Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 79

Archive 75

←

Archive 77

Archive 78

Archive 79

Archive 80

Archive 81

→

Archive 85

Lead, second paragraph, last sentence; sourcing request

To focus upon the way I understand that we are currently expressing the views of the ID supporters about what we might call the proper definition of science, or the boundaries of science, this is what we currently have:

From the outset, ID proponents have sought to overturn the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science, proposing that it be replaced by "theistic realism" or "theistic science" in which ID presents a broadly theistic understanding of nature.

The sourcing for the opinions of the ID proponents is this enormous footnote:

• Meyer, Stephen C.; Nelson, Paul A. (May 1, 1996). "Getting Rid of the Unfair Rules". Origins & Design (Book review) (Colorado Springs, CO: Access Research Network). Retrieved 2007-05-20.
• Johnson, Phillip E. (May/June 1996). "Third-Party Science". Books & Culture (Book review) 2 (3). Retrieved 2012-06-16. The review is reprinted in full by Access Research Network.
• Meyer, Stephen C. (2000). "The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories". Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe: Papers Presented at a Conference Sponsored by the Wethersfield Institute, New York City, September 25, 1999. Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute 9. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press. ISBN 0-89870-809-5. LCCN 00102374. OCLC 45720008. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
• Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). , Whether ID Is Science, p. 66
• Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). , Whether ID Is Science, p. 68. Lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also include astrology.
• See also Hanna, John (February 13, 2007). "Kansas Rewriting Science Standards". Guardian Unlimited (London: Guardian Media Group). Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2007-02-16. Retrieved 2014-02-28.

It looks like synthesis, and I do think that it is synthesis (at least as a text meant to representing the IDM's position as opposed to their critics). Can someone untangle and pick out a single statement (or maybe two) from the IDM which can help us? This type of impenetrable footnote in a lead is definitely not what is recommended in WP, and it was raised as an issue when this article was nominated for FA status. We should let our readers see the differences between the positions of the IDM and their critics. (It is actually a very critical and interesting point.) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope, don't see your claim supported here: both ID proponents and the critical assessment of their claims show their aim being to change science, to "overthrow materialism". Where are there differences? . . dave souza, talk 12:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

From the very first source:

An astonishing number of theists argue that science ought to be methodologically "naturalistic"—the demarcation criterion non pareil. "You can't put God in a test tube," Ratzsch quotes the philosophical naturalist Eugenie Scott as arguing, and therefore "science acts as if the supernatural did not exist. This methodological naturalism is the cornerstone of modern science." Scott is right, many theists affirm: God may be real but He is empirically inscrutable. It is thus best that we acted, as we reason about the workings of nature, as if God were away on other business.

But that cannot be correct, argues Ratzsch. Methodological naturalism prejudges the shape of reality in a way that any "truth-seeking" science can ill afford

— Stephen C. Meyer "Getting Rid of the Unfair Rules"

As I stated in the section above, the debate is not about science and religion, but science's commitment to methodological naturalism. Do we need this many citations supporting the statement? No. But the statement remains true, as an accurate reflection of those sources. I'm very curious to know how you thought this was synthesis... did you not look at all?!

An openness to empirical arguments for design is therefore a necessary condition of a fully rational historical biology. A rational historical biology must not only address the question "Which materialistic or naturalistic evolutionary scenario provides the most adequate explanation of biological complexity?" but also the question "Does a strictly materialistic evolutionary scenario or one involving intelligent agency or some other theory best explain the origin of biological complexity, given all relevant evidence?" To insist otherwise is to insist that materialism holds a metaphysically privileged position. Since there seems no reason to concede that assumption, I see no reason to concede that origins theories must be strictly naturalistic.

— Stephen C. Meyer "The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories"

This rigorous attachment to "natural" explanations is an essential attribute to science by definition and by convention.

— Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District p. 66

It is notable that defense experts' own mission, which mirrors that of the IDM itself, is to change the ground rules of science to allow supernatural causation of the natural world, which the Supreme Court in Edwards and the court in McLean correctly recognized as an inherently religious concept. Edwards, 482

U.S. at 591-92; McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1267. First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to "change the ground rules" of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. (28:26 (Fuller); 21:37-42 (Behe)). Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces.

— Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District pp. 67-68

I couldn't find easy copies of the other two articles (by Johnson and Hannah), but I think you get the point. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Johnson and Hanna work for me, I've added the former archiveurl to the article. . dave souza, talk 16:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, dave souza. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Point of order: I have put a break under this post although discussion went on from the above reply to my requests. This is because I am not really sure that the posts below are relevant to the sourcing issue I was raising.

• MisterDub and Dave the most obvious first thing to say is that if the passage we are discussing is intended to represent the IDM movement's own position, it is striking that we are only using critics. I do not at all wish to say that we should be neutral about everything, but when reporting the position of a group with a position, it is a normal demand, which was made at the FA review, that somewhere in there we should actually accurately report it as they would.
• But the second point to make is that the relevance of these citations to the concern I raised is also not at all clear. These quotes from critics and secondary sources all seem to agree with the point I was making, just using different words. It seems interesting and relevant that you guys do not see that I might claim that the quotes agree with me. It strikes me at this point as worth remarking that philosophy is an enormous "field" (indeed it almost is beyond being a field by its very nature) and you need to keep in mind that while you guys, with your big interest in a small part of it, are used to terminology like "demarcation debate" (just to give an example) these terms are not always used very widely and sometimes obscure their connection to other terminologies, and a much broader literature. That you guys can not see the connections yourselves between the words you cite and place in the article, and points being made by me, shows how important it is to make them more clear.

Going back to the original point I was making, I said that the IDM disagree with people who say you can not conflate science with the philosophical or theological questions which are about more than "nature" narrowly defined as matter and motion. In other words, to make them sound silly, they want super natural causes considered. I pointed out that this is a argument they have consistently backed into when under pressure, and that it is also one point which does have some pedigree in philosophy. It is effectively a criticism of modern science as a whole. Of course I have no problem with us saying that by criticizing it, while pretending to be part of it, they have been criticized of course. As mentioned this is also something that Thomists have criticized them for, coming from the opposite direction.

Back to the point. I was saying that the wording in our article is not making the issue clear, not letting our readers understand what they really said and what it really means. We are more jargony and compressed than our jargony and compressed sources. I see no response to this concern above. I repeat my request for one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Only using sources from critics? Did you not just list three sources from ID proponents? And please don't tell me what my interests are: I'm not interested in ID or metaphysics at all. In fact, I tend to think metaphysics is the kindergarten of philosophy. Either way, it's getting difficult to believe this discussion will come to a decisive close. I don't know how you think these sources agree with you, and I don't foresee resolution of this matter without a common reading of the sources. Until you can present reliable sources that actually support the changes you want made, this conversation is going nowhere. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

MisterDub, yes our thickets of footnotes mention all kinds of things, and as I said this in itself is not good, but bad. In order to avoid the accusation of synthesis, I ask someone to try to pick one or two sources only, ones which are clearly representative and not from a questionable context, and demonstrate a clear case that our text represents it in an undistorted way. My request to justify the current sourcing is open.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Potential RFC

There is one question that has been going on forever with no progress. In essence it is whether there should be wording which implicitly or explicitly states that ID is limited to the modern initiative or limited to variants claiming to be science (= pseudo scientific variants). Since (IMHO) fixing this aspect would require only a few minor wording tweaks in a few places, if folks would assent to that we could skip the process, but otherwise this has gone on too long with no resolution or progress towards such and I think that an RFC is probably needed. Since this question takes a bit to understand, I think that a very brief (like 2 sentence) explanation of structural arguments is needed as a part of defining the question. Since we want to make sure that the question is asked in a neutral manner, I'll be running that wording up the flagpole here. In the meantime I'll be working on it at User:North8000/temporary North8000 (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

What "few minor wording tweaks in a few places"? Please use this talk page to state specifically the wording you propose, the position where the wording is to go in the article, and the sources for this proposed wording. Thanks, . dave souza, talk 15:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Demanding sources for removing unsourced assertions is a blockade to any such fixes, which has been the situation here. North8000 (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

We seem to be getting complaints that the article is too well sourced, please be specific, and propose any article changes on this talk page. . dave souza, talk 15:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

"Too well sourced"? huh? My complaint is lack of sourcing for assertions that are in the wording. But either way I'll propose those tweaks to see if we're really at an impasse. North8000 (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, what change, specifically are you proposing? We cannot comment on the merits of the proposed change unless you are more specific. What statements, specifically, lack sourcing?Farsight001 (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

First fix, change the first paragraph of article from:

• Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism, the belief 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," presented by its proponents as a scientific theory. It is a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God presented as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than a religious-based idea.

to:

• Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism, the belief 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". It's most prominent form is presented by its proponents as a scientific theory; a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God presented as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than a religious-based idea.

North8000 (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Source, please, for the implied "less prominent form of creationism" using that definition and called by that name. (Note the general use of creationism these days to refer to 20th century anti-evolution, as made explicit by the reference to natural selection). . dave souza, talk 16:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I just dialed back a far-reaching unsourced claim. Saying it needs a source to do that is backwards and a blockcade. North8000 (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

How can you have "It's most prominent form" without its less prominent form? Please explain. . dave souza, talk 19:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The current statement is that it is the exclusive form. That is a much more far-reaching unsourced claim than any implication created by dialing it back. If you have better wording to dial back the claim of exclusivity and are willing to do it, then we might have a solution. North8000 (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

If I were to make a statement about ID, I'd start with the first sentence in the lead proposed recently: ID is the name of a purportedly scientific theory that claims to see evidence for a designer, thereby falsifying evolution and other naturalist, scientific explanations. Philosophers of science and the scientific community—the relevant authorities—find the claims of ID to be baseless and, due to its historical development in the American creation-evolution controversy, conclude that ID is a pseudoscience promoted by creationists (mostly Christians associated with the Discovery Institute) in order to circumvent court rulings in the USA prohibiting the teaching of creationism. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Improving the lede

I've been asked to start a new section for some suggestions I made above wrt the lede.

• Eliminate "is a form of creationism" from the first sentence, changing it to.

"Intelligent design is the proposition, presented as a scientific theory, that 'certain features . . .'"

• Put disclaimers in the last paragraph of the lede, for two reasons:

1. The lede first should describe the subject of the article before refuting it, and

2. The casual reader will read the first paragraph and skip to the last.

• Change the first two sentences of the second paragraph to,

"The leading proponents of this version of the argument are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States. Although the argument purposely avoids assigning a personality to the designer, many of its proponents privately believe the designer to be the Christian deity."

• Split the 2nd paragraph between "evidence of design.^{[n 4]}" and "The scientific community . . ."

The topic of the new third paragraph is that ID is rejected by the scientific community.

Change "overturn" to "modify," "alter," or "expand."

Change "replaced" to "augmented."

• Delete the old 3rd paragraph; it belongs to Intelligent design movement. Yopienso (talk)

I have copied the article lead to my sandbox and made most of the changes Yopienso proposed here. Two differences:

1. I added the claim that ID is creationism to the third paragraph
2. I have highlighted proposed word changes in the third paragraph with DEL tags

I'm not quite sure I agree with changing the words in the third paragraph, hence why I have not made that change in the sandbox. I think overturn and replaced give a far more accurate description of the centrality of methodological naturalism to modern science than the proposed terms. I also think that the last sentence in the second paragraph (beginning, "Their concepts of irreducible complexity and specified complexity...") needs grammatical revision, as it seems to break the flow. I think a simple change, such as changing the structure from "Their concepts" to "ID proponents have proposed concepts...", would be a step in the right direction. In any case, thank you, Yopienso, for producing a viable suggestion! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yopienso - Somewhat astonishingly, for me, I agree with every one of your suggested changes. However, I can also see MisterDub's point on Para 3, but this is kind of a minor issue for me.

Kudos also to the clear/concise presentation of what you want to do and why. Was able to read through it and digest your suggestions very quickly. Ckruschke (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Thanks, guys. MisterDub, I like your draft. I had not realized my suggestion totally eliminated the word "creationism." It's imperative to include it. Suggested tweak:

"The scientific community considers intelligent design a pseudoscientific form of creationism^[5][6] because it lacks empirical support and offers no tenable testable [or falsifiable] hypotheses.^{[7][8][9][10]} The premise of intelligent design that evidence against evolution constitutes evidence for design has been criticized as a false dichotomy. Scientists have rebutted in detail ID's anti-evolutionary assertions. [Etc.]"

My rationale against "overturn" is that ID proponents agree with the scientific method except when it limits their ideas on design. "Undermine" is another possible alternative.

I would happily endorse your version without my tweaks. Yopienso (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Yopienso for putting this forward, while it may well point a way forward I'm concerned that this overbalances the NPOV structure of the opening paragraph by presenting an unchallenged fringe viewpoint as though it was fact. The current opening paragraph does have an acceptable balance, but I'm certainly willing to review how best to make it flow more clearly while clearly showing the majority expert view of what ID is. . dave souza, talk 16:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I have been following this debate for years and have for the most part avoided posting here, but I simply cannot let this pass without comment.

By removing "is a form of creationism" without some appropriate replacement you are removing one of the characteristic descriptions of what ID is. This does not better informs our readers, it is likely to mislead them. The first sentence of the lead should be the "article in a nutshell", and ID is most certainly not valid science and we should not use any form of words that might allow a casual reader to think that it is.

I suggest that (if it is to be modified and given that some editors here seem allergic to the use of the word creationism) the first sentence be changed to:

"Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific theory, that proposes 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."

It is completely misleading to word the lead in any way that might allow the reader to draw the conclusion that ID is in any way accepted by the scientific community. The proposition that the casual reader will read the forst sentence and then "skip to the last" is entirely without foundation and nonsensical.

- Nick Thorne ^talk 16:21, 9 April 2014‎ (UTC)

dave souza, I don't think NPOV policy requires every paragraph to be balanced, but that the article itself be balanced. The entire lead should be neutral, but the exact structure is amenable. I think Yopienso's proposal retains this NPOV while addressing common complaints.

Nick Thorne, perhaps you started writing your comment before Yopienso's latest post, but I want to make sure you realize that the claim of ID being creationism isn't being removed, but moved. I have it in the last paragraph of my sandbox, and Yopienso suggested a similar placement. Maybe you'll also object to moving the claim to the last paragraph, but I just want to make sure you know that it is in the proposal. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

MisterDub, the point of layout policy is that placing the mainstream view of ID distant from the fringe claims in this way effectively gives the fringe viewpoint credence: Nick Thorne is absolutely correct about this, and his proposal would certainly be one way forward. The issue of ID being anti-evolution creationism relabelled is central, and there may be a better way of highlighting this at the outset. . dave souza, talk 16:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess I don't see that this proposal gives any more credence to ID than the current article, but I'm open to suggestions, including Nick Thorne's idea of labeling it a pseudoscientific theory at the outset. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thinking about this, the central issue is that the first paragraph should describe what ID is according to reliable third party sources. Per WP:WEIGHT we "must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view." Certainly describing ID as pseudoscience is one way of clarifying the majority perspective, as is making it clear that ID is creationism relabelled. . . dave souza, talk 17:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Very basic problem with the logic here. Sources say all kinds of things that we want to fit in the article but they can not ALL be in the first sentence.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggested first para

To clarify the majority and minority perspectives on the topic, a suggestion for the first paragraph:

Intelligent design (ID) is a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God, defined by its proponents as proposing 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." They present it as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea", but it has been shown to be a form of creationism which does not meet the accepted standards of a scientific theory.

Or something along these lines. . dave souza, talk 17:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see the point. Changing "proposition" to "pseudoscientific theory" corrects the problem. Let's please keep "creationism" for the rebuttal paragraph. Yopienso (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Dave, I think this simple swap is more clarifying than inserting the teleological argument. Yopienso (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Yopienso, that goes some way to resolving the problem. However, creationism is a well attested expert third party description and not a rebuttal: in my view it has to be early in the lead, if not necessarily in the first paragraph, to put the remaining description in context. Will think over some ideas of how this could be done, . . dave souza, talk 18:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I would still prefer to start with the definition of ID provided by the DI, instead of defining it in relation to the teleological argument. Maybe something like the following?

Intelligent design (ID) is the proposition pseudoscientific theory 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." Proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" that challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science, but the scientific community considers ID a form of creationism because it lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses. ID is a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God whose leading proponents are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States. Although this version of the argument purposely avoids assigning a personality to the designer, many of its proponents believe the designer to be the Christian deity.

Arguments in support of ID include irreducible complexity and specified complexity, which each assert that certain features (biological and informational, respectively) are too complex to be the result of natural processes. Proponents therefore conclude that these features are evidence of design. Detailed scientific examination has rebutted the claims that evolutionary explanations are inadequate, and this premise of intelligent design—that evidence against evolution constitutes evidence for design—has been criticized as a false dichotomy.

You'll notice that I moved the sentence referring to methodological naturalism to the first paragraph, which I think may sate Andrew Lancaster's concerns. Anyway, just some more ideas. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

We should describe ID the way it is described in expert third party sources right off the bat, not as it is described by the fringe group that promotes the idea. Not to do this is a direct and obvious failure to follow NPOV and FRINGE. Either state in the first sentence that ID is a form of creationism, or that it is pseudocience, anything less is simply counter to policy. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Is that why the Astrology article mentions pseudoscience in the third paragraph??? I'm willing to concede the point if consensus wants to have "pseudoscientific theory" in the first sentence, but failing to do so is not a violation of Wikipedia policy. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, other stuff exists, but that is not a reason to do the wrong thing here. Maybe the astrology article needs its lead edited, rather than repeating the same mistake here. The proposed changes seem more about giving wriggle room to the creationists, rather than informing our readers, which should be our primary aim in building an encyclopaedia. - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Nick. Nobody is denying that ID is a form of creationism. If there is an intelligence involved it is creationism, regardless of whether it is dressed up as bad science. This should be made clear at the outset to avoid giving undue weight to fringe theories. The present lead does this adequately without any need for change and should be kept.--Charles (talk) 07:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

That something is sourceable does not mean it has to be in the first sentence. We can not put everything in the opening sentence, or the opening paragraph. So can we please avoid making this a basis of an argument for any version? Also it is equally illogical to claim that moving something away from a first (or second or whatever) sentence means we are now saying the opposite. Please lets only use positions which make some logical sense?

@MisterDub, concerning your draft above I note that you have the IDM having two positions, if you see what I mean, which is indeed accurate: one is their "scientific" position (irreducible complexity etc) which is often presented (wrongly) as being consistent with normal modern science. The other one is their more "philosophical" position which admits they are questioning modern science. My concern: by placing these two positions in two different places we break the flow of discussion?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, no one is suggesting that we have to "put everything in the opening sentence". On the contrary, what I am saying is that we should put the core idea in the first sentence. ID is pseudoscience and there is no reason why we should not say that right at the start, in fact there is every reason why we should say it right there. Not to do so lends undue weight to ID and may fool the uninformed, casual reader into thinking that ID has some sort of respectability. What is your problem with simply stating the facts of the matter - at the very outset: "Intelligent design is a form of pseudoscience that..."? This position is well supported by the sources and provides a succinct description of ID without a lot of elaborate wording that looks to me like an attempt to hide the real facts in a lot of unnecessary, complicated and jargon filled verbage. - Nick Thorne ^talk 10:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Nick and Charles, as I said, I have no problem with stating that it is a pseudoscientific theory in the first sentence. I am merely objecting to the claim that it somehow violates Wikipedia policy if we don't. It may be consensus, but it's not policy.

Andrew, I'm not quite following. This latest draft was written with the intent of keeping definitional statements in the first paragraph, leaving additional information for the rest of the lead; I don't think IC or CSI meet this bar. Of course, I'm open to suggestions. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Misterdub, I am happy for us to agree to disagree on the question of whether or not it is policy, as that is not the main point. I am basically fine with the proposed wording as you have now modified it with "pseudoscientific theory" in the 1st sentence. That sets an appropriate tone at the start of the article and I have no strong opinion on the rest of the lead so long as it begins this way. - Nick Thorne ^talk 05:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Generally I'm happier with this paragraph with "pseudoscience" at the outset, however it's not just scientists that have identified ID as creationism, for more reasons than indicated, indeed these are the reasons identifying ID as pseudoscience. We could change "but the scientific community considers ID a form of creationism because it lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses" to "but educators, philosophers and the scientific community have shown that ID is a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses". . . dave souza, talk 06:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The shortened second paragraph works for me. Agree that IC and CSI are supplemental information which should have a concise mention in this paragraph, and with the "challenge" to methodological naturalism in the first paragraph, the "theistic realism" or "theistic science" issue can be left to the body text. To make the issues clearer, I suggest that we remove the "criticism" section header as that approach is deprecated, and have instead two sections, "relationship to science" and "theological implications". The latter could include the claim that ID is a bridge between science and theology, and the assessments of Miller and Ayala. dave souza, talk 06:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

@Nick Thorne. No, no policy or source tells us what to put in the first paragraph, not even that we need to put a "core" there. And secondly I think that sources as per WP:RS do not generally take the tone set by our article at all, which is far more similar to the tone one can find in the blogosphere. The tone I read is "people must be warned about this scam!" And if you look through the history of this talk page this is exactly the intended tone. It is written from the heart, not from the sources.

@Nick Thorne. Maybe helpful to note something we have discussed previously here which is that "creationism" is not a word with one simple definition, so it is not in itself a good word for clarifying. I have previously noted how the philosopher David Sedley says that he basically sees the terms creationism and intelligent design as meaning the same thing, and as being about the same thing, going all the way from ancient Greece to modern America.

@MisterDub. I was not clear I think because I tried to keep it short. :) I did not mean to say that IC and CSI should be part of the definition. My point is that ID kind of needs a double definition: is it science or is it a "philosophical" questioning of science (using the word philosophical in a very broad way)? It has aspects of both, and it does not like the boundaries most people put between the two. IC and CSI are just examples of the aspect of the IDM which is that it sometimes claims to be science. In a nutshell the IDM claims to be scientific, at least in the sense of doing research, while at the same time not really following the normal definitions of what science is. (But I do not think all of them do this dishonestly, because at least some of them are very happy to be open about their questioning of the orthodox boundaries of modern science. And so I do not see dishonesty as definitional. Also the question of whether "ID" is a term applied to all people with such beliefs is not one with any possible simple answer. There are clearly narrow and broad usages of the words, and our sources do not treat "ID" like a mathematically defined term.) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, first, I think you really need to reconsider WP:FRINGE, especially the second sentence "A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is." I agree that it does not say exactly what we have to include any particular thing in the first sentence, but not including some form of words like "Intelligent Design is a pseudoscientific theory that..." does accord the idea more credit than it deserves, based on the available and appropriate (ie scientific) sources. We are writing this article with Wikipedia's voice and when dealing with fringe theories like ID, we need to be very careful how we craft the introduction to the topic. The sources are very clear, ID is the epitome of pseudoscience, it is one of its main defining characters and so this fact needs to be introduced at the outset, before introducing the concepts promoted by ID supporters. As for the word creationism, I am happy with committing it from the first sentence so long as "pseudocientifc theory" is there, I agree that it can be included later in the lead or even in the article body. - Nick Thorne ^talk 08:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to make it clear I have no problem with what you say here. It is just that we can do it in several different ways. We can choose from a range of different words, and we can put our sentences in different sequences. In fact we are not allowed to simply reproduce our sources. My concern is to avoid us heading once more down a path where people are saying that there are WP policies which force us to make very specific editing decisions. (Such discussions have happened here before I notice.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

dave souza, I have incorporated your suggestion into the proposed lead in my sandbox (or see below) and agree that we should remove the "Criticism" section. I also want to suggest removing some of the citations in the lead, as there are a couple sentences with 4+ REF tags. I think we can reduce these to, at most, two citations per sentence. I figure now is as good a time as any to do this. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific theory 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." Proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" that challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science, but educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have shown that ID is a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses. ID is a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God whose leading proponents are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States. Although this version of the argument purposely avoids assigning a personality to the designer, many of its proponents believe the designer to be the Christian deity. Arguments in support of ID include irreducible complexity and specified complexity, which each assert that certain features (biological and informational, respectively) are too complex to be the result of natural processes. Proponents therefore conclude that these features are evidence of design. Detailed scientific examination has rebutted the claims that evolutionary explanations are inadequate, and this premise of intelligent design—that evidence against evolution constitutes evidence for design—has been criticized as a false dichotomy.

Concerning idea to make the first sentence say "pseudoscientific theory" I unfortunately think it is not helpful. I do not disagree that ID can be called both pseudoscientific and creationist, but both terms have the same problem which is that they are going to be read as deliberately emotive words (perhaps they are meant to be) and not as neutral words. Indeed I think creationist is better. To try to explain what I mean, Aristotelian physics is also pseudoscientific in the exact same was as ID is. But if this was the opening sentence of an article on Aristotle's physics, then people would surely find that very odd word choice. Fact of the matter is that Aristotle's science is different to normal modern science, in conflict with it, an alternative to it, etc. Same with the ID's people conception of science. So in a way you are calling a pear a fringe type of apple, which would kind of miss the point from a pear's point of view. This wording is also by no means any sort of source based wording suggestion, because real RS sources do not write like this either. I am sure there are good intentions all over the place but to be very honest this still looks bloggy, adolescent and pointy to me, and it is hard to believe it is not intended to come across a bit that way. Even if I am just being over-negative, you know many readers will very understandably read it this way. Concerning footnotes, please prune more than this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, I disagree that creationism is a better word; I think pseudoscience accurately reflects the scientific air with which proponents present ID. I also disagree with your argument about Aristotelian physics. Again, I think you are making personal justifications not present in reliable sources. Do you have sources saying that Aristotelian physics is pseudoscience? I highly doubt any reliable source would. In contrast, ID is very well-known for being pseudoscience, as sources illustrate. It is our duty to represent the sources, not institute our individual judgments.

Also, could you explain how you think this suggestion is bloggy, adolescent and pointy (read, editorialized)? I think the tone of this proposal is an improvement over the current lead. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

MisterDub, you can find sources that say anything about Aristotle, and also about ID, but to use them properly you do not just cut and paste but you should actually look at the context. My point about Aristotle is that what people criticize his science for is the same thing that people call ID a pseudoscience for, ie it is something being presented as science which is not matching the normal understanding of what science is today (an understanding which the people doing the presenting do not however happen to agree with). Like I said to you, words can have different meanings in different contexts, for example "science". Ignoring that leads to distortion what our sources really say. But even accepting your outward argument, it makes no sense to say that you are just following sources. We can say that in all our best sources about ID there are many common themes, including that it is presented as a science, and that it is not following the norms of modern science. But we can not say that one of the most common themes is the term "pseudoscience". This is quite occasional. It is much less common for example than the use of the term Intelligent Design to refer to teleological arguments in general. Note once again that I am not saying the word is altogether groundless under certain understandings of what it might mean. But not every sourceable terminology can or should be used for the first sentence.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware Aristotle never claimed to be doing modern science, which is a defining characteristic of ID in the modern sense. Some sources state that ID is pseudoscience, multiple sources state that it is presented as science but is not science. Which is essentially the definition of pseudoscience. So, it's a well justified description.

We have even more good quality sources for the description of ID as a form of creationism, creation science relabelled, which is both the origin and immediate source of the arguments put forward by ID. Including a specific variety of the teleological argument.

So, I don't have a problem with the current wording and so far think MisterDub's revised version is good, likely an improvement. What I would have a problem with is Andrew's suggestion of showing an "in-universe" description without the majority expert view context at the outset. That goes against WP:WEIGHT and seems to propose giving "equal validity" to this pseudoscience. As for the teleological argument in general, that belongs in the article dedicated to that general topic. Obviously we make reference to that where sources show a relationship between the TA and ID. . dave souza, talk 19:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not follow the logic Dave. Aristotle indeed did not claim to be doing modern science. But our article is not making a distinction between different definitions of science. That's one of the very points. And yes we have sources saying X, and we have sources saying Y, so how does this prove we must say X? Concerning the "even more sources" I already said that I find creationism preferable to pseudoscience. I also already agreed that both words can be interpreted as correct by me, if you define them a certain way, but again this is not a reason to use those specific words. So nothing you say really makes any case for any option. OTOH...

• I raised a concern about why we would choose words that are obviously going to come across as emotive when plonked in the first sentence. Nothing you say addresses this. As far as I can see, the aim is to write emotively, and "warn people" or am I wrong?
• Your sarcasm about "in universe" citations is just sarcasm about WP policy as far as I can see, as was explained in the FAR. And you know very well that I am not asking for neutrality in all things, but only in the way we report specific real world opinions.
• Concerning the links between this article and the TA one, not sure what your point is, but you seem to be arguing against making the link clear in the lead? So you think the link is not very important to understanding what ID is? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, unless you are arguing the ID is not pseudoscience I fail to see the meaning of your argument which reads like an attempt at obfuscation. We should be aiming at simple and direct description of our subject. stating the fact that ID is pseudoscience at the very beginning does this. It is not emotive language to state the simple unadorned facts. The only people that are likely to be upset are the followers of ID and we are not writing the article for them. Frankly, I couldn't care less if the facts upset them. Any article on a fringe subject is likely to upset its followers if it accords the subject the weight it deserves. Too bad. Adherant's inability to deal with reality should not be our concern. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that my point is so hard to understand. If we are aiming at simple and clear why use fuzzy emotive words? If something is not modern science, then "pseudoscience" is not the only word we have to describe that state is it? This word can be understood in different ways, but I think its most common use is as a sort of insult. I get it that there is an argument here that it has a neutral definition, but I think there is no way that readers will get that subtle point. Indeed I am not sure I have ever seen the word used that way except on this talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 04:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing fuzzy or emotive about it. It just states plain facts. Anything that is claimed to be science when it is not science is pseudoscience. If some people have a problem with that they can either go to other websites that may support their entrenched views or they can read on and learn about reality. Continuing to push this futile line of argument is beginning to look disruptive.--Charles (talk) 08:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, you are right: pseudoscience is not the only way we can describe ID. Terms that spring to mind include bullshit, nonsense, unmitigated clap-trap, woo, a lie, deliberately misleading politically motivated garbage, take your pick. Would one of those better suit your apparent agenda? No, I thought not. Let's just stick to the plain unvarnished fact that ID claims to be science when it fails even the most basic test of what science is and the combination of those two things is what makes it pseudoscience. End of story. It is not that I do not understand your argument, it is that your argument is nonsense like the ID that you seem to be defending. Wikipedia treats subjects that are claimed to be science according to the way they are described in the relevant (science) sources and they agree that ID is junk science. If you don't like that, perhaps you would be better editing at conservapedia, I'm sure they'll welcome your "arguments" with open arms. - Nick Thorne ^talk 08:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The version proposed by MisterDub above (or in his sandbox here) is a perfect replacement for the current lead: shorter, more concise and clearer. The current lead is entirely too long and whatever is not covered by this version should be moved into the article's sections if it's not present there already. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 14:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

This discussion was focussed mostly on the first paragraph, the third paragraph is also important: I'll raise suggestions for tightening it up in a new subsection. . dave souza, talk 10:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I would like to thank Nick Thorne for being clear about what is intended by the use of the word pseudoscience. It is intended, it appears, to be an emotive word, for example like "bullshit". That's my point. I think it is obvious that this is in direct and clear conflict with some of the most clear policies on Wikipedia. Don't get me wrong about my personal opinions concerning ID, wording used for polemics might be correct and true, but it is not encylclopedic. So not all sources which we use should be used also for our word choice. Clearly we now see that we can not use this word, or this style in general. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Not at all, pseudoscience is an accurate and sourced description and should definitely be included. Are more editors here in agreement that MisterDub's version of the lead should go into the article? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 23:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am in agreement. "Pseudoscience" comports with WP's mainstream stance; "creationism," however, does not, because there are many instances in which both proponents and critics deny that it is creationism. Yopienso (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with MisterDub's proposal as amended to include pseudoscience - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, once again you produce a nonsensical argument. Had I actually been suggesting that we use "bullshit" or one of the other rhetorical alternatives in my previous post you would be correct that this would be using emotive words. However, your insistence that emotive applies to the word pseudoscience, which is an accurate and concise term well supported by the sources, is arrant nonsense. I have been lurking on this talk pages for a number of years and I have seen time and again your apparent tactics of trying to water down anything you see as a criticism of ID, usually with spurious arguments like the one you are using here or trying to insert weasel words if you cannot get agreement for your position. I have decided that it is time to call you out on it. The only people that could possibly construe the word pseudoscience as being emotive when referring to ID are ID supporters themselves. Thank you for finally showing your hand and revealing your true position. Now I think it is time that you drop this particular stick and allow the rest of us to get on with building an encyclopaedia. - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with MisterDub's proposal as amended to include pseudoscience.--Charles (talk) 09:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree subject to including the substance of the third paragraph: proposals below. . . dave souza, talk 10:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

@Nick Thorne. 1. Can you please explain what you intended by using the word bullshit to begin with then. It seems to me that by saying that this word is a rhetorical equivalent to what is being said with the word "pseudoscience" then it means you admit that the word is not being chosen for its neutrality. If not, why not? It seems impossible to read it any other way. 2. You mention my true position above in a key and concluding part of your post. What is my true position according to you? Apparently you are accusing me of being an ID supporter who is pretending not to be. Please confirm if this is correct, and on what basis you have written this here. One thing I notice a lot on this special talk page is a lot of attempts to distort the positions of good faith editors who try to work according to normal WP norms.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrew: 1. Your reading comprehension is not my problem. 2. I don't know what your actual position is, I have just seen over the years that you often seem to be arguing to water down any form of wording that could in any way be construed as critical of ID. Your arguments generally seem contrived. I don't know that you are a creationist/ID supporter, but the way you argue your case and the particular lines you seem to take raises suspicions. In other words, I'm just using the duck principle and it seems to me that there is a bit of quacking going on. I could be wrong, maybe it's a goose, not a duck. Meh. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC).

I understand your frustration, Nick, but a straight answer would be more helpful.

Andrew, when Nick said "BS" on April 12, it seemed evident to me he was NOT saying it was a synonym for "pseudoscience" but that he was pointing out "pseudoscience" is an accurate descriptor rather than a descriptive insult. Yopienso (talk) 03:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@Yopienso, if so then I remain unconvinced, and it becomes a question of the English language as it is really most often used, and not a question of my opinions about ID (which may very well be identical to Nick Thorne's). I have seen one or two sources which used pseudoscience in a formalized and arguably neutral way, so I do not deny that they exist. But in the opening sentence of this article, people will read it as it is normally intended, as a derogatory value judgement which is rather grating and can be avoided easily. If we are saying ID is something presents itself as science but is not, then why don't we just say that? (OTOH, I think it is slightly less simple than that. I would say Intelligent design presents itself as science but is not orthodox modern science. That is also much closer to what all sources really say. We are currently being unclear by saying that the IDM both present themselves as science and also question the normal definitions of the boundaries of science. These two things are possible, but then the word science is being used in two different ways. Science can mean orthodox modern science, which ID is not, or be a broader term for all rational attempts to explain nature, such as Aristotle's and other teleological efforts. Orthodox modern science deliberately avoids proposing formal causes in nature, as explained originally by Francis Bacon. His reasoning was that this is one of the types of explanation that humans always tend to mislead themselves about, and secondly that it is not needed. Aristotle and his ilk were already aware of this argument and disagreed with the second point, as do the IDM folk. By ignoring these points, we ignore the basic history of science.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

(Different) suggested opening sentences

No one really listens to me (probably for the best), but I thought I'd throw this out here anyway: I would suggest these as opening lines for the article:

Intelligent design is the doctrine that living things or the universe as a whole were designed and created by the purposeful action of an intelligent agent. This intelligent agent is normally identified as God. There is no substantive difference between intelligent design and creationism. The term "intelligent design" was popularized in order to evince an image of scientific respectability and obtain legal permissibility for creationism within public education. The scientific consensus is that intelligent design is baseless. According to this consensus, the existence of living things is to be explained by modern evolutionary theory including abiogenesis, and the existence of the universe as a whole is to be explained by Big Bang cosmology. The few natural scientists, philosophers of science and other writers who defend intelligent design are considered to be fringe thinkers.

Note, I don't say this should be the whole of the lede, just the first sentences. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Atethnekos, thank you for the proposal. It reads fairly accurately, but I think it is a step backward from what we are trying to do. I think it's important we show that ID is a purportedly scientific theory, not just a general doctrine. I find it interesting that you've listed (some of) the scientific theories that conflict with ID, but I don't think this is necessary. ID contradicts many scientific theories, and we needn't produce an exhaustive list here. I think it's more important to illustrate ID's challenge to methodological naturalism, which is missing from your proposal. And, on a grammatical note, the paragraph seems quite punctuated. Not that these issues can't be addressed, but I think Yopienso's proposal is a better starting point. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that it looks good to me. Probably would be good to add something that the most notable form is the modern initiative, the form which Misterdub is mistakenly treating as the only form, and implicitly asserting to be the only form. North8000 (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

ID is a specific form, as shown by good sources, the broader design argument commonly uses the phrase: see my suggestion for the third paragraph, as below. . . dave souza, talk 10:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, provide a source which says that ID is limited to that specific form; the core foundation assertion of one "side" of this debate. North8000 (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed there is no such source. Intelligent design is not a technical term with a standard clear technical definition in any field. It is used in both narrow and broad senses even in Padian and Matzke. Ayala's book review, discussed here many times, clearly could give a reader the feeling that he feels the broad sense is dominant and more correct.

@Dave. Problem is our sources frequently inter-mingle the broad and narrow meanings, without ever giving us a clear mathematical style definition of what ID "really" means. So it is WP editing judgement which has selected the narrow meaning for this article, not the sources and we should not present it as if it were otherwise. As a result, probably the best practical solution to your concern is to simply insert words like "broadly" or in a "broad sense", and/or "in a more narrow sense" or "more specifically" into sentences where appropriate. There is nothing stopping us doing this, and it gets around your concern.

@Atethnekos, perhaps a point of detail given the fact we are dealing with a reasonably loose popular term in this article, but I think Aristotle might create an issue for your third sentence, depending upon definitions of terms. He certainly sees nature, and therefore science, as involving final causes (intelligent design as per your first sentence?) but he is not a creationist according to most definitions given that his "creator" had no specific moment we could call creation, but is rather constantly creating or causing nature.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course "intelligent design" has several broad senses, but the term is most commonly recognised as referring to this particular version of creationism which incorporates a specific variant of the design argument. In accordance with WP:NAME. . . dave souza, talk 15:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

We have no consensus on what the most common usage is, nor any source which clearly gives one. But that is not my main concern. Simply the fact that there are several well known meanings, combined with the fact that these meanings overlap and are not always followed in any strict way even within one source, tells us that we need to at least alert our readers to this. Where in our article are we admitting what you admit in your , that there are several meanings? Please respond.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Third paragraph

The current third paragraph covers a lot of important context, but can be reworded more concisely to fit with the proposed first and second paragraphs. One good point raised above is that starting it with the IDM seems to divert it from the main topic: I've trimmed it to focus on the meaning and origins of ID. The new opening words aim to meet the requests to point to other usage of "intelligent design":

Though the phrase "intelligent design" had featured previously in theological discussions of the design argument, the first publication of the term intelligent design in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high school biology classes. The term was substituted into drafts of the book after the 1987 United States Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision, which barred the teaching of creation science in public schools on constitutional grounds. From the mid-1990s, the intelligent design movement (IDM), supported by the Discovery Institute, advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula, leading to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, where U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

This isn't the only way to cover the points, but I think it works better than expanding the first paragraph. . dave souza, talk 10:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I've opened a new section where I merge together the first two paragraphs proposed by MisterDub and this one to see where we are regarding consensus to replace the current lead. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 16:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed replacement for lead

Ok, I've put together the proposal by MisterDub for the 1st and 2nd paragraphs and that by dave souza for the 3rd paragraph. This is the combined new lead proposal:

Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific theory 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." Proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" that challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science, but educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have shown demonstrated that ID is a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses. ID is a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God whose leading proponents are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States. Although this version of the argument purposely avoids assigning a personality to the designer, many of its proponents believe the designer to be the Christian deity.

Arguments proposed in support of ID include irreducible complexity and specified complexity, which each assert that certain features (biological and informational, respectively) are too complex to be the result of natural processes. Proponents therefore conclude that these features are evidence of design. Detailed scientific examination has rebutted the claims that evolutionary explanations are inadequate, and this premise of intelligent design—that evidence against evolution constitutes evidence for design—has been criticized as a false dichotomy.

Though the phrase "intelligent design" had featured previously in theological discussions of the design argument, the first publication of the term intelligent design in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high school biology classes. The term was substituted into drafts of the book after the 1987 United States Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision, which barred the teaching of creation science in public schools on constitutional grounds. From the mid-1990s, the intelligent design movement (IDM), supported by the Discovery Institute, advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula, leading to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial in which U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

I say we gauge consensus with a straw poll to see where we stand on using this as replacement for the current lead. I'll open a section below. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 15:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Straw poll

• Support inclusion of new lead. Gaba ^(talk) 15:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of new lead, we can continue to discuss minor refinements and improvements. . dave souza, talk 16:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of new lead. NathanWubs (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. Support. Guettarda (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment That's about 30 changes. Most of them good, but there are also steps backward on the main problem. North8000 (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Looks like an improvement to me. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support, with one exception (see below). Yopienso (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support minor suggestion below. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose until Yopienso's suggestion below is incorporated. Cla68 (talk) 11:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Discuss new proposed lead

I think the proposal a good example of quality crowd-sourced content. It defines the topic dispassionately from the mainstream view while faithfully presenting the proponents' assertions. It acknowledges past use of the term while showing a historical discontinuity between early and present usage. After reading only the lede, a person would have a reasonable understanding of the ID.

One exception: "have shown" in the first paragraph is too conclusive and borders on scornfulness. Even the Union of Concerned Scientists differentiates between creationism and ID. I suggest changing "have shown" to "argue" to maintain neutrality. Yopienso (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, when it came to an impartial judgment, the point that ID is creationism relabelled (more specifically creation science relabelled) was shown conclusively. We can't use "argue" as that gives "equal validity" to discredited pseudoscience. Perhaps "have demonstrated that" which leaves a little wiggle room for the minority who find the demonstration unpersuasive. By the way, more reliable sources still find a differentiation between creation science and ID, e.g. Scott & Matzke 2007 discusses how they overlap, and notes "creation science remains the larger of the two movements and generates much grass-roots activity" . dave souza, talk 22:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

So why do we accept a primary source from a lone U.S. court case (that the NCSE has stuck as a feather in its cap) against the views of Scott and Matzke, the U of CS, the Gallup poll, and everyone else who understands the difference? There's a range of opinions from good sources as to whether ID is creationism or a form of creationism or a horse of an entirely different color. That's not "demonstrating." Barbara Forrest wrote, As this paper demonstrates, the ID movement is the most recent version of American creationism. In promoting “intelligent design theory”—a term that is essentially code for the religious belief in a supernatural creator . . . Yet, "American creationism" is specifically biblical, while ID, at least as promoted in public, is specifically non-biblical. Forrest isn't demonstrating anything more than her opinion (and that of her think tank).

Well, that's how I came to make my suggestion, which I still stand by. I'll settle for "demonstrated" over "shown." :) Yopienso (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, your reasoning is appreciated and we can agree on "demonstrated" – I'll make that change in the above draft, anyone can revert it if they want to discuss it further.

On the question of creationism being specifically biblical, Scott and Matzke's peer reviewed paper notes that even in Morris's 1974 book biblical quotes were optional (two versions of the book), and the Louisiana bill deliberately left out explicit mention of the young earth and global flood. When that came to trial, "Kenyon's expert witness affidavit showed that creation science was scientific and nonreligious". Of course he later co-authored Pandas. . dave souza, talk 00:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest the word "put" or "proposed" be added after "arguments" at the beginning of the second paragraph. - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

How about changing "Arguments" to "Pseudoscientific theories"? Yopienso (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Since noticing that Kitzmiller has the more nuanced statement that "the argument for ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God" rather than "ID is... an old religious argument..." I've found that Scott and Matzke's paper clearly makes the point that both ID itself and specifically IC/SC present detailed arguments against evolution, together with a vague positive argument: "The ID movement's negative arguments against evolution are numerous, but its positive argument for design consists of variations on an analogy between biological systems and human artifacts." Will try to think of how best to include this point, preferably with a concise modification to the first paragraph. . dave souza, talk 00:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

"offered in support" might split that hair effectively, since that's the way they were presented - as things that were supposed to buttress ID (although Behe makes it clear in DBB that ID needs to put forward its own positive arguments within a decade or so if it wanted to be seen as credible, something that it failed to do). Guettarda (talk) 04:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Revised draft: negative and positive arguments

As above, the Scott & Matzke 2007 paper is a good source for showing that ID isn't just the design argument, it's largely a group of negative arguments against evolutionary explanations, together with a vague analogy from human artifacts. So, I've incorporated the previous tentative amendments into a revised draft, added "ID presents negative arguments against evolutionary explanations, and an analogy between natural systems and human artifacts. This positive analogy is a version of the theological argument from design..." "ID presents negative arguments against evolutionary explanations, and in positive support of ID an analogy between natural systems and human artifacts. This analogy is a version of the theological argument from design. ..." to the first paragraph, and changed the first sentence of the second paragraph to "Arguments proposed in support of ID include irreducible complexity and specified complexity, each of which presents detailed negative assertions that certain features (biological and informational, respectively) are too complex to be the result of natural processes. Proponents therefore conclude by analogy that these features are evidence of design." . . . dave souza, talk 07:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC) On second thought, tweaked wording, as below. . dave souza, talk 08:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific theory 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." Proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" that challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science, but educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses. ID presents negative arguments against evolutionary explanations, and in positive support of ID an analogy between natural systems and human artifacts. This analogy is a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God. The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States. Although this version of the argument purposely avoids assigning a personality to the designer, many of its proponents believe the designer to be the Christian deity.

Arguments proposed in support of ID include irreducible complexity and specified complexity, each of which presents detailed negative assertions that certain features (biological and informational, respectively) are too complex to be the result of natural processes. Proponents therefore conclude by analogy that these features are evidence of design. Detailed scientific examination has rebutted the claims that evolutionary explanations are inadequate, and this premise of intelligent design—that evidence against evolution constitutes evidence for design—has been criticized as a false dichotomy.

Though the phrase "intelligent design" had featured previously in theological discussions of the design argument, the first publication of the term intelligent design in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high school biology classes. The term was substituted into drafts of the book after the 1987 United States Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision, which barred the teaching of creation science in public schools on constitutional grounds. From the mid-1990s, the intelligent design movement (IDM), supported by the Discovery Institute, advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula, leading to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial in which U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Any suggestions for improvements to the wording? If commentators feel these changes are constructive, they can be incorporated into the proposed lead above or could be the subject of a new straw poll. . . dave souza, talk 07:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't like "pseudoscientific theory", and would prefer something plain like "claim". ID does not offer any account of, or explanation of, how things happen, or have any of the characteristics of a theory. "Pseudoscientific" - that is a contentious word, and perhaps does not mean the same thing in regard to phrenology, astrology, alchemy, ESP - let alone tell us something about ID other than that scientists don't like it. TomS TDotO (talk) 13:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi TomS TDotO, that's part of the #Proposed replacement for lead which you can !vote on at #Straw poll and comment on at #Discuss new proposed lead. This section is about the additional changes to cover the negative and positive arguments, it's worthwhile keeping discussions together until there's a change of topic or sections get too big,, . dave souza, talk 13:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

dave souza, I'm not all too enthused about the position at which you've placed this addition. It seems that, if IC and CSI are the negative arguments being discussed, this sentence ought to be moved down to the second paragraph. If you want to keep this sentence near the introduction of the teleological argument, I'd suggest moving that to the second paragraph as well. Other than that, I'm not too concerned about this particular edit. I don't think it's crucial information, but wouldn't stand in the way of its inclusion. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest moving it into main space. It's crowd-sourced, so we'll twiddle with it indefinitely; we'll never get it "perfect" here on talk. Happy that this is one of the most collegial and constructive discussions I've been involved in at any article. Yopienso (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with TomS TDotO that the term "pseudoscientific theory" is problematic. (This is a separate concern from my concern about the term pseudoscience.) Concerning straw polls, I do not see that this specific point was the subject of much discussion or voting. But BTW also remember WP:NOTDEM. The question has been raised many times in the past I think concerning whether this article is about a theory. If it is, then I think the article name should be changed to "Intelligent Design Theory", but I did not think there was much support for that because some editors wanted this article to be seen as covering a broad range of uses of the term "Intelligent Design"? OTOH, if we could limit the article down to Intelligent Design Theory, (which is a redirect for this article) it might resolve some dab issues frequently mentioned by editors such as North?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Revised draft: negative and positive arguments Mk. 2

Thanks for these suggestions in the section above, I've tried moving the teleological arguments and negative arguments into the second paragraph and think it does actually work quite well. I've slightly modified the remaining wording of the first paragraph to include the point that ID is a religious argument, and that leading proponents state it is not creationism. See what you think, . dave souza, talk 17:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific theory 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." Proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" that challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science, but educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a religious argument, a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses. The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States. Although they state that ID is not creationism and purposely avoid assigning a personality to the designer, many of its proponents express belief that the designer is the Christian deity.

ID presents negative arguments against evolutionary explanations, and its positive argument is an analogy between natural systems and human artifacts, a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God. Both irreducible complexity and specified complexity present detailed negative assertions that certain features (biological and informational, respectively) are too complex to be the result of natural processes. Proponents then conclude by analogy that these features are evidence of design. Detailed scientific examination has rebutted the claims that evolutionary explanations are inadequate, and this premise of intelligent design—that evidence against evolution constitutes evidence for design—has been criticized as a false dichotomy.

Though the phrase "intelligent design" had featured previously in theological discussions of the design argument, the first publication of the term intelligent design in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high school biology classes. The term was substituted into drafts of the book after the 1987 United States Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision, which barred the teaching of creation science in public schools on constitutional grounds. From the mid-1990s, the intelligent design movement (IDM), supported by the Discovery Institute, advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula, leading to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial in which U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Thanks for moving this forward, do you think this is nearly ready to be put into mainspace for normal editing, after checking the citations? . .. dave souza, talk 17:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a faithful synopsis of the subject. Ckruschke (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Looks good, dave souza! I'd say it's an improvement over the last draft. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Works for me. - Nick Thorne ^talk 05:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, on that basis I've tried to sort out the references, and having done that have moved it into mainspace so that editors can see how the citations work. Normal editing can resolve any remaining problems, dave souza, talk 09:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It is looking good, I have enjoyed reading the new lead so far. Too me it feels better flowing then the old oneNathanWubs (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments on this draft, just focusing on the opening words for now:

• First sentence. I think the biggest concern people will have is obvious: the word pseudo science does not add much except a sort of feeling. Removing it would not change meaning but would give a more encyclopedic tone. To the extent that pseudoscience has a neutral meaning that is something for the body. We can not force every type of thing into a lead. If people really think this word is needed, then surely they can explain why information it adds? But I have not seen this attempted. If it just means "presented as science but not normal science" then we are just being repetitive.
• Second sentence. This really does look like a committee-made sentence, with bits added on and then bits are added on to the added on bits. Apart from style, the connections between the pieces give implications about the connections and contrasts between the key terms that I think are questionable but probably just a result of the editing process. To explain, here are the components and the connector bits:

Proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins"

that

challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science,

but

educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a religious argument, a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses.

The first link "that" implies that there is nothing unexpected about someone having such a scientific theory which is not methodologically naturalistic. The second link "but" actually then makes the opposite point, showing how it is not normal. Furthermore this is actually one point where all our sources agree, i.e. that ID can only be science if science does not have to be methodologically naturalistic, and yet we are quite clearly trying to give the impression our sources do not agree and are divided into parties. Proposal:

Proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins"

but admit it

rejects the methodological naturalism inherent in normal modern science

. [Full stop.]

Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community therefore argue that ID is not science, but a religious argument, a form of creationism which lacks real empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses.

This is deliberately just minimal moving the deck chairs around. I would also question the general wordiness and repetition, and the practicality of using jargon such as methodological naturalism this early, before we have defined it, especially when there are common English ways to say the same thing. For those who do not realize, it is not as if this is a really dominant term in philosophy of science itself. In philosophy of science lots of terminology is used. As I understand it, the point editors are trying to make here concerning methodological naturalism is that ID does not only use empirical evidence when developing hypotheses, and as we already use the terminology "evidence based" and "empirical support", we could even consider removing it or saying this in a simpler way.

Proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins"

but admit that

its hypotheses are not limited to what can be observed in nature, which is the method of modern science

. [Full stop.]

Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community therefore argue that ID is not science, but a religious argument, a form of creationism which is no real tenable empirical support.

In other words, why say the same thing three different ways? I have tried to say each thing once. If my proposal removed an important piece of information, please let me know.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you please explain this. "presented as science but not normal science". Since when is there anything other then "normal science"? You are not going to try and pull a Ken Ham right? NathanWubs (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I really don't read the sentence as you do. The first link (that) sounds better than but admit it, and doesn't imply that the proceeding clause is somehow "business as usual"; it merely presents additional information about that particular subject. No one denies that ID challenges methodological naturalism. And why not use that term? And wikilink it? Is this not the Internet? Is it that hard to click once to find out what a term means? If needed, we can explain the term here instead of removing it entirely; that's just a terrible solution. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with MisterDub, IMO the second sentence reads far better the way it is presently structured: Andrew, your proposal adds nothing and simply unnecessarily complicates the sentence, obscuring the meaning. As for the word pseudoscience in the first sentence, we have heard all your arguments about this before, Andrew, we do not need to go over it again and again. You have lost this argument, the consensus has been established to use the word. Drop the stick now, before you exhaust the ability of others to AGF. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

@NathanWubs, the exact words to use can be discussed, for example maybe "orthodox modern science" might be better, but there was recently extensive discussion on this talkpage about the fact that the ID people present themselves as practicing science but are not doing this in a way most people would normally understand by that word. That there are things called science which are not orthodox modern science is not, IMHO, a controversial statement. Consider Aristotelian science. If we do not admit this much discussed point (and admit it clearly) we distort not only the ID movement but their most respectable critics as well.

@MisterDub. Concerning whether to use wikilinking to justify a relatively obscure bit of jargon that would be easy to avoid, it is a matter of editing judgement, but I feel a concern that you do not couch your response in terms of how your proposal communicates better, but rather in terms of how it is allowed. And a point I did make is that this particular terminology, and therefore the wikilink you would use, is not necessarily the main one which would send a reader to an explanation about how this debate fits into a bigger context of various similar arguments about the definition of science, and what subject matter it should be limited to. Indeed, your proposed wikilink sends readers to an article which is within the "WP:walled garden" of intelligent design related articles written in very similar terms to this one. That in itself is an issue, and not a preferred solution on WP for the aim you describe.

Anyway in terms of WP neutrality policy we should try to start with terminology consistent with that used by both sides of published debates about this matter, if it exists. I think that would not be difficult.

@Nick Thorne. I asked someone to explain what the word pseudoscience adds in terms of meaning. Any kind of convincing answer might help convince people that its intention is not simply to add emotion (Which BTW goes far beyond the style of our better sources). If it is difficult to give a clear answer, the opposite impression is given. Please also remember that local consensus, even if there was a clear one, does not over-ride Wikipedia's core content policies such as the well known one about neutrality. You may want to look at this article's old FA reviews, which represent broader based community comments. Eventually this article will be reviewed again, and I believe the community has become much more clear and strict on this type of thing.

@everyone. I see no feedback to the most simple part of my proposal, which is to use a full stop to avoid a "run on sentence". I think this can be done independently of all other aspects of my proposal can't it? A simple way is just the classic rule of replacing a but with a full stop and a "however".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@everyone. A second separable proposal which remains uncommented upon is the change from "challenges" to "rejects". ID is not well known for publicly challenging methodological naturalism as such. Arguably, some members of the ID movement actually avoid clear mention of their rejection of this approach.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, I am open to different terminology, but to the best of my knowledge, methodological naturalism is the most precise and accurate term denoting modern science's commitment to physicalist explanations. If the article on that concept needs improvement, please do so. I don't really care if we say ID rejects or challenges methodological naturalism; sounds like semantics at this point. And assuming we don't incorporate your first change (changing that to but admit it), we don't have a run-on sentence. I still don't think these suggestions improve the article. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, the Oxford English Dictionary defines pseudoscience as "a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method". This is about as clearly appropriate a term to describe ID as I can think of. It is concise, to the point and accurate. It means exactly what the OED says, a perfect description if what ID is. I get it that you don't like it, but Wikipedia is not constrained by your personal preferences. You seem to be the only one here who see some sort of emotional overtone for the word. Get over it.

Andrewm you seem to think that your opinion of what the wider community might think is in any way convincing. It is not. If and when this matter comes before the wider community we will see what is said then. You'll have to excuse me if I am not particularly interested in your opinion of what that might be.

Andrew, part of the reason your proposals have received no input is that they not offering any improvements to the article. The "problems" that your proposals fix do not exist. Please stop endlessly rehashing old arguments that have already been put aside, it is becoming disruptive. As I said before, drop the stick. Now. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Nick it is clear there are a lot of editors who feel excluded from discussion on this talk page, and your aggresive and ad hominem style of posts (typical of several editors on this talk page over the years) shows how that works. Simple logic: You (and others) keep talking about how every thing has been discussed many times in the past (as if that is an answer). How is that possible if I am also always being told that no one else agrees with me? Anyway, I would prefer it if we would just quit having discussions about editors. Can you please do that? I asked what the word is adding that would not be explained by spelling out what our sources mean by "pseudoscience" (as we did in past versions of the lead). You have not answered. You have cited the OED back at me, but the definition you cite does not match the sources which have been cited on this talk page as the justification for using the term on this article. Previous discussions about the sourcing justifications for using the term have seemed to make it clear that the idea being communicated, and which was found in reliable sources, was that in this case ID is pseudoscience because it CLAIMS to be science (not because it is misunderstood to be science), but does not meet the normal requirements. Previous versions of our lead said this more clearly. Your citation of the OED definition shows that you are yourself no longer familiar with the sourcing rationals behind this term that have been stated many times on this talk page. So my question is open.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, I am not interested in attacking you personally or otherwise, however, for so long as you propose changes to this page that I consider to be detrimental to the encyclopaedia I will oppose those changes. I cannot help it if you see those criticisms of your proposed changes as being ad hominem, I have no control over your perceptions of my posts, just as I have no control over any apparent inability to understand why the word pseudoscience is entirely appropriate in this article. Frankly, I don't care whether you understand or not, I do care however, what happens to this article. Continue to make similar proposals like the majority of the ones you have been making lately and I will continue to oppose them. This is not ad hominem, it is all about content of the article. - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

That is fine by me if you would live by it, but actually I asked you a straight question and you deflected away into ad hominem (again). Above I wrote: "I asked someone to explain what the word pseudoscience adds in terms of meaning. Any kind of convincing answer might help convince people that its intention is not simply to add emotion (Which BTW goes far beyond the style of our better sources). If it is difficult to give a clear answer, the opposite impression is given. Please also remember that local consensus, even if there was a clear one, does not over-ride Wikipedia's core content policies such as the well known one about neutrality." Why not just give a straight answer to a straight question? Let's get a good rationale on record if there is one. I note remarkably little discussion of rationales in all the recent straw polls and so on.

As far as I can see, we have only a few cases of good sources using the word pseudoscience, and no sources at all which use it as one of the defining characteristics most essential to "intelligent design". To do that we need to synthesize from various sources, it seems to me (as you did above). So us putting it in the first sentence gives our article a very different flavor to our sources (unless our real sources are the blogs and online forums). What our RS sources all do agree on is that intelligent design is a term for "arguments from design". This is in fact a good neutral term, used in good sources, and covering concepts sometimes equivalent to fuzzy terms like "creationism". But the recent edits have moved this out of the opening sentences. Why? I did not see it discussed here. Do you say I am wrong in my reading of the sources? If so then can you help me out? (See WP:BURDEN.) Again, if there is a good explanation let's get it on record and try to clear up the concerns?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, you can repeat the same non-arguments as many times as you like, it proves nothing. It does not matter how fervently you believe what you're saying nor how many times you repeat it, that does not increase the credibility of the claims. You do not get to "win" by sheer bloody minded obstinacy. You percieve my criticisms of your "arguments" as being ad hominem. Well touch titties, that's not my problem and reality is not constrained by your perceptions. As for the word pseudoscience, please give one good reason why the word is not appropriate to describe ID, IOW in exactly what way is ID not pseudoscience? - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Nick, stop writing about me, and see WP:BURDEN. It does not matter what I think, or if I can convince you. This is Wikipedia and we are supposed to be summarizing what sources say. So to start with, can you show just one source which gives as much emphasis as our opening line does to the term "pseudoscience" as a primary defining characteristic of "intelligent design"? I am quite confident that you understand the difference between description and definition right?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrew -- thru this awhile ago, think arguing back then that WP guidelines are definition should be from primary source (such as DI) as cite #1, expecting 'creationism' to be sentence #2 but wound up 'creationism' prefixed and three other cites first. Meh. (And sentence 2 & 3 now go for describing PR approach and PR response seems odd.) Markbassett (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Markbassett but that's a bit too compressed for me :) Can you expand a bit to make it more clear what you are saying? Do we have any source which defines, really defines, the term "intelligent design" as pseudoscience rather than a type of argument from design. I believe we have sources which use the word pseudoscience, but no source which place the term up front in the primary defining sentences like WP does. Right?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll unpack a little (but there's just too much history rerun it all and you can always search the Talk archives). There was circa | Talk Archive 70 that the article ranted a lot without ever defining what the ranting was over. There followed some Talk on WP proprieties that a definition should cite from DI since the article hat said 'ID as promulgated by DI' and then folks wanting to edit that to preface it with a disclaimer or wanting to adjust the article scope from 'as promulgated by DI' or lots of other things rather than just quote DI definition and waiting for sentence #2 to say 'this is generally viewed as creationism'. (For example, there was talk circa archive 72 about where to put non-DI usage of the term, in particular the 19th century relatively common use that Darwin used, or archive 74 the lede going into overkill 'contemporary anti-evolution Intelligent Design Creationsim' ...) 'Psuedoscience' was talked in archive 75 mentioned it seems just a vague epithet, and prominent sources would use wording 'rejected' or 'not science' or even 'creationism' but not 'pseudoscience'. So the article wound up saying 'creationism' for a while. Hope this clears up the mention of article history Markbassett (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

"This article uses scientific terminology, and as such, the use of the word 'theory' to refer to anything outside of a recognised scientific theory is ambiguous. Please use words such as 'concept', 'notion', 'idea', 'assertion'; see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Theories and hypotheses." The opening words of this article do not conform to this. Better would be "ID is the concept ...". IMHO better yet would be "IID is the claim ...", but that is not in the list of preferred terms. In any case, without the term "theory", we do not need to use the pejorative "pseudoscientific". TomS TDotO (talk) 13:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

No 'theory' is a correct quote and there seems no Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Theories and hypotheses. Doesn't mean it's true or that you have to like it, just that it is accurately conveying the cite and topic. There's a whole raft of theory vs scientific theory vs bad theory differentiation there. Besides, I'll point out the logic that if it was not presented as an assserting iself as 'theory' or 'hypothesis' but as one of those labels it would not be in the form of science which is the core issue of the whole topic. (See 'pseudoscience' or 'evolution is just a theory' discussions.) Markbassett (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Copy edit on new lead

All, I think the new lead could use a copy edit, especially in the second paragraph. I was planning on being bold, but I'm not sure the edits I've made are that much better. Any suggestions? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

ID presents negative arguments against evolutionary explanations, including irreducible complexity and specified complexity, which assert that certain features (biological and informational, respectively) are too complex to be the result of natural processes. The positive argument ID offers is an analogy between natural systems and human artifacts, a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God, which proponents employ to conclude that these features are evidence of design. Detailed scientific examination has rebutted the claims that evolutionary explanations are inadequate, and this premise of intelligent design—that evidence against evolution constitutes evidence for design—has been criticized as a false dichotomy.

Possibly I am naive in thinking I will be listened to on this, but a point I keep making to the editors of this article is that you really should try harder to imagine a reader who is not as interested in this subject as you are. Any kind of ID-debate-specific terminology or shorthand phrasing should be avoided in the lead and discussed in the body. This concept of the problem of "negative arguments" is, I have learned, one with a long pedigree of discussion on this talk page, but it is not so easy for an outsider to this talk page to pick up quickly. Please note that I am not at all questioning the interest value and notability of this point. After spending time to try to understand editors of this talk page my understanding is that this negative arguments problem is a corollary to the more critical problem of ID not having "positive arguments" i.e. not having its own tenable and testable hypotheses which are based on empirical observation alone. I do not want to shock people by questioning a traditional belief that has developed here, but do we really need secondary concerns mentioned in the lead, or should we not focus on the primary issues, and move complications to the body?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not particularly excited about introducing text about negative/positive arguments, but I'm not really opposed either. Consensus is a give-and-take. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

ID is not creationism

Other than courts, whose view is not binding on scientific matters in ANY way, no scientific organization has ever referred to it as such. Please stop with the anti-religious propaganda here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.209.177 (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, ID is so overwhelmingly associated with creationism that Barbara Forrest and the NCSE both refer to it as IDC, Intelligent Design Creationism. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting that the anon IP doesn't see the contradiction in the two sentences s/he posted. First the anon attempts to distance ID from religion, and in the next sentence accuses the article of anti-religious propaganda. Can't have it both ways.

That said, I do think there's a valid point to be made regarding attribution of a consensus view, versus stating that view in Wikipedia's narrative voice, as if Wikipedia is taking a position on the issue. This, I think, is the underlying reason for the bulk of the voluminous archives of this talk page. Some slight tweaks of the wording could fix this without detracting from the information the article provides. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Concerning the word "creationism", it has several different definitions. So although I do not disagree with it is not ideal for us in the simple types of sentences most suitable for a lead. (Using the word pseudoscience is even more problematic.) One meaning of creationism, for example as used by David Sedley (philosopher and classicist), is a teleological understanding of nature, i.e. an understanding that nature is governed by something like a human craftsman, with intentions. He specifically says that this is exactly what divides modern creationists (and he refers to the intelligent design movement) and their Darwinian opponents. See for example here. Since at least Francis Bacon, modern science deliberately trys to avoid explaining nature in terms of formal or final causes (nature having aims or intentions), because according to Bacon, people are attracted to untruths of this type, and they are not needed. Indeed, as is frequently remarked, many scientists either deliberately or accidentally still use teleological words, so people clearly really are attracted to this habit like moths. The counter argument, famously associated with Plato and Aristotle amongst many others, is that ignoring one very common and natural category of explanations about nature will distort and bias the resulting explanations.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Amatulić, I'm open to proposals along those lines, but I have serious doubts that it will pass consensus. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to check my understanding: you are saying that before any wording has been proposed? So actually you are saying that there will be disagreement with the idea that Wikipedia should write in a neutral voice?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that. I meant exactly what I said. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Misterdub, can you cite where Barbara Forest and the NCSE talk about ID as a form of Creationism? I'm guessing you guys can't provide these soures, because otherwise you wouldn't rely on the judgment of a court, which has no bearing on what a scientific theory is, in the pseudo-intellectual FAQ.92.236.209.177 (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem! Aside from Barbara Forrest's book Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design, you can also see other papers she has authored, such as this. A quick Google search immediately yielded this result: What is Intelligent Design Creationism?. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Creationism is obvious. Please read "cdesign proponentsists".--McSly (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Misterdub, if you say what you mean, then it seems to me that you say what I said, because I used your words. You said you "have serious doubts that it will pass consensus", and "it" refers to something in Amatulic's post. I looked at that post, and I see that it is about writing with a neutral voice. Please explain what I misunderstood in your post. What is it in Amatulic's post which is in conflict, you think, with the local consensus here. Seems quite relevant to try to define this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, if you used my words, then how did "writing in a neutral voice" get in there? I said absolutely nothing about that. Instead of arguing about what I think others will do, however, someone might just consider starting a proposal and we can actually witness how it fares. The current discussion is just asinine. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I am saying that is what I read Amatulic to be writing about, but I am not being dogmatic about it. I am asking what you read to be controversial in Amatulic's post. Why not just answer?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

MisterDub - grammatically those are two different things. "Intelligent Design Creationism" would be creationism using ID, more an alternate label for ID Movement than the theology maybe but anyway not what ID itself is as the term or concept. That's what they seem to say at NCSE website (http://ncse.com/creationism/general/what-is-intelligent-design-creationism) caveat I think they might have been doing a word gamey thing of intentionally revise everything ID to IDC just to be sure they always have 'Creationism'. WP has it redirected to a separate article Intelligent Design Creationism Markbassett (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment on semantics

It often amazes me how some can attach different labels or definitions to the same thing. For example, I believe, (and have always stated on my user page) and like anyone else, can't prove, that Evolution is simply the process of Creation. I don't see the two advents completely separated but rather as components of the same thing. Then we have the Intelligent Design v Random Design schools of thought. We could say that a river winds around in a random path with no inherent direction of its own, or we can say that it follows the path of least resistance and goes from high ground to lower ground. i.e.An inherent design. We can assume that life began all at once (i.e.'poof!') -- or we can assume that the first life forms occurred, rose up out of the dirt all by itself, over a long period of time. (i.e.an ongoing 'poof!') In either case, the end result is what we have today, so it would seem we're all really talking about the same thing. How scientists and the religious community chose to explain this affair seems largely the product of their background and peer pressure. i.e.How many bishops, ministers and other clerics would fall from grace if they were to even acknowledge the idea of evolution -- and how many scientists would lose grants, jobs and positions if they were to embrace any semblance of creationism? Hopefully this perspective will help editors here better patch this story together, somewhat, for the article's sake. Just passing through and thought I'd chime in. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You'll appreciate that Wikipedia isn't a forum so this is really offtopic. Regrettably the ID proponents don't agree with you, perhaps the views of Asa Gray or Kenneth R. Miller would be more to your taste. You might find Finding Darwin's God of interest, . . dave souza, talk 18:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Dave you have no idea what "the ID proponents" agree with or not, because you have no idea who they are. Behe and Dembski represent themselves and the organization they work for or collaborate with. Does the current or two previous popes count as "ID proponents"? How 'bout the current U.S. Catholic bishops? How 80% or 90% of seminary-trained clergy in North America or Europe?

Now Gwill: "and how many scientists would lose grants, jobs and positions if they were to embrace any semblance of creationism?" This book has a chapter of dedicated to that question titled "Does a Scientist Dare Believe in Design?". The author is a well-known Harvard physics/astronomy professor.

This article misrepresents the topic that is its very title. "Intelligent Design" as a topic existed long before the Discovery Institute and "the ID proponents" that Dave alludes to. It's shameful that the editors who insist they own the article also insist on conflating the two. One is a dishonest organization that has shown itself to be so and the other is a philosophical topic that is not accurately portrayed in Wikipedia in the article so named. 71.169.179.28 (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a bit ethereal, but actually on topic, at least on one of the big open questions regarding coverage of it in the article. The "ID" you are referring to is actually a subset of ID, a particular recent form, and Gwillhickers is talking about an an instance of the broader actual meaning, as evidenced by coverage of it in sources that is outside of your subset. North8000 (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

In order to keep the discussion useful, on all sides, it would be good to present real sourcing. I must note in relation to this that it is very unfortunate, and a much under-rated problem, that our current lead's sourcing almost seems to be deliberately difficult to use, or at the very least does not appear to be written with the aim of verification (which is one of Wikipedia's most serious core policies). One new sourcing demand open is for a source which defines ID like our new opening line. But the older question which has been open for a very long time, which North is referring to, is to find any source which justifies Wikipedia's approach of totally distinguishing two things called "intelligent design", one being arguments from design generally, and the other being the "scam" version which is how I understand the local consensus here to pretty much define what the subject of the present article is about. By my understanding, Dave souza and Mister Dub have had to admit that the term intelligent design is used to cover both concepts even in some of the sources which come closest to our article's approach. Indeed that there are two concepts seems very debateable. There are sources talking about differences between flavors of Intelligent Design, but I know of no source which distinguish two completely different concepts as distinctly as we do.

PROPOSAL. I think discussion for everyone would be greatly helped if the sourcing in our lead would be trimmed. In concrete terms I propose that the editors who want the article to keep its current flavour make an honest effort to move towards the following:

• One or maybe two sources per sentence, (not one footnote).
• No complex footnotes which require synthesis from many sources in order to be used to verify anything.
• Any complex footnotes should be custom made for one sentence only, not "swiss army knife" footnotes.

Currently I think the lead sourcing shows clear and classic signs of WP:SYNTH, and cherry picking. If I am wrong though, then the current sourcing style makes it hard to see it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, it's hopeless. As North. They drive away honest editors. They insist of conflating the philosophical topic Intelligent Design with the Discovery Institute and Intelligent design movement. They ignore sources that do not support their personal bias. They insist on poisoning the article from the very first sentence. They're like Nurse Rachett. They're just not honest and some of them are, evidently, admins. And the other admins are doing nothing to reign in the blatant bias in the article. The second pillar of Wikipedia lies in ruins and no one is doing anything about it. 71.169.179.28 (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Excellent WP:SOAPBOX, IP! Now is this section actually discussing an improvement to the article??? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, then practice what you preach and stay on topic. Why not respond to the more on-topic proposals above instead of only to the IP? Do the proposals make sense to you as a way to reduce concerns (at least the good faith ones) about this article? Would clearer, simpler, and more orthodox lead-sourcing, that does not obviously look like synth and a smoke screen, be a proposal that you and/or the local consensus would find controversial? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Andrew, if you have a concrete proposal,it would be better to start a separate thread and clearly lay out your proposal with the reliable sources backing it. I'm afraid I can't figure out what you are proposing. And please be concrete. Vague hand waving is not all that useful. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Dominus, this is a quite a new section, and there are three bullet points above marked as "PROPOSAL". I suppose your reply means you have not read the proposals, because it seems odd to demand reliable sources for those proposals. The reliable sources are effectively the core content policies of Wikipedia. In particular I have above mentioned WP:V, which is the aim of trying to make it possible for readers and editors to verify what we put in Wikipedia. I am saying our currently thickets of footnotes do not do this. It is not a new idea from me that using too many sources in non-specific ways is normally a sign of synthesis, and makes verification impossible.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, I think your comment about cleaning up footnotes is a good idea, although I'm cautious about what you refer to as "complex" or "swiss army knife footnotes" which "require synthesis." I'm fairly confident we don't have any synthesis in the lead, and a claim of such ought to come with evidence. Also, I likely responded to the IP and not you because your proposal isn't really a proposal; it's a long-winded whinging session followed by a summary of WP:LEDE#Citations. Could you at least try to devise a concrete proposal in a new section instead of hijacking discussions and assuming people are keeping up with the off-topic chatter? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

My proposal of 3 bullet points was not long or unclear at all. If our lead is not based on synthesis it should be easy to work according to my policy-based proposals to make it more orthodox. I can not do this for you because having tried to follow it all and discuss it here for some months, I now sincerely doubt that it is possible to source the current lead in any transparent verifiable way with no non-obvious originality. It is up to defenders of the current lead to show that it can be sourced in a way which allows verification. See WP:BURDEN.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to challenge any part of the lead you feel is not adequately sourced; I am rather confident the citations will hold up. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please show what is WP:SYNTH and not well enough sourced as I have been waiting forever for you to show us. NathanWubs (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It works the other way around. Is it not a bit odd to ask someone for a source about asking for a source? See WP:BURDEN anyway. I have asked for sourcing on numerous aspects of the lead and seen many quite obvious efforts to avoid answering the questions. The latest one is my request for any single source which makes "being pseudoscience" the primary defining characteristic of the thing known as "intelligent design". Consider WP:V. We do not say something is well sourced simply by counting how many sources are named. Indeed, it is standard WP advice to keep the number of sources per sentence to a minimum, especially in a lead. When a sentence has 6 or 7 sources named, what possible excuse is there apart from synthesis?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I will repeat my question in isolation: what excuse do we have apart from SNYTH, for needing footnotes which contain large numbers of sources? Is anyone willing to answer? If we need information from several sources in order to justify one sentence then by definition that is synthesis isn't it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Universiteit Gent

Boudry, M.; Blancke, S.; Braeckman, J. (2010). "Irreducible Incoherence and Intelligent Design: A Look into the Conceptual Toolbox of a Pseudoscience". The Quarterly Review of Biology. 85 (4): 473–82. doi:10.1086/656904. PMID 21243965. available from Irreducible incoherence and intelligent design: a look into the conceptual toolbox of a pseudoscience, Universiteit Gent, pdf – a thoughtful analysis which looks useful. For a start, we could substitute it as a stronger replacement for the current reference [3] though that ref (Greener 2007) might be worth using elsewhere. . . dave souza, talk 16:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Staying on topic

This thread started with introducing the Gonzales story to the section and spilled over into disputes about sources, neither of which have been resolved. Instead we're now talking about renaming sections, the Film, ADF, etc all the while the pecking and gutter sniping over SOAP, etc, continues in its place when I try to comment on issues that I didn't initiate. I'm not against covering the Film in the manner Dave' suggests but it would do well if we could supply a definitive example, per Gonzalez, again, stated in neutral terms and not presented as established fact. IMO, the AP source is well suited for this purpose, and the not so subtle inference that the 'alleged AP story' was fabricated by the Discovery Institute is patently ridiculous, given the consequences of such an underhanded stunt. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't know if you've checked the date on that alleged AP story, it appears to have been superseded by later info. . dave souza, talk 16:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

No question that it is an authentic AP report. It also appears solid, unbiased, and factual. It does did NOT assert that Gonzalez was denied tenure because of his ID beliefs; it gives gave evidence that Gonzalez supportsed ID and reportsed that he and the DI believed he was denied tenure because of it. Yopienso (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a decent source for the AP article. Note the timing, dated 15 May 2007 and says "ISU spokesman John McCarroll said Geoffroy has until June 6 to decide on Gonzalez's appeal." Which they did, as shown in Guillermo Gonzalez (astronomer). By the way, the AP article doesn't seem to show what Gonzales believed about the reason for him being denied tenure: "Neither university officials nor Gonzalez would say Monday whether the tenure denial was due to his views on intelligent design." Perhaps it's implied by "Gonzalez noted, however, that he has frequently been criticized by people who don't consider intelligent design as a legitimate science", but rather indirect. . dave souza, talk 18:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that; will rectify. (I see I also chopped off most of the edit summary in that hasty post.) Here's a more recent article that gives just about the same info. Yopienso (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a useful article which gives rather more info. The plot thickens. Which is why such detail belongs in the Guillermo Gonzalez (astronomer) page rather than this general article about ID. . dave souza, talk 07:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Ha, that's it covered at Guillermo Gonzalez (astronomer)#Ball State University. Rather too complex for this overview article. . . dave souza, talk 16:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

I would like to make a concrete proposal about a future direction for this article. This is just first level suggestion requesting discussion in order to first see what points of concern or agreement it raises. Please keep an open mind. I am trying to see the good faith part of all main positions that keep repeating on this talk page. Another basic guiding principle of the below proposal is that Wikipedia is source-based, and so our article delineations need to pay attention to what is clear and unclear in our sources. We can not go beyond them.

1. This article should become more openly what it already is: the main article about the Intelligent Design Movement. It basically already covers most of the same material so it would not be difficult to merge. Rationale: that is what our most active editors and the sources they mainly use are really writing about, and our sources are not using the term Intelligent Design in a refined enough way to allow fine distinctions which are not controversial WP:OR.

2. The article for Intelligent Design should become either a simple dab, or a short "dab article", helping readers find the article they might be looking for. As a short article, it might look something like the opening Ayala's review article in order to properly segue way the link to Teleological argument. (See source 4 in this archived discussion.)

3. There has been discussion in the past about the idea that this article might be about the specific body of pseudo-scientific "theories" proposed by the movement (as opposed to their generally being in the argument from design tradition). Our sources do however give us a very specific term to use for this which is "Intelligent Design Theory". Currently that simply links to this article which is clearly useless. Creating a separate article would allow proper focus in both that article and the article about the movement.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you proposing a merge between Intelligent Design Movement and Intelligent Design? These are both massive articles and I don't see any possible way in which they could be merged into one without loosing lots of content (that's not even mentioning the number of issues you'd get into regarding your usual WP:DEADHORSE about "what ID really is"). Then you want to create a new article called Intelligent Design Theory as a separate entity from Intelligent Design? I don't see why this would be a good idea at all. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 13:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is always a "massive" undertaking. But more to the point are you joking? The two articles overlap by a very large amount. Mergers more complicated than this happen all the time on Wikipedia. Please do consider what I am really saying rather than simply expressing shock and disdain. I do not have any interest in arguing about "what ID really is". I am looking at the sources being used and the opinions which consistently arise on this talk page, and also at the two articles as they are right now, and in the past. And the simple fact of the matter is that there really is no clear definition of a single thing called "Intelligent Design" in the literature. There is no published debate or discussion about what the meanings are, and how they should be contrasted. There are several subjects which overlap and are associated with the term. You say this is a "dead horse" but actually I do not recall anyone debating that this really is how the sources are, only about what to do with that situation. But policy is quite clear: Our sources use the term casually and veer off towards more specific terms when they want to be exact. By attempting to go beyond them in developing a single preferred definition we are performing original research, and this article will never be according to policy until we stop over-reaching. We are knowingly cherry picking sources which are mainly about the movement, but often also about other things. Mixing them all up is synthesis.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

This article is not about the movement, but a supposedly scientific theory; as I see it, the movement article is a WP:SPINOFF of this main article. Obviously, then, I do not support any of Andrew's suggestions. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Mister Dub, honestly we've tried this. If the article is about Intelligent Design Theory then let's rename it and make it that (or make the two articles distinct in some other way). But in practice this is the main article about the movement, and no article with the title that this one has will ever be about anything else while feelings concerning the movement are running so high. Let's give it 10 years and see if published sources start giving us something to use. In the meantime this article and the IDM article are just in parallel evolution, citing the same sentences from the same sources. Every attempt to make the two distinct has been impossible because no one is going to accept sources that are not mainly focused on the movement, its legal cases, etc. What makes this article distinct is only bad things: its an unclear definition and passionate defenders without sourced backing mean synthesis is filling the gaps which sources do not. Let's just be practical and pursue a direction which has a chance of giving more stable consensus and more defensible application of WP core policies. Anyway, eventually this will probably need broader community input, but I think editors of this article should get a chance to consider the new idea and get over the newness of the idea. No rush.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to rename this article. The term Intelligent Design Theory is not the subject's common name, intelligent design is. Other than that, it sounds like you want to ensure that material is not unnecessarily replicated, and that sounds like a laudable goal; we can definitely work toward that. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Concerning replication, I noted it when I first arrived here months ago, so you should not write as if this is a new point. Let's be honest with ourselves. Experience says you will not work towards that, and if you try, you will start to get treated like others who have attempted it. The strongest feelings holding this article together are effectively demanding that this article must mainly be about the movement.

Secondly we have discussed the "common name" argument before and we can forget it: we have no tertiary sourcing for "intelligent design" being most commonly any one of the several meanings which can be found in sources, and no source for saying it means the "theory" as distinct from the movement, or the more general concept of there being intelligent design in nature. Furthermore, our policy specifically encourages us to use the most exact terms used in the best sources. The common name policy specifically not meant to demand that we write inexactly. But even if it did, a wide range of sources all use the term Intelligent Design Theory when they want to be clear.

Thirdly my concern is clearly not only about replication but also all the portmanteau sentences we have, which cherry pick and synthesize from completely different contexts, where the term "intelligent design" is not clearly being used in the same way. The current article titles help make synthesis almost inevitable. The problem can not be sensibly approached while we are over-reaching by trying to have one article about a term with several meanings, when we have no sources to help us distinguish and contrast them in order to avoid synthesis.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Would a cleanup suffice ? I'm not optimistic it can get done, but perhaps moving the IDM material to the IDM article would be easier. The ID section 3 is the movement and section 5 is the Kitzmiller trial, which seems replicating content that is in the IDM article -- a versioning issue and confusion issue and not really about ID concept itself. If one yanked them out of here then the article body would be shorter and more focused History; Concepts; Criticisms; Status outside the US. Markbassett (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I am open to the idea that there might be a small amount of material on this article which is about "intelligent design theory", which could be split out to form the core of an article which is about that in a more focused way (or maybe not). Currently though, this article is mainly about the movement (legal cases, institutes, propaganda, education debates etc), and I do not think it will change. It only mentions the theory in passing as an aspect of the movement, and I am not sure Wikipedia will ever be able to handle writing an article on the theory associated with that movement, without mainly wanting to write about the movement. Anyway, this article is not giving real coverage to the theory or to the more general concepts mentioned for example in Padian and Matzke as "your father's ID", and forming the basis of the way Ayala wrote his above-mentioned review article (just to take two examples).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)