Talk:Intelligent design

Active discussions
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning Intelligent design (ID).

Information.svg To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Q1: Should ID be equated with creationism?
A1: ID is a form of creationism, and many sources argue that it is identical. U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and Phillip E. Johnson, one of the founders of the ID movement, stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast creationism as a scientific concept.[1][2]

Not everyone agrees with this. For example, philosopher Thomas Nagel argues that intelligent design is very different from creation science (see "Public Education and Intelligent Design", Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 36, no. 2, 2008).

Although intelligent design proponents do not name the designer, they make it clear that the designer is the Christian god.[1][3][4][5]

In drafts of the 1989 high-school level textbook Of Pandas and People, almost all derivations of the word "creation", such as "creationism", were replaced with the words "intelligent design".[6]

Taken together, the Kitzmiller ruling, statements of ID's main proponents, the nature of ID itself, and the history of the movement, make it clear—Discovery Institute's protestations to the contrary notwithstanding—that ID is a form of creationism, modified to appear more secular than it really is. This is in line with the Discovery Institute's stated strategy in the Wedge Document.
Q2: Should ID be characterized as science?
A2: The majority of scientists state that ID should not be characterized as science. This was the finding of Judge Jones during the Kitzmiller hearing, and is a position supported by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.[7] Scientists say that ID cannot be regarded as scientific theory because it is untestable even in principle. A scientific theory predicts the outcome of experiments. If the predicted outcome is not observed, the theory is false. There is no experiment which can be constructed which can disprove intelligent design. Unlike a true scientific theory, it has absolutely no predictive capability. It doesn't run the risk of being disproved by objective experiment.
Q3: Should the article cite any papers about ID?
A3: According to Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, papers that support ID should be used as primary sources to explain the nature of the concept.

The article as it stands does not cite papers that support ID because no such papers have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Behe himself admitted this under cross examination, during the Kitzmiller hearings, and this has been the finding of scientists and critics who have investigated this claim.[7][8][9][10] In fact, the only article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that made a case for intelligent design was quickly withdrawn by the publisher for having circumvented the journal's peer-review standards.[11][12]

Broadly speaking, the articles on the Discovery Institute list all fail for any of four reasons:

  1. The journal has no credible editorial and peer-review process, or the process was not followed
  2. The journal is not competent for the subject matter of the article
  3. The article is not genuinely supportive of ID
  4. The article is published in a partisan ID journal such as PCID
If you wish to dispute the claim that ID has no support in peer-reviewed publications, then you will need to produce a reliable source that attests to the publication of at least one paper clearly supportive of ID that underwent rigorous peer-review in a journal on a relevant field.
Q4: Is this article unfairly biased against ID?
A4: There have been arguments over the years about the article's neutrality and concerns that it violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. The NPOV policy does not require all points of view to be represented as equally valid, but it does require us to represent them. The policy requires that we present ID from the point of view of disinterested philosophers, biologists and other scientists, and that we also include the views of ID proponents and opponents. We should not present minority views as though they are majority ones, but we should also make sure the minority views are correctly described and not only criticized, particularly in an article devoted to those views, such as this one.
Q5: Is the Discovery Institute a reliable source?
A5: The Discovery Institute is a reliable primary source about its views on ID, though it should not be used as an independent secondary source.

The core mission of the Discovery Institute is to promote intelligent design. The end purpose is to duck court rulings that eliminated religion from the science classroom, by confusing people into conflating science and religion. In light of this, the Discovery Institute can not be used as a reference for anything but their beliefs, membership and statements. Questionable sources, according to the sourcing policy, WP:V, are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight, and should only be used in articles about themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

Q6: Are all formulations of intelligent design pseudoscience? Was William Paley doing pseudoscience when he argued that natural features should be attributed to "an intelligent and designing Creator"?
A6: While the use of the phrase intelligent design in teleological arguments dates back to at least the 1700s,[13] Intelligent Design (ID) as a term of art begins with the 1989 publication of Of Pandas and People.[14] Intelligent design is classified as pseudoscience because its hypotheses are effectively unfalsifiable. Unlike Aquinas and Paley, modern ID denies its religious roots and the supernatural nature of its explanations.[15] For an extended discussion about definitions of pseudoscience, including Intelligent Design, see Pigliucci, Massimo; Boudry, Maarten, eds. (2013), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem, University of Chicago, ISBN 978-0-226-05179-6.
Notes and references
  1. ^ a b Phillip Johnson: "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." Johnson 2004. Let's Be Intelligent About Darwin. "This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy." Johnson 1996. World Magazine. Witnesses For The Prosecution. "So the question is: "How to win?" That's when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing"—the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do." Johnson 2000. Touchstone magazine. Berkeley's Radical An Interview with Phillip E. Johnson
  2. ^ "I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science."…"Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth?"…"I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves." Johnson 1999. Reclaiming America for Christ Conference. How the Evolution Debate Can Be Won
  3. ^ Dembski: "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory," Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999
  4. ^ Wedge Document Discovery Institute, 1999.
    "[M]embers of the national ID movement insist that their attacks on evolution aren't religiously motivated, but, rather, scientific in nature." … "Yet the express strategic objectives of the Discovery Institute; the writings, careers, and affiliations of ID's leading proponents; and the movement’s funding sources all betray a clear moral and religious agenda." Inferior Design Chris Mooney. The American Prospect, August 10, 2005.
  5. ^ "ID's rejection of naturalism in any form logically entails its appeal to the only alternative, supernaturalism, as a putatively scientific explanation for natural phenomena. This makes ID a religious belief." Expert Witness Report Barbara Forrest Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, April, 2005.
  6. ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). , pp. 31 – 33.
  7. ^ a b Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). , 4. Whether ID is Science, p. 87
  8. ^ "Science and Policy: Intelligent Design and Peer Review". American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2007. Retrieved 2007-07-19.
  9. ^ Brauer, Matthew J. (2005). "Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution" (PDF). Washington University Law Quarterly. 83 (1). Retrieved 2007-07-18. ID leaders know the benefits of submitting their work to independent review and have established at least two purportedly "peer-reviewed" journals for ID articles. However, one has languished for want of material and quietly ceased publication, while the other has a more overtly philosophical orientation. Both journals employ a weak standard of "peer review" that amounts to no more than vetting by the editorial board or society fellows. Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  10. ^ Isaak, Mark (2006). "Index to Creationist Claims". The TalkOrigins Archive. With some of the claims for peer review, notably Campbell and Meyer (2003) and the e-journal PCID, the reviewers are themselves ardent supporters of intelligent design. The purpose of peer review is to expose errors, weaknesses, and significant omissions in fact and argument. That purpose is not served if the reviewers are uncritical
  11. ^ "Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington". Biological Society of Washington. Retrieved 2007-07-19.
  12. ^ See also Sternberg peer review controversy.
  13. ^ Wilkins, John (9 Nov. 2013), "The origin of "intelligent design" in the 18th and 19th centuries", Evolving Thoughts (blog) Check date values in: |date= (help)
  14. ^ Matzke, Nick (2006), "Design on Trial: How NCSE Helped Win the Kitzmiller Case", Reports of the National Center for Science Education, 26 (1–2): 37–44
  15. ^ "Report of John F. Haught, Ph. D" (PDF). Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (NCSE). 2005-04-01. Retrieved 29 August 2013. Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
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.
Article milestones
February 2, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
January 21, 2006Good article nomineeListed
October 16, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 9, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
February 23, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
July 24, 2007Featured article reviewKept
December 14, 2008Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article
Please read before starting

This article represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic.

Newcomers to Wikipedia and this article may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid here.

Wikipedia policy notes for new editors:

A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents ID in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of ID is too extensive or violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are:

The contributors to the article continually strive to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the content forking guidelines.

These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are No Original Research (WP:NOR) and Cite Your Sources (WP:CITE).

Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Wikipedia's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON).

This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the article itself and not the inherent worth of Intelligent Design. See WP:NOT. If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of intelligent design or promote intelligent design please do so at or other fora. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.


Important pointers for new editors:

  1. 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.
  2. Although at times heated, the debates contained here are meant to improve the Intelligent Design article. Reasoned, civil discourse is the best means to make an opinion heard. Rude behavior not only distracts from the subject(s) at hand, but tends to make people deride or ignore what was said.
  3. Please use edit summaries.
  4. Challenges and proposals to this article's content must be in alignment with Wikipedia's core content policies: WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR.
    • If you make a suggestion that does not align with them, you can expect a pointer to the appropriate policies; giving such a pointer is not a form of rudeness, but meant to help smooth the process of building the encyclopedia.
    • To respect your own time and that of others editors, if you receive such a pointer to policy, you should take the time to read and understand the policies before re-raising the issue.
    • If you have been pointed to policy, but continue to argue the matter ad nauseum without the benefit of being supported by policy, you should not expect a full response, but rather that your discussions will be archived or userfied. Again, this is not rudeness or incivility; it is out of respect for the time and patience of all the editors participating and in the interest of maintaining a smooth-running encyclopedia:Wikipedia talkpage guidelines do not allow for raising and re-raising objections to content that is well-aligned with content policy, and there is a specific policy against doing that: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (which classifies it as disruptive editing). It's better for everybody if we don't allow things to get to that point.
  5. Please peruse the FAQ and the partial index of points that have already been discussed, and use the search box below, to ensure that you are not rehashing old topics. Old topics resurrected without new evidence are likely to be ignored and archived quickly.

The Arbitration Committee has issued several principles which may be helpful to editors of this and other articles when dealing with subjects and categories related to "pseudoscience".


Four groups

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2020Edit

please change pseudoscience to philosophy because there are sufficient scientists who argue that there are many evidences of design or purpose in, for example, the human cell that could not occur by random mutation and natural selection. Further the use of the word pseudoscience expresses an opinion and Wikipedia should be factual and objective. Pelimcc (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

  Not done See FAQ. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Article seems biasedEdit

‹See TfM›

Consensus over status quo - DVdm (talk) 12:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I don't really understand how Wikipedia works, but this article seems very biased. It also seems I am not the first person to notice this. For one thing, the first line of this article has an opinion stated as fact. It seems intellectually dishonest to straw-man an alternative theory on the only Wikipedia page discussing it. If you go to this page, you have the definition given by proponents of this theory. It seems fair to at least acknowledge their own definition on this Wikipedia page. You can debate it's effectiveness, usefulness, bias, flaws, etc., elsewhere. Unless, of course, Wikipedia is a place to come for biased opinions about things stated as if they are fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:240:29DD:4A00:792D:2F8:B2CF:DD73 (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) and provide a title for new talk page sections — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.
The first line of the article is amply and properly sourced and reflects the mainstream view, which is what Wiikpedia is about, by design — see policy wp:DUE and wp:BALANCE, and guideline wp:FRINGE. To present some balance, the second sentence in the lead exactly represents what also claims, so I don't see a problem with the neutrality of the article. I don't think it would be a good idea to include that webpage as another source for that statement in our article. Any proponent of id who reads the section Is Intelligent Design a Scientific Theory? would probably either be embarrassed by the faulty logic, or burst out in laughter. Not a good idea i.m.o.
If you like to learn more about how Wikipedia works, start at wp:Five pillars. Happy reading! - DVdm (talk) 09:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
The page Is Intelligent Design a Scientific Theory? was written by proponents of ID, and proponents of ID are unable to recognize bad logic. So, no, they will not be embarrassed to read that, nor will they laugh. Still, of course you are right: that page should not be added. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes it is biased, so being clear about that is meh. Starting with a vague pejorative has been mentioned as a declaration of bias before, neither the prominent expert stance (“creationism”) nor following WP norm and guidances for WP:LEAD and Wikipedia:Lead section TT first sentence content. But ... editors really really REALLY wanted to call it names, and it seems irretrievably biased, so a clear signal of bias isn’t necessarily a bad thing — it may be a case of two wrongs make an almost-right. At the time, there was even an edit to the WP guidance made to say this should be said. At least the definition is given, and long ago even that wasn’t there. All the debates can be found in the archives FWIW, and the many times starting with “pseudoscientific” has been said as poor. Editors still want to lead with the insult. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
p.s. Please note that the article accuracy and clarity seems to be slowly degrading though - e.g. it calls ID an “alternative term for creationism”, which conflates all forms as if they were ID; and it says both irreducible complexity and specified complexity is about living things being “too complex” but that’s SC not IC and ID wasn’t only living things; and it recently ‘streamlined’ out the explanatory line after that one “ID proposes an analogy between natural systems and human artifacts, a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God” (with cite to and instead put in an unsupported “Detailed scientific examination has rebutted several examples for which evolutionary explanations are claimed to be impossible.” So yeah, don’t look for unbiased or accurate here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
It's not an insult if it's true. Science ends up being written down in scientific journals. ID doesn't, since its quality is too low and it would be rejected, but it still pretends to be science. See the definition of pseudoscience.
But it is nice to see that "creationism" is seen as an insult even by creationists. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
“Creationist” is what actual experts call it, and , and ID or creationists are quite content with that. But that’s not the word WP used. Scientific bodies say (emphatically) that it’s not science and that’s all...partly because that’s the end of their purview and maybe because it’s not dignified to sling vague insults. Face those facts - it’s the WP non-scientific and non-academic enthusiasms that led to this starting with a vague insult. Over & out. Markbassett (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
The biggest controversy about ID was that its proponents believe it to be a scientific theory, and tried to get it taught in school science classes instead of or alongside evolution. Perhaps if that was not the case, it could be happily described as a religious belief system (which of course it what it really is). However if you claim something as a science which is not science, the English language has a simple word to describe exactly that, which we use. Black Kite (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a fact-based encyclopaedia. Where empirical fact diverges from religious dogma, whether said dogma is widely believed or not, we reflect facts as facts. In this case there are extensive independent findings of fact, e.g. through Kitzmilller, that back our characterisation of ID as a deceptively branded form of creationism. We're not going to reflect the views of cdesign proponentsists as fact, sorry. Guy (help!) 15:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Sigh. Self-righteousness declarations and argument by snark - even made a wiki page embodiment to that- just is supporting how deeply emotional and biased this is. Again, “Creationist” is what actual experts call it, it’s a factual descriptive of the result, and ID or creationists are quite content with that label. But WP went with a vague pejorative instead. Scientific bodies say (emphatically) that it’s not science and that’s all...partly because that’s the end of their purview and maybe because it’s not dignified to sling vague insults. Face those facts - it’s the WP non-scientific and non-academic enthusiasms that led to this starting with a vague insult. Over & out. Markbassett (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
The term "pseudoscience" is not vague. It's exactly correct to describe ID as pseudoscience. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
User:Binksternet Tsk. Defining what one gets to insult isn’t something seriously pursued by professional scientists or philosophers, so no it is a vague pejorative. You can find it deprecated, e.g. American Scientist, or Medium, or just observe that in this article that vague insult is what draws most of the critical remarks by many editors (certainly in the scores by now), has UNDUE prominence without serious support, and simply serves zero educational value. It’s an emotional indulgence, nothing else. There is some interest in the demarcation problem of distinguishing between science and everything not science, but for all practical purposes that is simply a matter of community acceptance. It is undecided if there is no judgement from them, in dispute if scientific bodies disagree, and if there is consensus note that is subject to change and making it obsolete science. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
In the Rutgers book Why Intelligent Design Fails, authors Matt Young and Taner Edis acknowledge that the term "pseudoscience" is sometimes used to label a "rival idea... to deny it legitimacy." But they assert that intelligent design must be labeled pseudoscience because it truly lacks legitimacy, and because the ID proponents "advertise themselves as doing science, even when their practices are far from the customary intellectual conduct of mainstream science..." Subsequently, they go deep into what constitutes pseudoscience, and why ID must be tarred with the same brush. They emphatically label ID pseudoscience. Binksternet (talk) 00:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
This is all covered by the FAQ. I'm amazed at the people who are still willing to waste hours of their life to discuss topics that have been deemed so dead that they were added to the very first version of the FAQ 13 years ago --McSly (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I suspect the LABEL wasn’t actually widely accepted thirteen years ago, and it’s not a convincing FAQ so... that inconvenient truth just keeps popping up now & again. I know I’ve mentioned the assignment of ID is instead as a branch of “creationism” for a number of times. Might have helped if that part of the FAQ wasn’t an advocacy group NCSE. Oh, and p.s. discussion for legal determination of when something is science vs something-else also exists. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
OK, but again, FAQ, top of the page. --McSly (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
User:McSly and cite to NCSE, which btw says religious ... the word “psuedoscience” not supported by it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
OK.--McSly (talk) 01:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
The only inconvenient truths here are that a) Intelligent Design is a pseudoscience that serves no purpose beyond being a Shoehorn For Jesus to shove GODDESIGNERDIDIT into science classroom curricula, and that b) not even the proponents of Intelligent Design who insist it is a science and not a pseudoscience can be assed to demonstrate how to do science with Intelligent Design beyond yelling at and lying to people about it being a science.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Mark, you keep posting links to stuff that doesn't talk about ID. Every time I look at one of your links and find nothing about ID, I dismiss it and the posting as irrelevant. Binksternet (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Bink of course not - the thread is about “pseudoscience”, and subthread about vagueness.... so I gave links about that term being deprecated. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
If they don't mention ID then whatever deprecation they propose does not include it. Binksternet (talk) 01:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Sound like you didn’t actually look at the linked bits, or take seriously that there’s been scores of editors TALK highlighting that word as a bad choice seeming biased or inappropriate.
  • American Scientist “Stop Using the Word Pseudoscience BY KATIE L. BURKE - The term lacks a coherent meaning and leads to unnecessary polarization, mistrust, disrespectfulness, and confusion around science issues.”
  • Medium “It’s Time to Stop Misusing “Pseudoscience”” ... “this perhaps vague and over-used term”
  • legal lawyers, as has been pointed out repeatedly today, mistrust nonlawyers defining legal concepts such as “scientific evidence.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markbassett (talkcontribs) 04:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Sounds like you're jumping to the wrong assumptions about me. I read through the links, and they don't say anything about ID. If a bunch of sources specifically say to call ID pseudoscience, but on the other there are sources saying not to use the pseudoscience term in general, but they don't give ID as an example, then all of the leverage goes to the specific argument. The general argument ends up irrelevant, losing out to the specific. Binksternet (talk) 02:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
<edit conflict> (excerpts finished) ... These talk about the wording in discussion “pseudoscience”. That the term is not used and explicitly dinged as vague pejorative counterproductive to use. It’s UNDUE prominence, not really supported by Kitzmiller or Scientific bodies and for that matter the FAQ itself about it uses a NCSE cite saying ‘religious’ isn’t a support. Dings are going to keep coming up from time to time because the word is a vague pejorative and is not what the technical categorisation is of ID. People see it as biased ... and yes the article seems irretrievably biased, so maybe being obviously so is best in a two wrongs make an almost-right sense. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
You've provided nothing that shows any of us here that Creationism, I mean Creationism that pseudoscientists use to pretend is science by calling it Intelligent Design, is anything but pseudoscience. You're just yelling and screaming without providing evidence. And just because you cherry picked a few articles that seem to disparage pseudoscience doesn't mean it's so. The Wikipedia pseudoscience article is pretty rational on how we can identify pseudoscience. And your screaming and yelling hits about 5 of those items. This is a balanced article. Just because it doesn't support your "beliefs" is irrelevant. Science isn't about beliefs it's about evidence, so if you've got evidence in the form of articles published in high impact factor science journals that support anything about ID, we here are quite open-minded, and we probably would all read it. Now, we've all been around the block, and rest assured, there are no articles that hit that standard. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 02:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
It's been pointed out to both MarkBasset and the infinite parade of Anonymous Editors For Jesus that Intelligent Design is designated as "pseudoscience" because a) Intelligent Design proponents seek to replace science education with a Jesus-friendly version of the appeal to ignorance logical fallacy packaged with the Lie For Jesus that Intelligent Design is a magically superior science than Evolutionary Biology, and more importantly, b) Intelligent Design proponents have spent over two decades avoiding demonstrating how to or why to do science with Intelligent Design. But, then again, it may be our own fault, considering as how we're arguing at people who define "bias" as "failure to violently brownnose Creationists"--Mr Fink (talk) 03:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Markbassett, it's a simple statement of fact. Discovery and findings of fact during Kitzmiller establish, without ambiguity, that ID is religiously motivated creationism, pretended to be science in order to try to crowbar religious dogma into science classes. Not only is this the textbook definition of pseudoscience, it's also one of the leading examples cited in reliable sources. Guy (help!) 12:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Markbassett: If indeed, as you say, the thread is about "pseudoscience", then it is off-topic here per wp:Talk page guidelines. All treads should be about improving the article Intelligent design. There are more than sufficient reliable sources that call ID pseudoscience. The article can probably not be improved by removing or adding more of these. Discussions about pseudoscience as described in sources that fail to mention the subject of this article are by nature wp:original research and thus off-topic. - DVdm (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

User:DVdm No idea how you missed it - the thread clearly is about improving the LEAD. Just read the thread start about the evident bias, particularly noting the first line (asserting “pseudoscience”) is opinionating, and the second line definition is a straw man. ”I don't really understand how Wikipedia works, but this article seems very biased. It also seems I am not the first person to notice this. For one thing, the first line of this article has an opinion stated as fact. It seems intellectually dishonest to straw-man an alternative theory on the only Wikipedia page discussing it. If you go to this page, you have the definition”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Markbassett, no, the thread is not about improving the lead, it's about whitewashing it it to protect the feels of people who believe that ID is science. The technical term for that belief is, of course, "wrong". Guy (help!) 12:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
user:JzG Yeah, like *that* post doesn’t come off as emotional or biased opinionated ...just like the article. Look, simple fact the label “psuedoscience” has been noted in TALK for years, dozens and dozens of editors pinging it as inappropriate. And the definition which used to be the start per firstline has been smithed, un-smithed, and re-smithed for years too. I point to examples of archive 27 discussion, or a 2010 edit which started with a definition. If the article keeps the pseudoscience start, then talk should accept the reality of this will keep popping up from time to time. Over & out. Markbassett (talk) 12:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Ok, no problem. Formally closed. - DVdm (talk) 12:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Here’s How We Get Around the Wikipedia RoadblockEdit

Evolution News, for the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

It's a call by David Klinghoffer for donations to help get the ID message out by way of videos hosted on the Evolution News / Discovery Institute website. At least he's not calling for meatpuppets to pile on Wikipedia. We get enough drive-by nonsense as it is. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
They've learned from the "Plandemic" experience in getting the message across despite the facts. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 17:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Klinghoffer's article is interesting - not a single citation actually about him. Someone who knows more about literary notability, is he notable as an author? Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
And there is the basis of his next article. Like Bechly and Bradley, masked Wiki editors erases him from history into the memory hole. That said, I didn't easily find any WP:BASIC stuff. One could argue WP:AUTHOR#1. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think we really care what he thinks. It's not like we're going to change Wikipedia policy for him. Black Kite (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Aw, it's internet videos. And I had thought the way around the Wikipedia Roadblock would be dumping the pseudoscientific bullshit, starting to do actual science, getting published in scientific journals, getting quoted by mainstream secondary sources, and then getting quoted by Wikipedia articles. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Yup, Phillip E. Johnson died before he could know the hypothesis of intelligent design. You see, nobody took care of formulating ID as a cogent hypothesis. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Meh. Deep down, they still love us. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Has the article changed much since this was written?Edit

“This” being a snippet from a certain Larry Sanger. Who founded Wikipedia. I think the answer is no, but I’ve not looked at it before now. The article looks to me to be typically biased, with prejudicial statements right at the beginning of the lede and certain admins falling over themselves to justify their non-neutral behaviour. (see the next previous but one talk discussion for details). Anyway, here’s Larry: "As the originator of and the first person to elaborate Wikipedia’s neutrality policy, and as an agnostic who believes intelligent design to be completely wrong, I just have to say that this article is appallingly biased. It simply cannot be defended as neutral. If you want to understand why, read this. I’m not here to argue the point, as I completely despair of persuading Wikipedians of the error of their ways. I’m just officially registering my protest." —Larry Sanger (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC) It looks like he felt then just as I do now, about Wikipedia. It’s a disgrace, frankly. Boscaswell talk 09:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

This is not the place to talk about Sanger—see wp:TPG. And yes, this article is biased toward scientific consensus, as is Wikipedia in its entirety, by policy design—see WP:WEIGHT- DVdm (talk) 09:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Boscawell, your use of the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy in order to scold editors for their egregious failure to turn the Intelligent Design article into a brown-nosing Discovery Institute mirror site is noted.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Sanger objects to Wikipedia's current policies which this article adheres to. He says (if i understand him correctly) that articles should give equivalency to mainstream and fringe views, while current policy says greater weight should be given to mainstream views. So your issue is with current policy and should be discussed in their relevant talk pages, not here. TFD (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Ayala wrote about ID for Encyclopedia Britannica, and ID is not passed as credible science. So neither Britannica endorses Sanger's view. See Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I’ll take that as a “no”, then. I think it’s more than a little sad that far too many Wikipedians don’t appear to be able to understand the difference between the outright denigration of a subject or concept without allowing the reader to even contemplate that subject or concept, and writing which allows the reader to make up his or her own mind, while making it clear in a very relaxed way that that concept has been debunked or whatever. That should be more than sufficient. There is no subtlety to the way that ID is treated here, the sledgehammer is in use. And the same approach is employed in vast numbers of articles. Such an approach is unhealthy for society at large. Wikipedia was never intended to be a platform for one particular set of views to the exclusion of all others. It is an Encyclopedia, the intention being to present a full range of information in a reasoned and calm manner. The thought police don’t like that, though. When I went to school, 1984 and Brave New World were set books. I recommend them to people reading this. Boscaswell talk 22:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
@Boscaswell:, please read WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:SOAPBOX to familiarize yourself with what the real purpose of Wikipedia article talkpages are. PPS, thank you again for assuming we're still too stupid to take note of your use of Appeal to Authority.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
On the other hand, if there are any reliable sources corroborating your extraordinary claims about the magic power of written texts to grant or take away the readers' power of making up their own minds, feel free to write an article about it, based on those sources. It sounds far more effective than even the obsolete concept of brainwashing must have done to people who believed in it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Directed PanspermiaEdit

Why isn't Directed Panspermia included in Intelligent Design? Charles Juvon (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Because in ID the Designer=Christian God. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
It's not ID because the seeded life would evolve without a designer to guide them. TFD (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Directed_panspermia looks scientific to me. It implies an intelligence to do the seeding. There is no mention of God. There is no conflict with evolution if the seed was primitive. Panspermia also bypasses the somewhat difficult Miller–Urey_experiment. It's ID that is not a cover for Creationists. Charles Juvon (talk) 01:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
You miss the point: ID is a cover for creationists. That way it was designed and that way it will remain in the history of attacks upon science. ID proponents are simply not interested in hypotheses which do not postulate the Christian God. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I have planted seeds in the garden. It doesn't mean that my flowers, fruits and vegetables are the products of intelligent design. TFD (talk) 08:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Directed panspermia does not solve the riddle of how life started, it only shifts it one planet over. It says nothing about how life started. - Nick Thorne talk 12:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Gods have the same inifinite regress problem. Turtles too.
To return to the question from the beginning: yes, ID proponents have traditionally included design by space aliens. But they never expand on that, it is just part of the ruse of trying to disguise religion as science - "oh no, the designer does not have to be God, it could be, ummm.... aliens!". Nobody mentions it much, which means we have few sources on it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I am in the process of reviewing Wikipedia's Panspermia and Directed Panspermia articles for the names of all proponents and whether they are advocates of religion our godly creation.
However, at this point in the discussion, do we conclude: "ID excludes Extraterrestrial_intelligence." Charles Juvon (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
No, we don't conclude. WP:SOURCES have to conclude that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

U.S. National Academy of Sciences - lack of predictabilityEdit

The current version of the WP article:

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.

According to the same source as it is cited by the Italian Wikipedia, the hypothesis of the Intelligent design is also characterized by the absence of any scientific prediction and predictability. It is a relevant point for the WP article.Philosopher81sp (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

It's kind of mentioned at Intelligent_design#Scientific_criticism, Useful/is not scientifically useful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Return to "Intelligent design" page.