![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 80 | ← | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 | Archive 86 | Archive 87 | → | Archive 89 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Note, I have created a new section for this discussion, which is about whether there is a contradiction in the LEAD. Please address the point raised here, and nothing else. Thanks.
Jytdog (
talk)
01:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
There is a contradiction in the lead. It says, "Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudo-scientific view...." Later it says, "ID is a religious argument...." Religion is not pseudo-science, it actually pre-dates it. The "religious argument" (it is actually philosophical) is the
argument from design. It only becomes pseudo-science when it is treated as a theory that is falsifiable. Science cannot disprove the argument from design, nor can it prove it. Pseudo-scientists claim it can.
TFD (
talk)
23:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
My reference to "scientific community" was in regard to the claim that ID is without any scientific basis.Do you have any evidence at all to suggest that an appreciable percentage of scientists (by which I mean at least 5-10%, not 0.05-0.1%) think that there is some scientific merit to the utterly unscientific proposition that sits at the heart of ID?
IMO, evolution is the continuation of creation, while the question of the origins remains a mystery to all.IMO, your opinion has no business in this article. Guess whose opinion is demonstrably right?
The D.I. website you linked to clearly says that Intelligent Design is a theory.Which was exactly my point. ID pretends to be science. Did you expect the discovery institute to suggest that ID was a pseudoscience, or not science at all? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I observe that there is no hope for the discussion to remain on topic. Perhaps there are people who want to register that they are not being given a vote. So I suggest that those who cannot choose between the options that they can vote Abstention. TomS TDotO ( talk) 21:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@ TFD; The contradiction is in the lead, because the contradiction is inherent in ID creationism. "Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudo-scientific view:...." a view which rejects science while being presented as science which can supposedly be taught in science classrooms, though they've not actually worked ou the "theory" yet. Later it says, "ID is a religious argument.." The central "theory" of ID is the teleological argument, the religious apologetics at the heart of natural theology, an argument central to creation science, the pseudoscientific predecessor of ID. Which was found in court to infringe the First Amendment, so the cdesign proponentsists quickly relabelled creation science as ID and, officially if not consistently, removed obvious religious references such as "creation". All of that is in the article, and should be in the lead – please check the wording and find where that needs clarified. Thanks, . dave souza, talk 07:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
it was my understanding that ID was based, in part, on scientific observation,Your understanding is wrong. ID is based upon misrepresentation of real scientific data and outright falsehoods. Keep up with the "no-one can prove it wasn't god" arguments and I promise you this: you will find yourself topic banned. You've been around WP long enough to know that kind of crap argument won't fly here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
It's only an opinion that they have misrepresented it.That statement is 100%, pure bullshit. It is -in no way- "only an opinion" that they have misinterpreted it. It has been demonstrated in the scientific literature, through experimentation, modelling and mathematics and in a court of law that their interpretation is spurious and unscientific. Now you are just disrupting this page with bullshit claims like this. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me that the only wording which has been shown to have broad support was the previous language. I don't want to engage in edit warring, but this should be offered to at least a few days' comments at least, if not a formal vote. I, for one, am not going to support something which represents my opinion if I am not convinced that it represents the consensus of the opinion of the knowledgeable people. (Assuming, for the sake of argument, that this wording is what I would agree to.) Wikipedia is intended to present to the public not our own opinions. TomS TDotO ( talk) 12:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to find any evidence that I am a cdesign proponentsist.found it. (Hey, if it can be evidence of the 'failures' of evolution, it can be evidence of anything...) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me that the only wording which has been shown to have broad support was the previous language. I don't want to engage in edit warring, but this should be offered to at least a few days' comments at least, if not a formal vote. I, for one, am not going to support something which represents my opinion if I am not convinced that it represents the consensus of the opinion of the knowledgeable people. (Assuming, for the sake of argument, that this wording is what I would agree to.) Wikipedia is intended to present to the public not our own opinions. TomS TDotO ( talk) 12:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to find any evidence that I am a cdesign proponentsist.found it. (Hey, if it can be evidence of the 'failures' of evolution, it can be evidence of anything...) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The current 1st paragraph of the lead says (with very extensive referencing removed and with the word "pseudoscientific" bolded):
People have expressed a desire to change the style so that the word "pseudoscience" appears a) later, and b) as a noun instead of an adjective.
This RfC is focused only on the arrangement of existing content, not adding or removing any words or sources. Relevant policies/guidelines include WP:PSCI, WP:FRINGE, and WP:LEAD.
Please !vote for a version in the designated section, and discuss in the section below. It would be most helpful for the closer if you put responses to !votes in the discussion section and kept the !votes free of clutter.
Please also be mindful of the DS on this topic and of WP:SOAP. Jytdog ( talk) 04:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I would also be happy with
jps ( talk) 12:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Intelligent design is a creationist religious argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents with the claim that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins": it has been found to be pseudoscience.This is the best proposal I've seen so far, and I would support it or something similar.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I know about WP:weight but the article is currently so heavily weighted as to be propaganda. I suggest the lead should read: "Intelligent design is a theory about the origin of the universe. Its opponents claim that it is a creationist religious argument for the existence of God..." Roberttherambler ( talk) 12:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
It is unusual to find a Wikipedia article in which the first line of the lead is so hostile to the subject being written about.The article is not hostile to the subject. Reality is hostile to the subject. Since WP reflects reality, this is how we keep articles neutral. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
"Intelligent design is a creationist religious argument for the existence of God" is also unencyclopedic because it is an opinion of opponents of ID.No, it's a fact that is asserted by almost every expert to have examined the situation and ruled as a fact by a court of law. See cdesign proponentsists and wedge strategy for more. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Intelligent design. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Since the RfC is now relatively old, and was over before it began anyway, let's make a new thread for dave souza's proposal (slightly edited by me):
Intelligent design is a creationist religious argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents with the claim that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins", but has been found to be pseudoscience.
Manul ~ talk 14:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Update: Taking in Bish's astute concerns about syntax (which are certainly not shared by Bishzilla), this wording is probably better:
Intelligent design is a creationist religious argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" but found to be pseudoscience.
I think "presented by proponents as" already implies that it's just a claim. Manul ~ talk 16:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas. It describes the idea more clearly than before, and by bringing context to the proponents' words it also addresses some previous objections. Manul ~ talk 14:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Intelligent design is a creationist religious argument for the existence of God; presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins", but found to be pseudoscience by the scientific community.
Who or what else could possibly make that determination?Atheists, skeptics, Universal Unitarians, politicians, the pharmaceutical industry, etc, etc... Hell, you can toss Satanists and The Devil in there, too. Having been a follower of creation/evolution debates (and having switched from being a young creationist to an adult rationalist), I can tell you with the utmost confidence that there is no shortage of groups who serve as the Big Bad in the myriad of creationist views. As to a deluge of sources quenching any POV editing, I might direct you to the Acupuncture article history which proves beyond any reasonable doubt that a deluge of citations does nothing to stop POV pushing editors. I've got at least a dozen more such pages on my watchlist, if one example isn't enough to satisfy you. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Adding "by the scientific community" seems redundant to me, just as "found impressionist by the painting community" would beNormally, I would agree, except in this case, there are (in addition to the numerous 'bad guys' posited by creationists) numerous groups involved. We have politicians, scientists, science journalists, judges and courts, and 'liberal' clergy, all of whom could be the ones responsible for labeling it pseudoscience. I understand where you're coming from, because to me, when I read it I mentally add "...by the scientific community" instinctively and without conscious thought. But -and here's where we get a bit subjective- I remember how I switched sides in this debate. I set out to prove to someone that evolution was problematic and anti-religious POVs were the only reason that creationism didn't get published. I started doing research, and if WP had existed then, I'd have checked it, first. The kicker for me was realizing just how much support evolution has in the scientific community, and from Christian scientists, no less. I'd been led to believe that a good chunk of scientists were creationists who simply didn't write about their beliefs due to peer pressure. When confronted with the fact that scientists are virtually unanimous in accepting the tenets of evolution and rejecting all forms of creationism, I had to admit to myself that evolution was true.
The top of the page says that:
By saying this, are we following the NPOV policy? Or are we asserting that opponents of ID are correct? (If it's the latter, then couldn't we at least say that Opponents of ID regard it as a form of creationism and/or Opponents of ID see it mainly as a creationist religious argument for the existence of God?
It wouldn't violate "undue weight" to attribute the views of opponents to opponents - provided we make darn sure that our readers know what percent of experts or other reliable sources endorse those views. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 18:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The article Anti-evolution legislation was titled Academic freedom bills until this past December. There is currently a discussion at Talk:Anti-evolution legislation about whether the article should be moved back. You are invited to participate. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 19:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Intelligent design. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Apparently even minor copy edits get reverted on sight at this article. My edit was far from elegant, but the sentence as it stands is even farther from elegant. It's a cumbersome sentence. I split it into 2 sentences to improve readability a bit. Joefromrandb ( talk) 02:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
The text involved, without references, is:
Previous (20:24, 17 May 2017) | Current (05:36, 20 May 2017) |
---|---|
Intelligent design is a creationist religious argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" but found to be pseudoscience. | Intelligent design (ID) is a creationist religious argument for the existence of God. Presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins", it has been found to be pseudoscience. |
The changes look good to me. Johnuniq ( talk) 06:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I think the second paragraph of the lead section was rather hard to follow, especially for readers who don't already know what irreducible complexity and specified complexity are. I've attempted a copyedit, without changing the content. Since I've moved things around, the notes may not be best placed. (And note 12 seems to be defined somewhere lower down; I dunno if anything needs doing about that.) Altogether, please improve or revert or comment here, anybody who cares to. Bishonen | talk 14:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
The consensual opening statement has been, Intelligent design (ID) is a creationist religious argument for the existence of God. Someone removed the word "religious," which was promptly restored. I believe that word is grammatically redundant, specially since "creationist" links to Creationism is the religious belief that . . .
In the interest of semantics, can we remove the word "religious"? It would still appear 29 times in the article (excluding the citations) if I counted correctly. YoPienso ( talk) 16:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Apollo The Logician ( talk) 18:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Although this change perhaps plays down the central point that ID is creationism relabelled, it reduces redundancy and I think it reads better. In the context of these changes, the first paragraph seemed overlong and rather complex, so I've split it into two sections, each of which has a different focus: first the definition, and second the proponents. Think that improves readability. . . dave souza, talk 16:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is a clear difference between an argument and a theory. No source calls it an argument. Apollo The Logician ( talk) 18:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician ( talk) 18:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:F1AF:4E08:481B:F38B:72AF:90A5 ( talk) 16:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Intelligent design. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Intelligent design. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://www.thurrock.gov.uk/sites/default/files/assets/documents/examplar_unit_y9_science_religion.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Intelligent design. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Is there a place for the following edit in the section of the article that reads: "Concepts", under the sub-section, "Intelligent designer"?
While the notion of intelligent design has yet to be proven and is based primarily upon deductive reasoning, [1] it has neither been disproved. Moreover, science has yet to understand how the universe exists, noting how that, in the Standard Model of Physics, for the universe to exist after the alleged "Big Bang", "equal parts of matter and antimatter were produced and they cancel each other out" whenever these two parts naturally meet. [2]
References
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
The above edit was initially made on 26 October 2017, but deleted after only a few minutes. Question: Is the above edit pertinent to this article, or not? Davidbena ( talk) 18:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
It looks like the name "Intelligent Design" as an area of study has been contaminated by religion from the get-go. While ID proponents insist that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins," it turns out they had a hidden agenda all along to convert people to religion, and in the words of their own religion, make people more evil than themselves. (Matthew 23:15) The way our mainstream culture reacts to it is by calling the whole thing pseudo science. What is, in some respects, an overreaction is understandable.
But what about people who really do want to study these things without the religion?
My question is, does there exist an identity for a group of serious and respected truth seekers (scientists, philosophers, etc) who ARE trying to do what "Intelligent Design" was supposed to do, as promised by its proponents who failed to do so? Is there a truly secular group that pokes beyond the status quo of modern mainstream science's current assumptions about metaphysical naturalism (without violating naturalism per se, only challenging our assumptions about nature) in order to investigate deeper mysteries about the universe, and perhaps our origins, without the religious baggage?
"Intelligent Design" might have been a neat identity. It's too bad that it was contaminated by religion. But maybe there's something better because the word "intelligent" seems to also introduce a certain assumption. (Intelligence could be on the table as fair game, but not required.) Something more progressive and open minded than the people who are yelling at each other on both sides of this debate.
If such a thing exists, it might be helpful to the article to explore or at least mention this contrast.
DavidPesta ( talk) 02:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
@ DavidPesta, you started off wrongly – the name "Intelligent Design" as an area of study was the theological teleological argument, but latterly has been contaminated by a pseudoscientific variant on creation science, as the article shows. Perhaps the simulated reality you're looking for is the Omphalos hypothesis, but in any event you need to present specific proposals for article improvement together with published reliable sources specifically related to intelligent design. The article on Tyson's imaginative thought experiment in a debate doesn't mention ID, and NOTFORUM applies. . dave souza, talk 18:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Closed by mutual agreement; all points covered. Johnuniq ( talk) 09:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
IMO that article fits rather well (I put it on Wikipedia:Press coverage 2017), that´s one of the things these boxes are for. Anyway, I noticed that Evolution News & Science Today (copyright by Discovery Institute) has a whole little library of "Wikipedia-articles" for those interested: [3]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 20:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC) The "In Covering Intelligent Design, Wikipedia Engages in "Information Sabotage"" article [4] might be more spot-on for the pressbox, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 21:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I've added a pressbox for [7]; there's a WP:DENY argument for ignoring it but it's clearly about this article. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 17:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
|
Originator and Davidbena have both failed to produce supporting reliable secondary sources, and now Davidbena says "there are other methods of testing the admissibility of ID, which I prefer not to discuss right now", so pointless continuing inadmissible forum discussion. . . dave souza, talk 08:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC), amended 10:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I'd like to call attention to the fact that the abstract of this page is incredibly slanted against Intelligent Design and seems to not only dismiss the concept out-of-hand, but also attempt to ridicule it and discredit it, simply because it involves one or more religious deities. I would especially like to call attention to the line, "Proponents will... while conceding that they have yet to produce a scientific theory." Or can someone please explain to me how two particles spontaneously appeared in the middle of a not-yet-Universe which had no matter? Did they happen to come from another universe? Which one? And where did that Universe come from? And have we ever proven that primordial soup arises naturally? As far as I'm aware, the only ever replication of generating life from "Primordial Soup" has been done intelligently. The language in this article is designed to make an argument against ID, and that is not the purpose of a Wikipedia article! The purpose of Wikipedia is to be "The Free Encyclopedia," that is, a source of information, free of as-much bias as can possibly be obtained. As such, the use of this site to deliberately spread propaganda against a certain group or groups should not be tolerated. I would like to see Wikipedia completely revise this page or remove it entirely, as it in-no-way offers information on the topic, only argumentation to say that the concepts behind the topic are false. And I do not care to see anyone's personal beliefs attacked in a so-called "Informative Article."
I would like to clarify here that the reason I am calling for this is not because I favor or disfavor ID personally, nor because of any political biases of my own, but simply because I feel that the use of this article as a political soap-box is a breach of ethics on the part of the host organization. In the future, I would like it if the "Free Encyclopedia" would keep its political opinions to itself and merely present the information available to it in as unbiased a way as possible. The way I would have structured this article would be to include information on the theory of ID, its base assumptions, its main premises, and a brief summary, without the attempts to argue for or against it. Instead, the arguments and findings that support ID should be placed in one subsection, and the arguments and findings that challenge it should be placed in another, without any attempt to indicate that either section was more preferable than the other. Frankly, the bias in this page puts Wikipedia to shame as a source of knowledge. Since when did Encyclopedias decide to take it upon themselves to teach others what is right and what is wrong? Should we start calling Wikipedia it's own Religion, now? Because that is what it's trying to be with this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.154.63.69 ( talk) 02:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
User:Davidbena, read what I said above. ID is not only a false theory but it is fraudulent. While its claims cannot be disproved, as you say, they are not scientific claims. I cannot disprove for example that fairies live in my garden, but that does not provide credibility for any claims that they do and they are not scientific claims.
TFD (
talk)
04:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Here is a good example of a balanced article:
Intelligent Design (Britannica)
Davidbena (
talk)
14:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
What other encyclopedias do is relevant. "Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." ( "Primary, secondary and tertiary sources") TFD ( talk) 00:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
For those claiming that this article is biasedJust a reminder of Wikipedia policy. The section above is typical of the continuing issues with Wikipedia articles on pseudoscience. However, as with every article in Wikipedia, you may have disagreements as to how the article is written. The way to argue against this is not merely to post to this page with vague claims of bias. If there are particular sentences and/or sections that you believe are incorrect, you need to post here with an example of how you believe they should be re-written, with appropriate reliable sources backing up your version. Then, and only then, can your proposed changes be discussed. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Intelligent design (ID) is a philosophical/religious argument which seeks to establish, through deductive reasoning, [1] the theorem that the universe and all life forms were created by an intelligent being. Often presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins", [2] [3] it has been found to be pseudoscience. [4] [5] [6] Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection," [7] and which view, in itself, has never yet been disproven. Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses. [8] [9] [10] By the same token, science, has yet to prove that the universe and all life forms therein are merely of some random existence. END of suggestion. I personally feel that such an edit might lend some balance to our Wikipedia article. Davidbena ( talk) 03:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC) References
Problem 1. ID "is a philosophical/religious
argument which seeks to establish, through
deductive reasoning" misrepresents the source, which says that "the ID movement does not fair well when pitted against mainstream science, leading theologians, scientific philosophers or historians", not what ID is, and when asked for independent falsifiable proof of its claims, ID proponents are unable to respond to the question and instead give "answers based on deductive reasoning or marketing ploys." The proposed wording should therefore read "ID lacks credibility in science, theology and philosophy, and when pressed for independent scientific evidence its proponents can only provide answers based on deductive reasoning or marketing tricks". Before going any further, Davidbena needs to represent this source properly, not just cherry-pick three words out of context. . .
dave souza,
talk 05:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC) addendum: p. 156 of the source says "ID remains a marketing strategy", so that's a useful definition. . .
dave souza,
talk
06:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
There's a possible case for replacing the first sentence with
|
I invite 72.38.23.66 to discuss their concerns here. 331dot ( talk) 09:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 80 | ← | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 | Archive 86 | Archive 87 | → | Archive 89 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Note, I have created a new section for this discussion, which is about whether there is a contradiction in the LEAD. Please address the point raised here, and nothing else. Thanks.
Jytdog (
talk)
01:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
There is a contradiction in the lead. It says, "Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudo-scientific view...." Later it says, "ID is a religious argument...." Religion is not pseudo-science, it actually pre-dates it. The "religious argument" (it is actually philosophical) is the
argument from design. It only becomes pseudo-science when it is treated as a theory that is falsifiable. Science cannot disprove the argument from design, nor can it prove it. Pseudo-scientists claim it can.
TFD (
talk)
23:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
My reference to "scientific community" was in regard to the claim that ID is without any scientific basis.Do you have any evidence at all to suggest that an appreciable percentage of scientists (by which I mean at least 5-10%, not 0.05-0.1%) think that there is some scientific merit to the utterly unscientific proposition that sits at the heart of ID?
IMO, evolution is the continuation of creation, while the question of the origins remains a mystery to all.IMO, your opinion has no business in this article. Guess whose opinion is demonstrably right?
The D.I. website you linked to clearly says that Intelligent Design is a theory.Which was exactly my point. ID pretends to be science. Did you expect the discovery institute to suggest that ID was a pseudoscience, or not science at all? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I observe that there is no hope for the discussion to remain on topic. Perhaps there are people who want to register that they are not being given a vote. So I suggest that those who cannot choose between the options that they can vote Abstention. TomS TDotO ( talk) 21:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@ TFD; The contradiction is in the lead, because the contradiction is inherent in ID creationism. "Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudo-scientific view:...." a view which rejects science while being presented as science which can supposedly be taught in science classrooms, though they've not actually worked ou the "theory" yet. Later it says, "ID is a religious argument.." The central "theory" of ID is the teleological argument, the religious apologetics at the heart of natural theology, an argument central to creation science, the pseudoscientific predecessor of ID. Which was found in court to infringe the First Amendment, so the cdesign proponentsists quickly relabelled creation science as ID and, officially if not consistently, removed obvious religious references such as "creation". All of that is in the article, and should be in the lead – please check the wording and find where that needs clarified. Thanks, . dave souza, talk 07:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
it was my understanding that ID was based, in part, on scientific observation,Your understanding is wrong. ID is based upon misrepresentation of real scientific data and outright falsehoods. Keep up with the "no-one can prove it wasn't god" arguments and I promise you this: you will find yourself topic banned. You've been around WP long enough to know that kind of crap argument won't fly here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
It's only an opinion that they have misrepresented it.That statement is 100%, pure bullshit. It is -in no way- "only an opinion" that they have misinterpreted it. It has been demonstrated in the scientific literature, through experimentation, modelling and mathematics and in a court of law that their interpretation is spurious and unscientific. Now you are just disrupting this page with bullshit claims like this. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me that the only wording which has been shown to have broad support was the previous language. I don't want to engage in edit warring, but this should be offered to at least a few days' comments at least, if not a formal vote. I, for one, am not going to support something which represents my opinion if I am not convinced that it represents the consensus of the opinion of the knowledgeable people. (Assuming, for the sake of argument, that this wording is what I would agree to.) Wikipedia is intended to present to the public not our own opinions. TomS TDotO ( talk) 12:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to find any evidence that I am a cdesign proponentsist.found it. (Hey, if it can be evidence of the 'failures' of evolution, it can be evidence of anything...) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me that the only wording which has been shown to have broad support was the previous language. I don't want to engage in edit warring, but this should be offered to at least a few days' comments at least, if not a formal vote. I, for one, am not going to support something which represents my opinion if I am not convinced that it represents the consensus of the opinion of the knowledgeable people. (Assuming, for the sake of argument, that this wording is what I would agree to.) Wikipedia is intended to present to the public not our own opinions. TomS TDotO ( talk) 12:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to find any evidence that I am a cdesign proponentsist.found it. (Hey, if it can be evidence of the 'failures' of evolution, it can be evidence of anything...) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The current 1st paragraph of the lead says (with very extensive referencing removed and with the word "pseudoscientific" bolded):
People have expressed a desire to change the style so that the word "pseudoscience" appears a) later, and b) as a noun instead of an adjective.
This RfC is focused only on the arrangement of existing content, not adding or removing any words or sources. Relevant policies/guidelines include WP:PSCI, WP:FRINGE, and WP:LEAD.
Please !vote for a version in the designated section, and discuss in the section below. It would be most helpful for the closer if you put responses to !votes in the discussion section and kept the !votes free of clutter.
Please also be mindful of the DS on this topic and of WP:SOAP. Jytdog ( talk) 04:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I would also be happy with
jps ( talk) 12:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Intelligent design is a creationist religious argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents with the claim that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins": it has been found to be pseudoscience.This is the best proposal I've seen so far, and I would support it or something similar.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I know about WP:weight but the article is currently so heavily weighted as to be propaganda. I suggest the lead should read: "Intelligent design is a theory about the origin of the universe. Its opponents claim that it is a creationist religious argument for the existence of God..." Roberttherambler ( talk) 12:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
It is unusual to find a Wikipedia article in which the first line of the lead is so hostile to the subject being written about.The article is not hostile to the subject. Reality is hostile to the subject. Since WP reflects reality, this is how we keep articles neutral. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
"Intelligent design is a creationist religious argument for the existence of God" is also unencyclopedic because it is an opinion of opponents of ID.No, it's a fact that is asserted by almost every expert to have examined the situation and ruled as a fact by a court of law. See cdesign proponentsists and wedge strategy for more. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Intelligent design. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Since the RfC is now relatively old, and was over before it began anyway, let's make a new thread for dave souza's proposal (slightly edited by me):
Intelligent design is a creationist religious argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents with the claim that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins", but has been found to be pseudoscience.
Manul ~ talk 14:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Update: Taking in Bish's astute concerns about syntax (which are certainly not shared by Bishzilla), this wording is probably better:
Intelligent design is a creationist religious argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" but found to be pseudoscience.
I think "presented by proponents as" already implies that it's just a claim. Manul ~ talk 16:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas. It describes the idea more clearly than before, and by bringing context to the proponents' words it also addresses some previous objections. Manul ~ talk 14:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Intelligent design is a creationist religious argument for the existence of God; presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins", but found to be pseudoscience by the scientific community.
Who or what else could possibly make that determination?Atheists, skeptics, Universal Unitarians, politicians, the pharmaceutical industry, etc, etc... Hell, you can toss Satanists and The Devil in there, too. Having been a follower of creation/evolution debates (and having switched from being a young creationist to an adult rationalist), I can tell you with the utmost confidence that there is no shortage of groups who serve as the Big Bad in the myriad of creationist views. As to a deluge of sources quenching any POV editing, I might direct you to the Acupuncture article history which proves beyond any reasonable doubt that a deluge of citations does nothing to stop POV pushing editors. I've got at least a dozen more such pages on my watchlist, if one example isn't enough to satisfy you. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Adding "by the scientific community" seems redundant to me, just as "found impressionist by the painting community" would beNormally, I would agree, except in this case, there are (in addition to the numerous 'bad guys' posited by creationists) numerous groups involved. We have politicians, scientists, science journalists, judges and courts, and 'liberal' clergy, all of whom could be the ones responsible for labeling it pseudoscience. I understand where you're coming from, because to me, when I read it I mentally add "...by the scientific community" instinctively and without conscious thought. But -and here's where we get a bit subjective- I remember how I switched sides in this debate. I set out to prove to someone that evolution was problematic and anti-religious POVs were the only reason that creationism didn't get published. I started doing research, and if WP had existed then, I'd have checked it, first. The kicker for me was realizing just how much support evolution has in the scientific community, and from Christian scientists, no less. I'd been led to believe that a good chunk of scientists were creationists who simply didn't write about their beliefs due to peer pressure. When confronted with the fact that scientists are virtually unanimous in accepting the tenets of evolution and rejecting all forms of creationism, I had to admit to myself that evolution was true.
The top of the page says that:
By saying this, are we following the NPOV policy? Or are we asserting that opponents of ID are correct? (If it's the latter, then couldn't we at least say that Opponents of ID regard it as a form of creationism and/or Opponents of ID see it mainly as a creationist religious argument for the existence of God?
It wouldn't violate "undue weight" to attribute the views of opponents to opponents - provided we make darn sure that our readers know what percent of experts or other reliable sources endorse those views. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 18:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The article Anti-evolution legislation was titled Academic freedom bills until this past December. There is currently a discussion at Talk:Anti-evolution legislation about whether the article should be moved back. You are invited to participate. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 19:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Intelligent design. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Apparently even minor copy edits get reverted on sight at this article. My edit was far from elegant, but the sentence as it stands is even farther from elegant. It's a cumbersome sentence. I split it into 2 sentences to improve readability a bit. Joefromrandb ( talk) 02:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
The text involved, without references, is:
Previous (20:24, 17 May 2017) | Current (05:36, 20 May 2017) |
---|---|
Intelligent design is a creationist religious argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" but found to be pseudoscience. | Intelligent design (ID) is a creationist religious argument for the existence of God. Presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins", it has been found to be pseudoscience. |
The changes look good to me. Johnuniq ( talk) 06:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I think the second paragraph of the lead section was rather hard to follow, especially for readers who don't already know what irreducible complexity and specified complexity are. I've attempted a copyedit, without changing the content. Since I've moved things around, the notes may not be best placed. (And note 12 seems to be defined somewhere lower down; I dunno if anything needs doing about that.) Altogether, please improve or revert or comment here, anybody who cares to. Bishonen | talk 14:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
The consensual opening statement has been, Intelligent design (ID) is a creationist religious argument for the existence of God. Someone removed the word "religious," which was promptly restored. I believe that word is grammatically redundant, specially since "creationist" links to Creationism is the religious belief that . . .
In the interest of semantics, can we remove the word "religious"? It would still appear 29 times in the article (excluding the citations) if I counted correctly. YoPienso ( talk) 16:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Apollo The Logician ( talk) 18:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Although this change perhaps plays down the central point that ID is creationism relabelled, it reduces redundancy and I think it reads better. In the context of these changes, the first paragraph seemed overlong and rather complex, so I've split it into two sections, each of which has a different focus: first the definition, and second the proponents. Think that improves readability. . . dave souza, talk 16:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is a clear difference between an argument and a theory. No source calls it an argument. Apollo The Logician ( talk) 18:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician ( talk) 18:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:F1AF:4E08:481B:F38B:72AF:90A5 ( talk) 16:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Intelligent design. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Intelligent design. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://www.thurrock.gov.uk/sites/default/files/assets/documents/examplar_unit_y9_science_religion.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Intelligent design. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Is there a place for the following edit in the section of the article that reads: "Concepts", under the sub-section, "Intelligent designer"?
While the notion of intelligent design has yet to be proven and is based primarily upon deductive reasoning, [1] it has neither been disproved. Moreover, science has yet to understand how the universe exists, noting how that, in the Standard Model of Physics, for the universe to exist after the alleged "Big Bang", "equal parts of matter and antimatter were produced and they cancel each other out" whenever these two parts naturally meet. [2]
References
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
The above edit was initially made on 26 October 2017, but deleted after only a few minutes. Question: Is the above edit pertinent to this article, or not? Davidbena ( talk) 18:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
It looks like the name "Intelligent Design" as an area of study has been contaminated by religion from the get-go. While ID proponents insist that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins," it turns out they had a hidden agenda all along to convert people to religion, and in the words of their own religion, make people more evil than themselves. (Matthew 23:15) The way our mainstream culture reacts to it is by calling the whole thing pseudo science. What is, in some respects, an overreaction is understandable.
But what about people who really do want to study these things without the religion?
My question is, does there exist an identity for a group of serious and respected truth seekers (scientists, philosophers, etc) who ARE trying to do what "Intelligent Design" was supposed to do, as promised by its proponents who failed to do so? Is there a truly secular group that pokes beyond the status quo of modern mainstream science's current assumptions about metaphysical naturalism (without violating naturalism per se, only challenging our assumptions about nature) in order to investigate deeper mysteries about the universe, and perhaps our origins, without the religious baggage?
"Intelligent Design" might have been a neat identity. It's too bad that it was contaminated by religion. But maybe there's something better because the word "intelligent" seems to also introduce a certain assumption. (Intelligence could be on the table as fair game, but not required.) Something more progressive and open minded than the people who are yelling at each other on both sides of this debate.
If such a thing exists, it might be helpful to the article to explore or at least mention this contrast.
DavidPesta ( talk) 02:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
@ DavidPesta, you started off wrongly – the name "Intelligent Design" as an area of study was the theological teleological argument, but latterly has been contaminated by a pseudoscientific variant on creation science, as the article shows. Perhaps the simulated reality you're looking for is the Omphalos hypothesis, but in any event you need to present specific proposals for article improvement together with published reliable sources specifically related to intelligent design. The article on Tyson's imaginative thought experiment in a debate doesn't mention ID, and NOTFORUM applies. . dave souza, talk 18:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Closed by mutual agreement; all points covered. Johnuniq ( talk) 09:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
IMO that article fits rather well (I put it on Wikipedia:Press coverage 2017), that´s one of the things these boxes are for. Anyway, I noticed that Evolution News & Science Today (copyright by Discovery Institute) has a whole little library of "Wikipedia-articles" for those interested: [3]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 20:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC) The "In Covering Intelligent Design, Wikipedia Engages in "Information Sabotage"" article [4] might be more spot-on for the pressbox, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 21:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I've added a pressbox for [7]; there's a WP:DENY argument for ignoring it but it's clearly about this article. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 17:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
|
Originator and Davidbena have both failed to produce supporting reliable secondary sources, and now Davidbena says "there are other methods of testing the admissibility of ID, which I prefer not to discuss right now", so pointless continuing inadmissible forum discussion. . . dave souza, talk 08:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC), amended 10:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I'd like to call attention to the fact that the abstract of this page is incredibly slanted against Intelligent Design and seems to not only dismiss the concept out-of-hand, but also attempt to ridicule it and discredit it, simply because it involves one or more religious deities. I would especially like to call attention to the line, "Proponents will... while conceding that they have yet to produce a scientific theory." Or can someone please explain to me how two particles spontaneously appeared in the middle of a not-yet-Universe which had no matter? Did they happen to come from another universe? Which one? And where did that Universe come from? And have we ever proven that primordial soup arises naturally? As far as I'm aware, the only ever replication of generating life from "Primordial Soup" has been done intelligently. The language in this article is designed to make an argument against ID, and that is not the purpose of a Wikipedia article! The purpose of Wikipedia is to be "The Free Encyclopedia," that is, a source of information, free of as-much bias as can possibly be obtained. As such, the use of this site to deliberately spread propaganda against a certain group or groups should not be tolerated. I would like to see Wikipedia completely revise this page or remove it entirely, as it in-no-way offers information on the topic, only argumentation to say that the concepts behind the topic are false. And I do not care to see anyone's personal beliefs attacked in a so-called "Informative Article."
I would like to clarify here that the reason I am calling for this is not because I favor or disfavor ID personally, nor because of any political biases of my own, but simply because I feel that the use of this article as a political soap-box is a breach of ethics on the part of the host organization. In the future, I would like it if the "Free Encyclopedia" would keep its political opinions to itself and merely present the information available to it in as unbiased a way as possible. The way I would have structured this article would be to include information on the theory of ID, its base assumptions, its main premises, and a brief summary, without the attempts to argue for or against it. Instead, the arguments and findings that support ID should be placed in one subsection, and the arguments and findings that challenge it should be placed in another, without any attempt to indicate that either section was more preferable than the other. Frankly, the bias in this page puts Wikipedia to shame as a source of knowledge. Since when did Encyclopedias decide to take it upon themselves to teach others what is right and what is wrong? Should we start calling Wikipedia it's own Religion, now? Because that is what it's trying to be with this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.154.63.69 ( talk) 02:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
User:Davidbena, read what I said above. ID is not only a false theory but it is fraudulent. While its claims cannot be disproved, as you say, they are not scientific claims. I cannot disprove for example that fairies live in my garden, but that does not provide credibility for any claims that they do and they are not scientific claims.
TFD (
talk)
04:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Here is a good example of a balanced article:
Intelligent Design (Britannica)
Davidbena (
talk)
14:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
What other encyclopedias do is relevant. "Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." ( "Primary, secondary and tertiary sources") TFD ( talk) 00:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
For those claiming that this article is biasedJust a reminder of Wikipedia policy. The section above is typical of the continuing issues with Wikipedia articles on pseudoscience. However, as with every article in Wikipedia, you may have disagreements as to how the article is written. The way to argue against this is not merely to post to this page with vague claims of bias. If there are particular sentences and/or sections that you believe are incorrect, you need to post here with an example of how you believe they should be re-written, with appropriate reliable sources backing up your version. Then, and only then, can your proposed changes be discussed. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Intelligent design (ID) is a philosophical/religious argument which seeks to establish, through deductive reasoning, [1] the theorem that the universe and all life forms were created by an intelligent being. Often presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins", [2] [3] it has been found to be pseudoscience. [4] [5] [6] Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection," [7] and which view, in itself, has never yet been disproven. Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses. [8] [9] [10] By the same token, science, has yet to prove that the universe and all life forms therein are merely of some random existence. END of suggestion. I personally feel that such an edit might lend some balance to our Wikipedia article. Davidbena ( talk) 03:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC) References
Problem 1. ID "is a philosophical/religious
argument which seeks to establish, through
deductive reasoning" misrepresents the source, which says that "the ID movement does not fair well when pitted against mainstream science, leading theologians, scientific philosophers or historians", not what ID is, and when asked for independent falsifiable proof of its claims, ID proponents are unable to respond to the question and instead give "answers based on deductive reasoning or marketing ploys." The proposed wording should therefore read "ID lacks credibility in science, theology and philosophy, and when pressed for independent scientific evidence its proponents can only provide answers based on deductive reasoning or marketing tricks". Before going any further, Davidbena needs to represent this source properly, not just cherry-pick three words out of context. . .
dave souza,
talk 05:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC) addendum: p. 156 of the source says "ID remains a marketing strategy", so that's a useful definition. . .
dave souza,
talk
06:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
There's a possible case for replacing the first sentence with
|
I invite 72.38.23.66 to discuss their concerns here. 331dot ( talk) 09:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)