Eugenie Carol Scott. p. 13: "But as early as the defeat of creation science in McLean, a group of conservative Christians had begun searching for an alternative antievolution view that would not only be legally viable but would also appeal to a broader range of Christians. Creation science, with its stress on biblical literalism and the young Earth, attracts conservative Christians but to most mainstream Christians it appears to be marginal theology and odd science. This alternative became the intelligent design movement."
• Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism. Robert T. Pennock. p. 6: "Entering the last decade of the millennium, a new generation of creationists began to reevaluate the old approach and to recast themselves in order to try new avenues of attack upon evolution. The textbook Of Pandas and People, for example, looks as though it was hand-tailored to try to slip between the lines of the law as drawn in the cases mentioned above. Also, at this time, some creationists began to avoid using the term "creation science" altogether in favor of one or another euphemism, such as "abrupt appearance theory" or "initial complexity theory." The Pandas textbook was put together by the most significant group of new creationists, and the term that they use is "intelligent-design theory," or sometimes "theistic science."

-- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

End subsection: discussion resumes

These sources do not even aim to discuss the subject I asked you to source. You've changed the subject as if I asked you to prove that "intelligent design" was the name of a movement. And your citation of the NOTDICT is clearly tendentious logic, something like "you are thinking too much. It is clear that intelligent design is the name of a movement and we already have an article for it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't know how else to make the point you're apparently still not getting: articles are named according to UCN, and the subject commonly known as "intelligent design" is the creationist pseudoscience, which, as the sources cited previously illustrate, began all the way back in the 1970s-80s. I literally don't know how else to say this. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 03:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to leave no stone un-turned I repeat: no one is arguing against the claim that "intelligent design" is very notably the name of a movement. Sometimes the movement is just referred to as "intelligent design". You do not need to prove this to me, because I agree. There are also other things referred to in short form as "intelligent design" such as their general well-known positions on certain things. All this is accepted. For the sake of argument I am even willing to believe that Thaxton honestly was at a certain moment inspired by NASA. His widespread claims to this effect are notable concerning the movement and the recent history of the term. But none of this proves that the term has a new meaning. We have excellent sourcing available which is unanimous is saying otherwise, i.e. that the IDM uses the same old "argument from design" (which was sometimes referred to as being the "argument from intelligent design") of Paley, and essentially the same one Xenophon reported, and which is in English described as the "argument from design" or the "argument from intelligent design". (Teleological argument seems to be the newer term, and possibly less used than the other two?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

As below, ID is a distinct topic from IDM, though the two are interrelated. I have no idea if Thaxton was really inspired by NASA, all I know is that he allegedly said he was, and that his author Kenyon had already publicly stated that "biomolecular systems require intelligent design and engineering know-how". Since his term for what he was then defending was "creation science", intelligent design looks like a descriptive phrase rather than a term for creation science. We would need a reliable source to propose that this was anything more than coincidence. . dave souza, talk 18:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, as shown in several sources, the name of the movement is the "intelligent design movement", and what they promote is "intelligent design". Their definition: "Intelligent design (ID) is a scientific theory that employs the methods commonly used by other historical sciences to conclude that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[9] To note a coupld of differences, the traditional design argument is openly a theological or philosophical argument for the existence of god or gods and does not claim to be science, is not focussed on natural selection, and does not presume that natural selection is "undirected". . . dave souza, talk 07:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like the same definition it has always had to me. Your point about science being thrown into the discussion is (a) obviously known to be part of the legal case and (b) a word which DI would not be the only ones to dispute the meaning of. Aristotelians also consider themselves to be scientists. Modern science gave itself new rules after Francis Bacon (especially "no metaphysics"), but not everyone agrees with them. I think the DI disputes in public have shown that they use the word in a different way to modern science. So that particular word can be ignored. Do you see any other difference?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

@MisterDub, speaking only for myself, I can think of about 10 different ways to resolve this, and so have no pre-concieved idea on how this should end up. North8000 (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Then maybe we can talk about some of the ways that don't involve making this a second TA article? Unless I've missed something, that's all I've seen thus far. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

We also have to avoid it being a second article about the movement, and have this article eventually become a dab. I have some ideas about how to avoid both. Basically I feel that if this article deserves to exist then we have to show how the ONE term has a common thread to it which unites TA and ID as a movement. I've been playing with it on the draft page which Atethnekos made. Let's take out time and consider all options. (And in the meantime of course we can discuss concrete changes which perhaps should be made on the existing articles as we discover new sources etc.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think we may need to consider a merger of this article and Intelligent design movement (though I'd argue that the merged article should inherit the name "Intelligent design", not "Intelligent design movement"). I don't really see anything wrong with making this a DAB though. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Those all sound like good ideas. I'd be easy on this, more than you realize, because there are just a few problems, and about 10 ways to solve them.  :-) North8000 (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

In my view this is clear enough that the existing disambiguation page works better, obviously research into new sources and analysis of exactly what they mean is under way. Intelligent design movement is a sub-article for detail that would clutter or obscure this main article, there could be a case for moving more details into that article providing the main points are covered summary style. . dave souza, talk 19:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Concur. I am not aware of any sources that show the common name used for teleological arguments made over the past ~2500 years was intelligent design. Nor any that claim this "commonly used" term was then highjacked by anti-evolution political forces in the 1980s. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

So maybe your source is Wikipedia? Because that's the only source I can find (apart from online sources which seem to have copied WP) that so clearly agrees with you. Please read the discussion above where I have given examples of sources, explained how to run google searches which will find more, and pointed out that even the source this article currently uses to make your claim, actually does not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I have read the discussion above (and the talk page archives). There have been many discussions on this topic and I have yet to see any sources that indicate "intelligent design" was the common name of a topic, school of thought, or argument prior to the 1980s. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

IMHO you added qualifiers to raise the bar even higher than appropriate for inclusion into an article, but IMO the sourcing / evidence provided has met even that higher-than-appropriate bar. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Artifex what are you asking for beyond the evidence already given, and on what basis? Are you just trying to send discussion in a circle or what?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

@Dave That's a whole new topic that I didn't think of, but this article currently looks like an article on the movement. And if, as the article says, they are just promoting creationism, except leaving out claiming that "God did it" in order to get it taught in public schools, how is it that what they are promoting even the topic of an article, distinct from the movement, and distinct from creationism? North8000 (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I can not understand the logic above. Why would we make the article about a term much bigger than this movement only about the movement and then use the movement article for the movement as well? What possible justification can be given? I think there is too much obsession with DI here. We should try to cover all subjects and we must try to avoid creating an alternative wiki-reality.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I think there's more danger of creating an alternative wiki-reality if we go down the route of trying to show that what is most commonly known as the argument-from-design was somehow always known as intelligent design without anyone noticing. There are very occasional examples when Intelligent Design does seem to be used as a term, but most sources keep referring back to teleology or the argument from design as the main term for the general topic. We cover all subjects under the most appropriate name, with disambiguation tags to point editors in the right direction if they come to the more modern topic and expect to find Plato or something. . dave souza, talk 22:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Dave I am sure you know you are arguing with a straw man here and deflecting away from the real subject. I've already agreed that "Argument from design" is the most common name for the argument. But, now that you bring it up, WP is also avoiding that term, in what starts to look like a really consciously thought-out plan to avoid any association between that subject and the Discovery Institute. I think WP:NPOV is really being pushed to the limit there. It is one thing to say that WP does take the side of science over fringe science, but in this case the science is not the subject. I am concerned that we are falsifying the history of this term for political reasons, making WP part of politics. On the basis of very weak or zero sourcing we have created a situation where anyone searching "intelligent design" will be locked into a walled garden of articles which say the term has basically no existence outside the Intelligent Design Movement (which is clearly not true), and this movement is essentially The Discovery Institute. We have articles for all three, but each of those articles apparently says that actually they are all about the same subject. Why?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I would like to repeat my question above. I shall invoke WP:BURDEN given that everyone else does apparently. Where is a source which explains that the intelligent design movement changed the definition, or developed a new definition, for the pre-existing term "intelligent design"? Is anyone able to answer that without changing subject? (by Andrew Lancaster)

That is the correct direction for wp:burden, because that is essentially the assertion in saying that the DI version is a distinct ideology/belief. North8000 (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

This has already been addressed multiple times above. For a start, Kitzmiller. More examples available via List of works on intelligent design. Now, where's a source saying they're the same? . . dave souza, talk 06:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I have not seen it addressed. I have seen people answer such questions by digging up citations the intelligent design movement being something new, never the definition of the term "intelligent design" except maybe in the secondary sense that "intelligent design" is sometimes used as a short term for "intelligent design movement". If I have missed something, why not post it here in a clear way?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

There are multiple articles because the WP:LENGTH of the main one (this article) impels us to WP:SPLIT it into manageable sub-articles. This is the same reason we created the Intelligent design and science article (last year?).

“ Very large articles should be split into logically separate articles. Long stand-alone list articles are split into subsequent pages alphabetically, numerically, or subtopically. For non-mainspace articles, consider splitting and transcluding into the split parts.

When you split a section from a long article into an independent article, you should leave a short summary of the material that is removed along with a pointer to the independent article.

”

-- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 02:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, they're not about exactly the same topic. For example, the Disco Toot existed before it got involved with ID, and did some Bill Gates funded work on transport systems. There are a lot of articles under this general intelligent design heading because it's a sprawling topic, and some don't even merit a mention in this overview: for example, Intelligent Design (book). . . dave souza, talk 06:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

@Masterdub Yes, but there is obviously a question about the appropriateness of the name choices here isn't there? If Intelligent design deserves 3 articles then good on it, but if you start choosing names for the articles which overlap with other subjects this is a valid question for concerns to be raised. I think you know that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

@Dave. You might be right that each of the 3 articles has a different flavour or slight difference in coverage. But see WP:SPLIT about such situations, which makes it quite clear that we should try to avoid situations where articles are mainly made up of overlapping material. I think we are surely stretching that policy? Indeed our articles currently go out of their way to really emphasize to our poor readers that basically intelligent design is only the movement, and basically that movement is only the DI. If that is not true then we should re-write our articles. If that is true, then we should consider merging them or splitting them differently to reduce overlap and redundancy. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Intelligent design is the "new science" promulgated by the movement, and as such it is the main article in the topic area. Sources clearly show the two as distinct topics; for example, the Kitzmiller conclusions discusses both, and uses ID for one, IDM for the other. . dave souza, talk 18:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is ok, but that fits with what I said, ie that there is the movement, and then there is the ID "theory" the ID "science" and probably lots of other ID "things" which are sometimes referred to as ID for short, but there still seems no doubt that (NASA or no NASA) the ID people see the terms "intelligent" and "design" as referring to the same two English semi-technical philosophical-theological terms as they always did, in their classic combination which is mentioned by the OED meaning 4 for "design". In fact the NASA thing is just believable because while googling I see how (quite typically) 20th century business and engineering jargons have picked the term up, just as Enlightenment political philosophers used it referring to the human minds who create laws and institutions. (Those are still the same two terms. Indeed they really do still always go back to a metaphor for a human craftsman. In that respect Paley and the IDM are not entirely wrong.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• To save diving back into the thread, ID is clearly defined as "a new scientific theory" according to its proponents [not sure if this is an exact quote], and described by critics as creationism relabelled. I really don't see these definitions in the classical argument-from-design. On differences, one example is that "ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed. (5:41 (Pennock)). This argument is not brought to this Court anew, and in fact, the same argument, termed “contrived dualism” in McLean, was employed by creationists in the 1980's"[10] I've not seen any evidence that the classical argument is at bottom premised on this false dichotomy. . dave souza, talk 07:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I think several times I have mentioned that I think that intelligent design always means the same thing, but that what differs are (a) the information used to come to the conclusion and (b) the exact conclusions drawn once "intelligent design" is identified. Do you see anything wrong with that description, or any way in which it applies differently to the intelligent design movement? Even before the IDM there were always big variations in a and b. In fact these variations are an interesting subject, and I reckon Wikipedia should cover them! :) Actually the great age for really interesting versions of these arguments seems to me to be between Socrates and Darwin/Paley. (Just to remind: we have numerous good sources to say IDM is basically using the same ID argument as Paley.) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The design argument is always the same, and it's a central feature of ID, but ID also includes various other arguments which it brought along from creation science. For example, their cambrian explosion claim is about the time taken for evolution, not design or purpose. Their theistic science is about naturalism in science, conflating methodological naturalism with atheism. . . dave souza, talk 18:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC) dave souza, talk 18:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

So I think we are very close to say the least. Please let's keep that in mind in order to avoid misunderstandings.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Titles

As Andrew has convincingly shown above, a search through literature finds numerous instances of the phrase intelligent design, or related phrases, used in discussing the theological / philosophical argument generally known as the argument from design. However, ID is not only more widespread in literature from recent decades, it is the subject of a large (but probably incomplete) List of works on intelligent design, indicating how common this usage is. Several of these books or papers have intelligent design in their titles or subtitles. Have any books or papers about the classical design argument used that phrase in their titles or subtitles? dave souza, talk 06:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Dave, I question the relevance of this. We know there is a political movement using this term, and we know what to expect. I think the biggest difficulty we face now, as opposed to a couple of days ago, is focus on the subject. Everyone needs to get their wagons back of a circle. I think no one at all has given any opposition to the idea that the combination of words "intellectual design" is dominated by references to the Discovery Institute, which effectively has three articles walled off to itself. Let's pencil that in as agreed. The real challenges we face, once we get the discussion focused again, are to do with details of how best to handle this situation. A key concern is that WP is exaggerating the newness of the term, and in effect helping create an online meme. A secondary and practical point for editing is that, the way I see it we only have two options:

• If the term is as new as is being claimed, we should merge this article, and the movement article and the DI article. (But clearly we doubt it is so new.)
• If on the other hand there is some common thread of meaning to the term "intelligent design", uniting the movement and the historically common term, then this article could have that as its theme. (And if we can not identify that, this article maybe should become a dab.)

Points relating to policy:

• WP:COMMONNAME, as I have already mentioned a few times, is not democratic and does not over-rule the basic comment in WP:RS that the expert sources are the ones we look at, and certainly not local political movements who are using a term. (Consider words like "democrat" or "republican".)
• WP:CIRCULAR seems increasingly concerning to me. Just for reflection: have you noticed that there is a difference between what online sources such as blogs say about this (which is typically uniform, and similar to what WP has) and what published books say?

What these two bullets point to is the question of which sources are reliable for sourcing concerning the subject raised here (whether or not "intelligent design" received a new meaning recently). Clearly that is not Thaxton, who is relevant to the movement only, and it is not Matzke, whose own words make it clear he is not really interested in that subject. That is why I have been trying to find sources which are philosophical and history-of-thought oriented. I think that is when people started changing the subject and circling their wagons into position. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Andew, it's relevant to WP:TITLE. Disappointing that you seem to be airily dismissing all the expert sources, including published books, that disagree with your feeling that modern intelligent design should be merged into an article about what is most commonly known as the argument-from-design. In the context of your argument, Thaxton and Matzke are relevant to the etymology of the label, not to the definition of ID, and better sources describe ID in considerable depth. As for your "circling their wagons" allegation, that looks like WP:BATTLEFIELD thinking, please don't do that. We can work together to improve the various related articles, but still need very good sourcing to even consider expanding this subject title to cover the whole argument-from-design. Perhaps you'd find intelligent design (term) a better title for the topic you're proposing? . . dave souza, talk 08:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Dave, I believe I entered this discussion as a neutral party, and have tried to stick to real policy and real sources. I see that once I started finding reasons to doubt the past approach, discussion is suddenly being swamped in straw man arguments, deflections from subject, and people not reading what is being written. To make it more clear (and please read this as having a smiley) I made the battlefield accusation first, so I claim rights on it. Or (back to the real world), in any case, it is not very useful to reply to such an accusation with a post like the above, which is back to straw men and only keeps discussion in a circle. Better is if we all demonstrate our good faith by avoiding that. Coming back to your point, I read your first sentence, and see that you believe there is an argument based on WP:TITLE, which I was not covering with my remark that "we know there is a political movement using this term, and we know what to expect" but I don't get what it is. Can you explain? But to make it clear, what I expect is that your argument will be yet another argument for recognizing the notability of the intelligent design movement again, who, as we all know, have at least 3 articles which are each almost 100% about the whole movement (so not yet considering articles about all their main members, key events etc). No one has ever argued against that. And no one has argued that they should not play a significant role in this particular article (if this particular article should not become a dab).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew, I've accepted you as a neutral party. I've not really had much time to go into all of this, but put simply, modern intelligent design is the suite of arguments put forward by creationists, including but not exclusively by the intelligent design movement. As one of its central features it reiterates a version of the classical argument-from-design, with the added features of denying that it is a religious argument, claiming that it is science rather than theology or philosophy, and being tailored to getting these arguments taught in public school science classes. This specific creationist argument is notable as a widely discussed argument or belief, as supported by the above list of works and other cited sources. The broader argument-from-design is also notable, and includes mention of ID as a sub-topic. What is less clear is whether the classical (pre-Edwards v. Aguillard) argument is notable under the title intelligent design as distinct from teleological argument, design argument or argument-from-design. . . dave souza, talk 10:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I also have not had the time or resources needed for a better discussion. I guess this is a typical WP problem. I agree with your summary above. But notes for a future discussion: The sources do seem to show "intelligent design" and even the term "argument from intelligent design" is just the longer (and for that reason less common) form of "argument from design". Both terms were certainly used in a consistent way, and in forms that make it clear they were expected to be well-known before DI and going right up to the present day, for example "the so-called...", "what we call...", and so on. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew, good to see we're getting on the same wavelength, I think. Yes, both terms were used consistently for the specific (teleological) argument, and as shown in the Term section of the article the phrase intelligent design was used in creation science for that meaning before Thaxton, Davis and Kenyon introduced it with a new meaning, as a term intended to describe a field of inquiry, a new label for "creation science". At this point the new meaning also included various other creation science arguments, such as the "two model" false dichotomy and the claim that creationism is science, as well as introducing theistic science and dismissing theistic evolution. So it's different, but there's an overlap and quite a lot in common with some versions of the classical argument. . dave souza, talk 17:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Dave, I agree with about 90% of what you just wrote, and have questions on the other 10% and where it leads. Would you agree with the following statement: The DI people are actually TA people, and their "ID" that they promote is just TA, except that they leave off "God did it" in order to try to get it taught in public schools. ?

As above, the ID they promote includes the TA and in addition various other arguments or claims: for example, claiming that the Cambrian explosion disproves evolution. . dave souza, talk 17:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

And, then, would you agree this statement: "The DI ID is not really a different philosophy. It's just TA with one part left off by the DI TA people in a maneuver to try to get it taught in public schools  ?

The DI ID includes a modified version of that philosophy, adding the claim that it's science rather than a philosophical proof of the deity's works, and also includes other arguments. . dave souza, talk 17:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

And, then would you agree with this statement: So, the DI ID does not really merit a separate article. It's not a philosophy, it's just a tactic of the DI ID movement and should be covered in the ID movement article.  ? North8000 (talk) 11:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

To confirm, it's a new form of creationism, introducing a tactical refusal to name the "intelligent designer", and merits both a central main article and various sub articles, including the intelligent design movement article that covers in more detail the movement that grew to promulgate this "field of inquiry". ID exists beyond the movement, though all of its leading proponents are part of the movement and affiliated to the DI. Hope you're ok with me threading my answers with your questions, I think that's much clearer but if you prefer we can number paragraphs or something. . dave souza, talk 17:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine and thank you and thanks for asking. North8000 (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I hope this will not get people defensive thinking I am questioning a point which was important to the legal arguments (I am not), but surely the IDM was not the first time that the creator was not named? Mind you I see how Sedley prefers to say that Plato and Aristotle are not creationists and did not have an argument from intelligent design. I have ordered a copy because the google books version misses that chapter! In any case this is all just a fine point. Plato and Aristotle certainly mention "the god" and most sources seem happy to say that they had such an argument even if it was a very special one (and in the case of Aristotle, not creationist).

Anyway, coming back to the central discussion I do not follow you entirely. Surely we can understand that in some of the cases you mention above "intelligent design" is short for "intelligent design movement teaching" or something like that, ie it is related to the movement, and the movement is openly named after a concept separate from the aspects you mention?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)+

ID is at heart creation science, modified to omit the conclusion that the designer is God, and any relation in its name to the older theological concept is obscured or denied by its proponentsists. Just as the term creation science movement has been used to indicate those promoting that suite of arguments, the relabelled version was promoted by what is called the ID movement. By the way, the Creation Science Movement is a specific organisation . dave souza, talk 09:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Dave, if the ID of the current article exists outside of the DI, yet is distinct, how would you define it / separate it without referring to the DI?North8000 (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Simple answer: ID is creation science relabelled. . . dave souza, talk 09:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Would that not mean that this article (as you prefer it) and Creation science are two articles on the same topic? Sincereley,

One idea

One idea would be to merge the contents of this article into the ID movement article. Then make this a short term-centric or term-driven article (which IS allowed and common in Wikipedia, see wp:NotADictionary) covering the very closely related meanings and usages of the term. It would heavily link to and rely on the TA and ID movement articles. And in the FAQ's we would put something that says this and keep it from growing into heavy overlap with those two articles. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to say that, due to concerns over length, a merger is most likely not a viable option. I have no problem if you folks would like to create a new article (Intelligent design (term)?).-- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess length would be affected by whether or not there is much duplication. Merging of the article texts I think would not be overly big. But there is an immense amount of text in the notes in both articles.

The term article sounds like an idea worth discussing. What do others think? North8000 (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with North about the length issue. Even if we did not have this problem now needing discussion, there are always solutions to that, including splitting articles up in different ways.
• Second point I want to make is that I do not like the idea of article named (term). If we get to the point of needing a new article, which I think we are not yet at, then we can consider what material we have ended up with which needs a home, but let's order our thoughts first.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
• Maybe a third point. We still need a good reason not to make this article a dab (or short dab-ish article, such as intellect). Please do not see that as a bad thing. I think it is one reasonable possibility depending on what we find.
• And finally, for now at least, trying to think what kind of argument might convince us to keep out all pre DI ID from this article and also not turn it into a dab, I think it would have to be something like Dave's recent comments above. But as mentioned by me, these arguments about subject matter also seem to point to another name, such as perhaps "intelligent design creation science".

I am not convinced of any of the above though.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Let me see if I can make this real simple. There are two subjects we're discussing here: the teleological argument and ID. This article is about ID. The "[argument from] [intelligent] design" is a different subject, currently named Teleological argument.

• If you want to have an article named "Intelligent design" that goes back to antiquity, back to Aquinas, Aristotle, Xenophon, etc., you will have to go to Talk:Teleological argument and start a WP:MOVE request.
• If you want to add that material here, you're SOL: secondary sources all note that ID grew out of the creationist movement in the 1970s-80s.
• If you want a different article about the term, create it and go nuts.

-- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Why use cowboy talk? Just wondering. Here's the simple problem anyway (just sticking to this article): what you say about the secondary sources is not correct. I've shown that above, and I think Dave has basically accepted it. I did not know this before I started the search, but North was quite right. Perhaps I should have posted more extensive quotes. But basically the sources you have are weak primary online sources from parties involved in the IDM debates, and they have not been carefully used. But all of them admit this is a term with something to do with philosophy, theology, etc. So then if we go to THOSE secondary sources (as per the guidance WP:RS) we find a completely different story. We find the term "intelligent design" being used for several centuries and never stopping. We can find reference to the "argument from intelligent design" which makes no mention of the movement. We can find people like Kant, Vico, etc being discussed in terms of intelligent design before the 1980s, and after. The word intelligent is in fact nearly ALWAYS somewhere nearby in EVERY mention of the "argument from design" and this is clearly NOT a coincidence. I do not think this is necessarily the best source, but maybe it is a good illustration: the OED in its long version gives meaning 4 of the word DESIGN as the one meaning a purpose or intention and notes that it is especially connected to the "argument from design" which relates to an "intelligent creator".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

There's that talk about terms again. WP is not a dictionary! How many times does this need to be said?! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You'll need to explain your reasoning a bit better than that. I am aware of the policy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I would say quite the opposite: the reliable sources largely agree that the intelligent design for which Aquinas, Paley etc. argued, is the same topic as the intelligence design for which DI-associated persons argue. Padian & Matzke 2010 and Ariew 2007 would just be two that I would cite as evidence. Pigliucci M. Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk. University of Chicago Press; 2010, p. 14, is extremely clear: "the idea of intelligent design in biology—which we will examine in detail later in the book—has made no progress since its last serious articulation by natural theologian William Paley in 1802." But my claims here are nothing new, not that I think anyone is making any new claims. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

And by "intelligent design" here, Pigliucci does mean the same topic as this article. There's just no question about it. That's why when you go the part later in the book that he is referring to, he again makes the point of there being no progress compared to evolutionary theory, and talks about Of Pandas and People and Dembski (p. 169). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed Atethnekos I should not have said that I found all the sources. The ones you have found are in many cases the best ones. Anyway I think you and I found the same things, over and over. ID is ID is ID. We have no second definition for it, and no debates about what it means, only differences concerning how to see it, and what to do when you find one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Atethnekos. I've already spoken about Ariew, but here's Pigliucci again:

“ A new brand of creationism has appeared on the scene in the last few years. The so-called neocreationists largely do not believe in a young Earth or in a too literal interpretation of the Bible. While still mostly propelled by a religious agenda and financed by mainly Christian sources such as the Templeton Foundation and the Discovery Institute, the intellectual challenge posed by neocreationism is sophisticated enough to require detailed consideration (see Edis 2001; Roche 2001).

Among the chief exponents of Intelligent Design (ID) theory, as this new brand of creationism is called, is William Dembski, a mathematical philosopher and author of The Design Inference (1998a).

”

Design Yes, Intelligent No: A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory and Neocreationism

So, it seems clear that he knows ID is new. Teleological arguments have been around for a while, and ID is a teleological argument. This appears to me to be the point of confusion: the term "intelligent design," when it refers to the teleological argument, has indeed been around a long time. But this article is not about that subject. That's why I'm stressing to Andrew that we need to talk about subjects and not terms.

To attempt to make this clearer, the "intelligent design for which Aquinas, Paley etc. argued" is subject A. And the neo-creationism that began in the 1970s-80s is subject B. No matter what the names are, these are two separate subjects. It just so happens that the current names for these two subjects are Teleological argument and Intelligent design, respectively. This is further complicated by the fact that ID is a teleological argument (I believe the sources say a "contemporary version/adaptation" thereof) and both use the phrase "intelligent design." Hence, the reader must understand the context of the source and correctly place it with its appropriate subject. When it comes to the history of ID, we have strong sources stating its history only goes back to the late 20th century. This is an extremely significant point. The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District used this fact to show that ID was, in fact, repackaged creationism. The fact that ID is a teleological argument and TAs have a long history is important too... but it belongs in the TA article, not here. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that post MisterDub, you have made an effort, and it is easier to get your point. I'll go through some points that seem worth making:

• Yes ID is new, but your cite says it is a new form of creationism not a new version of ID. Do you agree?
• I do get your point about the way that the current situation has come around. It is certainly not crazy or anything. There is a real challenge here. The ID movement gives us a dilemma.
• Yes, the IDM is a form of creationism, but it also does use a simple (not radically new) version of the same old ID argument.
• Jumping back up to your "this article is not about that subject" the question is why would we have an article on WP where editors have decided to give a very well-known and widely used term to a very specific movement that is (no debate about it) associated with that term, and even exclude some types materials which might help our readers see that? Or to use your words, how are you so confident that "it belongs in the TA article, not here"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, in response to your first question, the answer is both yes and no. I agree that it is a new form of creationism, but also a new formulation of ID. The new features of ID versus the traditional teleological argument include the concepts of irreducible complexity (IC) and complex, specified information (CSI), as well as the specifically anti-evolution nature of this purportedly scientific theory. As to your second question, I really don't know why these articles have the names they do; that was before my time here. I can conjecture, but that's all it'd be (WP:NATURAL?). My only point is that these subjects already have their respective article namespaces, so if there's a problem with names, we need to move the articles to their appropriate namespace. More specifically, if you feel the subject currently covered under TA should be called ID, then a move request needs to be initiated on that page. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

No rush on moving articles, as explained above. Let's work out what we've got. Your explanation matches my discussion with Dave above. In other words you also seem to agree. The core of any ID is always the same. The variations are in how you recognize one (irreducible complexity, planets going in circles, etc) and secondly what you conclude from it. (Just for fun: The really radical variants of ID, are I think Plato and Aristotle, who actually tried to develop a new explanation of causality so that nature could be fixed, and have "rules", and therefore science/philosophy could be possible, while at the same time the cosmos had human-oriented and active "design". This kind of stuff is never going to hit the front page, but such discussions are still out there believe it or not.) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree? Well, I think we agree about the connection between these two subjects, but I don't want to give the impression that I think we should therefore make this page another TA article. As I mentioned before, the fact that ID began in the late 20th century and the manner in which the term "intelligent design" was adopted are both important points. I'd also like to reiterate that I have no problem with renaming the articles, if that is what is decided. As I said before, this one can be naturally disambiguated to Intelligent design creationism, and the TA can be moved here or this page could become a DAB that leads to both (and other subjects). -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Please take this the right way but I understand your post to be saying that you got worried that our discussion was going to lead some kind of agreement, and you are breaking off that promising direction of discussion? Or how must I understand it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

<ec> Not the way I read MrDub's comments, and why should "promising direction" be confined to renaming the article? Sounds rather one-track. A quick comment here, as Padian and Matzke note this is a specific variation on the argument-from-design, in that as well as proposing that the unnamed "designer" could even be natural in order to support the claim that it is science, it requires repeated supernatural interventions and rejects the deistic design through laws that Paley could have found acceptable. So, it probably shares the core concepts, but the "theory" is a specific variation and also includes other creationist arguments. Having said that, I don't think Intelligent design creationism would work as that's a specific phrase used by a minority of sources. At a pinch, Intelligent design (creationism) might work with ID becoming a dab article, but that too has the undesirable surprise element. On the basis of the sources I've looked at, intelligent design looks less prevalent than argument-from-design when discussing the general argument, somewhere I've seen it said that "intelligent" is assumed when talking about the omnipotent deity needed to conceive and implement such design: no-one worships a dimwit god. Can't recall where, and rather too late tonight. . dave souza, talk 22:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Dave, "promising" was referring to the need to find basic understandings we can agree on as starting points. That is a basic requirement for any rational discussion. It is normally easy to see when someone does not want such a discussion. Can you explain what you mean about the undesirable surprise element? Concerning your last point, I think this can be sourced from multiple sources: the words design already implies intelligent, but not the other way around, as in Anaxagoras. This is because design also implies human-like ends and a concern with humans. See my draft on Atethnekos' user space. That's why the term intelligent (noetikos) has always been part of these discussions, and did not just appear by accident in a couple of places. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Sidebar This (from from wp:NotADictionary) I think is very useful when considering the possibilities:

When word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject

In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject. In these cases, the word or phrase in and of itself passes Wikipedia's notability criteria as the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources. As with any subject, articles on words must contain encyclopedic information. That is, such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term. While published dictionaries may be useful sources for lexical information on a term, the presence of a term in a dictionary does not by itself establish notability. Examples of Wikipedia articles on words and phrases include Macedonia (terminology), thou, orange (word), and no worries.

In other cases, a word or phrase is still prima facie (at first blush) about a topic other than the word or phrase itself. Often the word or phrase is a "lens" or concept through which the topic or closely related set of topics are grouped or seen. When this occurs, the article often focuses on the "lens" and may not be the main coverage of the topics which are viewed through it. World music, Political correctness, Homosexual agenda, Lake Michigan-Huron and Truthiness illustrate this.

To that I might add that it is common, useful and accepted for an article to cover closely related topics defined by a term. Not saying that we should do that, but it means that it is an OK and viable option. Sincerely, 21:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we can have an article about a term, and I think Intelligent design (term) would be an excellent place for this. This article, currently, is not about the term but about the purportedly scientific theory that is called ID. If you want to cover the term under this namespace, I think we'll need to first move this page and then create a new one in its place. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't proposing any particular direction when I inserted this. But, given the discussion, it's a bit ambiguous to say "this article"...that could mean the title, the stated scope,. or the contents. North8000 (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that MisterDub sees himself as defending this article with its current title, not based on any particular argument, but more on a "no matter what" John Wayne type of basis. That makes discussion a bit difficult. We should have a discussion where all options are possible and neutral.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

My understanding differs, and I think you should leave it to MisterDub to decide how he sees himself. Discussion is made more difficult if you jump into denigrating other editors, please don't. . dave souza, talk 22:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Dave, indeed, let him answer. I am just reading the words MisterDub types and I hear doors being slammed all the time. But if I am wrong, he can say so. His post above appears to be saying that whatever we do, this article must not change, right?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, I only meant to elucidate my agreement. I find that when people make a generalized statement, such as "you agree," it is often then assumed that agreement is more extensive than it actually is. My comment was intended to prevent this misunderstanding.

Also, I think it's quite clear from my suggestions of renaming or creating articles that I am absolutely willing to work with everyone here to resolve this issue; I am not defending this article "no matter what." But there really hasn't been a serious proposal other than turning this page into a second TA article, which I've opposed, citing appropriate policies. It takes two to tango... — Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterDub (talk • contribs) 23:53, 27 August 2013‎

Well, my idea is the one that I opened this thread with. I'm sure that there are other good ways to do it, but that appears best to me at this moment. North8000 (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, North8000. I thought about mentioning that last night--and I really should have--but I was on my phone and didn't feel like typing more than was required. Sorry. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It should at least be allowed to be discussed in more detail. I would like to understand better what you are proposing, and from Dave and MisterDub I would like them to explain their concerns about why they seem to think there is lots of material in this article which is nowhere else on WP. They should explain which material that is.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

As this is the main article for a series of sub-articles, I'd expect a lot of material in these sub-articles to appear briefly here per WP:SUMMARY. . . dave souza, talk 06:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

My question is, if the "main article of series" material would be moved from this article to another article name, such as intelligent design movement (which seems appropriate to me), leaving the specific materials which are relevant to discussion "intelligent design" more broadly, then why would that cause a problem? You imply that the movement article would then be too big, so we should discuss which material would need a new home so that we can consider where it might best be placed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Even if it were too big, I think that that could be worked out. The main issue wouldn't be the article text, it would be the unusually immense amount and length of quotes in the notes. North8000 (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, I don't know why we would move this to the movement page. This page is about the "theory" of ID; the movement page is about the movement behind it. As dave souza stated, we would expect some relation and a summary of that article here. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• First concern. To me it looks like only section 2 of this article is about the theory. I think such discussion should be included in any discussion of intelligent design either in the philosophical sense or the culture war sense, and so for example something like it should be in the article which is currently called teleological argument. But apart from that short bit there is extensive discussion about the movement, its critics, its legal cases, its publishing history etc etc. So this is currently basically an article about a political movement.
• Secondly. Anyway, even if it were perfectly clear that this article currently about the movement's "intelligent design theory" (ie presumably the differences between it and past intelligent design arguments in terms of (a) how they identify ID and (b) what conclusions they draw) there is still a valid question you keep wanting to ignore about whether this article title is the right one for that, given that it creates a situation where the search term "intelligent design" is going to give some readers the wrong hits and misleading suggestions about a supposedly lack of continuity.

In policy terms:

• We have two types of source, which see the world differently, and currently we are giving an almost absolute preference to the popular ones from the media, blogs, people involved in the culture war aspect etc, and not the expert ones in the field of knowing about arguments about the existence of god, and what defines science (philosophers, theologians, experts in the history of thought generally). In fact we are almost pretending the expert ones do not exist. (I can see that in fact, until a few days ago that is what most editors on this article really believed.) Consider whether this matches WP:RS (even keeping WP:COMMONNAME in mind, if we read what it really says)
• One of the most important policies in WP is WP:NPOV. It has very clear demands about what to do when we find two sets of sources giving different reports of reality. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

There are some arguments for the status quo that are self conflicting. One is that the (now established by Andrew) broader ID is just TA and thus shouldn't have a separate article. But that the DI version, a subset of ID, should have it's one article, even though it is just TA with the "God did it" claim implicit rather than explicit. Also, since we are talking about many different ideas at once, we seem to be having trouble moving forward. We should keep trying. But if we can't, I think that a good question for an RFC would be whether to add the other ID into this article (i.e. limit or not limit it to the DI version). That is not a final (potentially multi-article) resolution, but possibly a step towards one. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

What Andrew has shown so far is that the philosophical or theological reasoning in defence of divine intervention is commonly known as the argument from design, also the teleological argument, the phrase intelligent design is often used to describe this argument, and less often argument from intelligent design or intelligent design is used as a synonym for the other terms. We do cover this broader context briefly in this article which is about the alternative "science" very widely known as intelligent design, and before that known as creation science. This coverage of the philosophical argument is in accordance with WP:SUMMARY, it should be possible to improve that coverage while keeping it concise, leaving detail to the main article, whether that is TA or some future article. Oh, and ID isn't just TA with the "God did it" claim implicit rather than explicit. As discussed earlier. dave souza, talk 08:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

On your last point, I didn't see that and I think that it is a useful point to clarify. I ask this question for me to understand, not to debate......what would you say one or more other differences are? Thanks. North8000 (talk) 14:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

For one difference between ID and the general argument from design, see the “contrived dualism” discussed above . dave souza, talk 14:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Side issue: IDM claims which secondary sources see, but the IDM do not admit

Dave wrote, "Oh, and ID isn't just TA with the "God did it" claim implicit rather than explicit. As discussed earlier." I meant to ask about that. I assume you are referring to the idea that the IDM demand miracles? I see that claim appearing in our articles, as if IDM make this demand openly, but it strikes me as odd because at the same time we report correctly that the ID "theory", or maybe we should call it narrative, says that they are coming to conclusions which do not involve any assumption of God. What I think I read between the lines is that this is what secondary sources see as the only possible way to understand them. Of course the secondary sources are right (and this is a classic case of why we try to use secondary sources in many cases). My concern is that I feel we need to make it more clear which things come from secondary interpretation and which things come from the primary horse-mouth, because both concerning (a) the connection of god and design, and (b) concerning the demand for miracles, the secondary sources are disagreeing strongly with the primary sources, and basically calling the primary source, the IDM, dishonest. It is a challenge but we need to let our readers see this as per NPOV. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

A good point, it would be useful to review how we word this. In some instances the IDM has been found to be dishonest, but in this case it may be more an aspect of their core thinking about theistic science. ID proponents openly state that the examples they present cannot be explained by a natural process, but then demur when the implication of a supernatural process is pointed out. Their suggestion that it could have been done by aliens from outer space is discussed, and dismissed, in the Kitzmiller finding. They start from a presumption of repeated physical intervention by the Creator, but may not see such interventions as supernatural. . . dave souza, talk 10:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)