This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please read before starting
Wikipedia policy notes for new editors:
Also of particular relevance are:
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
|
|||
Both the Stephen Meyer page here and that of Intelligent Design require editing for Wikipedia to maintain its pursuit of truth. The application of Darwin’s scientific method of reasoning: inference to the best explanation applied by scientist, Stephen Meyer, in the theory of Intelligent Design has replaced natural selection as the best explanation for the origin of life. PursuingTruthNotPolitics ( talk) 21:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
...the theory of Intelligent Design has replaced natural selection as the best explanation for the origin of life.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This article states that Stephen C. Meyer is an advocate of the pseudoscience of intelligent design. This shows an unfair bias against Stephen C Meyer, an academic who has presented some perfectly legitimate views challenging Darwinian evolution. I am requesting that the word pseudoscience is removed. Douglas Hamilton-Williams ( talk) 14:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Christian scientists would share a belief in God as a creator—that's correct, but it is not to say that Christian scientists are willing to dress up their belief as science. tgeorgescu ( talk) 02:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
"Consensus" is pseudoscienceCitation needed, to put it mildly.
Labeling something as pseudoscientific because it is a contentious topicis not what we are doing here. See Straw man. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
all origin of the universe and origin of life hypothesis including Darwinism are weak or lacking in "test with experiment."Citation needed, again. And not a citation to creationist literature. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Raoufdzstor ( talk) 14:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture in Seattle.
In addition to Meyer’s two landmark books, the New York Times bestseller Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design and Times (of London) Literary Supplement Book of the Year Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, his many other publications include contributions to, and the editing of, the peer-reviewed volume Darwinism, Design and Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2004) and the innovative textbook Explore Evolution (Hill House Publishers, 2007).
You are against of freedom of speech
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It is an insult the this article labels 'intelligent design' as 'pseudoscience'.
This needs to be corrected.
I did not think Wikipedia supported biased information on their site. But unfortunately with statements like this it appears so... Nickduplantis ( talk) 15:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Any inclusion of fringe or pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The fringe or pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how experts in the relevant field have reacted to such views should be prominently included.See also this Arbitration Committee ruling. Tollens ( talk) 16:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Pseudoscience should not be used as the primary description. Dr. Meyer is a well-respected author and academic with decades of experience. He is an advocate for Theism, which is a philosophical school of thought that necessarily includes Intelligent Design as a component. Nkjames ( talk) 19:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Pesudoscience should be changed to hypothesis. Nkjames ( talk) 19:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Pseudoscience is an opinionated and biased word. Wikipedia does not decide what constitutes science, and it drags the credibility of the website down. 2607:FB91:101A:8C3B:C0E:F20A:79A4:4B75 ( talk) 17:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Pseudoscience should be replaced with hypothesis. 2607:FB91:101A:8C3B:C0E:F20A:79A4:4B75 ( talk) 17:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
This statement, evolutionists have responded, may have theological validity, but it destroys intelligent design as a scientific hypothesis, because it provides it with an empirically impenetrable shield against predictions of how “intelligent” or “perfect” a design will be. Science tests its hypotheses by observing whether predictions derived from them are the case in the observable world. A hypothesis that cannot be tested empirically—that is, by observation or experiment—is not scientific. The implication of this line of reasoning for U.S. public schools has been recognized not only by scientists but also by nonscientists, including politicians and policy makers. The liberal U.S. senator Edward Kennedy wrote in 2002 that “intelligent design is not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has no place in the curriculum of our nation’s public school science classes.”
— Francisco J. Ayala, Britannica, Intelligent design and its critics
Intelligent design is in fact theology, it cannot be science. In so far as it pretends to be science, it is pseudoscience. tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
174.62.129.125, this is not the right place to further discuss how Wikipedia describes ID. That would be Talk:Intelligent design. Make sure you read the FAQ there before starting any discussion. Robby.is.on ( talk) 23:03, 13 July 2023 (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.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the word "pseudoscience". No thinking person would consider his level of expertise on the origins of life as "pseudoscience". 216.164.82.214 ( talk) 18:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
intelligent design has far more in common with a religious belief in creationism than it has with science, which is based on evidence acquired through experiment and observation. The theory of evolution is supported by the weight of scientific evidence; the theory of intelligent design is not.
— A statement by the Royal Society on evolution, creationism and intelligent design, April 2006
attempts to say that what Meyers does is science, I said
Even if you could convince everybody here that what Meyer does is actually science. You are definitely trying to convince people that we should not say it is pseudoscience. The intricacies of your intentions are secondary as long as you are talking about things unrelated to RS. You were talking about your opinion of what ID is.
advocate of pseudoscience, it says,
He is an advocate of the pseudoscience of intelligent design.
I doubt this is a formal demarcationPseudoscience has no clear borders, but ID sits right in the middle, it is far away from any doubtful areas. I repeat: even if you convinced everyone here of whatever you want to convince people of (probably "ID is not pseudoscience"), RS win.
if I attempted to change WLC's page [..] such a change wouldn't stand the test of timeThat is neither here nor there: as I said, WP:OTHERCONTENT. This article is not about Craig, and the article about Craig is not a model for this one. Meyer is one of the remaining leading ID figures, while Craig is an all-round goddie with ID as a side issue. You cannot draw conclusions from your models of the consequences of your hypothetical actions somewhere else to how this article should be. Why is that so difficult to understand?
intelligent design is not even an attempt at scienceNow that is ridiculous. From the very beginning, ID was an attempt do disguise religion as science. Of course, it failed miserably because the disguise was obvious, but the attempt was there. Everybody who is familiar with it knows that. See also Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. And WP:NOTDUMB. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change “advocate of the pseudoscience of intelligent design” to “advocate of intelligent design”.
Reason: The word pseudoscience is defined as a collection of beliefs or practices MISTAKENLY regarded as being based on scientific method. Saying this is a pseudoscience assumes that it is mistaken therefore poisoning the well for dialogue. Not saying intelligent design is a fact, but to call it a pseudoscience is already assuming what the author of those words believes to be true, they are likely an atheist or anti theist. 2600:1700:B851:7F80:9A5:48B5:A58B:1F0D ( talk) 07:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
The term the pseudoscience of intelligent design is biased and implies the theory of intelligent design is automatically wrong and ‘inscientific’ 193.32.30.32 ( talk) 11:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world.
— Phillip E. Johnson
Easily, the biggest challenge facing the I.D. community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a real problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions and a handful of notions, such as irreducible complexity, but as yet, no general theory of biological design.
— Paul A. Nelson
I have to join the chorus of voices here calling out the gatekeeping of biased materialists who are desperately attempting to frighten readers with an accusation of "pseudoscience". The word demonstrates nothing more than the insecurity of the theory's opponents. It's an inaccurate claim which ought to be removed. Bryan ( talk) 00:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
“He is an advocate of the pseudoscience of intelligent design…”
The phrase “the pseudoscience of intelligent design” is an instance of poor writing through imprecision and bias. One does not need to believe in intelligent design to understand how informing the reader that the subject of the page, Meyer, “advocate[s] … pseudoscience” would accomplish no purpose other than tending to discredit him. Obviously, Meyer would deny that he “advocate[s] … pseudoscience”. The presence of the word “pseudoscience” adds no meaning or value to the description and only serves to purposefully color the reader’s impression of Meyer in a negative light. Thus, I would respectfully suggest that the phrase be edited to either, “He is an advocate of the hypothesis of intelligent design…”, or simply, ““He is an advocate of intelligent design…”. Such phrasing better complies with the letter and spirit of Wikipedia’s rules. 2600:1006:B137:8622:3DCE:4E76:D94E:A2BC ( talk) 02:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the term pseudoscience. That’s not accurate. 2600:6C55:600:2B33:AD66:ACE5:E52A:90D4 ( talk) 16:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change pseudoscience to theory or hypothesis
The use of the word pseudoscience to describe intelligent design research is prejudicial as ID is not of necessity “outside the scientific method.” A survey of Meyer’s work will reveal him to be a rigorous adherent to the scientific method but NOT methodological naturalism, itself a philosophical position. Moreover any criteria rigorously applied used to exclude ID as not fitting the definition of science proper would exclude numerous prevailing naturalistic theories. 69.109.235.155 ( talk) 16:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi there all, I’ve read all the discussions here and see that there is some contention. I would like to comment on this as I have some background in this area while pursuing a physics degree.
I think it’s important that we all set our personal views aside and have a very straight forward discussion here that is fact based alone, and nothing else. I’m not here to say that evolution didn’t happen, in fact, it almost certainly did. The reality is, in the realm of Christianity there definitely IS pseudoscience that exists, and such would come from folks like Ken Ham who think the earth has only been around for 6,000 years. He, though a genuine individual, is badly in error and disregards the entire scientific method.
But as someone who has read all of Stephen Meyer’s books (among books from all kinds of scientists), I can tell you, he does not leverage any evidence that is not well accepted by the entire scientific community. That is a key, and critical difference between him and other pseudo scientific voices in Christianity. Other “scientific” voices in Christendom will invent their own views by starting with a conclusion (Bible), and then working backwards to make sure their conclusion works. Stephen does not take this approach at all, and is merely having a conversation about cosmological and biological processes using well known evidence that everyone agrees upon. At no point does Stephen point evidence out that someone would contest and say, “that’s not evidence.” In Ken Ham’s world, whom is an actual popular Christian pseudoscientist, he just blatantly states false information and then draws conclusions from it, and acts like they are facts. You can write “pseudoscience” on Ken Ham’s page all day long and that would be accurate.
But if we say that Stephen’s use of real data and facts to have a meaningful discussion about a potential intelligent actor behind cosmology, then there is only one word for that, and it’s bias. You cannot read his books and come away saying, “this is crap” (which is what I said when I read Ken Ham’s books). They are, truly, well grounded in real world data drawn from legitimate scientific sources. Take this from someone who enjoyed Dawkins book about evolution (The Greatest Show On Earth). Or books from Hawking or many other renowned atheistic scientists. Stephen is very careful to only work within validated data and evidence, and only speaks on information everyone agrees on, so that real conversations between experts can happen on the subject.
The word “Pseudoscience” needs removed from this article. The only way this word can remain is if every single other article on Wikipedia that explores other potential models of the universe that aren’t yet well accepted are also labeled “pseudoscience”, which would be ludicrous since challenging the status quo is how progress is made. Especially given that we all know the standard model of physics is probably going to end up revised by a unifying theory of quantum mechanics and relativistic physics (meaning, there are MANY books that openly challenge the current accepted model, and there are only going to be more, all of which, we would have to qualify as “pseudoscience” to maintain this view in this case).
PLEASE let’s ensure we are always looking at these matters from a completely unbiased perspective. Just because we disagree with his conclusions does not mean he doesn’t have worthwhile arguments that are based in real data. Chrisallen87 ( talk) 17:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
intelligent actor behind cosmologyis not a question that science can answer. It's a question for philosophers and theologians, not a question for scientists.
A blanket rejection that any other sophisticated intelligence exists
... This misrepresents the discussion so badly it can only be taken as a bad-faith argument. More importantly, none of this translates into an actionable change to the article. Without such a change, this is
WP:NOTFORUM. Even if ancient aliens from Venus were discovered tomorrow, it would not make Meyer's claims any less pseudoscientific, nor would it make those many sources which describe ID as pseudoscience any less reliable.
Grayfell (
talk)
03:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
There is no need for us to be contentious.At this point I'd find it hard to blame anyone for reacting impatiently. You came here with very long WP:OR texts which showed you never took the time to make yourself familiar with the basic policies of Wikipedia. You continued posting WP:OR arguments even after you were made aware of policies such as WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:PSCI. I can see how that would be frustrating for others.
we need to supply a reliable source, probably multiple, honestly, that state [he] is a pseudoscientist conducting pseudoscienceOur article doesn't state that. It says he "is an advocate of the pseudoscience of intelligent design". Do you question whether he advocates ID? Robby.is.on ( talk) 23:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
I am making a minor tweak to the first line of the lead, moving the mention of pseudoscience from "intelligent design" to "intelligent design movement". I have read discussion above, and am in full agreement that the section is just
WP:NOTFORUM, and there is no case to remove the word pseudoscience from this article at all. In fact, ID is classically pseudoscience as a matter of epistemology. I was flagged to this page by a message on my talk page, and I make the same point there. But, having been flagged here, I read the lead and frankly felt it was ugly! He is an advocate of the pseudoscience of intelligent design
just feels non neutral. He is an advocate of intelligent design, yes. What is intelligent design? We Wikilink it and anyone who does not know will quickly read it is pseudoscientific. In a lead summary of a BLP we should be explaining who the person is, not making judgements. Consider also that if we have a reader who might think Meyer is interesting and convincing, if we place this up front, such a reader will be more inclined to think Wikipedia was edited with an agenda and thus stop reading or take less notice of what we say.
But, my argument has a flaw. In the next clause we say he helped found the Center for Science and Culture
. If we remove pseudoscience and leave that unchecked then we skew the other way, investing the subject with a veneer of respectability from the unchallenged word "science" in that title. It is this that needs to be described as pseudoscientific, thus I have moved but not removed the term, placing it where it is descriptive of the movement that claims the CSC title.
Possible objections: looking at page history I see some very well established editors have pointed out that "pseudoscience" is in the sources. But actually it is not in the source [1] (a New York Times article), which is the source supporting the clause I have removed it from. Neither is it a term in sources 2,3 or 4 that support the clause I moved it to, but source 3, ABC news, discusses how they redefine the term science, which is making the point. TBH all of these sources suffer a bit from quality, but that ABC source is saying what books on scientific epistemology will say; books that focus on why this is pseudoscience. As such the term is better supported in the latter clause than the former. In any case, the lead should really summarise the main, and as such, the choice of clause to include the term is really just a matter of the best summary and editor consensus. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 19:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE OR REMOVE WITHOUT OBTAINING CONSENSUS ON THE TALK PAGE FIRST? It's in the paragraph you edited. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Meyer advocates pseudoscience, theology dressed as science and labelled IDbut the lead does not say that. It says nothing about theology, for instance. In both versions it says he advocates ID, but in yours you merely have the mention of pseudoscience first. Which is not in the sources. Now I don' want to put a citation needed tag in the lead because I am cognisant of MOS:LEADCITE, but that is an unsourced statement in the lead. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 08:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
So the term pseudoscientific has not always been unsourced in the lead. Text introduced by Paleneonate in 2021
[4] represented the consensus view, and was defended by multiple editors, including Hob Gadling.
[5] It was deleted by Lomacar on 6 April 2022
[6]. For some reason, it was not restored, but refactored at that point minus the reference (Numbers, 2006) and shortened. That text was better. Per dave souza, Meyer advocates pseudoscience, theology dressed as science and labelled ID
, and that is what the lead used to say, but after this it had been reduced so that it did not say that and what it did say was not sourced. This version is therefore better and has the benefit of reading better and having greater explanatory power.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
12:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please read before starting
Wikipedia policy notes for new editors:
Also of particular relevance are:
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
|
|||
Both the Stephen Meyer page here and that of Intelligent Design require editing for Wikipedia to maintain its pursuit of truth. The application of Darwin’s scientific method of reasoning: inference to the best explanation applied by scientist, Stephen Meyer, in the theory of Intelligent Design has replaced natural selection as the best explanation for the origin of life. PursuingTruthNotPolitics ( talk) 21:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
...the theory of Intelligent Design has replaced natural selection as the best explanation for the origin of life.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This article states that Stephen C. Meyer is an advocate of the pseudoscience of intelligent design. This shows an unfair bias against Stephen C Meyer, an academic who has presented some perfectly legitimate views challenging Darwinian evolution. I am requesting that the word pseudoscience is removed. Douglas Hamilton-Williams ( talk) 14:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Christian scientists would share a belief in God as a creator—that's correct, but it is not to say that Christian scientists are willing to dress up their belief as science. tgeorgescu ( talk) 02:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
"Consensus" is pseudoscienceCitation needed, to put it mildly.
Labeling something as pseudoscientific because it is a contentious topicis not what we are doing here. See Straw man. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
all origin of the universe and origin of life hypothesis including Darwinism are weak or lacking in "test with experiment."Citation needed, again. And not a citation to creationist literature. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Raoufdzstor ( talk) 14:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture in Seattle.
In addition to Meyer’s two landmark books, the New York Times bestseller Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design and Times (of London) Literary Supplement Book of the Year Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, his many other publications include contributions to, and the editing of, the peer-reviewed volume Darwinism, Design and Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2004) and the innovative textbook Explore Evolution (Hill House Publishers, 2007).
You are against of freedom of speech
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It is an insult the this article labels 'intelligent design' as 'pseudoscience'.
This needs to be corrected.
I did not think Wikipedia supported biased information on their site. But unfortunately with statements like this it appears so... Nickduplantis ( talk) 15:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Any inclusion of fringe or pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The fringe or pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how experts in the relevant field have reacted to such views should be prominently included.See also this Arbitration Committee ruling. Tollens ( talk) 16:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Pseudoscience should not be used as the primary description. Dr. Meyer is a well-respected author and academic with decades of experience. He is an advocate for Theism, which is a philosophical school of thought that necessarily includes Intelligent Design as a component. Nkjames ( talk) 19:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Pesudoscience should be changed to hypothesis. Nkjames ( talk) 19:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Pseudoscience is an opinionated and biased word. Wikipedia does not decide what constitutes science, and it drags the credibility of the website down. 2607:FB91:101A:8C3B:C0E:F20A:79A4:4B75 ( talk) 17:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Pseudoscience should be replaced with hypothesis. 2607:FB91:101A:8C3B:C0E:F20A:79A4:4B75 ( talk) 17:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
This statement, evolutionists have responded, may have theological validity, but it destroys intelligent design as a scientific hypothesis, because it provides it with an empirically impenetrable shield against predictions of how “intelligent” or “perfect” a design will be. Science tests its hypotheses by observing whether predictions derived from them are the case in the observable world. A hypothesis that cannot be tested empirically—that is, by observation or experiment—is not scientific. The implication of this line of reasoning for U.S. public schools has been recognized not only by scientists but also by nonscientists, including politicians and policy makers. The liberal U.S. senator Edward Kennedy wrote in 2002 that “intelligent design is not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has no place in the curriculum of our nation’s public school science classes.”
— Francisco J. Ayala, Britannica, Intelligent design and its critics
Intelligent design is in fact theology, it cannot be science. In so far as it pretends to be science, it is pseudoscience. tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
174.62.129.125, this is not the right place to further discuss how Wikipedia describes ID. That would be Talk:Intelligent design. Make sure you read the FAQ there before starting any discussion. Robby.is.on ( talk) 23:03, 13 July 2023 (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.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the word "pseudoscience". No thinking person would consider his level of expertise on the origins of life as "pseudoscience". 216.164.82.214 ( talk) 18:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
intelligent design has far more in common with a religious belief in creationism than it has with science, which is based on evidence acquired through experiment and observation. The theory of evolution is supported by the weight of scientific evidence; the theory of intelligent design is not.
— A statement by the Royal Society on evolution, creationism and intelligent design, April 2006
attempts to say that what Meyers does is science, I said
Even if you could convince everybody here that what Meyer does is actually science. You are definitely trying to convince people that we should not say it is pseudoscience. The intricacies of your intentions are secondary as long as you are talking about things unrelated to RS. You were talking about your opinion of what ID is.
advocate of pseudoscience, it says,
He is an advocate of the pseudoscience of intelligent design.
I doubt this is a formal demarcationPseudoscience has no clear borders, but ID sits right in the middle, it is far away from any doubtful areas. I repeat: even if you convinced everyone here of whatever you want to convince people of (probably "ID is not pseudoscience"), RS win.
if I attempted to change WLC's page [..] such a change wouldn't stand the test of timeThat is neither here nor there: as I said, WP:OTHERCONTENT. This article is not about Craig, and the article about Craig is not a model for this one. Meyer is one of the remaining leading ID figures, while Craig is an all-round goddie with ID as a side issue. You cannot draw conclusions from your models of the consequences of your hypothetical actions somewhere else to how this article should be. Why is that so difficult to understand?
intelligent design is not even an attempt at scienceNow that is ridiculous. From the very beginning, ID was an attempt do disguise religion as science. Of course, it failed miserably because the disguise was obvious, but the attempt was there. Everybody who is familiar with it knows that. See also Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. And WP:NOTDUMB. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change “advocate of the pseudoscience of intelligent design” to “advocate of intelligent design”.
Reason: The word pseudoscience is defined as a collection of beliefs or practices MISTAKENLY regarded as being based on scientific method. Saying this is a pseudoscience assumes that it is mistaken therefore poisoning the well for dialogue. Not saying intelligent design is a fact, but to call it a pseudoscience is already assuming what the author of those words believes to be true, they are likely an atheist or anti theist. 2600:1700:B851:7F80:9A5:48B5:A58B:1F0D ( talk) 07:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
The term the pseudoscience of intelligent design is biased and implies the theory of intelligent design is automatically wrong and ‘inscientific’ 193.32.30.32 ( talk) 11:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world.
— Phillip E. Johnson
Easily, the biggest challenge facing the I.D. community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a real problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions and a handful of notions, such as irreducible complexity, but as yet, no general theory of biological design.
— Paul A. Nelson
I have to join the chorus of voices here calling out the gatekeeping of biased materialists who are desperately attempting to frighten readers with an accusation of "pseudoscience". The word demonstrates nothing more than the insecurity of the theory's opponents. It's an inaccurate claim which ought to be removed. Bryan ( talk) 00:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
“He is an advocate of the pseudoscience of intelligent design…”
The phrase “the pseudoscience of intelligent design” is an instance of poor writing through imprecision and bias. One does not need to believe in intelligent design to understand how informing the reader that the subject of the page, Meyer, “advocate[s] … pseudoscience” would accomplish no purpose other than tending to discredit him. Obviously, Meyer would deny that he “advocate[s] … pseudoscience”. The presence of the word “pseudoscience” adds no meaning or value to the description and only serves to purposefully color the reader’s impression of Meyer in a negative light. Thus, I would respectfully suggest that the phrase be edited to either, “He is an advocate of the hypothesis of intelligent design…”, or simply, ““He is an advocate of intelligent design…”. Such phrasing better complies with the letter and spirit of Wikipedia’s rules. 2600:1006:B137:8622:3DCE:4E76:D94E:A2BC ( talk) 02:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the term pseudoscience. That’s not accurate. 2600:6C55:600:2B33:AD66:ACE5:E52A:90D4 ( talk) 16:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change pseudoscience to theory or hypothesis
The use of the word pseudoscience to describe intelligent design research is prejudicial as ID is not of necessity “outside the scientific method.” A survey of Meyer’s work will reveal him to be a rigorous adherent to the scientific method but NOT methodological naturalism, itself a philosophical position. Moreover any criteria rigorously applied used to exclude ID as not fitting the definition of science proper would exclude numerous prevailing naturalistic theories. 69.109.235.155 ( talk) 16:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi there all, I’ve read all the discussions here and see that there is some contention. I would like to comment on this as I have some background in this area while pursuing a physics degree.
I think it’s important that we all set our personal views aside and have a very straight forward discussion here that is fact based alone, and nothing else. I’m not here to say that evolution didn’t happen, in fact, it almost certainly did. The reality is, in the realm of Christianity there definitely IS pseudoscience that exists, and such would come from folks like Ken Ham who think the earth has only been around for 6,000 years. He, though a genuine individual, is badly in error and disregards the entire scientific method.
But as someone who has read all of Stephen Meyer’s books (among books from all kinds of scientists), I can tell you, he does not leverage any evidence that is not well accepted by the entire scientific community. That is a key, and critical difference between him and other pseudo scientific voices in Christianity. Other “scientific” voices in Christendom will invent their own views by starting with a conclusion (Bible), and then working backwards to make sure their conclusion works. Stephen does not take this approach at all, and is merely having a conversation about cosmological and biological processes using well known evidence that everyone agrees upon. At no point does Stephen point evidence out that someone would contest and say, “that’s not evidence.” In Ken Ham’s world, whom is an actual popular Christian pseudoscientist, he just blatantly states false information and then draws conclusions from it, and acts like they are facts. You can write “pseudoscience” on Ken Ham’s page all day long and that would be accurate.
But if we say that Stephen’s use of real data and facts to have a meaningful discussion about a potential intelligent actor behind cosmology, then there is only one word for that, and it’s bias. You cannot read his books and come away saying, “this is crap” (which is what I said when I read Ken Ham’s books). They are, truly, well grounded in real world data drawn from legitimate scientific sources. Take this from someone who enjoyed Dawkins book about evolution (The Greatest Show On Earth). Or books from Hawking or many other renowned atheistic scientists. Stephen is very careful to only work within validated data and evidence, and only speaks on information everyone agrees on, so that real conversations between experts can happen on the subject.
The word “Pseudoscience” needs removed from this article. The only way this word can remain is if every single other article on Wikipedia that explores other potential models of the universe that aren’t yet well accepted are also labeled “pseudoscience”, which would be ludicrous since challenging the status quo is how progress is made. Especially given that we all know the standard model of physics is probably going to end up revised by a unifying theory of quantum mechanics and relativistic physics (meaning, there are MANY books that openly challenge the current accepted model, and there are only going to be more, all of which, we would have to qualify as “pseudoscience” to maintain this view in this case).
PLEASE let’s ensure we are always looking at these matters from a completely unbiased perspective. Just because we disagree with his conclusions does not mean he doesn’t have worthwhile arguments that are based in real data. Chrisallen87 ( talk) 17:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
intelligent actor behind cosmologyis not a question that science can answer. It's a question for philosophers and theologians, not a question for scientists.
A blanket rejection that any other sophisticated intelligence exists
... This misrepresents the discussion so badly it can only be taken as a bad-faith argument. More importantly, none of this translates into an actionable change to the article. Without such a change, this is
WP:NOTFORUM. Even if ancient aliens from Venus were discovered tomorrow, it would not make Meyer's claims any less pseudoscientific, nor would it make those many sources which describe ID as pseudoscience any less reliable.
Grayfell (
talk)
03:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
There is no need for us to be contentious.At this point I'd find it hard to blame anyone for reacting impatiently. You came here with very long WP:OR texts which showed you never took the time to make yourself familiar with the basic policies of Wikipedia. You continued posting WP:OR arguments even after you were made aware of policies such as WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:PSCI. I can see how that would be frustrating for others.
we need to supply a reliable source, probably multiple, honestly, that state [he] is a pseudoscientist conducting pseudoscienceOur article doesn't state that. It says he "is an advocate of the pseudoscience of intelligent design". Do you question whether he advocates ID? Robby.is.on ( talk) 23:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
I am making a minor tweak to the first line of the lead, moving the mention of pseudoscience from "intelligent design" to "intelligent design movement". I have read discussion above, and am in full agreement that the section is just
WP:NOTFORUM, and there is no case to remove the word pseudoscience from this article at all. In fact, ID is classically pseudoscience as a matter of epistemology. I was flagged to this page by a message on my talk page, and I make the same point there. But, having been flagged here, I read the lead and frankly felt it was ugly! He is an advocate of the pseudoscience of intelligent design
just feels non neutral. He is an advocate of intelligent design, yes. What is intelligent design? We Wikilink it and anyone who does not know will quickly read it is pseudoscientific. In a lead summary of a BLP we should be explaining who the person is, not making judgements. Consider also that if we have a reader who might think Meyer is interesting and convincing, if we place this up front, such a reader will be more inclined to think Wikipedia was edited with an agenda and thus stop reading or take less notice of what we say.
But, my argument has a flaw. In the next clause we say he helped found the Center for Science and Culture
. If we remove pseudoscience and leave that unchecked then we skew the other way, investing the subject with a veneer of respectability from the unchallenged word "science" in that title. It is this that needs to be described as pseudoscientific, thus I have moved but not removed the term, placing it where it is descriptive of the movement that claims the CSC title.
Possible objections: looking at page history I see some very well established editors have pointed out that "pseudoscience" is in the sources. But actually it is not in the source [1] (a New York Times article), which is the source supporting the clause I have removed it from. Neither is it a term in sources 2,3 or 4 that support the clause I moved it to, but source 3, ABC news, discusses how they redefine the term science, which is making the point. TBH all of these sources suffer a bit from quality, but that ABC source is saying what books on scientific epistemology will say; books that focus on why this is pseudoscience. As such the term is better supported in the latter clause than the former. In any case, the lead should really summarise the main, and as such, the choice of clause to include the term is really just a matter of the best summary and editor consensus. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 19:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE OR REMOVE WITHOUT OBTAINING CONSENSUS ON THE TALK PAGE FIRST? It's in the paragraph you edited. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Meyer advocates pseudoscience, theology dressed as science and labelled IDbut the lead does not say that. It says nothing about theology, for instance. In both versions it says he advocates ID, but in yours you merely have the mention of pseudoscience first. Which is not in the sources. Now I don' want to put a citation needed tag in the lead because I am cognisant of MOS:LEADCITE, but that is an unsourced statement in the lead. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 08:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
So the term pseudoscientific has not always been unsourced in the lead. Text introduced by Paleneonate in 2021
[4] represented the consensus view, and was defended by multiple editors, including Hob Gadling.
[5] It was deleted by Lomacar on 6 April 2022
[6]. For some reason, it was not restored, but refactored at that point minus the reference (Numbers, 2006) and shortened. That text was better. Per dave souza, Meyer advocates pseudoscience, theology dressed as science and labelled ID
, and that is what the lead used to say, but after this it had been reduced so that it did not say that and what it did say was not sourced. This version is therefore better and has the benefit of reading better and having greater explanatory power.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
12:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)