Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 69

As Haziroth said, those other uses ae covered in the article named Teleological argument, as they are merely sporadic, rarely used synonyms of that argument. They are mere coincidences, as we have ample sourcing straight from the horses mouth how the DI hit upon the name "Intelligent Design", and it has absolutely nothing to do with the historical uses you mention. Thaxton is very clear about this, and from his relation, it is very hard to justify that he had ever even heard about the previous uses. It is your own original research and synthesis that makes a link between them, in direct contradiction of the reliable sources. As MisterDub pointed out, that is simple equivocation on your part.

Your argument for common usage is demonstrably false, as we have no problem proving that the overwhelming majority of the relaible sources use the term "intelligent design" to specifically refer to the DI's version, and not to anything else bigger or older. We also have no difficulty demonstrating that the earlier uses you mention are merely synonyms for the theological argument, and that that is the name these concepts are most frequently known under.

I also see no merit in your proposals, your arguments or your interpretation of WP policies and guidelines, and see no reason to change the article to include the material you wish to include. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's an analogy: If we look at the developing views of the origin of the Universe and of life as a river, the teleological argument traced a long, deep channel for centuries and then petered out. Creationism likewise ran long and deep, the rivers often joining and diverging. A scientific dam across the Creationist Stream about 1900 left a narrow trickle of creationism that later swelled, not from an "upriver" (classical) source, but from a flood (rainstorm) of Fundamentalism. About 1980, creationists brought some excavators and dredgers roaring to life and carved out a canal linking their suddenly navigable river back to the old River Teleological. Presto! Ancient headwaters. And that's the only basis for including anything about teleology.

Another analogy would be nouveau riche who discover they are bastard descendants of forgotten, renowned ancestors and then hang their portraits on the wall to tout their pedigree. Yopienso (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Those are very good analogies, Yopienso, and describe exactly what is going on here. ID proponents try to legitimize their product by painting it as a philosophy in a long ancient tradition dating back to classical times. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflict, responding to DV: Actually most of the material I want to "include" is above and is actually longstanding material in the article that the proponents of the faulty unsouirced "ID is just DI" theory want to delete because it deflates that defective theory. North8000 (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

"Longstanding" is not an valid argument. And there is no merit to your contentions about the scope of this article. Drop the stick. You're being disruptive and tendentious. Your arguments have been made and responded to time and time again for many months, and you have still failed to gain consensus. Absent reliable sources, you are wasting our time. Please stop. Also, material is most definitely out until you get consensus per

WP:CONSENSUS Dominus Vobisdu (talk

) 17:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually my arguments have been ignored and stonewalled by the same 3 people. Instead about 1/2 of the responses consist of just repeating their theory/preferences "ID is just DI" and "Rewrite the sources and replace "Intelligent Design" with "Telelogical argument"" and the other 1/2 is just flinging crap like you just did with the "Drop the stick"/ "disruptive" / "tendentious" crap. Quit the crap. This will need outside eyes to get it fixed. I gave up discussing with the three "guardians of the theory" but others without their problem were actually carrying on a real discussion so I responded. North8000 (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic! So you're going to start an RfC, then? I'd love to see this charade end. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

North8000, you do realize that the use of the phrase "intelligent design[er]" in these works are more or less already discussed in teleological argument, no? This article is Intelligent Design, explicitly stating its scope as the movement. It's a subset of the teleological argument, but with different roots and with different goals. Surely you're not saying Discovery Institute's ID was founded and inspired by Alfred Wallace? Because I think everyone would agree how ridiculous that is.

Again you seem to be advocating that we make the scope of the article fuzzier by bringing in concepts here from the broader "parent" article on the teleological argument. That's a bit like rehashing the entire history of monotheism in an article on Islam, because all of them mention the phrase "one God". If we start moving concepts that belong to and are already discussed in teleological argument and the various individual pages of the actual concepts themselves, tell me, where do you suggest we place the article on the Discovery Institute's movement then? Or are you also saying that there's no such thing, and DI's ID can not be separated as a discrete topic from theistic evolution, panspermia, or Alfred Wallace?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Your first source? The article on Panda's Thumb? It actually contradicts you. It says the same thing about people who try to link the modern movement to early 19th to mid-20th century mentions of the phrase "intelligent design[er]".

As everyone now knows, even though the ID guys will never admit it, “intelligent design” as such originated in the 1989 ID textbook Of Pandas and People, with “intelligent design” being the new label chosen after the 1987 Edwards decision made creationist terminology difficult to use in textbooks.

I suggest you read the passage on

A.E. Wilder-Smith and his intelligent nipple designer. It's quite enlightening as to how desperate DI is in looking for a means to link their movement with earlier authors.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL

00:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll need a little time to digest / look into what you just said. As someone who has participated on a higher and more intellectually engaging / mutual respect plane here, I would like to ask you which you feel is is the best statement of what the common meaning(s) of "intelligent design" is/are?:

• What is specifically promulgated/promoted by the Discovery Institute
• The general belief / hypothesis / concept regarding the origin of life / the universe (including stuff before or outside of the DI version) that ends up as "there must be an intelligence behind this" with the DI version being a subset of this.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

It already is a subset of it, as others have been trying to tell you. The teleological argument is the formal philosophical term of "there must be an intelligence behind this". But there's a huge difference between saying there's an "intelligent design[er]" and saying you believe in Intelligent Design. The former refers to the teleological argument, and may encompass everything from Plato's demiurge (classical philosophy), theistic evolution (which accepts evolution, opposes creationism, and is hostile to DI), panspermia (which has nothing to do with religion at all), ancient astronauts (ufology), to young earth creationism (including ID). The latter, in contrast, specifically refers to a movement started in 1989 with the [haphazard] replacement of of the text [Christian] "creationism" with "intelligent design" in the textbook Of Pandas and People to circumvent the law. ID is a teleological argument, but the teleological argument is not ID.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Take this to outside arbitration. We're just talking in circles at this point and going nowhere. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe policy is to start a RfC or seek WP:dispute resolution first, but yes... this should be the next course of action for North8000. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 00:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

To Obsidian Soul. Agree with everything that you just said except for "as others have trying to tell you". So now down to asking your very credible opinion on the core question that we're getting to. Regarding other stuff still within the "origin of life and the universe" topic, which sources call "intelligent design" but is not within the DI version. Which of these two would you say is more correct?:

• say that these are not germane to the "intelligent design" article; that such should go in the Telelogical argument article, not here
• place such within the "intelligent design" article.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

AFAICT, they're telling you exactly that. As for the questions, your premise is faulty in claiming that sources call these non-ID teleological arguments "intelligent design". While the phrase can be mentioned (most notably in naming the hypothetical creator "intelligent designer"), the specific ideas themselves are not known as intelligent design. Virtually all sources mean the DI version when they speak of "Intelligent Design", per

WP:DUE, the name should redirect here. The prominent hatnote is enough in distinguishing between the DI movement and the traditional philosophies. Including non-DI concepts in here again only serves to muddle the context, it does not help the reader understand what ID is and how it differs from related philosophies (which by the way is again already discussed in teleological argument, as a subsection). It increases the chance of the reader in confusing ID with other philosophies, particularly theistic evolution, despite the two being complete ideological opposites. And in a way, it also legitimizes the movement unduly as Matzke already discussed in the article you linked. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL

08:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that. While the trio here have just been flinging crap at me and avoiding the core topics, you have both engaged me on the core topics and also made good intelligent reader-based arguments for not changing it. This is relevant both as in improvement in the behavior at this talk page and also showing that the net benefit of my proposed change is less, to the point that I will no longer take the lead or make a large effort to promote such a change. Also, unless somebody feels the need to reignite this with a swipe or flinging more crap, I am considering this thread to be settled. Thanks again. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC).

North, I am sorry to see you beaten down. I tried to warn you. The editors that own this article have no interest in a neutral POV. Only their POV. Just save your energy. This article will not get its non-neutral POV fixed until this finally blows up in Jimbo's face and the authorities that be (the ArbCom) decide to do something about it. The crap flingers cannot see beyond their own fully biased POV and cannot even be honest with themselves, let alone you. Just wipe the feces off and move on to causes that have hope. 70.109.182.158 (talk) 04:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Talking about honesty, you appear to be an experienced editor deliberately

editing while logged-out with a decidedly non-newbie knowledge of Wikipedia's inner workings. So who are you really? This article is also already under discretionary sanctions by the ArbCom. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL

16:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Unless you have evidence otherwise, I think you should

assume good faith. In any case, I think North can send this to outside review. --Harizotoh9 (talk

) 22:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Assuming good faith doesn't mean we should always be wide-eyed

has such big teeth. Especially when the manual geomorphological modification implement is calling everyone else dishonest. My concession is I'm asking rather than taking this directly to SPI. Nonetheless yes, moot point anyway.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL

23:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

My previous post pretty much sums up where I'm at. It is carefully written, so one can find things in each word and phrase and the analysis contained therein. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

IP, do you have any suggestions for improving the article? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

@ Dave Souza: Since he's no longer active, I think Felonious Monk's name should come off the bottom of the huge box at the top under The following editors are available to help with questions about verification and sources in relation to this article: Can you suggest one or two editors to replace him? Yopienso (talk) 01:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, is there a recommended criterion for having your username listed there? I'm fairly certain I recall Dominus Vobisdu having experience in Biology (as do I), but I'm not sure if this kind of expertise is considered. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

There are several criteria, imo,:

• Interest in improving the article
• Collegial manner for interacting with other editors, particularly new and/or aggressive ones
• Expertise in Wikipedia's policies and technologies
• Substantial knowledge of Intelligent Design, creationism, and evolution and of their social, religious, scientific, and political ramifications on both sides of the Atlantic (not the same on both sides!)
• Long-time presence at this article for awareness of its history
• Time available to work on the article and with other editors
• A shiny halo of sainthood :-D Yopienso (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The halo requirement can be waived if the editor can demonstrate possession by the Demon Wikipedia. Yopienso (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC) (And assuming he's well--hasn't been around for a few days.

Whew! Asking for a bit much, aren't we? :P -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Dave embodies all that, and I think you do, too. There, you're nominated! :-) Yopienso (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

We might instead set our sights a bit lower, on looking for currently active volunteers with access to relevant sources willing to make themselves available for "verification and related questions". That seems to be the hiccup imo-the sources. So many of the objections to the claims made in this article as well as proposals to change it don't get far due to lack of references or distrust with references cited. And I know I won't waste much time 'hearing out' unsupported or poorly supported arguments anymore. There's no lack of "my gut tells me" or "everybody knows" mis/information in circulation, but that's not expertise. That's not useful here, it's not constructive to producing a useful encyclopedia. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Guys, the halo bit should have tipped you off I was describing a non-existent ideal. Both or either of you (and others as well--Stephan Schultz in particular) would be great if you're willing. If you are, why don't you just add your names to the list and take off Monk's? I would like to hear from Dave.

Yop's Concise, Abbreviated, and Improved Guidelines for Go-To Editors:

• Be nice.
• Be smart.

(ec) If sights are going to be lowered that much I'll be bold and volunteer. I have a modest personal collection of ID material, have direct access to a reasonable portion of the primary literature and have a partner who is a tenured biologist who can access the rest. I haven't been active long here but have posted at talk.origins for several years and have something of a reputation for being a citation junkie. If you're looking for someone with more experience, go ahead and remove my name; no need to ask permission. GaramondLethe 05:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Citation junkies are just what the doctor ordered, imo. Primary sources aren't going to help us much here in most cases-the issue is too contentious, and we're compelled to rely primarily on authoritative secondary and tertiary sources (see

WP:OR). But too much time is wasted here in arguments made where sources are treated like an "afterthought". Too often what's initiating discussion here is an expression of, "that's not what I heard therefore this article is wrong" that sucks editors from all sides into unconstructive Speakers Corner style debates rather than addressing questions over quality of sources, notability and such like. I for one welcome more citation junkies to help nip the everybody-has-an-ill-formed-opinion 'nya-nya' that sucks so much energy away from calmly, sensibly addressing the task at hand. Professor marginalia (talk

) 06:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I removed Felonius Monk's name from the template due to his inactivity. Garamond, thanks for volunteering! Sounds like you're perfect for the job! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Garamond, many thanks. You look more qualified than me to deal with this, and your help is welcomed. I've great respect for Felonius Monk's expertise and acuity, but he seems to be inactive these days so it makes good sense to take him off the list. I'll continue to watch this page, but you all seem to be getting on pretty well with it, much appreciated, . . . dave souza, talk 18:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

An editor has added a sentence to the lead relating some recent comments from Bill Nye to ID. I have moved this information to the "Reaction from the scientific community" section, where it seems more appropriate. I don't know if this information really needs to be in the article at all though: other than Nye's TV fame, we already elucidate the fact that ID is rejected by most scientists/scientific organizations. If someone else feels the same, feel free to remove this new material. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - yes, I added the edit - I thought it worthy - or - at least worth a consideration - however, it's *entirely* ok w/ me to rv/mv/adj/etc - no problem whatsoever - in any case - thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

A reason to include him is that he is viewed as a "friendly" person, not hostile like some of academics and debunkers. I.e., some readers will find him to be a more reliable source because he isn't "one of them". Yopienso (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

A reason to exclude him is that he is viewed pretty much only in the USA. This is a global article in a global encyclopaedia. I say this even though I agree with him. HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but the subject matter--ID--is primarily a US phenomenon. (See edit summary.) Yopienso (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Even if it started in the US, things spread quickly. I'm Canadian and I do follow what happens in the USA and yes, I am aware of Bill Nye. I say, leave the text in there. It is just 1 sentence. Vmelkon (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I so wish that was true. Unfortunately, bad religion and denial of real science happens in my country (Australia) too, and is aggressively fed from America. But we don't get Bill Nye on TV here. I only know about him because I'm a science teacher, and use his videos in class. HiLo48 (talk) 01:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you aware of the pages of discussion here showing that the Discovery Institute, located in Seattle, is the source and promulgator of ID? I suspect Brian Houston and Hillsong Church do most of the ID-spreading in Australia. I don't watch TV; I know about Bill Nye from a book of his I read a long time ago and from a video my granddaughter was watching. But I'm not adamant about inclusion. We could always say, "American children's television personality Bill Nye said. . ." Clunky, huh? I'm just laying out facts, here, and will leave the conclusion to others. Yopienso (talk) 02:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Not that long ago we had a disruptive editor here who was blocked in fairly short order. During his brief tenure he created an article on Natural genetic engineering which was subsequently abandonded. I picked it up and took it as far as I could, but at this point I could stand having a molecular biologist take a look. I think the bibliography is in pretty good shape and I have pdfs of most of the 25-odd cites that I've managed to dig up and will be happy to send them along. Much of the criticism of Shapiro's work in on a level that can be understood by a non-specialist, but I've had less luck being able to summarize his work proper. If you're not a molecular biologist then you might want to have a look at the Intelligent Design section; that's in much better shape, but I'm sure it can be improved.

Thanks much,

GaramondLethe 01:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

PS: This is the first article where I've been the majority contributor; no need to be gentle, but please be understanding.

GaramondLethe 01:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and state that I highly doubt that any "peer reviewed" paper by this person makes the case for Intelligent Design, and are merely articles that support the current synthesis. Therefore any links this guy tries to make that his research disproves evolution and proves some magical sky daddy created everything is NOT peer reviewed and likely NOT worthy of it's own article. The article should be merged into Shapiro's article because of that. — raekyt 01:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Shapiro's work focuses on how cellular machinery changes DNA in response to environmental conditions. As such, he thinks the Central dogma of molecular biology is too simplistic and cellular-directed mutation has had a much greater impact on evolution than non-directed mutation. Scientifically he's a strict materialist and dismisses the ID folks on this basis. However, that didn't stop the ID folks from trying to co-opt his work, and as Shapiro is reluctant to admit that directed-mutation systems could have resulted from non-directed mutations + selection, the ID folks keep bringing up his name. (Shapiro's position is that we can't know yet how the direct-mutation systems arose, but he's certain it was a material cause and that we might figure it out eventually.)

All of which, properly cited to the peer-reviewed literature, made its way into the article.

You evidently had a different narrative that you preferred. Because of that, you wrongly condemned a scientist you knew nothing about, despite the relevant article being a click away.

So let's turn this into a teachable moment. What could I have done differently that would have caused you to read the article first before commenting?

Thanks in advance,

GaramondLethe 03:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I assumed he was in the crazies boat, my bad. The question though is

WP:N of this area of study, is his views widely accepted among biologists? Is his papers highly cited by others? I haven't really looked into it because I don't really have time at the moment, but if his views are on the margins of biology and not widely accepted or being investigated then again it probably doesn't deserve it's own page.... I'm just guessing that since this didn't have a topic before some creationist created it, and it's not linked from anywhere except his page [1], it MIGHT mean it's not notable... — raekyt

03:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Good questions. It was an evolutionist who created the article (here's his best contribution to this article [2]). I would say the community considers Shapiro to have a minority but still respectable view. His Trends in Genetics paper has been cited 90 times, his Gene paper has been cited 78 times and his Genetica paper has been cited 117 times. His book garnered at least nine reviews in the peer-reviewed literature, ranging from "He's wrong" (Larry Moran) to "This is important but he's probably wrong" to "This is interesting but don't bet the farm". Nice catch on the lack of links to the article; I might not be able to address that tonight but that definitely needs work. Thanks! GaramondLethe 04:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I was going by the article's form before you started editing, which has some creationist buzzwords like "Darwinian evolution." But irregardless, I'm not entirely convinced it meets

WP:GNG. I think the question is does the phrasing "Natural genetic engineering" appear enough in academic literature to merit it's own page as opposed to containing it within the author's article? According to a search of the phrase on Google scholar (exact phrase search yields: About 664 results) it may not... — raekyt

04:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Probably best to move this conversation over to talk:Natural genetic engineering. GaramondLethe 04:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Alvin Plantinga (2011), Where the Conflict Really Lies. Science, Religion and Naturalism, Oxford University Press, USA. 376 pages; ISBN-10: 0199812098; USD27.95 Reviewed by: Maarten Boudry. An interesting take on the usual Plantingaisms. H/T Larry Moran. By coincidence, it's followed by a review of James A. Shapiro (2011), Evolution. A View from the 21st century. See also John S. Wilkins & Paul E. Griffiths, Evolutionary debunking arguments in three domains: Fact, value, and religion, PhilPapers. . . dave souza, talk 19:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Good to see Wilkins getting cited. I think I read a couple of his earlier blog posts about this paper. Looking forward to reading it on the flight home. GaramondLethe 00:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The introductory paragraph to the Intelligent Design page states that the leaders of the ID movement wish to redefine science to include theistic explanations. In his book, Signs of Intelligence, Phillip E. Johnson makes a notable point on this issue. He says that the popular science of today, what he calls "naturalistic" science, rejects any theory that isn't entirely in agreement with a naturalistic worldview. That is, any theory that doesn't make sense in a world where the universe is all there ever was is labeled as religion. True science, "empirical" science as he calls it, makes the conclusions that are most feasible based on the evidence set before it. Johnson makes the case that biology bears the distinct hallmarks of design by an intelligent agent, and that evolution is not an adequate explanation for the development of life on Earth.76.17.165.40 (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Err, let's say my name is staples.

Well, there's making a case and there's making a case successfully. Is there a particular change you wanted to make to the lead? GaramondLethe 03:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I have listed Flying Spaghetti Monster for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Flying Spaghetti Monster/archive1. any input on how to improve the article would be very much appreciated. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I think my phrasing is much clearer Blast&gas (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

4 link is dead. why have a ref that goes nowhere?

Blast&gas (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the other editors that your changes were not an improvement. As for why we would keep a dead link, it is so that we know what the original reference was. There's no requirement that a reference be online. Just mark it as a dead link. Often (and probably in this case) the original reference can be found online elsewhere or in an archive, and the link can be repaired.Meters (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

OK how does one mark it as a dead link? See I was trying to look up the source and got a dead link. Blast&gas (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not a dead link, it just doesn't ta you directly to the book now. The top level AAAS page works and the book reference may still be available from that page. That's one of the reasons we don't delete dead refs. Meters (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

{{Dead link|date=November 2012}}, documentation is

here. GaramondLethe

06:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

... I corrected an unclear sentence and some run on sentences. Blast&gas (talk) 10:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You changed the meaning, " It puts forward a number of arguments, the most prominent of which are irreducible complexity and specified complexity, in support of the existence of a designer." shows that all their arguments are in support of the existence of a designer, your version " It puts forward a number of arguments. The most prominent of which are irreducible complexity and specified complexity, which support the existence of a designer." implies that their other arguments don't. So, reverted. Please discuss your proposed changes on this talk page before editing. . . dave souza, talk 11:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

... no you are not reading it correctly. and the main problem is that there are many run on sentences. and the phrasing that i have read is clumsy and confusing. obviously there are people that are protecting the bad writing in this article for some reason.

you seriously do not see the number of run on sentences? Blast&gas (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings such as the United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling, which barred the teaching of "Creation Science" in public schools as breaching the separation of church and state.

^^^ are you seriously saying the above sentence is not 'run on'?? 'to circumvent court rulings such as the United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling' huh??? 'barred the teaching as breaching'??? does not make sense. i dont care was just trying to help. obviously the people who originally wrote this dont want it change to a better style so there is nothing i can do. Blast&gas (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Blast, you cannot simply split sentences. Like this: Blast, you cannot. Simply split sentences. which is basically identical to one of your edits. Yes, the argument was revised to circumvent the court ruling of EvA, and your "huh" does not make the sentence any less clear than it is. Your style is not better; your style is significantly worse. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Those "improvements" changed the meaning of the sentences in question so that they did not match what was said in the sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

... i did NOT simply split sentences. the sentences were run-on. and I did NOT change the meaning. show me examples of where i 'split' sentences or changed the meaning. just look at my improvements. really you guys do not seem to know what a run on sentence is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blast&gas (talk • contribs) 15:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

We know precisely what a run-on sentence is, and dave, above, has already explained where you changed the meaning. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

show me examples of where i 'split' sentences or changed the meaning

who orignally wrote this text? WHERE did I SPLIT a sentence? why are you being nasty?Blast&gas (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, Blast&gas, I'm not convinced you know what a run-on sentence is: there is nothing grammatically wrong with the sentence you mentioned previously (the first sentence in the lead's third paragraph). It is a long sentence, yes... but not a run-on. This doesn't preclude improvements to the text, but as others have stated illustrated, your changes weren't improvements. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

[ It puts forward a number of arguments, the most prominent of which are irreducible complexity and specified complexity, in support of the existence of a designer. } this is a run-on sentence. I did not say sentence #3 was a run-on. You are not following this and you DID say that I split a sentence. Show me WHERE I did THAT. Blast&gas (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

That sentence might be clearer as "It puts forward a number of arguments in support of the existence of a designer, the most prominent of which are

McGeddon (talk

) 18:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

... it has 2 independent clauses. by def a run on. and there are a lot of other grammar errors in this article. Blast&gas (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

That is not the definition of a run-on sentence. Check your dictionary again. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

" An example of a run-on is a comma splice, in which two independent clauses are joined with a comma without an accompanying coordinating conjunction "

a run-on has 2 independent clauses NOT joined appropriately. your example is a comma splice. puullleeez! learn this stuff! thanks! Blast&gas (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

That is not a comma splice. The sentence can be rewritten as "It puts forward a number of arguments in support of the existence of a designer, the most prominent of which are irreducible complexity and specified complexity." The comma allows us to place the ending sentence fragment earlier in the sentence to more quickly convey the relevance to our subject. The fragments are not distinct sentences. Also, please intent your posts by putting a colon before them. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

{ec}Ugh... in the

prepositional phrase (dependent clause) that is set apart from the rest by commas. This is not a run-on sentence. You probably ought to learn some grammar yourself before you accuse others of ignorance. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs

) 18:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I do believe YOU are displaying YOUR ignorance. That IS a run-on sentence because each section has a complete sentence structure, a noun and a verb and those clauses are improperly connected by a COMMA. If the the 2 clauses were connected by a ';" or and or but or so or any other conjuction THEN it would be OK. read http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/runons.htm, or a 8th grade grammar text. Blast&gas (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay... I was going to ask where the subjects and verbs of these clauses were, but that will only draw this out longer. Here is a full deconstruction, with italicized subjects and emboldened verbs for clarity:

Original sentence: It puts forward a number of arguments, the most prominent of which are irreducible complexity and specified complexity, in support of the existence of a designer.

Independent clause: "It puts forward a number of arguments in support of the existence of a designer."

Dependent clause: "the most prominent of which are irreducible complexity and specified complexity."

Notice how the second clause doesn't have a subject? That means it's not an independent clause (it depends on the predicate of the independent clause). This sentence has one independent and one dependent clause, and thus is classified as a complex sentence. So, again... not a run-on. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Nicely explained. It also seems clear that there is concensus that the undone changes are not an improvement. So, we're done, right? Meters (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I italicized "which" in the dependent clause for clarity--it's the (pro)noun that makes it a full clause (I think you meant to do this, but you can revert me if you want) Mildly Mad^T_C 22:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

(EC) It is not a run on sentence, because there are not two independent clauses. "The most prominent of which are irreducible complexity and specified complexity" (as proposed by you) is not an independent clause; the word which is a relative pronoun, which makes the phrase a Relative clause in the original sentence. Mildly Mad^T_C 22:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

nope that phrase can be taken out. one could say 'the most prominent are these two.' a dependent phrase would be one in which there is NOT a subject and a verb. simply having a relative pronoun in a sentence does NOT make it a dependent clause. have you ever diagrammed sentences?? Blast&gas (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

'The scenery flashed by rapidly when the train picked up speed. ' In this sentence the independent is 'the scenery flashed by rapidly' and the dependent is 'when the train picked up speed' the test for the dependent is whether it is a proper sentence on its own and it does not make sense by itself. the phrase 'The most prominent of which are irreducible complexity and specified complexity' is grammatically correct on its own therefore an independent clause. Blast&gas (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

From the Relative clause article, emphasis added: "A relative clause is a kind of subordinate clause, one of whose arguments shares a referent with a main clause element on which the subordinate clause is grammatically dependent." -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

@ Blast&gas, oh no it's not! Back to the basic point, your edit changed the meaning. Do please propose rewording which you prefer, this time taking care to keep the meaning exactly the same. . . dave souza, talk 23:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

"It puts forward a number of arguments in support of the existence of a designer, the most prominent of which are irreducible complexity and specified complexity."

probably should be

"It puts forward a number of arguments in support of the existence of a designer of which the most prominent are irreducible complexity and specified complexity."

I think this is the solution. the 'of which' is in the wrong place. I still think better would be:

[ It puts forward a number of arguments in support of the existence of a designer. The most prominent are irreducible complexity and specified complexity.

simply isnt as jerky, stuttery as the way it is in the article. I see this stuttering and jerking all thru the article. It does not flow nicely, its always; something, then something else, and may a little more, then even a little more, and some more. Instead having a flow that carries with out the constant hesitations. Blast&gas (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Your proposed change is not an improvement. It is grammatically incorrect, as has been explained in great depth above. I suggest this thread be closed.Theroadislong (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

it is NOT grammatically incorrect. where? there is def a run on sentence in your sentence and the over use of commas when not necessary all thru this article

It puts forward a number of arguments, the most prominent of which are irreducible complexity and specified complexity, in support of the existence of a designer.

should be

It puts forward a number of arguments of which the most prominent are irreducible complexity and specified complexity. These support of the existence of a designer.

It puts forward a number of arguments of which the most prominent are irreducible complexity and specified complexity, which support of the existence of a designer.

see how the jerkiness is eliminated and it flows better?

Blast&gas (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Your proposal boils down to:

• ID puts forward a number of arguments.
• The most prominent of these arguments are IC and SC.
• These argument support the existence of a designer.

This is incorrect. What the sentence is supposed to say is:

• ID puts forward arguments for the existence of a designer
• The most prominent of these arguments are IC and SC.

ID isn't a series of arguments, some of which happen to support the existence of God. ID is an argument for the existence of God. Guettarda (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

[They advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula, leading to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, where U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.]

better:

They advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula, leading to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. In the trial U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents". He also ruled that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Blast&gas (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings such as the United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling, which barred the teaching of "Creation Science" in public schools as breaching the separation of church and state.

better:

Intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings such as the United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard. In this ruling the court decided that the teaching of "Creation Science" in public schools breached the separation of church and state.

Blast&gas (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I think this is more of a stylistic difference than "bad writing", per se. Each sentence in the lede succinctly express exactly one idea (with some occasional relevant sidebars) in order to achieve a compact summary of an extremely broad topic; it avoids splitting thoughts in to two or more sentences to avoid the overuse of pronouns as the primary subject of sentences. Mildly Mad^T_C 00:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh come now! look at this: [which barred the teaching of "Creation Science" in public schools as breaching the separation of church and state.] one does not BAR something as 'breaching' a court could RULE something as BREACHING or the court could BAR an activity. jeez the reason we HAVE periods is to separate flows of thought. or else I could, if I wanted to, and if I had the movitation which I need, in other words, to make things, even more clear, than what was said before, I said that. Blast&gas (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

"The final ground for reversal advanced by Kolek is that any certificate action against him should be barred as a breach of the plea agreement he reached with the United States resulting in his conviction." 869 F.2d 1281, decision in Kolek v. Engen, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, March 9th 1989.

Please don't state your personal preferences as rules. GaramondLethe 09:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

heres another bad one:

The scientific and academic communities, along with a U.S. federal court, view intelligent design as either a form of creationism or as a direct descendant that is closely intertwined with traditional creationism;[65][n 13][66][67][68][69] and several authors explicitly refer to it as "intelligent design creationism"

but here is a good one

Intelligent design arguments are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid identifying the intelligent agent (or agents) they posit. Although they do not state that God is the designer, the designer is often implicitly hypothesized to have intervened in a way that only a god could intervene. Dembski, in The Design Inference, speculates that an alien culture could fulfill these requirements.

better:

A U.S. federal court along with the scientific and academic communities view intelligent design as either a form of creationism or as a direct descendant that is closely intertwined with traditional creationism.[65][n 13][66][67][68][69] Therefore, several authors explicitly refer to ID as "intelligent design creationism" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blast&gas (talk • contribs) 00:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it's time to

call the horse dead. Meters (talk

) 00:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Blast&gas (talk) 04:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

B&G, you are skating on thin ice here, this post appears to demonstrate a lack of the

no personal attacks policy. Tread carefully. - Nick Thorne ^talk

04:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

B&G. read the link. I simply think we should stop wasting time on this. Nothing to do with whatever powerstuctures you are concerned with. And I've already undone your edits on the grounds that they were not an improvement, so clearly I am for improving the article by not changing it for the worse. I'm done with this topic, lest anyone accuse me of feeding the trolls with the dead horse. Meters (talk) 06:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think Blast&gas has helped identify a couple problems. First, I agree with McGeddon about moving the relative clause to the end of the following sentence to improve readability:

"It puts forward a number of arguments, the most prominent of which are irreducible complexity and specified complexity, in support of the existence of a designer, the most prominent of which are irreducible complexity and specified complexity."

Second, the following sentence is redundant (emboldened for emphasis) and can be fixed fairly easily:

"Intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings such as that of the United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling, which barred the teaching of "Creation Science" in public schools as breaching the separation of church and state."

This change simply removes the second ruling and adjusts the grammar accordingly, but perhaps we want to split this into multiple sentences(?). Anyway, just some thoughts. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 06:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

" Nick... huh??? I think the lack of good faith is on some others here. For instance I was accused of doing something I simply did not do. Chihuahua said I split sentences which I simply did NOT and when asked for an example of how I did that he did not answer. And then I was personally attacked by a few people. The hostility here is amazing.

Yes dub, those would be improvements. And I wish the run-on sentence would be corrected. if you notice starting with the 'irreducibly complex' section this stuttering and jerking problem disappears. Seems that the first 8 or 9 or so paragraphs have this problem. I think the first 9 paragraphs should be re written in the better style of IR+. I randomly looked at a number of wiki articles and do NOT see this jerking, run on sentence problem in them. Yes i looked again and this problem is prevalent in the first 3 paragraphs. There also seems to be punching tone to much of this article. Reminds me of jake la motta being pummeled by robinson in the movie. seems to have an angry style that i dont see in other articles. Blast&gas (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

.... dub, "which barred the teaching of "Creation Science" in public schools as breaching" this phrase does not make sense. a person does not 'bar something as breaching' that would be like saying ' prevent the criminal as guilty' now you can ' bar the criminal from driving' or ' find the criminal as guilty' the words bar and breach used together this way simply is not correct. i see many of these instances of this esp in the first sections. and the constant punching, jerking, stuttering instead of a flow like a graceful walk across a room.Blast&gas (talk) 11:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Blast&gas, do you have suggestions for the "barred-breaching" sentence? Perhaps "... which barred the teaching of 'Creation Science' in public schools on grounds that it breached..."? Or change breached to violated? I was bold and changed the first statement I mentioned previously ("It puts forward a number of arguments..."), so if anyone has a problem with that change, revert me and we'll discuss it further. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed that Mildly Mad made changes to the "barred-breaching" sentence that were quite similar to my suggestions. Sounds like we're on the right track. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings such as the United States Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision, which barred the teaching of "Creation Science" in public schools on the grounds of breaching the separation of church and state.

prob should be 'on the grounds of violating the separation of church and state' not using breaching again. too redundant. Blast&gas (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

"The leading proponents of intelligent design are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank,[n 1][4] and believe the designer to be the Christian deity. "

this sentence seems clumsy to me. I would put 'a politically conservative think tank' at the end of the first sentence then change this sentence to

"The leading proponents of intelligent design are associated with the Discovery Institute [n 1][4] and believe the designer to be the Christian deity. This really focuses on the point trying to be explained." No need to re explain that DI is a converv think tank. See this sentence should focus on describing the proponents. Also starting with 'leading proponents' does not seem right to me. When people say 'Chinese are smart' it implies that all chinese are smart. and what does 'leading' really mean. maybe the 'most prominent proponents' Blast&gas (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

another clumsy one down farther:

[In the 13th century Thomas Aquinas argued that natural things act to achieve the best result, and as they cannot do this without intelligence, an intelligent being must exist, setting the goal and providing direction, and this being is God.]

Blast&gas (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

If you think a sentence needs copyediting, just

McGeddon (talk

) 23:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the very clear explanation of current circumstances by Garamond Lethe, adding that B&G has also managed to violate 3RR with 4 reverts withing 24 hours, a fact he has been disputing strongly on his talk page. The problem solving approach here is not encouraging him to be bold, it is getting him to slow down, learn the rules, and learn from more experienced editors, with an eye towards understanding that Wikipedia is run by consensus, and consensus is strongly against all of his edits thus far. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

no killer you are again factually wrong: the consensus is not ALL against my edits since several of them have been adopted and incorporated into the article. the thing that got confused is that i did not REVERT 4 times, i modified 4 times. there is a little difference. but i see now that it is difficult for people to see that so i will just make a change and if someone undoes it i will not modify it again. what is happening is that other people have been running with the ideas i originated and many times end up publishing exactly what i started with Blast&gas (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I assure you, that after 8 years on Wikipedia and over 6 as an administrator, my understanding of Wikipedia policy regarding 3RR is not deficient. You have been told by many experienced editors that your "modifications" count as reverts per our

policy. You can either learn from more experienced editors, or continue in your misunderstanding; if you continue to edit against policy there is an excellent chance you will be blocked. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!?

13:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

^^ this change was MY idea and has been adapted in the very FIRST sentence of the article and placed their by someone other than myself. so go REVERT it just cuz I THOUGHT of it. you are just on a power trip. ever since i was told that i reverted against the rule i have not reverted one time since. AND my ideas are being adopted. YES and the run on sentences are being changed. you just are ticked cuz you did not recognize that run-on and did not understand it. Blast&gas (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I reverted this edit because it's just the sort of thing that has caused trouble here in the past. We've been criticised for unfairly labelling ID, of not letting it stand on its merits as an argument. While I don't really agree with that, putting the political label in the opening sentence is, at best, insensitive. Whether we agree with them or not, we owe it to our critics to listen to what they have to say. If there's no content-based rationale for making a change, if it's purely cosmetic, we shouldn't make it. Not if it accentuates the sort of thing that has already attracted criticism. Guettarda (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

i dont agree. but the last sentence of the paragraph is still stuttery. if you want to placate the critics there is plenty that can be changed in this article. so why so sensitive when it comes to this first sentence. it IS a conservative think tank. jeez a conserv would be proud of that. and the flow is SO much better my way. you must agree the last sentence is stuttery Blast&gas (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Either way seems ok to me. You guys really should stop revert warring with each other. And yes, I'm aware that the prohibition on revert warring of any kind gives the advantage to the "first mover." That's how Wikipedia is. Cla68 (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow - my first edit to Wikipedia in five months and already you're making false accusations against me Cla? Whatever do you do with yourself when I'm not around for you to hound? Guettarda (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Guetarda, I don't see this as unfairly labelling, and Blast's change was an improvement. Don't know what you were trying to get at with your "listenting" argument above. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Not having edited Wikipedia in 5 months it's hard to see how a single revert is edit warring. But the main point here is that Cla has been harassing me for the last five or six years (iirc), going so as far as this (E.2). Just about any attempt by me to edit anything related to intelligent design brings him out of the woodwork. I show up here after five months and, by an amazing coincidence, he shows up here for the first time since mid-September. Guettarda (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Without commenting at all on the appropriateness of any comments, lets keep the discussion here focused on the article and not other editors. That stuff belongs at RfCU, ANI, or a user talk page. If there's a problem, let's move discussion there.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall the rationale for writing the first paragraph it the way it currently is, but I actually think we should take Blast's edit a step further and consolidate the mentions of Discovery Institute to the last sentence of the first paragraph, and leave the first sentence for defining ID (per

I would strongly oppose that. An essential part of the definition of ID is that it originates from the DI. It's not a "broad concept", but a specific "product" from a specific "manufacturer", and the definition given here is the DI's own definition. It has to be attributed, and cannot be given in WP's voice. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Previously the rationale given was that a decision was made that the scope of the article was by conscious decision limited to the DI-related stuff. And that was given as the rationale for deleting much of the coverage of the historical non-DI coverage of the usage of the term from the article. I left the debate here (against that narrowing) because the potential gain from avoiding the narrowing was not pressing enough to carry it further. This more recent argument conflicts with that previous rationale, asserting that the DI version is the only meaning, which conflicts with the deleted sourced material. IMHO that narrowing, leaving out the other related uses in the same field remains not worth arguing about, but it should be acknowledged. North8000 (talk) 03:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with DV. Without mention of the DI in the first sentence, we have failed to give a proper definition at all, no matter how concise. The DI is central to this subject. The argument without the DI properly fits in teleological argument. Changing that now would require a fundamental rewrite for the entire article, and a lengthy discussion about the scope of our related articles. For a featured article, that would require a substantial RfC.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

And that would make the article a content fork, and probably a POV fork, as well, and a coatrack article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anyone arguing for an expansion in scope to all ID, or for bringing back the non-DI ID material that was deleted, or for an additional article. But what the decided-upon narrowing leads to is that the article should not make statements to the contrary, such as ostensibly defining ID as a whole as being the narrowed scope. North8000 (talk)

"The scientific community rejects the extension of science to include supernatural explanations"

should be

The scientific community rejects the extension of the scope of science to include supernatural explanations

or

The scientific community rejects the expansion of the scope of science to include supernatural explanations.

when i read that sentence something just did not sound right to me and i think it is that science does not extend or expand. the scope does. i still think expansion is the better term since it implies 2 or 3 dimensions while extended is one dimension. i am looking at it like a venn diagram where the DI people want the circle to encroach over the religious or supernatural circle thereby expanding too far like a balloon blown up to big. extend to me is one dimensional like extended the time for a deadline. now i have looked up both defs and for sure they are similar. but you do NOT expand the time for a deadline and you do not extend the size of a waistline so there IS a difference but definitely SCIENCE does not expand, its scope does.

also interesting that i said that a certain sentence was run-on and several editors disagreed. i still stand by my judgement. it was a comma splice for sure. and interesting that i point out some of these grammar errors and clarity and flow errors, make a change, have it reverted, then someone else makes the same change as i did originally and it sticks. now this has happened to me in work situations a lot where i make a suggestion to the boss and he says no, that will never work and then 2 weeks later HE implements that change and takes the credit for it.

i read the first para again and it DOES flow much better now without the stuttering. and it does demonstrate NOW right off the bat that ID is not a general term but a manufactured term and it comes out boldly and says it was created by a consev think tank. i think this concept of 'manufactured' term is a good one that an editor brought up. another one that comes to mind to me is 'class warfare' and 'redistribution of wealth' these are conserv terms but i am sure the liberal side has theirs also.

i would almost go this far:

Intelligent design (ID) is a manufactured term created by the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank to circumvent etc etc

but of course might be too bold and in your face. (dont know why that box comes up) but i think really gets to the point. in the last election both sides came up with these manufacture terms to promote their agendas. ok thought of a liberal one: undocumented worker, climate change. both were created because the original terms illegal immigrant and global warming were not playing well in the media.

of course even tho the term ID was manufactured for a purpose i think some people do use it in its general sense. but the term really does not make sense. this also reminds me of the term 'obamacare' which was originally a manufactured term created by the conservs to mock on the health care act and had become so accepted that even obama now uses it. so maybe this happened to the term ID born out of wedlock but now has by some being used as a real term. i think thats what makes this article so hard to write. Blast&gas (talk) 10:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

No. Including supernatural beings would be extending science itself. There are thousands of articles on Wikipedia which really do need improving. Is there any particular reason why you are so keen to work on this one?--Charles (talk) 11:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

... i disagree. my point is that science does not extend or expand, its scope does Blast&gas (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

B&G, rather than arguing based on your preference, could you cite a reliable source that uses this construction in this context? For example, I would argue keeping the current wording as it matches the following:

This group advocates an alternative to current scientific theoretical accounts of certain data sometimes under the label of intelligent design, sometimes under the label of qualified agreement, advocating that the best way to explain the scientific data is to extend science beyond a purely naturalistic methodology ....

In Science and Christianity: Four Views page 14. (emphasis added)

GaramondLethe 12:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

i dont think sources are meant to be guides to writing clear sentences here. they are used as sources for facts not correcting grammar. and shouldnt we try to write better than our sources? seems like you want to dumb things down Blast&gas (talk) 13:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Mostly for my own curiosity I did some more poking around. Both "expanding" and "extending" the "scope of science" are common tropes, but neither are used in the context of ID. This shouldn't be surprising: the DI specifically wants to avoid increasing the "scope of science", especially when it comes to "supernatural explanations".

The goal is to instead appear to be scientific: "Proponents of intelligent design, known as design theorists, purport to study such signs formally, rigorously, and scientifically. Intelligent design may therefore be defined as the science that studies signs of intelligence." William Dembski, Intelligent Design If the process looks to be close enough to science, then it ought be able to be taught in science classrooms.

And that, B&G, is why we don't "write better than our sources". Your proposed edit not only mistakes the goal of the DI, it has "scientists" opposing these non-existent goals. Sure, the sentence sounds better, but in improving the euphony you've untethered the sentence from reality.

One (hopefully) final thought. I'm sure you think the terms "scope of science" and "science" are interchangeable in this context. The terms are not interchangeable in the literature. GaramondLethe 01:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

From the mid-1990s, intelligent design proponents were supported by the Discovery Institute, which, together with its Center for Science and Culture, planned and funded the "intelligent design movement"

... what is trying to be said here? ID proponents were funded by DI but the movement was funded by the CSC or they both were funded by both. really i dont see what they are trying to say here. Blast&gas (talk) 11:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry your having difficulty parsing this relatively simple sentence. As I (and, I expect, most others) would read this, the DI and the CSC funded both the proponents and the movement (where "proponents" and "movement" are meant to be taken as roughly synonymous). GaramondLethe 13:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not the Simple Wikipedia, this is the English Wikipedia. We do not dumb down to a third grade reading level. A certain level of competence is assumed on the part of our readers. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

wow more personal attacks. that is a very messy sentence. like so many in this article. i have pointed out quite a few and they WERE corrected thank god! sorry. have fun kids. read some rules and get some manners. maybe some review of 8th grade grammar might help.

[ As I (and, I expect, most others) would read this, the DI and the CSC funded both the proponents and the movement (where "proponents" and "movement" are meant to be taken as roughly synonymous) ] <<<<<< ok, i see where the convoluted sentences are coming from. LOL!

Blast&gas (talk) 13:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no personal attack in my statement.

Simple Wikipedia is intentionally written simply, for young readers and English-as-a-second-language users. This is the intent of that Wikipedia; I am insulting no one when I state the very purpose of Simple Wikipedia; I'm merely observing what amounts to their "mission statement." KillerChihuahua^?!?

18:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I really do appreciate what you're trying to do here, but you're going about it all the wrong ways. First, please

Wikipedia's formatting options. It's difficult to read your comments when they are indented, then not, then placed in a box that requires the webpage to scroll horizontally (a huge no-no in web design). Adhering to these policies will make editing Wikipedia a much more enjoyable experience for all. Thank you! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs

) 18:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Blast&gas, you've made some false claims here that I feel 
need to be addressed.  You said "no [KillerChihuahua] you 
are again factually wrong: the consensus is not ALL against 
my edits since several of them have been adopted and incorporated 
into the article." The fact is only one of your edits has 
been implemented exactly as you proposed. The vast majority 
of your edits (though not all) have been opposed by consensus.

Another quote from you: "also interesting that i said that a certain sentence was 
run-on and several editors disagreed. i still stand by my judgement. it was a comma 
splice for sure. and interesting that i point out some of these grammar errors and 
clarity and flow errors, make a change, have it reverted, then someone else makes 
the same change as i did originally and it sticks." No one made "the same change" 
to that particular sentence (the one which begins "It puts forward a number of 
arguments..."). Your edits attempted to split this sentence into two, which is not 
how the article now reads. The edit you proposed that is now incorporated into the 
article was never reverted because it was a run-on sentence, but because of perceived 
WP:NPOV issues.

I really do appreciate what you're trying to do here, but you're going about it all 
the wrong ways. First, please be civil and assume good faith. There is no reason to 
accuse your fellow editors of "maintaining the status quo powerstructure" or taking 
credit for your work because your changes have not been accepted;

Wikipedia articles are built by consensus, and consensus has (justifiably) opposed 
most of your edits. Second, know when to stop beating a dead horse. If consensus 
is not going your way and you feel you are correct, you can seek dispute resolution, 
which ranges from third-party comments to mediation (see the WP:DR policy for 
guidelines to which form of resolution you should seek).

Enaging in edit wars or simply restating your comments in the Talk page 
accomplishes nothing.

Also, and this is more of a personal peeve, please learn to use Wikipedia's 
formatting options. It's difficult to read your comments when they are indented, 
then not, then placed in a box that requires the webpage to scroll horizontally 
(a huge no-no in web design). 

Adhering to these policies will make editing Wikipedia a much more enjoyable  
experience for all.

Thank you! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Blast&gas (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

If you put spaces at the beginning of a line you will cause those boxes to occur, so don't do that. If you put colons (:) at the beginning of a line you will indent. The more colons (e.g. ::::) the bigger the indent. North8000 (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

hey north, thanks man!

Blast&gas (talk) 01:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Blast&gas, please be civil. I am merely trying to help and provided several links to policies with the information you may not already know as a new user (such as how to avoid formatting problems such as the overextended box). The claims I made in my previous post are factual, as you can plainly see by looking at the edit history since your arrival here. If you have questions about formatting or Wikipedia policies, feel free to contact me on my User Talk page; however, we ought to leave discussion on this page for article improvements. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 07:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It puts forward a number of arguments, the most prominent of which are irreducible complexity and specified complexity, in support of the existence of a designer.

should be

It puts forward a number of arguments of which the most prominent are irreducible complexity and specified complexity. These support of the existence of a designer.

It puts forward a number of arguments of which the most prominent are irreducible complexity and specified complexity, which support of the existence of a designer.

see how the jerkiness is eliminated and it flows better?

how about this??

It puts forward arguments that support the existence of a designer of which the most prominent are irreducible complexity and specified complexity.

Blast&gas (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I took the liberty of reformatting your post. If you're unhappy with what I've done, feel free to revert it back to the original. However, using a standard formatting will encourage other editors to respond. Wacky formatting is hard to follow, and so makes discussion more difficult. I figured this might help you get used to formatting things a normal way. (It may take some time, no worries!)

Now with that said... I think there is general consensus that this particular sentence, as currently phrased, is ok. I think it's probably time to move on from this particular tidbit. A couple reasons other editors have given include: 1) the current sentence does not have a grammar problem. I think you disagree about this point, but I guess we'll just have to leave it at that disagreement; 2) the new proposal ("of which...") seems clunkier and makes the sentence harder to understand; 3) some of the proposals have changed the meaning of the sentence. I'll add a fourth problem to that list: the change from "in support of" to "that support..." or "these support...". This changes the meaning quite substantially, from suggesting the arguments attempt to support a deity to suggesting the arguments succeed in supporting a deity. We need to be careful not to do that. At some point, you might want to look over

WP:W2W, which discusses our choice of language in wikipedia. None of the words you've used here are on that list specifically, but the idea is an important one. Anyway, as I said above, I think we should let this issue rest and move on to another topic. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥

01:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I will move on. Still dont like the original (like mine better) but the benefit of improving it isnt worth the cost. thanks! Blast&gas (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Cool. That happens to us all sometimes (especially on featured articles), but trust me... there's plenty of other things to fix! Thanks! :)   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

B&G: This has been discussed several times before; here's the most useful.

The

Dave Souza: as I'm reading notes 1 and 2, we have cites for "All leaders" or "The leading proponents", but not not "All leading proponents". I would read "leading proponents" as a larger group than "all leaders", so I think a citation is justified if we want "all leading proponents". However, I agree with B&G that "all" makes for a stronger statement, so I've changed the lead to "All leaders". GaramondLethe 18:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't get your distinction between leaders and leading proponents. They look synonymous to me. If you want to say "all leaders", it would work better if you wrote :all leaders of the ID movement". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

As to the distinction, "leader" implies an organization and "proponent" implies an idea. This would be a distinction without a difference except that Lee Strobel, John Umana and Conway Morris have been identified (with varying degrees of plausibility) as "leading proponent[s] of intelligent design" despite not being affiliated with the DI. These cites aren't great, but I think it shows the problem of trying to force "all" next to "leading proponents" without a cite that addresses this specifically.

All that being said, your suggestion of "all leaders of the ID movement" fits within what can be supported by Note 1 and (in my opinion) would be an improvement over the existing text. Go ahead and make the change if you like, or I'll get to it tomorrow. GaramondLethe 14:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you would really, really have to stretch the meaning of "leading proponents" to include the likes of Strobel, Umana and Conway Morris.

Strobel's only significant contribution is that he published a book of interviews with the leading proponents of ID from the DI. Besides, he seems to be a non-ID creationist that is sympathetic to the ID movement rather than a ID proponent per se.

Umana is a peripheral figure whose only contribution ranks extremely far from being a best seller (3,311,910th place on Amazon.com's sales list).

Conway Morris is a creationist that is very strongly OPPOSED to Intelligent Design(TM), calling it "false and misleading" and a "theology for controlf freaks".

As an ID proponent, Strobel would be third-tier, at best. Umana would come in quite a bit lower. And Conway Morris doesn't make the list at all. None even come close to the claim of being a "leading proponent" of similar stature to Behe, Meyer, Thaxton, Johnson or Dembski. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

If we were allowed to do original research you'd be able to make a pretty compelling case. If I wanted to make a positive claim within an article that any of these people were leading proponents you'd have a pretty convincing argument based on undue weight. But given the constraints we have to work under, we don't have a cite that says "all leading proponents" and we do have some evidence (however weak) that not all leading proponents are affiliated with the DI. The former is sufficient to change the text. Both "all leaders" or "leading proponents" are supported by the cites that we have, this was the state of affairs before B&G made the uncited edit, and I don't see any reason not to return to it. GaramondLethe 19:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Add [http://www.wnd.com/2007/05/41571/ Guillermo Gonzalez] to the list of people who have been called "[a] leading proponent of intelligent design". You know he's not a leading proponent, I know he's not a leading proponent, and we both know World Net Weekly makes their living by catering to the less literate members of the lunatic fringe. If we were writing anywhere else, that would be sufficient. But the fact that I've been able to dig up four non-DI-affiliated crackpots who have been labelled "leading proponent" tells me that a) the bar for leading proponenthood is low enough to trip over and b) unless you know of a source that I don't, distinguishing actual leading proponents from wannabe leading proponents isn't going to be worth the bother. GaramondLethe 21:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Guettarda correctly points out below that Gonzalez is associated with the DI. GaramondLethe 23:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

But Gonzalez is associated with the DI, so whether WND is right or wrong about him being a leading proponent, he's still associated with the DI. Quick Google search will also show Stroebel speaking at a DI conference. When we say that all the leading proponents are associated with the DI, we don't mean that they promote ID because they're associated with the DI. Rather, the association between ID and the DI is so close that it's hard for any ID proponent to stay outside of the DI's orbit. Guettarda (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected — he self-identifies as being associated with the DI here. I was using the DI's list of staff, directors and fellows where Gonzalez is not listed. Nice catch! If you (or anyone else) has a similar cite to the remaining three I'll withdraw my objection. GaramondLethe 23:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

As to the rest of your comment: if one is "associated with" an institution I would expect a closer relationship than accepting funding or contributing articles to their blog. It shouldn't be difficult to show that the first three people I mentioned have worked with and even coordinated with the DI, but at this point we're going to need a basketful of citations to prop up the qualifier "all" and it's still

WP:OR. And that's the problem: we don't have a cite that says "all leading proponents are associated with the DI". GaramondLethe

23:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Plenty of sources on Conway Morris being an opponent of ID: [[3]], [[4]], and [[5]], for a tiny sampling. Even your source says that he's a supporter of "intelligent design". Parentheses theirs, not mine. Only one single source says anything about Umana being a leading proponent, and it's far from a high-quality source that has no demonstrated expertise in making that sort of determination. I can't find anyone who agrees; he's so low down on the food chain that not many have bothered to comment on him. And, as I said, Strobel's main claim to being an ID proponent is that he interviewed the leading proponents from the DI. No one claims that he's a "leading proponent", as he has apparently never proposed anything. Your source says merely that he is a "leading voice", which is true as he was a major publicist of what others proposed. Sorry, but being a "leading proponent" is an exceptional claim that requires exceptional sources. The fact that someone somewhere has labelled someone as a "leading proponent" is not enough. The source has to be competent and credible, and the claim has to be corroborated. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying that in order to justify the qualifier "all" you have to use

WP:OR

. (BTW: the Strobel cite reads: "Can't the Times find room some day for just one leading proponent of intelligent design theory in its opinion pages to accurately and honestly articulate its position? The Times could easily choose from any of the following leading voices: Lee Strobel...").

I completely agree with you that citations in this area should be competent, credible and corroborated. We have a single poor citation for Lee Strobel as a "leading proponent". We have (as best I can tell) no citations for all leading proponents being associated with the DI. Neither statement belongs in the article. Can you tell me what I'm missing here? I thought (perhaps wrongly) that

WP:OR was designed for exactly this kind of case: we limit ourselves to citing competent experts like Barbara Forrest instead of trying to enumerate "leading proponents" and parsing what it means to be "associated". GaramondLethe

00:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I still think that our text is an accurate paraphrase of the source, in that I don't see any significant difference between "leaders" and "leading proponents". Absent any convincing source that asserts otherwise, I think that our version is the result of a sound editorial decision that does not violate

WP:NOR, and reflects the consensus of editors in the talk-page archives for the past six years at least. I'm leaving it at that, and would be interested to say what other editors have to say. Dominus Vobisdu (talk

) 01:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Dominus Vobisdu, thanks for continuing to engage me civilly despite the fact that we were talking past each other. I'm trying to restore the consensus version that (I believe) lasted from 2006 until a couple of days ago. Here is the discussion from 2006. Here is the change made by B&G that disregards that consensus. If you're happy with the 2006-until-recently consensus version, would you please restore it? GaramondLethe 01:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Done, though I still do think the version with all was more accurate and better. Taking your word that this was the long standing consensus version. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, now you have me curious:

• 2006 "Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute..." [6]
• 2007 "Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute..." [7]
• 2008 "Intelligent design's leading proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute..." [8]
• 2009 "Intelligent design's leading proponents – all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute..." [9]
• 2010 "Its leading proponents—all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute..." [10]
• 2011 "The leading proponents of intelligent design are associated with the Discovery Institute..." [11]

Ok, I screwed up. I saw that the talk page discussion in 2006 matched the wording form earlier this year and made the wholly unwarranted conclusion that the text had been stable across that time. My apologies --- I won't make that mistake again. Given that history, I withdraw my objection to including "all" --- that's the actual consensus. Go ahead and self-revert. GaramondLethe 02:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Everyone makes mistakes. I've self-reverted my self-revert back to the consensus version. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

As a curiosity, a version of the "all" verbiage is what was on the article when in appeared on the Main page back in 2007. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

In the first paragraph of this section, there are two problematic sentences:

Paley's natural theology strongly influenced scientists of the time, including Charles Darwin, who began with the assumption that God had designed nature and were open to a deistic interpretation that this design was implemented by laws. While Darwin's natural selection explained complexity and adaptation without the need for a designer, he was still inclined to think that everything resulted from designed laws,[18] by which Nature's God shaped life.

There is considerable debate among historians about whether Darwin was a theist or atheist, but lets assume that Darwin did believe there was a God, which created the laws of physics as we would call them today. In the Origin (1959), the term creator is used 7 times and only once in the sense used in the above sentence. This comes at the end of the Origin, which I quote:

Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled. Judging from the past, we may safely infer that not one living species will transmit its unaltered likeness to a distant futurity. And of the species now living very few will transmit progeny of any kind to a far distant futurity; for the manner in which all organic beings are grouped, shows that the greater number of species of each genus, and all the species of many genera, have left no descendants, but have become utterly extinct. We can so far take a prophetic glance into futurity as to foretel that it will be the common and widely-spread species, belonging to the larger and dominant groups, which will ultimately prevail and procreate new and dominant species. As all the living forms of life are the lineal descendants of those which lived long before the Silurian epoch, we may feel certain that the ordinary succession by generation has never once been broken, and that no cataclysm has desolated the whole world. Hence we may look with some confidence to a secure future of equally inappreciable length. And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection.

It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

In bold, I have indicated the only support in the Origin (1959) for the sentence in question. Since the Origin can be view as not only putting forward the theory of evolution by natural selection, but also as a series of arguments against special design, I believe that these sentences should be deleted because Darwin argued forcefully against intelligent design and the section in question was about the origin of the concept. Thus, these two sentences should be deleted for two reasons: (1) they misrepresent Darwin's views and (2) Darwin did not contribute to the origin of the concept of intelligent design, rather he argued against the already existing concept. I would be open to a re-writing of this paragraph that more accurately expressed Darwin's views. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe Paley's influence on Darwin is well documented (see Gould's description starting on page 119 of Structure of Evolutionary Theory, for example). My copy of Pennock is at home but I don't have any reason to doubt the summarization of [18]. Do you have a source that contradicts it? (The kind of interpretive reading you're doing falls under the heading

reliable source that supports your interpretation, then we can start a discussion of which interpretation to use and how much weight to accord each.) GaramondLethe

20:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that what I'm proposing is original research. I'm simply using Darwin's writing to illustrate that there is a problem with these two sentences. Gould's description, summarizing his basic argument that Darwin literally turned Paley's argument around on him would be an excellent replacement. Clearly, however, the last phrase of the second sentence above: "...by which Nature's God shaped life" can be read as attempting to sneak intelligent design into Darwin's views. I'm only requesting that either these sentences should be deleted, or Darwin's role in the origin of the concept be more accurately described. If people are agreed that a change should be made, I would be happy to start the ball rolling by proposing a change, say based on Gould's writings.--I am One of Many (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I am One of Many, I think you're reading more into these sentences than is actually there: religious belief doesn't denote belief in ID. The sources cited in the text and your excerpt of Origin of Species also seem to support the statements that Darwin believed in physical laws that were created by a deity. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Based on the discussion so far, I'll propose three sentences based on Gould to replace the current two sentences:

Paley’s natural theology strongly influenced scientists of the time and Charles Darwin took Paley’s argument structure and inverted it to explain how, for example, the eye evolved. Thus, Darwin’s arguments started with cases of apparent design in nature and argued that they could be explained by natural selection. Paley, on the other hand, started with cases of apparent design in nature and argued that they cannot be explained by natural causes [Gould]

What do you think?--I am One of Many (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that's not a fair summary of Gould. The passage of Gould you're looking at reads:

I had never read Natural Theology straight through before pursuing my research for this book. In doing so I was stuck by the correspondences between Paley's and Darwin's structure of argument (though Darwin, of course, inverts the explanation). Darwin did not exaggerate when stating to Lubbock that he had virtually committed Paley to memory. The style of Darwin's arguments, his choice of examples, even his rhythms and words must often reflect (perhaps unconsciously) his memory of Paley. (p. 119)

At the most trivial level, Gould has Darwin borrowing the "structure of the argument" and inverting the "explanation". You have Darwin inverting the argument structure. Second, the sentence starts with Paley's influence on scientists and ends with Darwin explaining the evolution of the eye.

At a more serious level, I'm assuming you want to remove the idea that Darwin considered Nature's God to be the creator of natural laws. If you want a better cite for that I'm happy to dig one up, but the fact that some reader might misinterpret this is not a good reason for removing it. GaramondLethe 02:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

First, is important to be clear about what "inverting the explanation" means. What is it that both Paley and Darwin are trying to explain according to Gould? They are both attempting to explain complex and adapted things such as the eye. According to Gould, Darwin intensely studied Paley's writings, perhaps memorizing them word for word. According to Gould, Paley's style of argument aims to explain why complex and adapted things like the eye could not have been produced by natural causes. According to Gould, Darwin latches on to this argument style but inverts it to argue against special creation. Notice, that as Gould sets it out neither Paley nor Darwin start with an unconditional assumption of a creator that engages in special creation. Paley's argument is intended to arrive at this conclusion without assuming a special creator and thereby avoiding circularity. Darwin used the same argument style to explain why no special creator is required.

Second, as I read both Gould and as I understand Darwin, the point is not whether there is a God that created natural laws. Darwin as stated in his own writings and by Gould and others, stipulates such a God without question. The point that Gould is making is that even so, it is natural selection that explains complex and adapted things such as the eye. Gould and others (including myself) hold the view that Darwin believed it is consistent for there to be a God that created natural law (i.e., what we would today call the laws of physics) but is not a special creator God (i.e, engaged in special design). The phrase "...he was still inclined to think that everything resulted from designed laws,[18] by which Nature's God shaped life" contradicts this well accepted interpretation. The term "everything" is too broad, it includes, for example, the eye. The phrase "Nature's God shaped" is just another way of saying created or designed.

I don't care about the particulars of how it is rephrased. I would be happy to go along with any re-writing that does not implicitly suggest that Darwin, at heart, believed in special design.--I am One of Many (talk) 05:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, I don't see how the material in question suggests that Darwin believed in Special Creation. It seems as though the text relates the exact message you (and the sources) support. According to the sources, Darwin believed that the Creator designed physical laws, of which the most pertinent is natural selection. These laws (specifically the mechanisms of evolution) are then the means through which this Creator shaped life. God and laws without Special Creation, ... yes? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 06:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

You have nailed the heart of the problem! None of the sources cited nor in Darwin's writings (which according to Wickipedian rules should be used in a limited way) is there an unconditional statement that Darwin believed that the Creator designed physical laws. As I pointed out earlier, historians of science cannot definitively decide whether Darwin was actually a theist or atheist, but this does not matter. His arguments according to Gould and others are "what if" arguments. If there were a Creator that designed the laws of physics, does it follow that the Creator designed (shaped) all things? According to the theory of evolution by natural selection (which can be sourced here and many many places), the three laws are: (1) there are mechanisms for generating random variation in phenotypes, (2) some of these phenotypes are heritable, and (3) if to some the extent they differ in fitness, natural selection operates. Assuming Darwin is correct, random variation is a problem for the phrase that "this Creator shaped life". Randomness implies that the Creator shaped the physical laws, but after that, what forms of life evolved were out of the Creator's hands.

So, how about the rewrite below? I think it still states what you would like it to say while not saying more than what can be sourced?

Paley's natural theology strongly influenced scientists of the time, including Charles Darwin. Darwin began with the assumption that God had designed the laws of physics and was open to the deistic interpretation that evolution by natural selection could be implemented by these laws. While Darwin's natural selection explained complexity and adaptation without the need for a designer, he also believed that natural selection was consistent with physical laws designed by a Creator.[cite Gould] (changes are in bold)

I believe this to be more neutral and closer to what can be sourced. Is this an acceptable compromise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by I am One of Many (talk • contribs) 18:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, Darwin basically suggested that evolution by natural selection is one of these laws created by a deity (as opposed to being "implemented by these laws"). Also, you asked "[i]f there were a Creator that designed the laws of physics, does it follow that the Creator designed (shaped) all things?" The answer would be yes: the Creator shaped all things through the design of these various laws. This is, I believe, the crux of our disagreement: the Creator didn't have a direct role in the shaping of life, but an indirect one via natural laws (i.e. evolution).

The revision you've proposed also seems to change the meaning of the content. The subject of who "began with the assumption..." has changed from those scientists strongly influenced by Paley's natural theology to Darwin specifically. I don't have the source for this claim, but I'd hope we haven't had the subject wrong this whole time. The change in the final sentence reads well, and were that the only change proposed, I'd support it; however, I don't think the other suggestions are improvements. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Concur with MisterDub. Here's what Darwin had to say:

With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.—I am bewildered.—I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I sh[oul]d. wish to, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us . . . On the other hand I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe & especially the nature of man, & to conclude that everything is the result of brute force" (Burkhardt and Smith, 1985-2005, 8:224; quoted in David N. Livingstone, "Evolution and Religion", p348, in Evolution: The First Four Billion Years, ed. by Ruse and Travis, 2009.

A few other quibbles: Darwin did not use the term Laws of Physics (as best I can tell after a quick search). Also, Darwin began by agreeing with Paley (see the entry on "Paley" in the same volume).

I appreciate that you're trying to help improve this article (and I think you've spotted a citation that needs to be replaced). But for this kind of change you really do need to have a source backing you up, rather than relying on your understanding. GaramondLethe 19:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we did have the subject of that sentence wrong. I only see the Pennock book cited here and, from what I can see using Amazon's "Look Inside" feature, I see no claim that "Paley's natural theology strongly influenced scientists of the time"; only that students could not enter Cambridge without a professed belief in Anglican Christianity. Is there a source we're missing? Or ought we to remove this claim and focus only on Darwin? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The "ruling" link to the Kitzmiller opinion in that cite is a bit more on point, but not enough to justify keeping it. I think we can substitute the Gould cite and keep the claim. Your thoughts? GaramondLethe 19:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

{ec}Further digging reveals that the Teleological argument article has a similar claim ("Natural theology strongly influenced British science, with the expectation as expressed by Adam Sedgwick in 1831 that truths revealed by science could not conflict with the moral truths of religion. These natural philosophers saw God as the first cause, and sought secondary causes to explain design in nature...") supported by the book, Charles Darwin: vol. 1 Voyaging by Janet E. Browne. It seems to me, then, that our paraphrase in the ID article is fairly accurate. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I think reading Darwin's own words is a good idea. Look here and do a page search for "Paley." You will find that on p. 59 of his autobiography, Darwin expresses his delight in and admiration for Paley's ideas. But he goes on to explain how his own thinking evolved over time, saying on p. 87, "The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws." I've bolded the most telling bit. Yopienso (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Yopienso, thanks for the source. A little further, on pp. 92-93, Darwin says:

When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist. This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker.

From Pennock, we get an excerpt from a letter Darwin wrote to Asa Gray in 1860, one year after Origin of Species was published (emphasis added):

I cannot be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion satisfies me at all... I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for human intellect.

This information suggests that, though Pennock's claim is correct regarding the period when Darwin wrote Origin of Species, his (Darwin's) conviction had later eroded, perhaps entirely. I think we ought to either date the claim to this period or remove it entirely. I'm leaning toward the latter. Also, I suggest we edit the first sentence to better conform to the statement taken from the Teleological argument:

Paley's natural theology strongly influenced scientists of the time, including Charles Darwin, who saw God as the first cause and sought secondary causes to explain design in nature.

Garamond, I'm not quite sure what you're proposing. Could you elaborate? And what do you think about simply removing the last sentence in question? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to hold off on this for the moment so as not to confuse the issue (or myself)...GaramondLethe 01:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

These are all good points. I just read a review of Michael Ruses' (2003) book Does Evolution Have a Purpose? by Robert Richards (2004) Michael Ruse's Design for Living, which everyone should be able to download and read. Two important points. Ruse pushes the interpretation I have been suggesting, but Richards points out evidence that is closer to the original two sentences. This lead me to the view that the proper thing to do is to point out that Darwin's relationship to teleology is complex and that while some interpret Darwin as doing away with Teleology, other (Richards--who is a famous Darwin historian) view him as sneaking it back in by at times conceptualizing Nature as an intelligent force operating by the laws of natural selection. Second, the account of the origin of the design concept is quite good in this paper and perhaps some more re-writing would be appropriate to provide the reader with a richer view?--I am One of Many (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi IAOoM. Your're reading the peer-reviewed literature, which is great. You're starting to frame your arguments in term of citing that literature, which is even better. Two points:

1. Richards' paper was published in 2004 in the Journal of the History of Biology, but has only been cited 14 times since then. Contrast this with Michael and Ruse's Darwin and design: does evolution have a purpose? which as been cited 205 times since it was published in 2003. So with just a quick glance it looks like Richards has a valid but minority position.
2. If we're only going to have a couple of sentences to tie together Paley, Darwin and historial teleological arguments, I'm not clear how to justify bringing in a minority point of view, especially as it doesn't look like Richards warrants a mention at either
   Teleological Argument or Charles Darwin
   .

GaramondLethe 01:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Garamond, if it is agreed we should keep this simple but closest to the main interpretation yet compatible with the minority to some extent, how would this be?

Paley's natural theology strongly influenced scientists of the time, including Charles Darwin. Darwin began with the assumption that God had designed the laws of matter and was open to the deistic interpretation that the laws of evolution by natural selection were natural laws of the Creator. While Darwin's natural selection explained complexity and adaptation without the need for a designer, he also believed that natural selection was consistent with natural laws designed by a Creator.[cite Gould, Ruse] (changes are in bold)

What I like about this rewrite after all of this discussion is that it is close to the original, but states very precisely what the consensus view of Darwin is.--I am One of Many (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Were "laws of matter" and "laws of evolution" in Ruse? It's my impression that both terms are anachronisms: Darwin didn't use either term so far as I am aware.

If we followed the suggestion of MisterDub and just dropped the second sentence, would that take care of your concerns? GaramondLethe 06:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I think that is not controversial at all. I would suggest that the word "natural" be inserted into the first sentence for clarity:

Paley's natural theology strongly influenced scientists of the time, including Charles Darwin, who began with the assumption that God had designed nature and were open to a deistic interpretation that this design was implemented by natural laws. [cite Gould, Ruse] (change in bold)

Does this work for everyone?--I am One of Many (talk) 09:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Which page in Ruse? GaramondLethe 17:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Garamond, I'll get the exact page references this week and post them in here.--I am One of Many (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Garamond, so I finally went to the library and there is a nice quote from Ruse. Let's just leave the first sentence as it is and add this note with a nice explanatory quote from Ruse? I think this will help the article maintain its featured status!--I am One of Many (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Paley's natural theology strongly influenced scientists of the time, including Charles Darwin, who began with the assumption that God had designed nature and were open to a deistic interpretation that this design was implemented by laws.

^{[n 2]}

--I am One of Many (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the quote is spot-on and the reference should be added, but as this is background material in this particular article I'm less sure that the actual quote needs to be included. But I could go either way. GaramondLethe 08:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

That proposal sounds good to me. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Garamond Lethe, MisterDub, I have only been a member of the Wikipedia community for 2 weeks now, but I'm beginning to understand how it works. I have a better appreciation of how difficult it is to build and maintain the best articles here among all the chaos. I'm very glad that MisterDub my first substantive edits and that Garamond Lethe pushed me nail down what I thought was the correct With that in mind, I think the original reference together with the Ruse reference would be appropriate. I would also like to add a note with the quote because (1) Ruse does such a good job of describing one of the central points of this section, which is hard to capture adequately with a single sentence and (2) it doesn't add to the length of the body of the article, but allows the reader to get a quick explanation if he/she wants it. So, I'll make the changes we agree upon in a couple of days.--I am One of Many (talk) 16:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems reasonable and at least his book does go on to discuss ID. It is clear that Darwin and his tutors sought laws to explain phenomena. However, Ruse's point about Paley may be in error. von Sydow (2005) Darwin: A Christian Undermining Christianity? pp. 5–7 describes how Paley argued against miracles while promoting a concept of God acting in nature by secondary laws, and how Herschel and Lyell presented Darwin with the concept of simple, uniform and inviolable laws of nature. On the topic of evolution, Herschel wrote to Lyell in 1836 anticipating "that mystery of mysteries, the replacement of extinct species by others.... would be found to be a natural in contradistinction to a miraculous process". [12]. Not suitable sources for this article, but it does support the context shown in ref. 19 on "Paley's deist-friendly argument." . . dave souza, talk 19:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting—I've pulled it down and started reading it. Might not finish it for a couple of days, but it's on my list. GaramondLethe 23:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Dave, I think you're right: Ruse misreads Payley to the extent that Ruse thinks Payley is arguing for an intervening, miraculous God. As the ID folks require miracles in order to "re-mystify" nature and in that sense they're anti-Darwinian as well as anti-Paylian. IAOoM: please take a look at this article and see if you agree. GaramondLethe 15:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It took me some time to get back here, but I just the von Sydow article. I think his historical reading of Darwin is very interesting. That his gradual explication of natural selection and especially the implications for random variation forced him to give up his initial mechanized reconstruction of Payley's view. I don't buy into his theoretical interpretation that ideas some how contain the seeds of their own down fall once they are carefully thought through, but that doesn't matter for the historical account. It would seem that Ruse didn't get it completely right. By the time of the Origin, Darwin no longer had a place for a God that designed the laws of nature. I now think a note something like this (below) would be more accurate:

Paley's natural theology strongly influenced scientists of the time, including Charles Darwin, who began with the assumption that God had designed nature and were open to a deistic interpretation that this design was implemented by laws.

^{[n 3]}

Please suggest any rewordings. I think this captures the essence of von Sydow analysis, but perhaps is could be stated better?--I am One of Many (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

===Notes===

• Thanks I am One of Many, essentially you're keeping the wording the same but proposing an extended footnote. While this is useful for our discussion, it doesn't really work as a reference for this article as von Sydow makes no mention of intelligent design. The two sources we currently cite do cover the point well, so this is really an extra for our information. I think you're going a bit far in writing "By the time of the Origin, Darwin no longer had a place for a God that designed the laws of nature." As von Sydow notes, "Darwin’s ideas on religion nevertheless fluctuated and, when writing the Origin, he still hoped that an argument similar to Paley’s and Malthus’ theodicy would remain viable."
  Around 17 years after first publication of the Origin, Darwin wrote in his autobiography that "Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist. This conclusion1 was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker."pp. 92–93. dave souza, talk 12:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not following point about von Sydow making no mention of intelligent design. He is talking about Darwin's thinking in relation to Paley, which is in part what this section is about. I agree that pinning down when Darwin became at least an agnostic is not exact since Darwin hid his religious views, but my note was based on:

After all of these struggles, even Darwin’s autobiography, which was also intended for Emma, reveals that, by 1876, he had lost at least any firm belief in an omniscient benevolent God and called himself an agnostic.68 Although Darwin differed from most anti-religious thinkers in not taking any pleasure in reviling religion, Professor Ghiselin’s remark that ‘an agnostic is an atheist with children’ appears to fit well here—‘and a pious wife’ is all I add to it.69 (page 13, von Sydow)

"Later" in my wording was intended to capture this ambiguity about the change in Darwin's beliefs, which came, according to von Sydow, between the death of his daughter Annie (1851) and the writing of his autobiography. In addition, don't you think this interpretation best fits in a note, since it does add important but slightly tangential information relevant to the section discussing Paley? I think this is important to origin of the idea of Intelligent design, but it should not be put in the main text but appear as a note on Darwin's thinking with respect to it, but, of course, I want to find consensus on what to do here.--I am One of Many (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

On the first point, see

WP:SYN – this is an article about ID, and sources should be directly related to ID. Will see if any others have thoughts about it, but in my view this an interesting but rather offtopic diversion from the subject of the article which isn't needed. . . dave souza, talk

15:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I am One of Many and Dave souza, I have no problem with this edit. Because it doesn't change the sentence and only presents additional, relevant information if the reader wishes (and because I tend to err on the side of more information), I think this note is helpful at best and neutral at worst. This isn't glowing support for the change, but more of an accepting apathy. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

MisterDub, given that this has been a discussion about how Darwin viewed the role of intelligent design in evolution and after Dave souza's pointing out the excellent article by von Sydow, I think the whole issue can settled without a note and without deleting the second sentence. Instead, I think changing a few words in the second sentence together with the von Sydow reference would yield a very minimal but clarifying change. Here is what I now propose:

Paley's natural theology strongly influenced scientists of the time, including Charles Darwin, who began with the assumption that God had designed nature and were open to a deistic interpretation that this design was implemented by laws. While Darwin's natural selection explained complexity and adaptation without the need for a designer, he was still inclined to think that everything resulted from designed laws early in his development of natural selection;[18] by which Nature's God shaped life later he came to reject this view.^[1]

==References==

• The problem is that this is getting into a historical debate about precise timing of the religious views of Charles Darwin, with no relevance to modern ID. Quammen (2006) pp. 119–121 cites an 1860 letter in which Darwin was still inclined to vaguely believe in an impersonal God as first cause, a form of deism "Darwin Correspondence Project - Letter 2814 — Darwin, C. R. to Gray, Asa, 22 May (1860)".. In his 1878 autobiography (not published until after his death) Darwin's recollection was that while writing OtOOS he felt "compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man" and still would "deserve to be called a Theist", though he'd rejected the design argument for biological complexity.[13] For more on this interesting topic, see what did Darwin believe? which concludes that he remained uncertain, also Darwin and design. So, any suggestion that he rejected deistic views before 1859, or even later, looks wrong. Also rather offtopic. . .dave souza, talk 20:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• All good points you raise. The second sentence is clearly the problem. It assumes Darwin had no change of mind and it also starts taking us off topic. So, it would seem that the solution we could agree upon is deleting the second sentence and perhaps adding the Ruse and von Sydow references (no notes)?--I am One of Many (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

No, the second sentence shows a specific point made by the sources cited, which are specifically about intelligent design creationism. It's worth looking at Pennock on this, and the Padian & Matzke paper is also explicit: it even cites the above words from Darwin's autobiography before making the point that "Darwin turned the design argument in biology on its head with his law of natural selection, but this was not at all injurious to deistic convictions; Darwin simply had discovered new ‘cogs’ in the Designer’s ‘watch-like universe’, regular processes by which Nature’s God shaped life." As the paper goes on to state, ID differs from this by requiring "repeated miraculous intervention in the history of life" by a ‘supernatural Creative Intelligence’. . . dave souza, talk 08:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Pennock is a philosopher of biology and Padian & Matzke are biologists and neither do a historical analysis of Darwin's views. von Sydow is a historian of science and his analysis shows how Darwin came to recognize that the laws of Natural selection were incompatible with a God that shapes nature through laws; in particular, random variation is incompatible with God's ability to shape the evolution of life by designed laws. It's not a huge point, but moving incrementally to get the article to best express the best secondary sources is always good in my estimation. Because it isn't a huge point for this article --other than the recognition by Darwin, later in life, that his own theory was not compatible with a God that shaped nature through its laws -- and because looking over history of changes to this article it appears to be a bit owned, I'm not going to argue the point anymore.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Reminder about signing

ALERT: This thread is almost incomprehensible because of the failure of some (?) editors to sign their posts!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's the case. There are several blockquoted quotations, but after a quick skim I'm not seeing any unsigned comments. But a reminder isn't amiss. GaramondLethe 08:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)