![]() | This page 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. |
thanks to FeloniusMonk who created this page for me.
The following was done simply to be able to place a POV tag on this article, which is being removed at every attempt to do so. This article needs to be POV tagged because its neutrality is contested (note: POV tags do not equivocate to POV, only that its in dispute, which it is)
1 Unfriendly definition. The definition contains a misquote of the term “superior to” as the sourced article does not define it as such. The definition itself is not representative of ID proponents, no ID article I have ever read defines ID in this way. To define ID, it does not make sense to do so in a manner espoused by the enemy. A friendly definition is needed here.
“The scientific community views intelligent design not as a valid” Really?
Yes. WolfKeeper 02:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Is that all scientists?
No. However the scientific method is a formal system. When you run the formal system, and stick in ID concepts as well as evolution concepts, the formal system rejects ID. So it's not scientists that find ID not valid, it's Ockham's razor cutting away God as a theory with insufficient evidence. I'm sure you can find some scientists who are trying to remove Ockham's razor from science, or prove the existence of God, but they've failed so far. WolfKeeper 02:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
ID is a bit like trying to do maths starting with 1+1=3. You can actually come up with maths based on that (I'm not making that up, it's modulo arithmetic), but it doesn't work very well when you try to add up your checkbook! Most people in the biological sciences need a theory that matches the evidence in the real world; nobody has managed to do that with ID well enough to make it useable. WolfKeeper 02:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Reading the definition for scientific community, and then the claim that they hold ID as not valid, implies as the ole’ Scottsman would say “No True Scientist would embrace ID”. This is a clear POV slant. One that is not warranted. Rephrase to “many in the scientific community” So for section one, other than the first sentence, every thing that follows is unfriendly.
Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Here, where Intelligent Design is supposed to be summarized, one would expect to find a friendly explanation of it. Instead, it’s a bed of criticism. 1. ”putative purpose” . Footnotes for this sentence further criticize. This is a criticism and unfriendly to ID.
2. Unfriendly “claim that they look” ….”of what they call” ' “design” is in quotations indicating subtle ridicule.
3. Unfriendly - -> “believe” ' “which they infer” use of faith-based terminology in regards to identifying intelligence (even SETI has criteria for intelligence that does not include faith). This sentence is unfriendly to ID.
4. Criticism “this stands in opposition to mainstream science”
5. Criticism “However, modern developments….” This sentence completely counters the previous one, inserting a criticism against the prior sentence.
MISSING: What is some of the evidence for ID, from an ID perspective? Let ID speak for itself. What are ID’s main arguments in a summary form? (simply stating include irreducible complexity, information mechanisms, and specified complexity as terms without any support or clarification is not friendly to ID) We are looking for a friendly argument here. At no point in section two is ID given a chance to present itself *as it is* without a backlash of criticism.
SUMMARY FOR SECTION TWO: Unfriendly to ID. Section two is entirely a criticism and at no point is ID presented fairly. This is the one section in this article where a wiki reader would expect ID to presented in full, on its own, as explained by its proponents. Not being able to resist the temptation to insert a criticism at *every single* opportunity speaks loud of bias and fear. One who is too afraid to let ID present itself without interruption is someone who is insecure about something. I prefer the model of presenting ID uninterrupted, followed by criticism so that people can make up their own mind, rather than it being made up for them. This section is titled “Summary of ID”. So why isn’t ID being summarized? Why is it criticized at every opportunity?
Please rename this section to “Summary Criticisms of ID”
Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Missing a lot of references here. “Intelligent design in the late 20th century can be seen as a modern reframing of Paley's doctrines” is opinion. Many people do not see it that way. Who sees it that way? Atheists? Honestly, I don’t know. No reference is cited. How about a statement that says “Some see it this way, while others see it this way” and reference both. The last paragraph, especially, is a nice little way to de-xianize ID and turn ID around against them. Its subtle, but effective. Make ID a greek-borrowed concept, and you undermine the Christianity of ID. No references here, but it’s a nice underhanded tactic. Most definitely opinion. And one that speaks of an agenda. Aside from the final paragraph where a clear /POV has been inserted, and a couple of unfounded assumptions missing references, I am willing to go along with this section.
Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
This is informative. This is a neutral section, the only one that I do not dispute. .
Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
ID proponents see ID as “even more scientific than evolution” is a clear slant and the authors opinion. Its not cited and its just plain false. Many ID proponents put them on equal ground as valid theories for life. “this presents a demarcation problem” Ha! The beautiful setup of that strawman in the first sentence and then the subsequent knock down was a great piece of work. Good job guys.
“For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a couple or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word” This is unreferenced. “in any meaningful sense of the word” is a bit overdone here, speaks of a serious emotional connection to the material.
Now that we have clearly stated how utterly unscientific anything can be if it doesn’t live up to this 8 item list, lets see how ID does against the list. (we are then told how ID fails ALL CRITERIA except one.) So what happened here, for those that missed it…is we are first prepped about how something that doesn’t meet criteria cannot be called science “in any meaningful sense of the word”. And then, once we are prepped, its time to drop the bomb on ID. “In light of its failure to adhere to these standards” – a very strong criticism, obviously.
MISSING FROM SECTION 5: What do ID proponents say about the criteria? I would like to see how an ID proponent answers each of those criteria for ID. Another thing missing is ID having any chance to present itself, not a single ID friendly statement in this entire section.
The entire section is a criticism. Please rename it to “Criticism against ID as a science”
Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
“organized neocreationist campaign to promote a religious agenda” unreferenced and clearly, obviously unfriendly. “unofficial spokesman” who said this? I never said this. I don’t know of anyone who has. I don’t follow this person, and most ID proponents I know don’t either. He’s not my leader or spokesman for that matter. “The conflicting statements of leading intelligent design proponents” “obfuscating its agenda” ' “follows its wedge strategy” “proponents allege” .Must I waste my time explaining each of these? Unfriendly remarks and connotations are dispersed throughout this entire section. This section is clearly loaded. I can summarize this section after reading it: “ID is a religious agenda led by one organization and one man to undermine true science and replace it with christian fundamentalism”. Sound good? And you think this is NPOV, do you?
Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
The opening sentence of this section: “A key strategy of the intelligent design movement is in convincing the general public that there is a debate…scientifically there is no debate whatsoever.” Wow! Talk about giving ID a fair shake. And we aren’t even at the criticism section yet. Supposedly, we are still being neutral and teaching people about ID. Before even reading through the first paragraph we are told “it’s a done deal folks. You may read on if you like, but we’ll just come out and state it for you” “The intelligent design debate centers on three issues:” Who says that? I see no references. I don’t know of any ID proponents that say that. Is that from talk.origins? “instances of so-called irreducible complexity” Let me guess, more NPOV right? This is a poisoning the well fallacy. Quoting from the page Poisoning the well
The so-called 'Theory' of Evolution
We now examine the theory of evolution...
which has already "poisoned the well" to a balanced argument."
Use of the term “So-called” obviously, a little insertion by the author(s) to undermine something before the reader is even allowed to make up his/her own mind.
“Finally, supporters hold that religious neutrality requires the teaching of both evolution and intelligent design in schools, because teaching only evolution unfairly discriminates against those holding Creationist beliefs.”
Who says that? No references. I’ve read supporters of ID who want it taught simply to give an option as an alternative theory, but not because of discrimination.
“According to critics of intelligent design…it has not even presented a case worth taking seriously.” Well that is quite obvious, I can tell the author of this article feels that way very strongly.
“grossly misunderstanding the issue, and indeed misunderstand…science itself” A very passionate section this has become.
“While Christian fundamentalists may think their God” Oh finally! Yes! We Finally get to the truth of the matter! Its all about those fundie xians. The author just couldn’t hold it back any longer. It literally spilled out of his fingers as he typed. I can imagine the frustration and emotion that welled up inside this author as it finally flowed out like a mighty river. Hmmm..somewhere I read something about Wiki’s policies on using the term “fundamentalist”…but oh well, this is a neutral article, one I can’t even dispute.
“promotion of intelligent design as a way to return religion to a central role in education” woah! Really? Such an unsourced comment is quite bold. I know many ID proponents have no goal like that whatsoever. ] Ok I’m getting weary with the overflow of emotion and POV in this section. Need I continue?
This section can be renamed to “Defeating the so-called ‘Intelligent Design Debate’”
Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
'“The following are summaries of key concepts of intelligent design, followed by summaries of criticisms” For the first time in this article, we are told to expect criticism.
The good news here is that at least I am expecting a criticism to be SEPARATE from the key concept. Hopefully (for once) I will read a concept uninterrupted. So, I’m happy and optimistic at this point that I will finally get some neutrality.
Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
“GST lost many of its adherents” “Systems theory remained popular among social sciences long after its demise in the physical and biological sciences” Well, before I even get to the criticism section, I’m already learning how defunct IC is turning out to be.
“Michael Behe does not recount the history of his irreducible complexity argument, but rather gives…”
Mistakes and mishaps by Behe are being highlited here. That clumsy Behe! Oh wait, I’m not at the criticism section yet. I’m supposed to be in an ID-friendly section. “Intelligent design advocates claim that Intelligent design advocates claim that Can’t we just present IC as it is rather than all this “THEY claim this” and “THEY argue that”. This is slanted. Since I am told in advance that this section follows the model of Friendly, followed by Critique then please get rid of all the “they claim” and “they argue” statements. Those statements are not used in criticisms clearly indicating the author is on the side of the critics.
“Critism”
Oh finally, I’m at the first formal “criticism” section in this article. I guess I know what to expect so I’ll skip it.
Again, in section 8, I am expecting to read a friendly section followed by a critique section. So here is where I get to learn about Specified complexity without interruption. At least that’s what I expect….. “he states” “he argues” “he argues” “he argues” “proponents…argue” C’mon. Simply state what SC teaches. Let me help you here. To be neutral and give SC a fair shake, consider this quote from the article: “He argues that CSI cannot be generated by the only known natural mechanisms of physical law and chance, or by their combination. He argues that this is so because laws can only shift around or lose in” This can be rewritten to a more neutral: “CSI cannot be generated by the only known natural mechanisms of physical law and chance, or by their combination. This is because laws can only shift around or lose in” Continuingly using phrases like “claim” or “argue” in ID friendly section is slanted. I know there will be criticism to follow, so what is so hard about just presenting the concept as it is?! This is the place where ID should present itself not as “THEY” but simply as it is. here is a great example of a neutral article. it is written by a an author and site opposed to ID. Yet its vastly more fair than this wiki one. Note how, when ID is presented, the excessive use of "they argue"..."they claim"..."proponents state"...etc. http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html read this anti-ID article, this is how I'd like the wiki one to be balanced.
“Critism”
This section contains 4 paragraphs. The SC “friendly” section contained 2 paragraphs. The criticism section is double the friendly section. And the friendly section wasn’t very friendly.
Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I am expecting to learn about this argument in a fair way. I know a criticism section will follow as defined in the beginning of section 8. So hopefully, I’ll learn about FTU uninterrupted; what it teaches, and what are its criticisms. “They propose that the natural emergence of a universe with all the features necessary for life is wildly improbable.”
Not a friendly statement! Use of colorful language “wildly” not necessary. MISSING: why do they claim this? What is the support for FTU? Why must it be FTU? Not a single reference here. We get only 2 paragraphs here for FTU, but nothing to be referenced! And the second paragraph isn’t even about FTU, it is clarifying what the “mainstream” adheres to and defines a different term.
“The strong form is a distinctly minority position and is highly controversial” Is this a rebuttal to the first paragraph? Seems that way. Well, I’ve read the FTU section and still haven’t learned anything *really* about FTU. I've read nothing about FTU's arguments or its strengths. I have a feeling, though, that as I get to the criticism section, I’m going to learn all about its weaknesses.
“Critism” Well lookie here! We get 4 paragraphs of criticism. FTU got only 1 paragraph (the second FTU paragraph wasn’t even defining FTU). So once again, criticism doubles…in this case, triples content for the original idea. All justified by the NPOV: Undue weight rule, I’m sure.
Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
C’mon people. Do I REALLY need this section of “general criticism?” Its not like I haven’t read any yet!
The next 3,212 words of this article are devoted entirely to criticism.
Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
At the end of the article, I am still waiting for a friendly presentation of ID. In the end, I have read an article that would be an excellent addition to Jeffrey J. Lowder’s secular web at www.infidels.org. If this is a neutral article, I’m sure that’s a neutral site as well. It’s a shame that on wiki, something like this is forced on people. It is forced because those who guard this page do not even permit a POV tag. Remember that a POV tag does not equivocate to POV, it merely states that its in dispute. I can understand, from an atheist/agnostic/naturalist/skeptic perspective why this is a great article. I can understand why someone like that would feel so strongly that this is NPOV. I can understand why this article is so fiercely protected and defended from dispute. I’m sure it’s a losing battle for me. Who am I, but just a wiki reader who enjoys this site like all of you. Saddened? Yes I am. I am saddened that good topics get corrupted by agendas. I am saddened that individuals here wont even permit a dispute tag on an article that is supposed to be neutral. I am saddened that this article does not allow one to make up their own mind about ID, but that it makes it up for them.
Someone accused me here of “storming” in. Yes, I did. Why? Because I am a wiki-reader. I loved the creationism page, the evolution page, the homosexuality page, the arguments for and against God pages. All these hot topics, presented so well and fair. I was impressed. Then I came here and was utterly shocked how biased and slanted it is. I couldn’t believe highly educated people such as yourselves would be so overtly biased and then hide behind a set of Wiki NPOV rules. I know I will lose here, there’s only one of me and many of you. I get 3 edits a day, you outnumber me so there is no chance I have to place my POV tag because it will be promptly removed each time (as it has been) followed by IP ban threats. So…yes I lost. Maybe that will make many of you happy.
Here is a model article I'd like this wiki one to adapt: http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html
I honestly didn't realize NPOV: Undue weight meant no weight.
I dispute the neutrality of this article, even though you wont allow me to. Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Marshill, it is interesting that you should have chosen something from the infidels.org site [1], and claimed that it was neutral. It is a site primarily supporting naturalism, and while never exactly admitting to atheism, that is precisely the audience for which it was designed (note this sentence from the “Agora” section, “This is an informal place to gather and read what others have to say on topics of interest to nonbelievers.” Jim62sch 16:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
This is a straw poll on the NPOV status of this article. Please cast your vote by signing with ~~~~ four tildes.
{{cleanup}}
is also needed. One possibility, would be to have an article that describe the basic concepts of Intelligent Design, and a separate article that describes the controversy, where pro and anti can splurge on arguments and counterarguments to their heart content. Given the enormous amount of material, that would not be a POV fork, but rather the start of a series of articles on this fascinating and controversial subject.
≈ jossi ≈
t •
@
18:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Comments are welcome. Please post comments below so that the source above is not interrupted. Thank you. Marshill 22:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Re: "We have failed to accurately and fairly describe the phenomenon of ID from the perspective of the ID advocate. In my opinion, the sympethetic portrayal of ideas is the whole point of Wikipedia. This failure is in no small part due to one particular editor's obsessive policing of the article to conform to his POV. — goethean ॐ 16:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)"
Goethean, if you are going to be so bold as to make such a statement, it is incumbent on you to STATE who this particular editor is. THUS, I am requesting that you provide the alias (name) of this editor so that he/she may address your concerns, and so that the two of you can engage in a diologue. Otherwise, you are engaging in an unsubstantiated and vague ad hom. Name the person, gothean, or withdraw your comment. Jim62sch 13:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Refering to Endomion's vote: political soapbox -- what politics would this be? -- ScienceApologist 02:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
So the sentence is a tautology stating that those scientists who reject pseudo-sciences (which includes ID) reject ID as pseudo-science (which is why ID is included). -- It is incorrect to claim that ID is viewed as a pseudoscience simply because the scientific community is tautologically exclusive. It is rather shown to be a pseudoscience by members of the scientific community for reasons outlined in the linked references and in the criticism sections of this very article. That the scientific community includes the caveat that advocates of pseudoscience are not included is not a tautology, it is rather a point of order. If there was no separate definition pseudoscience then you would have a point, but the fact is that pseudoscience is defined from the perspective of criteria which those in the scientific community have used (in the context of current events outside of the scientific community) in their discussions of the legitimacy of ID. You can disagree with the national academies and the academic institutions that have made this sentence possible, but this disagreement is not what separates members of the scientific community from those that aren't members. -- ScienceApologist 14:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
<moved from voting area> Overall the article is excellent and I have no problems with the frequency and placement of criticisms. However I feel that certain extremely significant points being strenuously held are misrepresentative and because these are so critically relevant to the understanding of the ID position their effect is to generate an overall feeling of anti-ID POV and incorrectly colour the entire article and all criticism as hostile. Example from opening sentence which states that the scientific community rejects ID as a pseudo-science. The term 'scientific community' is defined in Wikipedia as excluding 'scientists' who find a pseudo-science credible. So the sentence is a tautology stating that those scientists who reject pseudo-sciences (which includes ID) reject ID as pseudo-science (which is why ID is included). In a reader's initial understanding a scientist is more likely to be seen as someone with scientific qualifications being employed in a research capacity using those qualifications and would tend to read the sentence this way instead of as a pointless tautology. By the qualification and employment definition there are some scientists who reject other pseudo-sciences and yet find ID credible. This small group of scientists is being inadvertently hidden by the opening sentence. Even one scientifically qualified person finding ID credible speaks volumes. So this is a critically significant point for understanding the position of ID fairly. I've tried to pursue points like this but often my participation in a discussion ends with a logical counter-argument of mine being ignored but no action taken. I guess either I'm wrong or my points are not being understood, possibly due to different points of view or bad communication from my side. Sometimes action gets taken (for a while the article qualified the term scientific community with the word largely) but then it gets reverted, often without discussion as far as I can see. --ant 13:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
found yet another gem to show how slanted this article is. Go to this page Poisoning the well and note that this is a fallacy. Then look at the last example of the fallacy. now go to this page: Intelligent Design and do a search (CTRL-F) for "so-called". You'll enjoy it. Marshill 16:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Plumbago-- about comment above that the article's "statement about "equal footing with, or superior to" doesn't ring true." Stephen C. Meyer makes the claim in The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories [2]. There he argues that design is equal to evolutionary theory not on the strength of design but on the weakness of evolutionary theory (which he terms "descent") claiming both are unable to "meet the standards of testability that require strict verifiability." He then later argues that design is superior to evolutionary theory in that it does not rule out supernatural causes, which he claims science does arbitrarily as a matter of course. It's an interesting read. FeloniousMonk 17:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
To Alienus moved from Poll section:
goethean: You state "This failure is in no small part due to one particular editor's obsessive policing of the article to conform to his POV" - vague accusations are uncivil. If you have a concern that an editor has made a POV edit, or incorrectly interpreted NPOV, please address the issue do not make accusations against unnamed editors. KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
As I have pointed out, the scientific community in any subject is defined by those that publish on the subject in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. There is no scientific debate outside that literature. So far there is ONE publication in an obscure journal that has been repudiated by the editors of that journal, and ONE publication in a more reputable journal by Behe and Snoke which does not mention ID. I conclude that there is no scientific community publishing significant research on ID.
There is a scientific community in general that publishes in the peer-reviewed litereature. This consists of a very large number (hundreds of thousands) of individuals in the U.S. and more worldwide. The Discovery Institute now boasts on their webpage that they have gotten some number, less than 500, of individuals with some sort of credentials, who "doubt Darwinism". Some of these individuals have repudiated their listing there. This is after over four years of effort on the DI's part. In four days, over 7000 scientists signed a petition supporting evolution. And NCSE (the National Center for Science Education), over less time than the Discovery Institute has been collecting signatures, has obtained (as of the latest tally) 684 signatures of scientists who are named Steve (to honor Steve Gould) who support evolution. People named 'Steve' are about 1% of the population.
I am not eligible to sign the NCSE statement. I am not named Steve.
So: It is reasonable to conclude that whereas there are some scientists who support ID, it is an extraordinarily small proportion. It is less than 1%, and probably much less. Bill Jefferys 03:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Do you mean that 'scientific community' in this context is the community of scientists which has published peer-reviewed articles on ID? ant 12:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
ID claims it can explain things that evolution cannot, for example complex structure such as the bacterial flagellum or the human eye, thus, the claim of superiority over evolution. -- JPotter 01:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Reading the definition for scientific community, and then the claim that they hold ID as not valid, implies as the ole’ Scottsman would say “No True Scientist would embrace ID”. This is a clear POV slant.
As for the accusation of "unfriendliness" - there is no need to be friendly, just to be accurate. I believe we are accurate in our portrayal. Guettarda 15:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
1. Putative purpose - if, after 15-20 years you have yet to show even the beginnings of a research programme, and if you have not bothered to apply for grants offered to do research into ID, then "putative" is accurate.
2. Unfriendly “claim that they look” ….”of what they call” “design” - as above, claim they look is accurate, as above. Using the phrase what they call "design" is necessary if we are to not endorse their POV. We cannot say that what they are looking for is design, because that assertion is contested by mainstream science. Their "evidence for design" is disputed in every of which I am aware.
3. Unfriendly - -> “believe” ' “which they infer” - infer is not unfriendly - inference is central to science. Believe is reasonable; irreducible complexity cannot (has not) been experimentally supported (or even tested). In addition, ID seems to work from the assumption that it exists. So believe is reasonable. Would you propose a more "friendly" term?
4. Criticism “this stands in opposition to mainstream science” - this is a simply a factual statement.
5. - I don't understand your point here.
If I recall, a majority of this section was written by an ID proponent. Also:
Design theory—also called design or the design argument—is the view that nature shows tangible signs of having been designed by a preexisting intelligence. It has been around, in one form or another, since the time of ancient Greece. The most famous version of the design argument can be found in the work of theologian William Paley, who in 1802 proposed his "watchmaker" thesis - William Dembski.
-- JPotter 01:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Marshill 21:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
The article was written as a standard debate, something that would not be found in an encyclopedia. Additionally, the debate involves a number of ID-proponents, each one writing of his position, and then there is a response by a non-ID-proponent. (Thus, I am unclear as to how you can say the article was written by someone hostile to ID.) You need to realize that there are clear distinctions between classical debating methodology and standard encyclopedic methodology. Jim62sch 15:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Ec5618 01:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
You bring up a good point. Perhaps however it would be fruitful to understand what specified complexity (a.k.a. complex specified information) actually is (the current article does not explain the concept very well).
The definition of information being referred to here is Merriam-Webster's dictionary 2b. Information is an inherent attribute communicated by sequences of units (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in computers) with each unit consisting of two or more variants. Complex information is simply a high information content. For instance, the following sequence PLMGQEIXZVITQAGUSAQPECNZA is more complex than ZP. For a complex set of information, it is unlikely that any particular sequence is chosen. For instance, the odds of getting the sequence of 143 characters exactly right via random chance (once we take into account spaces, commas and periods) is 29^158 or approximately 1 in 10^231. But to make a design inference Dembski says, it is not enough for information to be complex, it must also be specified. Specification, in short, implies the existence of a non-ad-hoc pattern that can be used to eliminate chance and be grounds to rationally make a design inference. Suppose the complex sequence was this:
The sequence of letters above (taken from "Clever Elsie", one of Grimm's fairy tales) has 143 units, with each unit having 29 varieties (29^143 possibilities for a sequence of this size). Under Dembski's definition, if the information has less than 1 in 10^150 chance plus the specification criterion it can be considered CSI (because anything less than 1 in 10^150 goes past the " universal probability bound"--so called because 10^150 is an upper limit on the total number of possible physical events since the big bang). Thus, we would have rational grounds for making a design inference here because the sequence above is both complex and specified (following a non-ad-hoc pattern; in this case a meaningful set of words). -- Wade A. Tisthammer 04:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I've moved Marshill's personal views and the subsequent discussion to his userspace, User_talk:Marshill/Atheism_ID_Discussion. It was well off-topic and disruptive. Let's move on people and stay on topic. FeloniousMonk 17:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Since the article has been reorganised, hoe much relevance do they above points still have? More than a few section headers have been moved, and some of the points have been addressed or rebutted. Even the value of the straw poll could be debated. Could somone make a new list of objections, in some form of numbered list for easy reference? I'm assuming there are still objections, of course.
We might even consider considering archiving this page, and moving any relevant discussion to the main Talk page. -- Ec5618 11:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
thanks to FeloniusMonk who created this page for me.
The following was done simply to be able to place a POV tag on this article, which is being removed at every attempt to do so. This article needs to be POV tagged because its neutrality is contested (note: POV tags do not equivocate to POV, only that its in dispute, which it is)
1 Unfriendly definition. The definition contains a misquote of the term “superior to” as the sourced article does not define it as such. The definition itself is not representative of ID proponents, no ID article I have ever read defines ID in this way. To define ID, it does not make sense to do so in a manner espoused by the enemy. A friendly definition is needed here.
“The scientific community views intelligent design not as a valid” Really?
Yes. WolfKeeper 02:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Is that all scientists?
No. However the scientific method is a formal system. When you run the formal system, and stick in ID concepts as well as evolution concepts, the formal system rejects ID. So it's not scientists that find ID not valid, it's Ockham's razor cutting away God as a theory with insufficient evidence. I'm sure you can find some scientists who are trying to remove Ockham's razor from science, or prove the existence of God, but they've failed so far. WolfKeeper 02:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
ID is a bit like trying to do maths starting with 1+1=3. You can actually come up with maths based on that (I'm not making that up, it's modulo arithmetic), but it doesn't work very well when you try to add up your checkbook! Most people in the biological sciences need a theory that matches the evidence in the real world; nobody has managed to do that with ID well enough to make it useable. WolfKeeper 02:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Reading the definition for scientific community, and then the claim that they hold ID as not valid, implies as the ole’ Scottsman would say “No True Scientist would embrace ID”. This is a clear POV slant. One that is not warranted. Rephrase to “many in the scientific community” So for section one, other than the first sentence, every thing that follows is unfriendly.
Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Here, where Intelligent Design is supposed to be summarized, one would expect to find a friendly explanation of it. Instead, it’s a bed of criticism. 1. ”putative purpose” . Footnotes for this sentence further criticize. This is a criticism and unfriendly to ID.
2. Unfriendly “claim that they look” ….”of what they call” ' “design” is in quotations indicating subtle ridicule.
3. Unfriendly - -> “believe” ' “which they infer” use of faith-based terminology in regards to identifying intelligence (even SETI has criteria for intelligence that does not include faith). This sentence is unfriendly to ID.
4. Criticism “this stands in opposition to mainstream science”
5. Criticism “However, modern developments….” This sentence completely counters the previous one, inserting a criticism against the prior sentence.
MISSING: What is some of the evidence for ID, from an ID perspective? Let ID speak for itself. What are ID’s main arguments in a summary form? (simply stating include irreducible complexity, information mechanisms, and specified complexity as terms without any support or clarification is not friendly to ID) We are looking for a friendly argument here. At no point in section two is ID given a chance to present itself *as it is* without a backlash of criticism.
SUMMARY FOR SECTION TWO: Unfriendly to ID. Section two is entirely a criticism and at no point is ID presented fairly. This is the one section in this article where a wiki reader would expect ID to presented in full, on its own, as explained by its proponents. Not being able to resist the temptation to insert a criticism at *every single* opportunity speaks loud of bias and fear. One who is too afraid to let ID present itself without interruption is someone who is insecure about something. I prefer the model of presenting ID uninterrupted, followed by criticism so that people can make up their own mind, rather than it being made up for them. This section is titled “Summary of ID”. So why isn’t ID being summarized? Why is it criticized at every opportunity?
Please rename this section to “Summary Criticisms of ID”
Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Missing a lot of references here. “Intelligent design in the late 20th century can be seen as a modern reframing of Paley's doctrines” is opinion. Many people do not see it that way. Who sees it that way? Atheists? Honestly, I don’t know. No reference is cited. How about a statement that says “Some see it this way, while others see it this way” and reference both. The last paragraph, especially, is a nice little way to de-xianize ID and turn ID around against them. Its subtle, but effective. Make ID a greek-borrowed concept, and you undermine the Christianity of ID. No references here, but it’s a nice underhanded tactic. Most definitely opinion. And one that speaks of an agenda. Aside from the final paragraph where a clear /POV has been inserted, and a couple of unfounded assumptions missing references, I am willing to go along with this section.
Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
This is informative. This is a neutral section, the only one that I do not dispute. .
Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
ID proponents see ID as “even more scientific than evolution” is a clear slant and the authors opinion. Its not cited and its just plain false. Many ID proponents put them on equal ground as valid theories for life. “this presents a demarcation problem” Ha! The beautiful setup of that strawman in the first sentence and then the subsequent knock down was a great piece of work. Good job guys.
“For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a couple or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word” This is unreferenced. “in any meaningful sense of the word” is a bit overdone here, speaks of a serious emotional connection to the material.
Now that we have clearly stated how utterly unscientific anything can be if it doesn’t live up to this 8 item list, lets see how ID does against the list. (we are then told how ID fails ALL CRITERIA except one.) So what happened here, for those that missed it…is we are first prepped about how something that doesn’t meet criteria cannot be called science “in any meaningful sense of the word”. And then, once we are prepped, its time to drop the bomb on ID. “In light of its failure to adhere to these standards” – a very strong criticism, obviously.
MISSING FROM SECTION 5: What do ID proponents say about the criteria? I would like to see how an ID proponent answers each of those criteria for ID. Another thing missing is ID having any chance to present itself, not a single ID friendly statement in this entire section.
The entire section is a criticism. Please rename it to “Criticism against ID as a science”
Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
“organized neocreationist campaign to promote a religious agenda” unreferenced and clearly, obviously unfriendly. “unofficial spokesman” who said this? I never said this. I don’t know of anyone who has. I don’t follow this person, and most ID proponents I know don’t either. He’s not my leader or spokesman for that matter. “The conflicting statements of leading intelligent design proponents” “obfuscating its agenda” ' “follows its wedge strategy” “proponents allege” .Must I waste my time explaining each of these? Unfriendly remarks and connotations are dispersed throughout this entire section. This section is clearly loaded. I can summarize this section after reading it: “ID is a religious agenda led by one organization and one man to undermine true science and replace it with christian fundamentalism”. Sound good? And you think this is NPOV, do you?
Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
The opening sentence of this section: “A key strategy of the intelligent design movement is in convincing the general public that there is a debate…scientifically there is no debate whatsoever.” Wow! Talk about giving ID a fair shake. And we aren’t even at the criticism section yet. Supposedly, we are still being neutral and teaching people about ID. Before even reading through the first paragraph we are told “it’s a done deal folks. You may read on if you like, but we’ll just come out and state it for you” “The intelligent design debate centers on three issues:” Who says that? I see no references. I don’t know of any ID proponents that say that. Is that from talk.origins? “instances of so-called irreducible complexity” Let me guess, more NPOV right? This is a poisoning the well fallacy. Quoting from the page Poisoning the well
The so-called 'Theory' of Evolution
We now examine the theory of evolution...
which has already "poisoned the well" to a balanced argument."
Use of the term “So-called” obviously, a little insertion by the author(s) to undermine something before the reader is even allowed to make up his/her own mind.
“Finally, supporters hold that religious neutrality requires the teaching of both evolution and intelligent design in schools, because teaching only evolution unfairly discriminates against those holding Creationist beliefs.”
Who says that? No references. I’ve read supporters of ID who want it taught simply to give an option as an alternative theory, but not because of discrimination.
“According to critics of intelligent design…it has not even presented a case worth taking seriously.” Well that is quite obvious, I can tell the author of this article feels that way very strongly.
“grossly misunderstanding the issue, and indeed misunderstand…science itself” A very passionate section this has become.
“While Christian fundamentalists may think their God” Oh finally! Yes! We Finally get to the truth of the matter! Its all about those fundie xians. The author just couldn’t hold it back any longer. It literally spilled out of his fingers as he typed. I can imagine the frustration and emotion that welled up inside this author as it finally flowed out like a mighty river. Hmmm..somewhere I read something about Wiki’s policies on using the term “fundamentalist”…but oh well, this is a neutral article, one I can’t even dispute.
“promotion of intelligent design as a way to return religion to a central role in education” woah! Really? Such an unsourced comment is quite bold. I know many ID proponents have no goal like that whatsoever. ] Ok I’m getting weary with the overflow of emotion and POV in this section. Need I continue?
This section can be renamed to “Defeating the so-called ‘Intelligent Design Debate’”
Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
'“The following are summaries of key concepts of intelligent design, followed by summaries of criticisms” For the first time in this article, we are told to expect criticism.
The good news here is that at least I am expecting a criticism to be SEPARATE from the key concept. Hopefully (for once) I will read a concept uninterrupted. So, I’m happy and optimistic at this point that I will finally get some neutrality.
Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
“GST lost many of its adherents” “Systems theory remained popular among social sciences long after its demise in the physical and biological sciences” Well, before I even get to the criticism section, I’m already learning how defunct IC is turning out to be.
“Michael Behe does not recount the history of his irreducible complexity argument, but rather gives…”
Mistakes and mishaps by Behe are being highlited here. That clumsy Behe! Oh wait, I’m not at the criticism section yet. I’m supposed to be in an ID-friendly section. “Intelligent design advocates claim that Intelligent design advocates claim that Can’t we just present IC as it is rather than all this “THEY claim this” and “THEY argue that”. This is slanted. Since I am told in advance that this section follows the model of Friendly, followed by Critique then please get rid of all the “they claim” and “they argue” statements. Those statements are not used in criticisms clearly indicating the author is on the side of the critics.
“Critism”
Oh finally, I’m at the first formal “criticism” section in this article. I guess I know what to expect so I’ll skip it.
Again, in section 8, I am expecting to read a friendly section followed by a critique section. So here is where I get to learn about Specified complexity without interruption. At least that’s what I expect….. “he states” “he argues” “he argues” “he argues” “proponents…argue” C’mon. Simply state what SC teaches. Let me help you here. To be neutral and give SC a fair shake, consider this quote from the article: “He argues that CSI cannot be generated by the only known natural mechanisms of physical law and chance, or by their combination. He argues that this is so because laws can only shift around or lose in” This can be rewritten to a more neutral: “CSI cannot be generated by the only known natural mechanisms of physical law and chance, or by their combination. This is because laws can only shift around or lose in” Continuingly using phrases like “claim” or “argue” in ID friendly section is slanted. I know there will be criticism to follow, so what is so hard about just presenting the concept as it is?! This is the place where ID should present itself not as “THEY” but simply as it is. here is a great example of a neutral article. it is written by a an author and site opposed to ID. Yet its vastly more fair than this wiki one. Note how, when ID is presented, the excessive use of "they argue"..."they claim"..."proponents state"...etc. http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html read this anti-ID article, this is how I'd like the wiki one to be balanced.
“Critism”
This section contains 4 paragraphs. The SC “friendly” section contained 2 paragraphs. The criticism section is double the friendly section. And the friendly section wasn’t very friendly.
Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I am expecting to learn about this argument in a fair way. I know a criticism section will follow as defined in the beginning of section 8. So hopefully, I’ll learn about FTU uninterrupted; what it teaches, and what are its criticisms. “They propose that the natural emergence of a universe with all the features necessary for life is wildly improbable.”
Not a friendly statement! Use of colorful language “wildly” not necessary. MISSING: why do they claim this? What is the support for FTU? Why must it be FTU? Not a single reference here. We get only 2 paragraphs here for FTU, but nothing to be referenced! And the second paragraph isn’t even about FTU, it is clarifying what the “mainstream” adheres to and defines a different term.
“The strong form is a distinctly minority position and is highly controversial” Is this a rebuttal to the first paragraph? Seems that way. Well, I’ve read the FTU section and still haven’t learned anything *really* about FTU. I've read nothing about FTU's arguments or its strengths. I have a feeling, though, that as I get to the criticism section, I’m going to learn all about its weaknesses.
“Critism” Well lookie here! We get 4 paragraphs of criticism. FTU got only 1 paragraph (the second FTU paragraph wasn’t even defining FTU). So once again, criticism doubles…in this case, triples content for the original idea. All justified by the NPOV: Undue weight rule, I’m sure.
Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
C’mon people. Do I REALLY need this section of “general criticism?” Its not like I haven’t read any yet!
The next 3,212 words of this article are devoted entirely to criticism.
Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
At the end of the article, I am still waiting for a friendly presentation of ID. In the end, I have read an article that would be an excellent addition to Jeffrey J. Lowder’s secular web at www.infidels.org. If this is a neutral article, I’m sure that’s a neutral site as well. It’s a shame that on wiki, something like this is forced on people. It is forced because those who guard this page do not even permit a POV tag. Remember that a POV tag does not equivocate to POV, it merely states that its in dispute. I can understand, from an atheist/agnostic/naturalist/skeptic perspective why this is a great article. I can understand why someone like that would feel so strongly that this is NPOV. I can understand why this article is so fiercely protected and defended from dispute. I’m sure it’s a losing battle for me. Who am I, but just a wiki reader who enjoys this site like all of you. Saddened? Yes I am. I am saddened that good topics get corrupted by agendas. I am saddened that individuals here wont even permit a dispute tag on an article that is supposed to be neutral. I am saddened that this article does not allow one to make up their own mind about ID, but that it makes it up for them.
Someone accused me here of “storming” in. Yes, I did. Why? Because I am a wiki-reader. I loved the creationism page, the evolution page, the homosexuality page, the arguments for and against God pages. All these hot topics, presented so well and fair. I was impressed. Then I came here and was utterly shocked how biased and slanted it is. I couldn’t believe highly educated people such as yourselves would be so overtly biased and then hide behind a set of Wiki NPOV rules. I know I will lose here, there’s only one of me and many of you. I get 3 edits a day, you outnumber me so there is no chance I have to place my POV tag because it will be promptly removed each time (as it has been) followed by IP ban threats. So…yes I lost. Maybe that will make many of you happy.
Here is a model article I'd like this wiki one to adapt: http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html
I honestly didn't realize NPOV: Undue weight meant no weight.
I dispute the neutrality of this article, even though you wont allow me to. Marshill 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Marshill, it is interesting that you should have chosen something from the infidels.org site [1], and claimed that it was neutral. It is a site primarily supporting naturalism, and while never exactly admitting to atheism, that is precisely the audience for which it was designed (note this sentence from the “Agora” section, “This is an informal place to gather and read what others have to say on topics of interest to nonbelievers.” Jim62sch 16:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
This is a straw poll on the NPOV status of this article. Please cast your vote by signing with ~~~~ four tildes.
{{cleanup}}
is also needed. One possibility, would be to have an article that describe the basic concepts of Intelligent Design, and a separate article that describes the controversy, where pro and anti can splurge on arguments and counterarguments to their heart content. Given the enormous amount of material, that would not be a POV fork, but rather the start of a series of articles on this fascinating and controversial subject.
≈ jossi ≈
t •
@
18:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Comments are welcome. Please post comments below so that the source above is not interrupted. Thank you. Marshill 22:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Re: "We have failed to accurately and fairly describe the phenomenon of ID from the perspective of the ID advocate. In my opinion, the sympethetic portrayal of ideas is the whole point of Wikipedia. This failure is in no small part due to one particular editor's obsessive policing of the article to conform to his POV. — goethean ॐ 16:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)"
Goethean, if you are going to be so bold as to make such a statement, it is incumbent on you to STATE who this particular editor is. THUS, I am requesting that you provide the alias (name) of this editor so that he/she may address your concerns, and so that the two of you can engage in a diologue. Otherwise, you are engaging in an unsubstantiated and vague ad hom. Name the person, gothean, or withdraw your comment. Jim62sch 13:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Refering to Endomion's vote: political soapbox -- what politics would this be? -- ScienceApologist 02:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
So the sentence is a tautology stating that those scientists who reject pseudo-sciences (which includes ID) reject ID as pseudo-science (which is why ID is included). -- It is incorrect to claim that ID is viewed as a pseudoscience simply because the scientific community is tautologically exclusive. It is rather shown to be a pseudoscience by members of the scientific community for reasons outlined in the linked references and in the criticism sections of this very article. That the scientific community includes the caveat that advocates of pseudoscience are not included is not a tautology, it is rather a point of order. If there was no separate definition pseudoscience then you would have a point, but the fact is that pseudoscience is defined from the perspective of criteria which those in the scientific community have used (in the context of current events outside of the scientific community) in their discussions of the legitimacy of ID. You can disagree with the national academies and the academic institutions that have made this sentence possible, but this disagreement is not what separates members of the scientific community from those that aren't members. -- ScienceApologist 14:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
<moved from voting area> Overall the article is excellent and I have no problems with the frequency and placement of criticisms. However I feel that certain extremely significant points being strenuously held are misrepresentative and because these are so critically relevant to the understanding of the ID position their effect is to generate an overall feeling of anti-ID POV and incorrectly colour the entire article and all criticism as hostile. Example from opening sentence which states that the scientific community rejects ID as a pseudo-science. The term 'scientific community' is defined in Wikipedia as excluding 'scientists' who find a pseudo-science credible. So the sentence is a tautology stating that those scientists who reject pseudo-sciences (which includes ID) reject ID as pseudo-science (which is why ID is included). In a reader's initial understanding a scientist is more likely to be seen as someone with scientific qualifications being employed in a research capacity using those qualifications and would tend to read the sentence this way instead of as a pointless tautology. By the qualification and employment definition there are some scientists who reject other pseudo-sciences and yet find ID credible. This small group of scientists is being inadvertently hidden by the opening sentence. Even one scientifically qualified person finding ID credible speaks volumes. So this is a critically significant point for understanding the position of ID fairly. I've tried to pursue points like this but often my participation in a discussion ends with a logical counter-argument of mine being ignored but no action taken. I guess either I'm wrong or my points are not being understood, possibly due to different points of view or bad communication from my side. Sometimes action gets taken (for a while the article qualified the term scientific community with the word largely) but then it gets reverted, often without discussion as far as I can see. --ant 13:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
found yet another gem to show how slanted this article is. Go to this page Poisoning the well and note that this is a fallacy. Then look at the last example of the fallacy. now go to this page: Intelligent Design and do a search (CTRL-F) for "so-called". You'll enjoy it. Marshill 16:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Plumbago-- about comment above that the article's "statement about "equal footing with, or superior to" doesn't ring true." Stephen C. Meyer makes the claim in The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories [2]. There he argues that design is equal to evolutionary theory not on the strength of design but on the weakness of evolutionary theory (which he terms "descent") claiming both are unable to "meet the standards of testability that require strict verifiability." He then later argues that design is superior to evolutionary theory in that it does not rule out supernatural causes, which he claims science does arbitrarily as a matter of course. It's an interesting read. FeloniousMonk 17:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
To Alienus moved from Poll section:
goethean: You state "This failure is in no small part due to one particular editor's obsessive policing of the article to conform to his POV" - vague accusations are uncivil. If you have a concern that an editor has made a POV edit, or incorrectly interpreted NPOV, please address the issue do not make accusations against unnamed editors. KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
As I have pointed out, the scientific community in any subject is defined by those that publish on the subject in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. There is no scientific debate outside that literature. So far there is ONE publication in an obscure journal that has been repudiated by the editors of that journal, and ONE publication in a more reputable journal by Behe and Snoke which does not mention ID. I conclude that there is no scientific community publishing significant research on ID.
There is a scientific community in general that publishes in the peer-reviewed litereature. This consists of a very large number (hundreds of thousands) of individuals in the U.S. and more worldwide. The Discovery Institute now boasts on their webpage that they have gotten some number, less than 500, of individuals with some sort of credentials, who "doubt Darwinism". Some of these individuals have repudiated their listing there. This is after over four years of effort on the DI's part. In four days, over 7000 scientists signed a petition supporting evolution. And NCSE (the National Center for Science Education), over less time than the Discovery Institute has been collecting signatures, has obtained (as of the latest tally) 684 signatures of scientists who are named Steve (to honor Steve Gould) who support evolution. People named 'Steve' are about 1% of the population.
I am not eligible to sign the NCSE statement. I am not named Steve.
So: It is reasonable to conclude that whereas there are some scientists who support ID, it is an extraordinarily small proportion. It is less than 1%, and probably much less. Bill Jefferys 03:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Do you mean that 'scientific community' in this context is the community of scientists which has published peer-reviewed articles on ID? ant 12:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
ID claims it can explain things that evolution cannot, for example complex structure such as the bacterial flagellum or the human eye, thus, the claim of superiority over evolution. -- JPotter 01:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Reading the definition for scientific community, and then the claim that they hold ID as not valid, implies as the ole’ Scottsman would say “No True Scientist would embrace ID”. This is a clear POV slant.
As for the accusation of "unfriendliness" - there is no need to be friendly, just to be accurate. I believe we are accurate in our portrayal. Guettarda 15:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
1. Putative purpose - if, after 15-20 years you have yet to show even the beginnings of a research programme, and if you have not bothered to apply for grants offered to do research into ID, then "putative" is accurate.
2. Unfriendly “claim that they look” ….”of what they call” “design” - as above, claim they look is accurate, as above. Using the phrase what they call "design" is necessary if we are to not endorse their POV. We cannot say that what they are looking for is design, because that assertion is contested by mainstream science. Their "evidence for design" is disputed in every of which I am aware.
3. Unfriendly - -> “believe” ' “which they infer” - infer is not unfriendly - inference is central to science. Believe is reasonable; irreducible complexity cannot (has not) been experimentally supported (or even tested). In addition, ID seems to work from the assumption that it exists. So believe is reasonable. Would you propose a more "friendly" term?
4. Criticism “this stands in opposition to mainstream science” - this is a simply a factual statement.
5. - I don't understand your point here.
If I recall, a majority of this section was written by an ID proponent. Also:
Design theory—also called design or the design argument—is the view that nature shows tangible signs of having been designed by a preexisting intelligence. It has been around, in one form or another, since the time of ancient Greece. The most famous version of the design argument can be found in the work of theologian William Paley, who in 1802 proposed his "watchmaker" thesis - William Dembski.
-- JPotter 01:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Marshill 21:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
The article was written as a standard debate, something that would not be found in an encyclopedia. Additionally, the debate involves a number of ID-proponents, each one writing of his position, and then there is a response by a non-ID-proponent. (Thus, I am unclear as to how you can say the article was written by someone hostile to ID.) You need to realize that there are clear distinctions between classical debating methodology and standard encyclopedic methodology. Jim62sch 15:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Ec5618 01:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
You bring up a good point. Perhaps however it would be fruitful to understand what specified complexity (a.k.a. complex specified information) actually is (the current article does not explain the concept very well).
The definition of information being referred to here is Merriam-Webster's dictionary 2b. Information is an inherent attribute communicated by sequences of units (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in computers) with each unit consisting of two or more variants. Complex information is simply a high information content. For instance, the following sequence PLMGQEIXZVITQAGUSAQPECNZA is more complex than ZP. For a complex set of information, it is unlikely that any particular sequence is chosen. For instance, the odds of getting the sequence of 143 characters exactly right via random chance (once we take into account spaces, commas and periods) is 29^158 or approximately 1 in 10^231. But to make a design inference Dembski says, it is not enough for information to be complex, it must also be specified. Specification, in short, implies the existence of a non-ad-hoc pattern that can be used to eliminate chance and be grounds to rationally make a design inference. Suppose the complex sequence was this:
The sequence of letters above (taken from "Clever Elsie", one of Grimm's fairy tales) has 143 units, with each unit having 29 varieties (29^143 possibilities for a sequence of this size). Under Dembski's definition, if the information has less than 1 in 10^150 chance plus the specification criterion it can be considered CSI (because anything less than 1 in 10^150 goes past the " universal probability bound"--so called because 10^150 is an upper limit on the total number of possible physical events since the big bang). Thus, we would have rational grounds for making a design inference here because the sequence above is both complex and specified (following a non-ad-hoc pattern; in this case a meaningful set of words). -- Wade A. Tisthammer 04:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I've moved Marshill's personal views and the subsequent discussion to his userspace, User_talk:Marshill/Atheism_ID_Discussion. It was well off-topic and disruptive. Let's move on people and stay on topic. FeloniousMonk 17:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Since the article has been reorganised, hoe much relevance do they above points still have? More than a few section headers have been moved, and some of the points have been addressed or rebutted. Even the value of the straw poll could be debated. Could somone make a new list of objections, in some form of numbered list for easy reference? I'm assuming there are still objections, of course.
We might even consider considering archiving this page, and moving any relevant discussion to the main Talk page. -- Ec5618 11:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)