(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 423: | Line 423: | ||
:The "keep it" arguments I see above seem to be "no source says that they advocate teaching ID, but such can be deduced from what is in the sources" . That is synthesis/OR and not allowed in Wikipedia. Second, if it is glaringly obvious from the sources, then shouldn't be glaringly obvious from the sourced material in the article without editors having to synthesize and state it? Or am I missing something? Sincerely, <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 20:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC) |
:The "keep it" arguments I see above seem to be "no source says that they advocate teaching ID, but such can be deduced from what is in the sources" . That is synthesis/OR and not allowed in Wikipedia. Second, if it is glaringly obvious from the sources, then shouldn't be glaringly obvious from the sourced material in the article without editors having to synthesize and state it? Or am I missing something? Sincerely, <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 20:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC) |
||
::Only a moron could look at the DI's ''Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook'' and not conclude, from the title alone, that they want it taught in public schools. I must have missed the part where we are required to put on our moron hats before we edit this article. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] ([[User talk:Raul654|talk]]) 20:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:57, 16 February 2012
Intelligent design is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 12, 2007. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89 |
Philosophy sources |
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
UK program rebutting ID
There was a recent change I reverted due to its lack of really any concrete detail at all. It seems to be a recollection by someone of a video he/she saw on YouTube once. The documentary is not named and, due to the lack of details regarding the content, I could not locate any information about this program from Google. Because of these issues, I simply removed the information instead of fixing the grammar. If anyone has information on this documentary, we can re-add it. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Good call, my suspicion is that rather than a Channel 4 film, it was A War on Science which was on BBC2 but was probably repeated on BBC4. Still seems to be online here. A good programme, worth watching the start for brief appearances of Attenborough and Dawkins, followed by "The Monkey Song". Already covered in List of works on intelligent design#Critical non-fiction films. However, The Root of All Evil? was on C4. . . dave souza, talk 23:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Scientific criticisms campaign
One thing I noticed when I looked up Intelligent Design (ID) in a couple of academic journal databases, was the level of animosity directed at ID by the scientific community. In fact, in one academic journal (published in Georgia, I don't remember the exact name), the academic ended her article explaining the ID concept and history by listing anti-ID organizations and encouraging readers to donate money to the anti-ID campaign! What surprised me about this was that I understood academics or scientists usually try to keep an objective distance from the subjects they cover, in order to, among other reasons, show that their conclusions or research methodologies weren't unduly influenced by personal feelings or biases. Is the scientific/academic campaign, if there is one, against ID worth mentioning in this article? Cla68 (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Verification needed: do you have a reliable published source making this allegation? . . dave souza, talk 23:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- You haven't seen anyone in the media make the same observation that I have, that a number of scientists/academics appear to have serious heartburn over this ID idea and are engaged in open advocacy to combat it? Cla68 (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Insomuch as ID is a stalking horse for creationism (not to mention being unscientific and logically flawed) yes, academics hold it in very low regard. With good reason. But such discussion is better situated in Teach the Controversy and related articles. Raul654 (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Right. But there's no reason to bring here or there unless it's for suggesting putting something in the article about it, and for that of course the source(s) must be provided. Neither is a suitable forum for our musing about the strange behavior of scientists or ID proponents. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Insomuch as ID is a stalking horse for creationism (not to mention being unscientific and logically flawed) yes, academics hold it in very low regard. With good reason. But such discussion is better situated in Teach the Controversy and related articles. Raul654 (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- You haven't seen anyone in the media make the same observation that I have, that a number of scientists/academics appear to have serious heartburn over this ID idea and are engaged in open advocacy to combat it? Cla68 (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Discussion of subject and other editors, not the article. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I think the rule that best applies here is WP:TPNO. "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article." Professor marginalia (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Wow Noformation, your hate towards people of faith is astonishing. Just because you do not understand it and believe it, doesn't mean that you can attack and ridicule the people that do. Zenkai251 (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC) |
- OK, let's see what we have. I found this reference, which I don't know if there is an online version or not: Friedlander, Michael. "Intelligent design and the workings of science." Skeptical Inquirer 30.3 (2006): 16+. In the column, Friedlander calls on his fellow academics to campaign against ID, saying, "That we need to deal with the ID proponents before they reach the school boards and courts. We must not be only reactive. An informed view of science will not become widespread overnight, but if we do not start now, we will be fighting the same battles repeatedly." Cla68 (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- That could be something interesting to start with. Do you have that as a hard copy? I don't have online access either but I will see if I can find it in my school library and maybe help you out if you need it. I do have a subscription to Science (Journal), if there's anything in there you think you can use let me know and I'll pull up a copy for you. Noformation Talk 05:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I appreciate that. Then, this article: Gray, Terry. "Intelligent Design Uncensored." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 63.4 (2011): 280+, reviews the book, Intelligent Design Uncensored by William A. Dembski and Jonathan Witt. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 2010. 175 pages. ISBN: 9780830837427, which has a chapter that describes the current anti-ID sentiment among academics and recommends that college professors who believe in ID keep their belief concealed until they make tenure to avoid professional repercussions. Cla68 (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- No problem. Looks like you have enough to start a section. I'm low on free time but I'll help where I can if I see anything to do. Noformation Talk 05:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I appreciate that. Then, this article: Gray, Terry. "Intelligent Design Uncensored." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 63.4 (2011): 280+, reviews the book, Intelligent Design Uncensored by William A. Dembski and Jonathan Witt. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 2010. 175 pages. ISBN: 9780830837427, which has a chapter that describes the current anti-ID sentiment among academics and recommends that college professors who believe in ID keep their belief concealed until they make tenure to avoid professional repercussions. Cla68 (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- That could be something interesting to start with. Do you have that as a hard copy? I don't have online access either but I will see if I can find it in my school library and maybe help you out if you need it. I do have a subscription to Science (Journal), if there's anything in there you think you can use let me know and I'll pull up a copy for you. Noformation Talk 05:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have access to the Friedlander. Admittedly, I've just given it a very quick read, but I didn't see him argue to launch any publicity campaign or some such against ID. It sounded like he was campaigning that scientists wise up about the oncoming ID campaign and making darn sure that they attend in their science classes to explain what science is, what real science entails, so they learn what science is all about from scientists. To kinda close some of the the "ignorant about what means science" gaps, as it were. Nothing shocking about hearing from scientists wanting to educate people about science. I'll look into the second one, but note it is written by Dembski and the allegations coming from DI in the past in this vein have been very much contested, so it can't be addressed as a fact. It's a disputed issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- According to this review: "Ecklund, Elaine Howard. Science vs. Religion: What Do Scientists Really Think?" Library Journal July 2010: 86, of the book named in the article title, a survey of 1700 academics and interviews with 275 more found not a single one who had a postive opinion of the ID concept or movement. Cla68 (talk) 05:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- This review: Fleury, B.E. "Rieppel, Olivier. Evolutionary theory and the creation controversy." CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, May 2011: 1719, of the book named in the article title states that it covers the current debate between creationists, as exemplified by the ID movement, and natural science, and ends by recommending, "the need to separate scientific progress from notions of design or purpose." Actually, this book sounds like it would be a good source for a lot of the content in this article. Cla68 (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Certainly there's a campaign against ID/Creationism! What are the Panda's Thumb and the NCSE all about? Read the first paragraph at this fairly recent PT post, which is a reprint from another activist site. One Lenny Frank claims, "Since then, I have also been a regular commentator at the well-respected Panda's Thumb blog, which serves as a nerve center for anti-creationist and anti-ID activists." Right at the top of their page, the NCSE proclaims, "NCSE provides information and advice as the premier institution dedicated to keeping evolution and climate change in the science classroom and to keep out creationism and climate change denial." (NCSE and most RSs define ID as a form of creationism.) We ourselves assert that "the NCSE also opposes intelligent design and other 'alternatives' to evolution because they are misleading euphemisms for creationism." Their opposition is not merely philosophical, but behind the microphone and in print.
- Just wondering if we're all clear there's also an ID campaign against evolution? Yopienso (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- (ec) @Cla68 are you able to read and consider all these before you share them here? I've now read the book review, and sorry but that's way too weak to use either. Dembski warning ID believers to "keep it under wraps" until they earn tenure is not anything we can use to say there's any kind of active campaign against ID in science. And that's all it said in the book review. The fact is that DI does complain of discrimination in academia, and if it's not mentioned here I'm a little surprised because I've encountered it elsewhere in wikipedia. But these are weak sources to address it and are not affirmative that there is this alleged anti-ID campaign going on. The last (Ecklund) is no reference for the claim either. Sure, none had a positive opinion of ID, probably because they think it is pseudoscience. But scientists do disparage what they deem to be suck science - judging good science from bad, that's their job! Please, let's take it up a notch or two on the quality of the sources offered against the claims we're being asked to use them for here. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Professor, we're currently in the "brainstorming" phase in this discussion, are we not? Once we get some ideas and sources out here, and Yopienso has just added some helpful input, we decide what to do from there. And, I'll advise you right now, after watching this page for a couple of years, I have low tolerance for personalizing these discussions as some of the editors here appear to have become accustomed to doing. It's not acceptable. Agreed? Cla68 (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Excuse me if this sounded too "personal", but I suppose I have developed something of a low tolerance for a run-around-to-nowhere soapboxing and tail chasing discussions on the talk page. We've yet to see a decent source! Now we have a citation to an activist blogger's use of the term "anti-ID" - unfortunately his biography reads, "Longtime social activist, labor organizer, environmental organizer, antiwar" - he doesn't appear to be a scientist so how does this verify a claim about what scientists are up to? Good sources for a claim FIRST. Brainstorming what we can say with bad ones isn't helpful. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, me, Yopienso, and Noformation can continue brainstorming, and you can, if you choose, continue to belittle our efforts, but I and others may call you on it. I think you know how to be helpful if you want to be. Now, do you have any of those three books that were reviewed in the articles I posted? If not, let's keep on. Cla68 (talk) 06:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Next article: "Coalition of scientific and teaching organizations issues report on evolution and science education." BioScience 58.2 (2008): 176+. Quote, "AIBS is pleased to be a part of the broad coalition of 17 scientific societies and organizations (representing teachers, biologists, physicists, astronomers, chemists, and social scientists) that wrote the article "You Say You Want an Evolution? A Role for Scientists in Science Education" The article is being simultaneously published online by a number of societies' journals, and can be found at http://opa.faseb, org/pages/PolicyIssues/sciencecoalition.html. The coalition is calling on the scientific community to become more involved in the promotion of science and evolution education. The article argues that "non-science" such as creationism and intelligent design, undermines the fundamentals of science education." That's a fairly clear, organized effort against ID. Cla68 (talk) 06:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Another: Shkliarevsky, Gennady. "The God debate and the limits of reason." Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy 7.2 (2011): 70+, discusses the debate between scientists/academics who advocate peaceful cooperation or coexistence with creationists or ID proponents and those who don't. Cla68 (talk) 06:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Excuse me if this sounded too "personal", but I suppose I have developed something of a low tolerance for a run-around-to-nowhere soapboxing and tail chasing discussions on the talk page. We've yet to see a decent source! Now we have a citation to an activist blogger's use of the term "anti-ID" - unfortunately his biography reads, "Longtime social activist, labor organizer, environmental organizer, antiwar" - he doesn't appear to be a scientist so how does this verify a claim about what scientists are up to? Good sources for a claim FIRST. Brainstorming what we can say with bad ones isn't helpful. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Professor, we're currently in the "brainstorming" phase in this discussion, are we not? Once we get some ideas and sources out here, and Yopienso has just added some helpful input, we decide what to do from there. And, I'll advise you right now, after watching this page for a couple of years, I have low tolerance for personalizing these discussions as some of the editors here appear to have become accustomed to doing. It's not acceptable. Agreed? Cla68 (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- (ec) @Cla68 are you able to read and consider all these before you share them here? I've now read the book review, and sorry but that's way too weak to use either. Dembski warning ID believers to "keep it under wraps" until they earn tenure is not anything we can use to say there's any kind of active campaign against ID in science. And that's all it said in the book review. The fact is that DI does complain of discrimination in academia, and if it's not mentioned here I'm a little surprised because I've encountered it elsewhere in wikipedia. But these are weak sources to address it and are not affirmative that there is this alleged anti-ID campaign going on. The last (Ecklund) is no reference for the claim either. Sure, none had a positive opinion of ID, probably because they think it is pseudoscience. But scientists do disparage what they deem to be suck science - judging good science from bad, that's their job! Please, let's take it up a notch or two on the quality of the sources offered against the claims we're being asked to use them for here. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- @Prof. Marginalia: I agree Lenny Frank (notice I said "one" Lenny Frank) is not a RS, but he points to one. Surely you agree the Panda's Thumb and the NCSE actively campaign against ID?
- I have access to the Friedlander article. It's only 1250 words long and I could paste it in somewhere, but that, I fear, would break copyright law. He presents an entirely rational, calm, intelligent outline "to affect the way in which the general public views science and understands the way in which science actually operates." He does not rant or beat a drum. I think it's OK to paste in the entire paragraph Cla68 initially quoted from:
- We can make a start on educating our students so that they may gain a better understanding of the way in which science actually operates-why scientists may accept some ideas and reject others. I believe this effort is necessary. There will surely be other approaches that reflect our different disciplines and preferences, but underlying our efforts should be the recognition that we need to deal with the ID proponents before they reach the school boards and courts. We must not be only reactive. An informed view of science will not become widespread overnight, but if we do not start now, we will be fighting the same battles repeatedly.
- Friedlander unquestionably is urging his peers to join him in his effort to combat ID by educating students in the methods of science. Perhaps you are balking at this concept because the word "campaign" conjures up emotional noise instead of scientific rigor. (The Panda's Thumb, however, does get noisy.) He does couch the effort militantly if courteously: "fighting. . .battles." That he says "We must not be only reactive" clearly implies, "We must be pro-active." That's waging a campaign. Yopienso (talk) 07:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- "I think you know how to be helpful if you want to be." /*Smile*/ So much for your "low threshold". Rather than sending me after the three books you apparently haven't consulted yourself, maybe it would be more productive if you'd clarify what it is you think needs to be said here that isn't and what source convinced you of this. What you proposed first was about "the scientific/academic campaign, if there is one, against ID". What kind of "campaign" and by whom did you come across that was so surprising to you? The article now is literally blanketed with details about the pushback against "teaching ID as science in the classroom" by scientists and academics, including their corresponding professional associations, along with exhaustive detail about why they're resisting teaching non-science as if it was science. (If anything it's been pro-ID leaning editors have been trying eliminate much of it, toning it down.) So is there something else that you don't see addressed here? Professor marginalia (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Great! From what I'm seeing in the articles I'm reading, an important facet in the debate about ID is the conflict between creationists and evolutionists. Now, is there an organized campaign by academia against ID and theistic science? Well, yes, there appears to be. Academia is pushing back very strongly against the ID idea. Cla68 (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- I truly don't understand what you're getting at focusing on this "an organized campaign by academia" because it seems you've got some image in mind that's very different from what's already self-evident in the article. It's full of unequivocal statements made against ID from scientists and science associations. Scientists are very strong against teaching ID as science, but that's hardly surprising, is it? They want science class to be about science and not see it confused with religion. There are people who are confused because they've been told ID is a science, so they may interpret a "strong reaction against it" as some kind of bias or blindness, but for the experts whose job it is to do science and judge good science from bad or fake science there's nothing surprising about it. What is or isn't taught in science class is normally the purview of experts in science and academia, not some small outside group grassroots lobbying to religious people for a pet new idea that's been rejected by the scientific community to be taught instead. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Great! From what I'm seeing in the articles I'm reading, an important facet in the debate about ID is the conflict between creationists and evolutionists. Now, is there an organized campaign by academia against ID and theistic science? Well, yes, there appears to be. Academia is pushing back very strongly against the ID idea. Cla68 (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- "I think you know how to be helpful if you want to be." /*Smile*/ So much for your "low threshold". Rather than sending me after the three books you apparently haven't consulted yourself, maybe it would be more productive if you'd clarify what it is you think needs to be said here that isn't and what source convinced you of this. What you proposed first was about "the scientific/academic campaign, if there is one, against ID". What kind of "campaign" and by whom did you come across that was so surprising to you? The article now is literally blanketed with details about the pushback against "teaching ID as science in the classroom" by scientists and academics, including their corresponding professional associations, along with exhaustive detail about why they're resisting teaching non-science as if it was science. (If anything it's been pro-ID leaning editors have been trying eliminate much of it, toning it down.) So is there something else that you don't see addressed here? Professor marginalia (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- @Prof. Marginalia: I agree Lenny Frank (notice I said "one" Lenny Frank) is not a RS, but he points to one. Surely you agree the Panda's Thumb and the NCSE actively campaign against ID?
- I have access to the Friedlander article. It's only 1250 words long and I could paste it in somewhere, but that, I fear, would break copyright law. He presents an entirely rational, calm, intelligent outline "to affect the way in which the general public views science and understands the way in which science actually operates." He does not rant or beat a drum. I think it's OK to paste in the entire paragraph Cla68 initially quoted from:
- We can make a start on educating our students so that they may gain a better understanding of the way in which science actually operates-why scientists may accept some ideas and reject others. I believe this effort is necessary. There will surely be other approaches that reflect our different disciplines and preferences, but underlying our efforts should be the recognition that we need to deal with the ID proponents before they reach the school boards and courts. We must not be only reactive. An informed view of science will not become widespread overnight, but if we do not start now, we will be fighting the same battles repeatedly.
- Friedlander unquestionably is urging his peers to join him in his effort to combat ID by educating students in the methods of science. Perhaps you are balking at this concept because the word "campaign" conjures up emotional noise instead of scientific rigor. (The Panda's Thumb, however, does get noisy.) He does couch the effort militantly if courteously: "fighting. . .battles." That he says "We must not be only reactive" clearly implies, "We must be pro-active." That's waging a campaign. Yopienso (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
As a sometime Science teacher, I will do all in my power to refute and destroy all signs of creationism and ID. It is a destructive force in the world of science education, sowing seeds of doubt and mistrust of teachers in students' minds where no such doubt should exist. It leads to wasted time in class for ALL students and the teacher, refuting inane arguments from students spouting dogmatic garbage brainwashed into them by manipulative Christian nutcases. (Often enough the kids' own parents.) No, I don't like ID and creationism, and will support and endorse any campaign to rid the world of it. HiLo48 (talk) 06:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sigh. Do we need this? No. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
@Cla68 Can you read this? I can't tell what non-subscribers have access to or not so if not I can email it to you. It's a letter from a geologist essentially discussing a talking point against ID (i.e. how to argue against an ID proponent) in response to this so it doesn't speak of a movement per se, but perhaps it can be used in a really mild way to support a statement regarding a worry in academia (especially if coupled with other sources). I don't think it's sufficient by itself but it's not a bad start. this might be marginally related, it's a letter to Science from an evangelical biologist expressing his agreement with the second source I posted. Again, weak source but it might have a usable point or two. Check out this search and let me know if anything strikes you. Noformation Talk 07:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- I believe my posts irrefutably demonstrate there is a scientific campaign against ID. This is from 2006, but clearly shows the NCSE's purpose of combating ID.
- Now, in Not in Our Classrooms, parents and teachers, as well as other concerned citizens, have a much-needed tool to use in the argument against teaching intelligent design as science. . . A concluding chapter offers concrete advice for those seeking to defend the teaching of evolution in their own communities. . . Not in Our Classrooms is a valuable addition to the personal armory of anyone concerned for the future of evolution education! Yopienso (talk) 07:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- This is getting pretty wacky, folks. Who are the authorities to look to find out what is real science? Scientists. Who are the authorities to look to judge whether cancer treatment is real or fake medicine? Medical experts. When you find references that say that there's an "organized campaign by scientists to teach what science is", that's hardly a shocker. Yeah, that's what they do! Since ID isn't science, and there is a documented campaign by to teach science wrong, wouldn't it be more surprising if the scientists said, "whatever you say, have it your way then?" Anyway, yes. NCSE "National Center for Science Education" is an organization that defends the teaching of science in public schools. It opposes attempts to legislate the teaching of ID as science, and helped the plaintiff's in Kitzmiller v. Dover. But the article says this now, doesn't it? Professor marginalia (talk) 08:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Yikes, this discussion got long. Professor marginalia is correct that this discussion seems to be veering onto some never-ending path. I think it would be useful to break it down into a few constituent questions and my responses:
- 1) Do scientists (in general) hold ID in low regard? Answer: Yes, per Cla's reference above (Ecklund, Elaine Howard. Science vs. Religion: What Do Scientists Really Think?" Library Journal July 2010: 86) I don't think anyone would disagree with this.
- 2) Does there exist a campaign by scientists to discredit ID? Answer: Individual scientists and organizations have certainly taken the position that teachers should do a better job defining science, or should go out of their way to debunk ID/creationism. The NCSE opposes both as unscientific. (No surprises there.) But that's a far cry from being an organized campaign, the existence of has not been established by reliable sources.
- 3A) Does this belong on Wikipedia? 3B) In this article? 3C) Is it already covered? Answer: I would say yes it belongs on Wikipedia, but that it's already covered (or should be) in the Teach the controversy article, which is referenced from this one. Raul654 (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest adding a section between the present sections 3.2 and 3.3 entitled, "Reaction from the scientific community."
- 3 Movement
- 3.1 Religion and leading proponents
- 3.2 Reaction from other creationist groups
- 3.3 Reaction from the scientific community
- 3.4 Polls
- 3 Movement
- The section would mainly describe the founding and purpose and activities of the NCSE, which is the principal and, imo, most respectable organization instituted specifically to combat "scientific creationism." Michael Shermer should get his due, and we would have to at least mention the blogs, including Panda's Thumb and PZ's noisy Pharyngula. Yopienso (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest adding a section between the present sections 3.2 and 3.3 entitled, "Reaction from the scientific community."
- A section for this would be a fine, but it's not fine to fill it with minor players like PZ Myers and Shermer, whose campaigning is better labeled "skeptic reaction", imo. (Myers is highly critical of the scientific community's reaction in many respects.) With the NCSE we need to stay clear of OR and editorializing. They were founded years before ID came along, and their response to ID followed their pre-existing mission and objectives to a T. It's not an "anti-ID" organization, it's an organization that supports science education, schools and science teachers who're trying to teach evolutionary science in school and help them fight to keep religious creationism from being taught as science in the science classes. They oppose ID in the classroom the same manner they oppose any other kind of creationism. For a better grasp of the full scope of the scientific community's "reaction", see para two in this earlier version, and check the depth of detail given in many of the footnotes that go with it.link That para identifies the big guns in the scientific community. I believe that content was eliminated because it served to emphasize how forcefully and resoundingly the scientific community opposed the claim that ID was science or that it was a scientific valid alternative to evolution that belongs in a science class. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Correction: it appears that it was eliminated from the lead to simplify and reduce repetition.[3] [4] But it may have gone too far, because I don't see that content appearing elsewhere in that revision. If the current version of the article downplays this reaction then that's a problem; it should be made clear. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- A section for this would be a fine, but it's not fine to fill it with minor players like PZ Myers and Shermer, whose campaigning is better labeled "skeptic reaction", imo. (Myers is highly critical of the scientific community's reaction in many respects.) With the NCSE we need to stay clear of OR and editorializing. They were founded years before ID came along, and their response to ID followed their pre-existing mission and objectives to a T. It's not an "anti-ID" organization, it's an organization that supports science education, schools and science teachers who're trying to teach evolutionary science in school and help them fight to keep religious creationism from being taught as science in the science classes. They oppose ID in the classroom the same manner they oppose any other kind of creationism. For a better grasp of the full scope of the scientific community's "reaction", see para two in this earlier version, and check the depth of detail given in many of the footnotes that go with it.link That para identifies the big guns in the scientific community. I believe that content was eliminated because it served to emphasize how forcefully and resoundingly the scientific community opposed the claim that ID was science or that it was a scientific valid alternative to evolution that belongs in a science class. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Within the scientific community, reaction has varied from quick dismissal to sarcastic rebuttal to constructive public education. The National Center for Science Education, founded to keep religion out of the science classroom, quickly responded to ID as a new form of “creation science” and threw its weight against it in the media and the courtroom.
- Skeptic Michael Shermer has spoken and written against ID, and PZ Myers pugnaciously opposes the movement.
- Yopienso (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, let me repeat that Myers and Shermer are small fry. The content in the links I've supplied identify the representative scientific establishment's reaction. (See List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design which delivers it on a plate.) If you want "atheist" reaction, look for sources that label those reactions as "atheist reaction". If you want "journalist" or "skeptic" reaction, then representatives like Michael Shermer (who is not a scientist) might do. But if you want to describe "scientific reaction" look to the organizations who, in their official capacity, represent those scientists. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Point taken; pardon my denseness wrt Shermer. Convince me on PZ Myers, he's a loud-mouthed scientist whose blog has been praised by Nature. On second thought, Shermer is an historian of science and fairly influential in the campaign. Does he not speak for the scientific community? Isn't he a good secondary source? Eugenie Scott isn't exactly a scientist, but the NCSE speaks for science.
- I'm not arguing here, but trying to thrash this out. I believe you are more knowledgeable than I. Yopienso (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's okay but I think you're not as familiar with the situation and have misinterpreted the sources as a result. Shermer is a journalist and historian of science who may qualify as a source about what scientists have said or think. But he is not an example of what scientists do, you cannot use him as an example of "scientific reaction". Eugenie Scott is a PhD scientist, and taught evolution before heading this organization. Her speaking "for" science (if that's the best term for it) has the endorsement and backing of these official scientific agencies and associations. And by all means no, Myers is not speaking "for" the scientific community. He disagrees with how the scientific establishment responds to ID. He's a very vocal blogger, skeptic and atheist activist against ID, yes, but even the link you provided demonstrates that he's not the scientific mainstream-he's even getting pushback from others presenting in this panel (which was a panel for a Secular Humanism event, btw, not scientific conference). The mainstream scientific position is better represented by views shared by his target here, scientist Francis Collins, who heads the NIH and has considerable control over how real scientific research is funded and conducted. The NCSE takes a completely different position than Myers. If you can find any cite that shows Myers better represents the scientific reaction than the AAAS, the NCSE, Francis Collins, or the various scientists who've actually testified against ID in court, maybe a case could be made to push his reaction to the head of the line. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, let me repeat that Myers and Shermer are small fry. The content in the links I've supplied identify the representative scientific establishment's reaction. (See List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design which delivers it on a plate.) If you want "atheist" reaction, look for sources that label those reactions as "atheist reaction". If you want "journalist" or "skeptic" reaction, then representatives like Michael Shermer (who is not a scientist) might do. But if you want to describe "scientific reaction" look to the organizations who, in their official capacity, represent those scientists. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Using the text that was formerly here and apparently inadvertently removed from the article completely, and paring down some of the relatively trivial bits from it, we are left with a pretty definitive picture as to the reaction/response of the scientific community against ID. Opinions? Professor marginalia (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science and has no place in a science curriculum.[1] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."[2] The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[3] Others in the scientific community have denounced its tactics, accusing the ID movement of manufacturing false attacks against evolution, of engaging in misinformation and misrepresentation about science, and marginalizing those who teach it.[4]
|
- Sounds good; where's the text?
- As my user page makes clear, I don't like sanitizing. PZ is a scientist and comes against ID effectively enough to get kudos from Nature. Even though I dislike his manner and he is not in the mainstream, he is part of the scientific community and is responding to ID. That's why I think he should be included. We would expect the voices of the sci. comm. to include dissonance.
- I greatly appreciate your collegial spirit, Prof. I'll make some slightly off-topic comments at your talk page. Yopienso (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, it's in the expand box above your comment. I didn't make it very clear. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- I apologize for not following this discussion closely, but where would this information go? It seems we have some of this information present in the second paragraph of the "Defining science" section of the article, so I'm wonder if this is a rewrite of that paragraph, or if it's a new addition. I like the content, I just don't want to unnecessarily repeat information. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Can someone please insert it? I tried and failed; we don't want all those notes up in the article, and I didn't know how to cut them off. Also, at least the first part and maybe all of this from "Defining science" would then have to be deleted: The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[1] Yopienso (talk) 07:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'll figgle with it (I'm no tech wunderkind so it may take me awhile to do any better). I want to do a double check toward MisterDub's concern first, given the article is lengthy and the volume here and in the edit history. My quick read may have overlooked the content was retained yet in a different form. Professor marginalia (talk) 08:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, you shouldn't have to worry about that too much. I found that information in the "Defining science" section, but this is contained within the parent, "Creating and teaching the controversy" section, which I was supposed to move to its own article a few months ago (eke!) per editor consensus. I really dropped the ball on that one. I am working on getting that taken care of today, so don't worry about anything you find duplicated in this "Creating and teaching the controversy" section. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Bravo, Prof. Margi! Thanks for your recent edit. A source that's been in the article for ages is very pertinent to this discussion: "Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action." And thanks to Mr. Dub and all others. Yopienso (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Slanted article
Speaking with (hopefully) with the impartiality of someone with the opposite view (mine is scientist/atheist, and someone who explored this quite a bit) this article has a badly anti-Intellignet Design bias/POV. The way of presenting it makes it sound like a dastardly manipulative plot rather than a belief set or a way that people sincerely try to reconcile scientific and religious beliefs (as I attempted to do but failed) North8000 (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's how it seems. However, Wikipedia policy requires articles to be written to reflect the reliable sources available on the subject, and the reliable sources (that is, the scientific ones, since ID claims to be a scientific theory) are overwhelmingly anti-ID. As for being a "manipulative plot", as you say, the Wedge document and the substitution of "Intelligent Design" for "creationism" in drafts of Of Pandas and People, as well as the acknowledgments of those involved, are well-documented facts that do suggest that just such a plot took place.
- If you have any reliable sources to back up the claim that ID is a way that people sincerely try to reconcile scientific and religious beliefs, you are welcome to present them. But such reconciliation has been possible for many generations of religious believers, long before the current ID movement got into full swing. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hello User:North80000 and User:Amatulic, I've added some information supported by reliable sources in the section on "religion and leading proponents" per WP:NPOV, which states: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." This should help create some balance there. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 17:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- (ec)The first difficulty here comes because ID doesn't acknowledge that it is a "belief set" but an actual science they feel is compatible with religion. (There are many believers and religious institutions who say that evolution is compatible with religion too without asserting this compatibility can be judged, measured or determined with science.) ID denies it's a religious belief, claims instead to be science, and in America where the movement originates it's illegal to teach religion in public schools, which was (as this article, countless other sources, and the ID curriculum court case have well documented) their chief motive to deny it is a religious belief. And the second problem may be one of "tone" so that might be worth taking another look at. But from the very beginning ID has been all wrapped up by an organization campaigning to attack the work that's produced from science and to weaken constitutional boundaries against teaching religion in public school. Its numerous critics do charge the ID movement as manipulative and deceptive but these are prominent figures in science, education and constitutional church/state issues, and their views should be described here. This article shouldn't go so far as to endorse those charges, but simply present them. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- I just wanted to chime in real quick-like because when I started editing Wikipedia and came across this article, I felt the same way as North8000: I'm an atheist with a strong scientific background (in Biology), but saw this article as unduly harsh. I'm an open-minded individual who has debated ID-evolution many times on the Internet, but I felt that ID, when taken at face value, was a scientific hypothesis—essentially a synonym for directed panspermia. The problem is that ID is not merely a proposition that life on Earth was designed by an intelligence, but a concerted effort to discredit evolution through propaganda and political action; the DI even makes this explicit in their definition of ID ("... not an undirected process such as natural selection."). So I absolutely sympathize with your position, North8000, but Amatulić is correct: our duty is to portray ID as it is, referenced by reliable sources, and not as it is interpreted by us. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- but I felt that ID, when taken at face value, was a scientific hypothesis—essentially a synonym for directed panspermia. - Even if we do as you say and disregard all the religious context surrounding ID and treat it solely within a scientific framework, you're still wrong. It's not scientific because what you're left with is an argument from ignorance: "we don't know how this evolved, so it must have been designed." Raul654 (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Raul654, I disagree, but discussing such a thing here would be against WP policy. Let's keep this Talk page restricted to discussing article improvements. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Long story short, I guess it boils down to what we consider the scope of "intelligent design" to include. If it only refers to the engineered-political maneuver aspect, then this article covers it pretty accurately, because that is what it paints it to be, including ascribing motives to statements by proponents etc. If it is about the broader effort/belief set and attempt to reconcile science and religion, then it is really slanted because it paints the whole thing as being an engineered political maneuver. Probably the most prominent person on the latter (reconcilliation) is Hugh Ross; when I was exploring it I attended three of his lectures and had the chance for a one-on-one 1/2 hour conversation with him. I saw no engineered political maneuver there, just an astrophysicist sincerely trying to reconcile science with the bible. The article sort of juxtaposes him with the ID movement; I always considered ID to describe his beliefs, speaking and writings. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think Hugh Ross supports ID either. He seemed to agree it wasn't science here. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- What if this article is both the movement and the belief set? Both the "theory" of ID and the movement arose at the same time, from the same people, with the same purpose: to teach the Judeo-Christian Special Creation as an alternative to evolution in public school science classes. Or are you talking about the teleological argument, which could be construed as the belief set reconciling science and religion and was developed and promoted much earlier? I guess I'm asking what the difference is between "ID the belief set" and "ID the movement"? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, if ID refers just to an engineered political maneuver, then it is not a real belief set. That is sort of how this article treats it. But I think that a common meaning of the term is broader and includes many of the attempts to reconcile science and religion, and thus it would include teleological arguments. (?) North8000 (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Not really. The stance that evolution and religion are compatible without resorting to creationism and pseudoscience is known as theistic evolution. Despite theistic evolution still viewing God as the ultimate designer of the natural world and humans, it views the process of evolution itself as the method. In a sense the natural is supernatural in its naturalness, if that makes sense, LOL. God or at least God's acts becomes indistinguishable from nature itself. This is the stance taken by the Catholic Church for example, which publicly accepts the theory of evolution as factual. This is also the stance taken by almost all biologists who are Christian.
- Well, if ID refers just to an engineered political maneuver, then it is not a real belief set. That is sort of how this article treats it. But I think that a common meaning of the term is broader and includes many of the attempts to reconcile science and religion, and thus it would include teleological arguments. (?) North8000 (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- What if this article is both the movement and the belief set? Both the "theory" of ID and the movement arose at the same time, from the same people, with the same purpose: to teach the Judeo-Christian Special Creation as an alternative to evolution in public school science classes. Or are you talking about the teleological argument, which could be construed as the belief set reconciling science and religion and was developed and promoted much earlier? I guess I'm asking what the difference is between "ID the belief set" and "ID the movement"? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- ID on the other hand, reduces God to a mad scientist who bends the natural laws in order to specifically make humans. How much magic happens varies within ID proponents, but one thing is for sure - ID is not theistic evolution. The two are very often at odds with each other, in fact. Intelligent design is a very specific American movement originating from a very specific group of literalist creationists with a very specific agenda - the systematic distortion of science in order to convince governments to start teaching of literalist Christian creationism in schools as science.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 22:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, if ID is just that, then I would consider the article to be accurate coverage rather than slanted. North8000 (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- And I think we all agree that anyone who sees the article for the first time, thinking that "intelligent design" is a synonym for the theistic evolution or the teleological argument, might view this article as slanted. However, the lead section, as well as the two italicized lines just above the first sentence of the article, make a point of highlighting the distinctions so that the reader will understand the context of this article without confusion. If it can be clarified further, by all means suggest a change. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes; I helped get that "as promulgated by the DI" added. The fundamental flaw, imho, is that most of the negativity in this article should be reserved for the Intelligent Design Movement article. But that didn't fly. It's too bad that this one is off-putting for the first-time reader, but at least, if s/he calms down and looks again, s/he can realize, "Oh--they mean the Discovery Institute." Again, and at the risk of harping, imvho, the DI should be relegated to the Movement article and this one should be broader. But I think the current plan is pretty much set in concrete. Eventually, it makes sense, after a fashion. Yopienso (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- If I remember right, User:SlimVirgin once proposed the idea of modifying this article to treat this topic more along the lines of other articles on philosophical concepts. I agreed with that but added that the article should also first describe ID as its proponents see it, before following on with how it is received by the scientific, academic, and evolutionist communities. Both ideas would probably require extensive rewriting of the article. The way to do it would be to draft it in userspace, then ask for inputs here before incorporating the new article. Based on my research in the discussion above, there are a number of books out there on ID and the creationist/theistic science movement that should probably be consulted and referenced. It would be quite a project. Cla68 (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Except that there's two major problems with what you suggest: (A) This article should not be written as a philosophical article. Such fine distinctions as exist between ID and creationism and theistic science can (and already are) covered in a subsection of this article. The meat of this article should be devoted to documenting ID as the religio-political movement that it is. (B) This is already a featured article. A massive rewrite is plainly unnecessary. Raul654 (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Raul, in my opinion, that is the problem right there why so many editors find this article to be POV. The meat of the article should not be "documenting ID as the religio-political movement that it is". Its primary purpose should be to explain what the philosophy is as seen by its adherents and followers. The criticisms of the idea by others should occupy a much smaller part of this article and should not be interwoven throughout the article as is currently the case. ID is a metaphysical philosophy, among other things, and it should be presented as such. Cla68 (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- I was here a year or so ago when this objection was raised here. And it's frustrating that so little of the solid arguments against it were heard. The "primary purpose" is to explain what it is by SOURCES. Not by this vaguely defined, unattributed, and what I'd term the Some Guy's Opinion "urban myth" about what Intelligent Design is. It is NOT A PHILOSOPHY. You don't teach philosophy in science class. You don't practice philosophy but science when you're testing or judging the evidence for evolution. ID wasn't introduced in a philosophy text book but a purportedly scientific text book. It's a Where's Waldo game to find this elusive ID that is a "philosophy" according to its adherents and followers beyond the Just Some Guys opinionating in these talk pages. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Raul, in my opinion, that is the problem right there why so many editors find this article to be POV. The meat of the article should not be "documenting ID as the religio-political movement that it is". Its primary purpose should be to explain what the philosophy is as seen by its adherents and followers. The criticisms of the idea by others should occupy a much smaller part of this article and should not be interwoven throughout the article as is currently the case. ID is a metaphysical philosophy, among other things, and it should be presented as such. Cla68 (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Except that there's two major problems with what you suggest: (A) This article should not be written as a philosophical article. Such fine distinctions as exist between ID and creationism and theistic science can (and already are) covered in a subsection of this article. The meat of this article should be devoted to documenting ID as the religio-political movement that it is. (B) This is already a featured article. A massive rewrite is plainly unnecessary. Raul654 (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- If I remember right, User:SlimVirgin once proposed the idea of modifying this article to treat this topic more along the lines of other articles on philosophical concepts. I agreed with that but added that the article should also first describe ID as its proponents see it, before following on with how it is received by the scientific, academic, and evolutionist communities. Both ideas would probably require extensive rewriting of the article. The way to do it would be to draft it in userspace, then ask for inputs here before incorporating the new article. Based on my research in the discussion above, there are a number of books out there on ID and the creationist/theistic science movement that should probably be consulted and referenced. It would be quite a project. Cla68 (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes; I helped get that "as promulgated by the DI" added. The fundamental flaw, imho, is that most of the negativity in this article should be reserved for the Intelligent Design Movement article. But that didn't fly. It's too bad that this one is off-putting for the first-time reader, but at least, if s/he calms down and looks again, s/he can realize, "Oh--they mean the Discovery Institute." Again, and at the risk of harping, imvho, the DI should be relegated to the Movement article and this one should be broader. But I think the current plan is pretty much set in concrete. Eventually, it makes sense, after a fashion. Yopienso (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Reply to Amatulic. My suggestions would be to state what we have clarified in this talk session, and avoid statements that confuse that. Such is missing in the article. On the latter point, for example, we have just discussed that it is NOT the telelogical argument, yet the article says that it is the contemporary version of the telelogical argument. North8000 (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- And I think we all agree that anyone who sees the article for the first time, thinking that "intelligent design" is a synonym for the theistic evolution or the teleological argument, might view this article as slanted. However, the lead section, as well as the two italicized lines just above the first sentence of the article, make a point of highlighting the distinctions so that the reader will understand the context of this article without confusion. If it can be clarified further, by all means suggest a change. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, if ID is just that, then I would consider the article to be accurate coverage rather than slanted. North8000 (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- ID on the other hand, reduces God to a mad scientist who bends the natural laws in order to specifically make humans. How much magic happens varies within ID proponents, but one thing is for sure - ID is not theistic evolution. The two are very often at odds with each other, in fact. Intelligent design is a very specific American movement originating from a very specific group of literalist creationists with a very specific agenda - the systematic distortion of science in order to convince governments to start teaching of literalist Christian creationism in schools as science.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 22:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Cla68, ID is definitely not a metaphysical philosophy; it is creationism packaged to look like science. Because of Wikipedia's policies on due weight and pseudoscience, we cannot treat the article as you'd like and have a smaller, separate section for criticism. It is exactly as Raul654 and Professor marginalia have said: ID is a religio-political movement presented as science, as is evident through the reliable sources, and our duty here is to represent that fact.
North8000, I'm not sure I see the issue with the sentence stating that ID is "a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument...". An adaptation isn't the same as the original, though they are related. This applies perfectly to ID: it stems from the teleological argument, but presents it as a scientific theory so it can be included in public school science classes. I don't see any problem with the language used in the lead, but if you and others find it confusing, we can certainly look for alternative descriptions. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- This is really too big and with areas where I don't have expertise for me to try to give specific suggestions. But IMHO it is problematic. The big opening question is whether or not ID is:
- really just a narrow and modern term referring to a modern engineered political maneuver/invention, and only referring to purported non-religious science. or
- Something broader, such as attempts to reconcile religion and science
- Is the answer to the above agreed on? And what is it?
- If its #1, then I'd say that the article isn't slanted, but it's confusing because it's missing the key statements to that effect, and seems to have much that conflicts with that. :If it's #2, then IMHO the article is slanted, in essence painting a belief set as a engineered political maneuver.
- Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- It can never be #2 given that ID proponents themselves actually come from all schools of creationism, most of which are mutually contradictory. From the most hard-liner literal young Earth creationists to simply people who reject abiogenesis but instead of turning to fringe science like panspermia (which though unorthodox, is still a testable hypothesis and thus considered a true science) turn to creationism. The philosophy behind it is secondary to the goal of getting creationism to be taught as a valid science.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 18:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Do the creators and adherents of ID admit that its purpose is, "getting creationism to be taught as a valid science"? If not, then #1 is only an opinion, and should be reported as such in the article, instead of the article presuming that #1 is true. Cla68 (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the Wedge document is acknowledged by proponents and a pretty clear admission. Even if they don't admit it, it was nevertheless a finding of fact in the Kitzmiller trial, which was all about the adoption of a creationist book for the science curriculum, in which the word "creationism" had been replaced by "intelligent design". ~Amatulić (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- "Even if they don't admit it" is a fairly clear admission that the view that ID is nothing more than a socio-political campaign to fight science is simply one opinion among many about what ID really is. Again, the correct way to write this article would be:
- Define ID as it is defined by its authors and proponents
- Give a history of the movement
- Present the opinions by those who disagree with it, including their opinion that it is not a valid philosophical dogma, but actually a socio-political campaign against evolution.
- This would present the idea in a more neutral manner. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Wrong. "Even if they don't admit it" was simply a "what if" exercise. The fact is, they do admit it. Instead of arguing here, why don't you try actually reading the articles, like this one, and Wedge document, which is pretty unambiguous that the creators and adherents of ID has a purpose of getting creationism to be taught as science. It's right there, plain as can be. You're wasting words, the facts are what they are. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Er... yes? LOL. Loudly and to anyone who will listen. You can even read it from the mission statements of their leaders, the deceptively named Discovery Institute and The Center for Science and Culture. Hint: they stuck it at the end of lists of big mostly meaningless words.
- "Even if they don't admit it" is a fairly clear admission that the view that ID is nothing more than a socio-political campaign to fight science is simply one opinion among many about what ID really is. Again, the correct way to write this article would be:
- Well, the Wedge document is acknowledged by proponents and a pretty clear admission. Even if they don't admit it, it was nevertheless a finding of fact in the Kitzmiller trial, which was all about the adoption of a creationist book for the science curriculum, in which the word "creationism" had been replaced by "intelligent design". ~Amatulić (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Do the creators and adherents of ID admit that its purpose is, "getting creationism to be taught as a valid science"? If not, then #1 is only an opinion, and should be reported as such in the article, instead of the article presuming that #1 is true. Cla68 (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- It can never be #2 given that ID proponents themselves actually come from all schools of creationism, most of which are mutually contradictory. From the most hard-liner literal young Earth creationists to simply people who reject abiogenesis but instead of turning to fringe science like panspermia (which though unorthodox, is still a testable hypothesis and thus considered a true science) turn to creationism. The philosophy behind it is secondary to the goal of getting creationism to be taught as a valid science.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 18:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- And I must say, if they did have one, how would you characterize their philosophy then? Do they believe in the literal six-day creation? Do they believe in a young Earth or an old Earth? You can't really tell hence you can't define what they believe in. They welcome any and all support from virtually anyone, even people from other religions. And they deliberately obfuscate their wording to keep it that way.
- And the article already does that. At least to the extent of what anyone can understand from their ramblings. And have you read WP:FRINGE, btw? ID is specifically mentioned as an example of not deliberately characterizing an obvious pseudoscience as valid by pushing criticism of it off the map.
- I ask only one question: do you agree or do you disagree that it is pseudoscience? -- Obsidi♠n Soul 23:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Both this article and the timeline article give it a 90 - 150 year history which would appear to predate the putative political phase. North8000 (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Actually it does not. The phrase is from 1847, which is meaningless in this case as it referred to the teleological argument, a common philosophy that dates back to thousands of years ago from non-Christian philosophers. The background of creationists against the teaching of evolution in public schools goes back to the 1920's. Again not related to the movement.
- It was only in the 1980's when the actual movement began to take shape. And only in the publishing of Of Pandas and People when the phrase "Intelligent Design" was co-opted in place of "Creationism" (in a sloppily revealing manner). The timeline is about the influences that led to the modern ID movement.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 23:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Responding:
- "Define ID as it is defined by its authors and proponents." It is, except they call it a "theory", and here the term used is "premise".
- "Give a history of the movement." It's there now.
- "Present the opinions by those who disagree with it, including their opinion that it is not a valid philosophical dogma, but actually a socio-political campaign against evolution." Its proponents don't call it a "valid philosophical dogma". That's a strawman. But everything else is there.
- But why keep going round-and-round about this? Professor marginalia (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- My answer would be a quest for a quality informative article. To me this article is certainly unclear is some respects. And depending on what the main meanings of the term really are, it might be slanted. North8000 (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- You expect clarity from an organization that encourages obfuscation as their raison d'être? The article is fine.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 00:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- The article may not be perfect now but these concerns sure aren't where the problems lie. The definition of ID given in the first sentence IS the definition used by its authors and proponents. The source points to it, so? History of the movement-again, it's there, in the section labeled "movement". The "valid philosophical dogma" - ? This premise has been posed and rebutted repeatedly. From DI again, "The scientific theory of intelligent design holds 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."(emphasis mine) Professor marginalia (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- You expect clarity from an organization that encourages obfuscation as their raison d'être? The article is fine.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 00:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- My answer would be a quest for a quality informative article. To me this article is certainly unclear is some respects. And depending on what the main meanings of the term really are, it might be slanted. North8000 (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Responding:
- It was only in the 1980's when the actual movement began to take shape. And only in the publishing of Of Pandas and People when the phrase "Intelligent Design" was co-opted in place of "Creationism" (in a sloppily revealing manner). The timeline is about the influences that led to the modern ID movement.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 23:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
At this point, is somebody asks me to leave I will. Or, I'd be happy to discuss or whatever. North8000 (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if my "going round-and-round" sounded like an invitation for anyone to leave! The round-and-round refers to "problems" that continue to be repeated even after they were just answered and dealt with (such as about "philosophy"). Professor marginalia (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I didn't interpret it that way. I just said that to indicate where I'm at on this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
ID doesn't qualify as a scientific hypothesis, let alone theory, because it relies on untestable assertions that have no basis in our general understanding of science or in the real observable world. That it tries to represent itself as anything else is essentially, yes, a manipulative plot designed to sneak it into schoolrooms. The less wikipedia shies around this, the better. Neutrality is not a guise under which one can remove inconvenient facts.Boredpayne (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- North8000, you've mentioned a few times about how there is confusing or contradictory information in here, and that "this article is certainly unclear is some respects." Could you please give some examples, keeping in mind that we're discussing ID as "a narrow and modern term referring to a modern engineered political maneuver/invention" (your #1 from a previous comment)? I think if we had something concrete to amend, we could bring this discussion to a close and end up with an improved article. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Edit conflict, responding only to/after previous post. :It looks like (as a minimum) the main current meaning is what Boredpayne just described. So now the question is does it ALSO mean / has it meant anything else different than that. ? North8000 (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Responding to MisterDub. I'd be happy to. But I could provide a much better answer if I knew whether or not there is an agreed-upon answer to my question in the post previous to this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Short answer: no. Long answer: the phrase has been used prior to the advent of intelligent design creationism (IDC) as a reference to the teleological argument, but IDC is not the teleological argument. It's something new and distinct, specifically constructed in the language of science to teach creationism in US public schools. The teleological argument already has an article; this one is on IDC. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Now I'll try to work up a good answer. North8000 (talk) 03:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Short answer: no. Long answer: the phrase has been used prior to the advent of intelligent design creationism (IDC) as a reference to the teleological argument, but IDC is not the teleological argument. It's something new and distinct, specifically constructed in the language of science to teach creationism in US public schools. The teleological argument already has an article; this one is on IDC. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Time to update the Peer-Review section
Duplicate discussion taking place on Talk:Intelligent design and science |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I think the beginning of this section should be deleted. Specifically citation 148. Here is a list of over 50 pro-ID research papers. Can we change this please? PEER-REVIEWED & PEER-EDITED SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS SUPPORTING THE THEORY OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN (ANNOTATED) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkl728 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Could someone please close this discussion so we aren't having the same conversation twice? I'd do it myself, but I don't know how. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC) |
Moved "Controversy" section to its own article (finally)
Hey guys, sorry it took me so long to do this. I meant to do it months ago, but it must've slipped my mind. I blame the holidays! :P Anyway, the new article Intelligent design and science is created and I see some reference errors in the summary information in the ID article. I am fixing this now. Please make sure to take a look at this section and the new article and make sure I haven't goofed anything up. Thanks a lot, and I apologize again for my extreme tardiness. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Clean up Discovery Institute description at beginning of article
This article says that the Discovery Institute SUPPORTS teaching Intelligent Design in the class room. I do not see ANY reference in citation 15 about the Discovery Institute explicitly saying they support teaching ID in the class room. They very well could have, but there is nothing that shows that from this particular reference. It either needs to be removed or you need to find the actual reference that says this. For the time being the DI's education policy suggests otherwise. Discovery Institute's Science Education Policy Pkl728 (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Why would anyone who believes anything to be true not want that to be taught? The entire Kitzmiller trial was about ID being taught in schools and DI was heavily involved in that. If the trial isn't already being used as a reference then I'm sure it would work. By the way, their policy on the matter does not say they don't support ID being taught in the class room, it says they don't think it should be required. Of course this is irrelevant since the supreme court has ruled that it can't be taught. Noformation Talk 20:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Pkl728, in addition to Noformation's comments, the lead actually doesn't need any references whatsoever, and should stand as a summary for the entire article. The reference you pointed out supports the direct quote in the same sentence, not the claim that the DI advocates teaching ID in schools. Furthermore, if you read the first sentence of the Teach the Controversy article, you'll see more or less the same claim, supported by six different references. I think we can leave this alone. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't even realize it was the lede he was talking about otherwise I would have just said that. So yeah, what Misterdub said. Noformation Talk 20:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Pkl728, in addition to Noformation's comments, the lead actually doesn't need any references whatsoever, and should stand as a summary for the entire article. The reference you pointed out supports the direct quote in the same sentence, not the claim that the DI advocates teaching ID in schools. Furthermore, if you read the first sentence of the Teach the Controversy article, you'll see more or less the same claim, supported by six different references. I think we can leave this alone. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict × 2) AFAICT, the lead doesn't say the DI supports teaching ID. It says the DI supported its teaching during the Kitzmiller trail. See the conclusion of the trail for sourcing. See also the Wedge Document. Given especially their history, we can't use a primary source like the DI to combat reliable ones. — Jess· Δ♥ 20:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well that's what I'm saying. Where does the source that is attributed to that line say that DI supported teaching that? All I see is that the school board consulted with them but it doesn't even say about what? I might just be ignorant here, but your sourcing is making it hard to follow where your accusations are coming from. Pkl728 (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- See the first 6 refs in Teach the Controversy. The main point of the DI is to promulgate the lie that ID is science and that it should be taught alongside evolution in schools. Again, why would anyone who believes anything to be true not want that to be taught? Noformation Talk 22:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- @Pk1728, see page 28, 68, and 100, among others. The quotes there are clear and direct. I'm happy to answer legitimate questions, but you've now been provided with 8 sources (2 from me, 6 from Noformation) which were readily available in the article. Please read those sources carefully. Thank you. — Jess· Δ♥ 22:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- @Mann_jess Thank you for attempting to provide me with sources to look at! I followed up and clicked on the links and read through the pages, and none of those say that the Discovery Institute is trying to get ID as a school curriculum. It looks like, as mentioned above, they are saying that the flaws of the Evolution Theory should be taught. Is that a bad thing? I still don't see any source material for this quote that is on the main page. Pkl728 (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- @ Pkl728, is teaching fake "flaws" to promote a particular religious view a "bad thing"? It's specifically found to be unconstitutional in the Kitzmiller judgement, read through the whole document. Note that they shifted their position during the trialc from teaching explicit ID to teach the controversy, hence the past tense, but as ID is essentially a negative argument against evolutionary science with a false duality (science hasn't an answer for this specific problem, therefore The Designer, hallowed be his unnamed name, is The Answer) it's still promoting ID. . . dave souza, talk 19:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- @Mann_jess Thank you for attempting to provide me with sources to look at! I followed up and clicked on the links and read through the pages, and none of those say that the Discovery Institute is trying to get ID as a school curriculum. It looks like, as mentioned above, they are saying that the flaws of the Evolution Theory should be taught. Is that a bad thing? I still don't see any source material for this quote that is on the main page. Pkl728 (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- @Dave souza Well that's a highly deceptive question. If you focus, like they are suggesting, on problems with the theory, how does that promote a particular religious view? If Evolution is false... Supernatural is true? Is that what you are saying? I hope you aren't admitting that if the theory of Evolution has potential flaws that if those flaws are proven to be true then you should accept Jesus Christ as your savior? That is quite the leap. There truly are many things about the theory of Evolution (in terms of abiogenesis and macroevolution) that are highly questionable. Perhaps science will figure something out, but at this point I'm doubting it with all the time that has been available thus far. But once again you are getting off track and making an inference that I don't think is true. Once again I will ask... Do any of these pages explicitly say that the DI thinks that ID should be taught in the class room? The only thing I've seen is that the school board consulted with the DI at one point, but it didn't say in regards to what. You are making a statement of fact with no evidence to support what you are saying. Here is your argument....
- 1. The DI believes in Intelligent Design.
- 2. The DI advocates teaching flaws with the Theory of Evolution.
- 3. Therefore, the DI advocates teaching Intelligent Design in the classroom.
- This does not look like a sound argument to me. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkl728 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Pkl728, the dichotomy is not dave souza's, but the DI's. They have a campaign called "Teach the Controversy" which has the purpose of discrediting evolution and promoting ID:
“ | Forget intelligent design, [leaders of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture] argued, with its theological implications. Just require teachers to discuss evidence that refutes Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, as well as what supports it. [...] But what the center calls a compromise, most scientists call a creationist agenda that's couched in the language of science. | ” |
The DI may not explicitly state they want ID taught in schools, but they are certainly presenting it as the only alternative to biological evolution. This is clear from our secondary sources. Furthermore, the DI is known to misrepresent their intentions in order to push their agenda. Hell! The whole concept of ID is really just a ruse to teach Christianity's special creation in US public school science classes. These facts are also clear from our secondary sources. It doesn't matter what you or I think about ID or evolution--and abiogenesis is not within evolution's scope, by the way--the only thing that matters is what the sources state. The sources are very clear that ID is intentionally disingenuous as to their stated goals and are pretending a controversy over evolution exists for the express purpose of teaching ID/creationism. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Also, this source shows how teaching the controversy using the Critical Analysis of Evolution model lesson plan is a means of teaching all the intelligent design arguments without using the intelligent design label. The "controversy" is ID, therefore teaching the controversy is teaching ID. This is what the sources say and what must be represented in this article. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
They advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula
The above section discusses the lead statement that the DI and its CSC "advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula" which they did. They also began denying that, and claiming they just wanted to teach the Controversy by introducing ID anti-evolution texts in schools, an argument that caused some amusement when they repeated this denial, and were shown a copy of Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook by DI Fellow Dewolf, and CSC Director Meyer.
That book is dated 1999, during a 2003–2004 attempt to include "intelligent design" in the science curriculum it emerged that the the Discovery Institute was increasingly disavowing any desire to have "intelligent design" taught in the public schools and concentrating instead on "teaching the controversy". However, Dewolf told the board, "I believe that a careful review of the legal implications of this policy would reveal that it is fully consistent with state educational requirements, and that there is no reason to fear that it would violate any constitutional restrictions." He added that even if a lawsuit were to be filed, "there are a variety of organizations who are committed to open discussion in this area and who I believe would agree to defend the board's position if it were to adopt this policy. I personally would volunteer to assist the board in identifying such counsel."
By an odd coincidence, early in 2004 Seth Cooper, an attorney with the Discovery Institute contacted Buckingham of Dover School Board and they "discussed the legality of teaching ID and gaps in Darwin’s theory. Late in the 2003-04 school year, Baksa arranged for the science teachers to watch a video from the Discovery Institute entitled “Icons of Evolution” and at a subsequent point, two lawyers from the Discovery Institute made a legal presentation to the Board in executive session." At some point before late July 2004, Buckingham contacted the Thomas More Law Center for legal advice, accepted their offer of legal representation and first learned of the creationist textbook Pandas. Which was long associated with the DI's leading lights, inc. Behe. However in December 2004 the DI's CSC announced "When we first read about the Dover policy, we publicly criticized it because according to published reports the intent was to mandate the teaching of intelligent design. Although we think discussion of intelligent design should not be prohibited, we don't think intelligent design should be required in public schools. What should be required is full disclosure of the scientific evidence for and against Darwin's theory", a quick backpedal to strengths and weaknesses which despite bravado from DI fellows did not stand up in court.
By 2007 Meyer and another DI fellow were at it again: "A US Supreme Court decision allows teachers to teach biology in a way that incorporates 'a variety of scientific theories…with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.' The new supplemental textbook Explore Evolution, when coordinated with other materials, empowers teachers and students to better fulfill these public educational goals." Once again, a supplemental textbook promoted to schools but oh no we don't want it taught in school. Anyway, the lead statement correctly uses the past tense, detail of their obfuscation can go in the body text. . dave souza, talk 20:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- The "keep it" arguments I see above seem to be "no source says that they advocate teaching ID, but such can be deduced from what is in the sources" . That is synthesis/OR and not allowed in Wikipedia. Second, if it is glaringly obvious from the sources, then shouldn't be glaringly obvious from the sourced material in the article without editors having to synthesize and state it? Or am I missing something? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Only a moron could look at the DI's Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook and not conclude, from the title alone, that they want it taught in public schools. I must have missed the part where we are required to put on our moron hats before we edit this article. Raul654 (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- ^ See:
- The National Science Teachers Association, a professional association membering 55,000 stated, "We stand with the nation's leading scientific organization and scientists [...] in stating that intelligent design is not science. [...] It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom".