Talk:Intelligent design

	Please read before starting
This article represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic. Newcomers to Wikipedia and this article may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid here. Wikipedia policy notes for new editors: A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents ID in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of ID is too extensive or violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are: NPOV: Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI) NPOV: Undue weight (WP:UNDUE) NPOV: Making necessary assumptions (WP:MNA) NPOV: Giving "equal validity" (WP:GEVAL). The contributors to the article continually strive to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the content forking guidelines. These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are No Original Research (WP:NOR) and Cite Your Sources (WP:CITE). Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Wikipedia's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON). This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the article itself and not the inherent worth of Intelligent Design. See WP:NOT. If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of intelligent design or promote intelligent design please do so at talk.origins or other fora. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.
Important pointers for new editors: This article uses scientific terminology, and as such, the use of the word 'theory' to refer to anything outside of a recognised scientific theory is ambiguous. Please use words such as 'concept', 'notion', 'idea', 'assertion'; see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Theories and hypotheses. Although at times heated, the debates contained here are meant to improve the Intelligent Design article. Reasoned, civil discourse is the best means to make an opinion heard. Rude behavior not only distracts from the subject(s) at hand, but tends to make people deride or ignore what was said. Please use edit summaries. Challenges and proposals to this article's content must be in alignment with Wikipedia's core content policies: WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. If you make a suggestion that does not align with them, you can expect a pointer to the appropriate policies; giving such a pointer is not a form of rudeness, but meant to help smooth the process of building the encyclopedia. To respect your own time and that of others editors, if you receive such a pointer to policy, you should take the time to read and understand the policies before re-raising the issue. If you have been pointed to policy, but continue to argue the matter ad nauseam without the benefit of being supported by policy, you should not expect a full response, but rather that your discussions will be archived or userfied. Again, this is not rudeness or incivility; it is out of respect for the time and patience of all the editors participating and in the interest of maintaining a smooth-running encyclopedia:Wikipedia talkpage guidelines do not allow for raising and re-raising objections to content that is well-aligned with content policy, and there is a specific policy against doing that: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (which classifies it as disruptive editing). It's better for everybody if we don't allow things to get to that point. Please peruse the FAQ and the partial index of points that have already been discussed, and use the search box below, to ensure that you are not rehashing old topics. Old topics resurrected without new evidence are likely to be ignored and archived quickly.

Thinking of Non-Religious ID

Let's simply cut off the ET interventions, since that brings up with another question: how does the ET origin? The answer loops back to the old "origin of life" question.

The universe supports life in such a complex way that people believe the complexity in life(or everything else) can be the signature of creation. I expected to see a good discussion on this topic. But this kind of discussion always go to religious. In my opinion, even if there is a designer, it is definitely not the God claimed by religious people. It does not care about the moral, religious, or any of human values. The most likely case is: the designer creates a mechanism that enables life(perhaps by directly designing a cell or more likely, creating the environment where life spawns--and this environment could be the whole universe rather than earth--I mean, life forms are not limited to cells and DNA). How can you expect this designer to care about an individual's happiness as the Bible said? How can you expect it to care, like a human does?

I think the idea of Intelligent Design is ruined by religion. Rovermills (talk) 05:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

"The universe supports life in such a complex way that people believe the complexity in life(or everything else) can be the signature of creation" is a religious view, a belief supported by the teleological argument. The idea of an uncaring creator is deism, quite a common concept of belief shared by many early scientists, several of the founding fathers of the United States, and Charles Darwin who was "inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance." See also Spinoza's god. . . dave souza, talk 06:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that the concept of an intelligent entity designing the entire universe is inherently / by definition theistic/religious. This isn't from some grand philosophic source of truth, it is just from definition of terms such as "god". North8000 (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The articles on teleological argument and deism is helpful to me, thanks dave. I think Richard Dawkins put it all right that, if assuming a designer(whether a caring one or not), it must "be far more complex and difficult to explain than anything it is capable of designing". So the designer assumption actually explains nothing, the same way ET intervention does not explain the origin of life. Now it becomes clear to me that the idea of Non-Religious ID is paradoxical in itself(@North8000, thanks), and that the universe without a designer is a simpler assumption. BTW(this might be a little far from the ID discussion), how do you think about this idea, that at some point, universe might eventually evolve into a conscious, intelligent object by combining the evolution process that is taking place here on earth and somewhere else? Is there any articles about this?Rovermills (talk) 06:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Gaia philosophy goes some way towards that, but any idea of consciousness is pretty much science fiction or a variant on Spinoza's god. . dave souza, talk 10:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

New external links

I can't see anything that indicates that "arguing with atheists" is a notable website. What's the rationale for adding it? Guettarda (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The website appears to be of rather minor significance as far as the topic of the article is concerned. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I just fixed the title on another website from SciAm editor in chief's "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense", and same seems to apply.

Content seems to also be of minor ignificance and not mainly on the article topic of ID. It better fits to creationism and is already at that wikipage. Will delete link. Markbassett (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Earliest use of "Intelligent Design" and "Intelligent Designer"

Well faid, fir!

Found: earliest usage of terms "intelligent design" and "intelligent designer" found in old freethought newspaper. Issues from 1901, 1904, and 1906. See link: Blue Grass Blade (Library of Congress) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.70.37.153 (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"Intelligent designer" goes back to at least 1793. Garamond Lethet
c 21:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Nife find, I fuppofe we could add that to footnote 27, with due credit to Joseph Butler (bp. of Durham.) . . dave souza, talk 22:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, fir. Let me poke around a bit more and see if I can find a better source than a google books search. Garamond Lethet
c 22:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I fee nothing wrong with ufing a reference from google books, if the article requires fuch a reference. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"Intelligent Designer" by Joseph Butler in 1740, 3rd Edition (can anyone find the 1st edition) - I propose the following text:

In 1740, Joseph Butler inferred a designer from design, noting: “The appearances of design and of final causes in the constitution of nature as really prove this acting agent to be an intelligent designer”DLH (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

From Joseph Butler's "Works", the first edition was in 1736. Propose inserting this summary between Aquinas and Paley.DLH (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

What indicates that any earlier uses of the phrase "intelligent design" have anything to do with the subject of this article? Why would they be relevant and why should they be included? We know exactly where Thaxton got the name, and it has absolutely nothing to do with these earlier uses. This article is not about the phrase "intelligent design". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that it should be about the the closely related set of meanings commonly associated with the phrase "intelligent design". Origin of life / the universe implying a deity behind it. And this is from me, an atheist. North8000 (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

And, as you have been told countless times before, that is beyond the scope of this article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The scope of the article should be open to discussion, not dictated by a few folks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with DLH and North8000: the reference is certainly pertinent to the intellectual history of intelligent design argument applied to evolution. Put the sentence in. Plazak (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It's the religious history of creationism. This earlier use of intelligent design was not picked up by its current proponents and bears mention only as an earlier and unrelated use of the same phrase. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Plazak, do you have a reliable source linking the earlier uses of these words to he present usage? Of course not, because Thaxton clearly explained where he got the name from (he heard some scientist use it at a conference in the 1980's). And that is exactly when the history of the term started as far as the subject of this article is concerned. Earlier uses are coincidental and unrelated. This article is not about creationism in general, or about the teleological argument in general, but about a specific brand of creationism created by the principals of the Discovery Institute. Material that is not directly relevant to that topic belongs in the articles on creationism or the teleological argument, and probably is irrelevant even there. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the tussle here has been between two schools of thought regarding the scope of the article:

1. The article should cover the closely related set of topics which (explicitly or implicitly) posits that life/ the universe was created by a deity, either directly or by "setting the stage", i.e "intelligent design" as covered in sources, wherever they lead us.
2. The article should cover only the version/effort promulgated by the Discovery Institute

IMHO the former is the best choice. North8000 (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

And just to clarify, for the gazillionth time, the article you want already exists at teleological argument. Sorry, but the name "Intelligent Design" is currently owned by the Discovery Institute, and because the overwheming majority of mentions in the scholarly and popular literature refers exclusively to the DI's product, they get dibs on the article under that name per WP:COMMONNAME. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME doesn't really say or support your assertion. It is a guideline about naming articles, not defining their scope. North8000 (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOR defines the scope in that a reliable secondary source is required, relating this to the subject of the article. Since DLH's source is hidden, the issue is that in 1740 Joseph Butler, Lord Bishop of Bristol, presented an argument for the existence of God using the words "intelligent designer”: The Analogy of Religion, Natural and Revealed, to the Constitution and Course of Nature, 3rd Ed. London, John and Paul Knapton, MDCCXL (1740). Obviously a primary source, and we already show good secondary sources for the earlier version by Aquinas. . dave souza, talk 06:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• We don't discuss multiple topics together simply because they use the same name. Any connection to this article appears to be a synthesis. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

@Dave souza, no you are mistaken. Wp:nor does not say that, that the rs must state the relation to the subject. Not that it is relevant here, because the question is what the subject (scope) should be. And IRWolfe, your comment pre-supposes your preference as being the answer to that question. I'm signing off on this thread for now. For me the artificial narrowing of the topic to the Discovery Institute version of intelligent design in this article is not a serious enough of a problem to be worth long painful exchange, and folks mis-quoting policies instead of discussing the merits of the two different scopes is an indicator that it is becoming that. I would think that the fact that the group here has had to continuously remove or keep out reliably sourced material described by the source as being on intelligent design, or change it's name from what the wp:rs says it is (intelligent design) to something else ("telelogical argument") that the wp:rs does not call it in order to keep it out of this article would be an indicator. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Which bit of "synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors" didn't you read? WP:SYN no more. . . dave souza, talk 16:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

(being forced to respond to the insult) Well there's a false implied premise (that the phrase that you quoted supports your point or refutes mine) hidden in a second insult which has a second false implied premise (that I didn't read some part.) Nice try. North8000 (talk) 11:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any "narrowing" here. Earlier uses of the term have nothing with its current politicized use as a substitute for creationism and the conflation of religion and science, and expansion of the article is a totally inappropriate synthesis. I would argue that folks trying to put it in are trying to (POV) make "intelligent design" more than it is. This is a case of less is more. This earliest use is a trivia point at best where article content is concerned, here. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 13:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Since it is clear that there are enough editors here to block adequate coverage of the pre-Discovery Institute intellectual history of ID, those editors who believe that it deserves a fuller historical treatment should put it into another article. How about History of intelligent design? Plazak (talk) 03:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Intelligent design as the phrase occasionally appears used in the 19th and most of the 20th century is covered in Teleological argument. "Teleological argument" or "argument from design" (which redirects to the teleological argument article) were the far more commonly used terms than "intelligent design" then so "Teleological argument" is the appropriate title for that article. Guidance is offered at the top of this article to readers looking for information about it.

The historic antecedents or "intellectual history" of "intelligent design" as the term came into common usage about 1990 through today were not from the philosophical teleological argument stream, but instead the real world "evolution versus biblical creationism" conflicts going on in schools and courtrooms. That intelligent design we have today comes by way of the Discovery Institute, full stop, and it stems more directly from the creation science movement. In other words, the history of intelligent design that we are familiar with from newspapers, court battles and buzzing around our ears from the cultural mainstream ties back more to the creation science debate than any philosophical debates over the teleological argument.

This has been explained innumerable times here. And been documented again and again. The sound scholarship backing this up is voluminous-there are easily scores (more likely multiple scores) of references corroborating this for every stray find someone digs up from dusty old book nobody remembers showing "intelligent design" used in a sentence before the Discovery Institute came along. And yet for whatever reason I keep seeing some familiar faces back here who refuse to accept it. They brush aside the mountain of solid, cited, and relatively accessible reference materials to focus on this "truth" which has somehow been suppressed because "there are enough editors here to block adequate coverage". Professor marginalia (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Well said, professor. I'll also note that creating History of intelligent design because one doesn't like the way it's covered in this article is called a WP:POVFORK and these are prohibited. Sædon^talk 06:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

And a content fork as well. The content already exists at Teleological argument. The history of ID is well kow and presented well in the present article. A big part of the problem is that some people think ID is somehow a profound philosophical concept or even syestem of though. It's not. It's a set of ad hoc legal and PR ploys to sneak creationism into US classrooms. I guess a lot of peole ae disappointed when they come here and expect to see deep philosophy and see that ID amounts to legal wrangling and public deception instead. They expect to see a long "history" when the actual history started in the 1980s. However, they are redirected to the Teleological argument both in the hatnote and in the body of the article, and the history they seek is already there. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Some history is at Timeline of intelligent design. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

QuentinUK (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Add Definition Section ??

I'm feeling the article is in need of a prune but more immediately references cite to supporting material that define the topic. Per Q3/A3, 'papers that support ID should be used as primary sources to explain the nature of the concept' but also 'The article as it stands does not cite papers that support ID' so ... WP is saying this goes on for 36 screens and about 200 cites of criticisms but never defines the concept being criticized ?

I have seen the archive 20 part 27 chasing this, and the archive 31 'bamboozled' view of strawman that ended with just put whatever it is in, and the archive 53 'semantics III' and such. Would it be feasible to add a 'definition' section like Irreducible complexity has or to put in a section to explain why no definition is being posted  ? Markbassett (talk) 18:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly sure what you mean. The concept is pretty simple. What would you like to see added that goes beyond the first three sentences of the lede? Which sources would you use? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

As said, the WP guidance in Q3/A3 is that 'papers that support ID should be used as primary sources to explain the nature of the concept' -- and WP also says this does not, which is obviously visible because the article starts at a conclusion "is a form of creationsism", and first cite is NCSE ('defending the teaching of evolution') website to their summary of Kitzmiller conclusions. From the talk pages it seems that it is not feasible or acceptable to start with a primary source definition of the topic like 'Intelligent Design, as promulgated by Discovery Institute, is <insert DI definition> <insert cite to DI item>' and THEN move on to article about that topic. How "as promulgated by Discovery Institute" or this "form of creationism" differentiates it is getting left unstated. So is a para talking about definition para as done for Irreducible complexity an acceptable way forward ? Or is there some other way of addressing documenting the definitional difficulty ? Markbassett (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Long story short, it was a decision by some editors to limit the article to the DI version, and other non-DI ID material was removed. So far, that is just an article scope decision. But as you point out, the first sentence (which essentially equates the two in both directions) is not RS'ed, and is probably not RS'able as written. North8000 (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Your speculation lacks reliable sources. . dave souza, talk 23:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Which talk page discussion item is the type of thing that you are saying would need to be sourced:

1. It was a decision by some editors to limit the article to the DI version of ID
2. Other non-DI ID material was removed
3. #1 & #2 is just an article scope decision.
4. The first sentence essentially equates ID and the DI version of ID the two in both directions
5. The first sentence is not wp:RS'd
6. The first sentence is probably not RS'able as written.

All 6 are about this article. Are you saying that I should have to find a wp:RS that has written about this Wikipedia article?

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is not helpful as only actionable proposals lead to action. If someone has a suggestion, please just make it. That is, what text should be added or removed or changed? A brief "why" and some sources would be good. Johnuniq (talk) 00:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

"Viz. creationism, politicization of" would make for a succinct article. Long day, grumpy. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

As Johnuniq said, specific changes ought to be proposed here. I have to admit, I'm not quite sure what Markbassett is talking about: the definition of ID by the DI is the second sentence in the lead ("The Institute defines it as the proposition that 'certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.'"). We have the definition, but no definition section. I kinda doubt we have enough material for a whole section, but if anyone feels up to the challenge, please propose something. If I recall correctly, we did have the definition as the first sentence for quite some time, but we transposed it because the most recognizable feature of ID is its religious association (i.e. it is widely regarded as creationism).

North8000, some comments/questions:

1. Yes, but not arbitrarily. We're informed by WP:UCN.
2. What material was removed? And was the subject of this material ID or the teleological argument?
3. Sure... but again, this is informed by Wikipedia policy.
4. It does?! How?
5. The lead does not need RSs.
6. I very highly doubt that.

In any case, the answer is the definition is there; it's the second sentence in the article. Is it not enough? Should it be moved? Specific proposals will move this discussion forward. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggest expanding the scope to origin-of-life/universe-ID identified in RS's as such. Without that it gets a bit awkward, but something along the lines of "In 19XX, the DI began an effort to promote their version of ID........ This has become the most prominent form of ID. North8000 (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

For that, you'd need sufficient reliable secondary sources using the term intelligent design to identify the "versions". Primary sources referring to the teleological argument and happening to use phrases such as "intelligent design" are obviously insufficient. WP:UCN applies, and the same applies to kitchen suppliers using "Intelligent Design" as their brand name. . . dave souza, talk 19:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem is just that the way Q3 is written is confusing. The ID definition already here does come from the appropriate primary source. The FAQs "article as it stands does not cite papers that support ID because no such papers have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals" refers not to which sources are appropriate to the "definition" of ID but which sources are appropriate to describing the "science" behind it (or more appropriately, the absence of these sources). And intelligent design and irreducible complexity are not the same things-they naturally have different definitions. Irreducible complexity is defined in this article, and its stand-alone article is wikilinked where the term appears in the lead. I think this is the best way to handle it. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Sorry-I initially misread the OP's meaning referring to IC. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

So I made a brief comment, and then somebody inappropriately implies that the comment is deficient for lack of sourcing. I gently question/call them on that. Then someone says that anything but a suggested change in not useful, so I give a couple ideas on ways to fix it. Then Dave pretends that I never included the origin-of-life/universe qualifier in my suggestion and thus invents a straw man version (all instances of the term "intelligent design" including kitchen cabinets) to mis-characterize and insult my idea. This is descending into old ways; I can see that my thoughts are not wanted by some here, and so I'll sign off on this thread. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

North, your patience with these guys still amazes me. Haven't you learned by now that they have no interest in having their POV removed or modified in the article? Even though the term "intelligent design" has existed long before the Discovery Institute, the DI has usurped the term ID and these editors fully support that POV. Because of DI's misbehavior, then it makes it easy for them to negatively color the broader (and older) concept of looking for (and testing) evidence of design in the universe that long precedes the emergence our species. Anyone, no matter what their credentials are (again, I bring up John Polkinghorne, Freeman Dyson, Owen Gingerich), if they make any association with the concept of design, this article will immediately stain that with the antics of the DI. It's like the editors here doing that are collaborating with DI, which has the effect of false association that both groups like. (DI has it's reputation raised when they are falsely associated with reputable scientists that happen to make reference to the term: "intelligent design" and the anti-ID editors can simply write off authors that challenge their way of representing intelligent design by simply and falsely associating them with DI). It's hopeless, North. 71.169.180.23 (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

(Added later) I think that that is an accurate assessment. Other non-DI ID material was removed. Being an atheist myself, I am obviously not bringing up these issues to pursue a RW POV. I believe that the topic of (origin of life/universe-related) intelligent design should be fairly and properly covered as such. Defining it as limited to a recent prominent semi-political variant is most likely an effort to deprecate it, which I believe is not proper for a Wikipedia article, despite the fact that I do not agree with any form of ID. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, I don't think this a confusion over old references to "intelligent design" vs DI's ID. It's a confusion about what Q3 means or how to apply it. The definition pf ID in the lead has two cites-one to the NCSE but the other to DI (a primary source as alluded to in Q3). And I assume the NCSE cite has slipped out of place because the quoted definition doesn't seem to come from there. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't the Teleological argument article cover all the stuff this one by design (heh-heh) omits? "Long story short, it was a decision by some editors to limit the article to the DI version, and other non-DI ID material was removed. So far, that is just an article scope decision." (Posted above by North8000 on 17:19, 13 May 2013.) Seems to me that everything people wish were in this article is in that one. Yopienso (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

But then the article is mistitled, perhaps "Intelligent design (Discovery Institute)" is more accurate. But, as it is titled, the topic matter must include whatever "intelligent design" meant before the DI ever existed. That line does not necessarily lead solely to DI. There are other reputable thinkers with creditials that have written about the term and take a different position than DI. It is manifestly not neutral to axiomatically couple the notion of "intelligent design" to whatever DI says it is, or only authors associated with DI. It is conveniently biased. 71.169.180.23 (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

John Polkinghorne used the term "intelligent design" to refer to DI's intelligent design as well.

Look, the issue at hand isn't "scope" (as North8000 pointed out), but Q3 and sourcing. The source is now consistent with Q3. There was also a question about whether a definition section as in irreducible complexity is appropriate, and we've had several posters point out that it is premature to recommend adopting one here before having any sourced content in hand to put in it! The "definition section" in irreducible complexity consists of 3 quotes, 2 from the same fellow, both men quoted are affiliated with DI. Here we have one analogous quotation in the article, from DI, and now that the source is cleaned up, I myself don't understand what anyone else finds lacking with it. Can we please not hijack this thread grousing over extraneous issues? Professor marginalia (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

IP, it appears that you want Wikipedia to reflect three separate, distinct subjects: the teleological argument, ID, and ID (Discovery Institute). Do you have sources—I'd say they'd pretty much have to be secondary for this level of organization, but maybe someone will correct me...—detailing the differences between ID and the teleological argument? Or ID from ID (Discovery Institute)? I did a brief search and couldn't find anything other than Owen Gingrich using uppercase letters for the DI's ID and lowercase letters for the proposition he supports (which, from cursory glance, looks like the teleological argument).

Also, could you folks please stop with the persecution syndrome? There is no concerted effort here to protect a POV page; you just haven't sufficiently supported your assertion with reliable sources. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I was fading out, but now you are calling my well-reasoned comments and observations (e.g. about non-DI ID material having been removed) a "persecution syndrome". The artificial narrowing, and the unsourced and unsourcable OR wording (the one-to-one equation of ID with the DI version) is based on nothing but what the proponents of this here have decided. Such is a significant error at best. North8000 (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

North8000, that's not what I said. I was not referring to your observations about the article, but the rude and/or disingenuous comments made to insult fellow editors. We did not arbitrarily title this page "Intelligent design"; it was not just a whim decision we had one day. We are operating under Wikipedia policy, and that phrase is the most prominent name for this subject. Nor are we excluding information due to personal bias. I have asked for sources, and I'm still asking for sources. What is the unsourceable wording? What are the sources talking about an ID that is both distinct from that of the DI and the teleological argument? You say you're an atheist, so you must recognize the persuasive power of evidence. Provide the evidence... change our minds. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 03:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

"The artificial narrowing, and the unsourced and unsourcable OR wording (the one-to-one equation of ID with the DI version) is based on nothing but what the proponents of this here have decided. Such is a significant error at best." In response I'd characterize the accusation itself as "significant error at best".

As has been repeated a hundred times at least-there are separate articles for the DI launched intelligent design and the teleological argument. Those battles over which of the two is more deserving of the auspicious title "intelligent design" can go on ad nauseum- fair enough. But that's a battle over the TITLE. Meanwhile the DI's intelligent design article (whatever it is called) is poorly served by editors who are so fixated on the unfairness of it bearing the TITLE they can't see passed it! It's that simple. Separate the battles over the title from the battles over content! Because these efforts to leverage the title away from the DI brand of intelligent design by exploiting every point raised as an opportunity to win territory, to wedge in non-DI related material does not leave readers better informed. It presents them a crazy quilt of lazy crap research! DI intelligent design warrants a stand-alone article, and wikipedia's readers deserve it be described accurately.

So-those of you that think THIS article does not deserve the title, more power to you. Fight to change the title. But fight fair. But don't dumb down the content of the article under the title, don't dismantle the legitimately focused content in this legitimately separate article in order to accomplish it. OK? Professor marginalia (talk) 05:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank for that response which, though I don't agree with all of, is very thoughtful compared to the inflaming maneuver-ry tactics employed by some. I think that I will respond by answering your one question and then fading out on this thread (unless someone stokes it again with another insult), leaving the big discussion for another day. The unsourced and unsourcable statement is that of a one-to-one correspondence between ID and the DI version. To illustrate I'll use a more mundane topic example. Let's say that some editors decided that the motorcycle article was to cover only the 2 wheeled versions, and that the three wheeled versions would be covered in the "Tri-wheel argument" article. (The Tri-Wheeled Motorcycle Club would be rightfully angry but that is a different topic) A statement that "A motorcycle is a 2 wheeled vehicle" is a statement that "motorcycle" includes only 2 wheeled vehicles, would be an incorrect and unsourcable statement. So, the statements that say "ID = the DI version of ID" are unsourced and unsourcable. North8000 (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Eh? We show multiple sources defining ID as a form of creationism, and making it clear that it differs from the traditional design argument by attempting scientifically to demonstrate repeated miraculous intervention in the history of life, while claiming to be science and not a religious argument. Your analogy fails: you seem to be arguing that motor tricycle should cover motorcycle because it's a subset of the broader category. Interestingly, motorcycle gives little coverage to motor trikes: the ID article gives quite a lot of coverage to relevant aspects of the design argument. Starting with the first paragraph of the lead, which notes that it is a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God. . . dave souza, talk 15:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your first sentence, but logically it does not refute or even directly address either the main or sidebar point in my post. Using the "set" terminology, this article:

1. (sidebar point in my post) Makes a poor choice of having the superset as the title and having the scope being only the subset
2. (main point of my post) Makes an inaccurate, unsourced and unsourcable statement that the superset is the subset

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to get or give ulcers over this. I'm taking a break on this. If anyone wants me please ping me. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

North8000, again this discussion appears to boil down to how we apply WP:UCN to these two subjects: ID and the teleological argument. Your claim that the superset (the teleological argument/"i.d.") is presented as the subset (ID/the DI's ID) seems to be a matter of interpretation. I don't see anything explicitly stating that the former equates to the latter (in fact, the third sentence in the lead distinguishes the two), so it looks like the problem is merely semantic; the title, "intelligent design," is equivocation only if you've already presupposed that this phrase is the common name for the teleological argument. This may be the case, but you haven't substantiated it. Please provide sources illustrating that ID is indeed the most prominent name for the teleological argument. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Just looked up "Intelligent design" in Britannica. "Intelligent design was formulated in the 1990s, primarily in the United States, as an explicit refutation of the theory of biological evolution advanced by Charles Darwin (1809–82). Building on a version of the argument from design for the existence of God advanced by the Anglican clergyman William Paley (1743–1805), supporters of intelligent design observed that the functional parts and systems of living organisms are “irreducibly complex,” in the sense that none of their component parts can be removed without causing the whole system to cease functioning." Its 2006 Year In Review specifies, "The ID movement took shape in the early 1990s with the work of Phillip Johnson, a legal scholar, and first came to national attention in 1996, when Michael Behe, a molecular biologist, published Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (2nd revised ed., 2006)." Both go on to describe its presentment as a scientific refutation of Darwinian evolution, and its organized activism to see ID introduced as a scientifically sound alternative in public school science classes. It's clearly the same DI-ID described in Britannica as described in this article, although this one goes much more in depth.

If there are sources inappropriately used here referring to a different "intelligent design", the non-DI affiliated "intelligent design", they should be cleaned out. But are there any? Can't be many, I'm sure. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

History

A minor clarification; as the article shows, ID was morphed from creationism/creation science in 1987, the ID movement came together in the early 1990s and joined up with the DI in 1993 to gain funding and support. Thus wrong to say "the DI launched intelligent design" but otherwise completely correct that ID is a distinct version of the teleological argument: the current articles are correctly titled, and cover the relevant issues. . dave souza, talk 08:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Do ID proponents agree with this version of its history and basis? If not, then I think we need to include a definition which expresses their side. Cla68 (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess I should explain what I'm thinking here. IMHO, any article on a religion, philosophy, or scientific theory, whether it be theistic science or not, should be primarily presented as the adherents of that belief see it. Then, later in the article any criticisms that exist can be added. This way, the idea is presented more neutrally and fairly for the reader. The observer can then read the rebuttals or criticisms in the lower part of the article and decide for themselves. Cla68 (talk) 23:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Once again, Cla, you apparently fail to understand NPOV and want to promote pseudoscientific views out of their mainstream context. Look for reliable third party sources. . dave souza, talk 10:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Once again, Cla, the biased and non-neutral editors of this article that insist on portraying ID in the article simply as they perceive it (as a creation of the DI or of those who founded the DI), are turning the principle of NPOV on its head. Doesn't matter what the history is (the history is that ID existed, as a concept and in writing) long before DI, long before Dembski, Behe, " Of Pandas and People", Kitzmiller, or any of that. Doesn't matter that others, much more scientifically respectable authors than DI, have referred to ID in a manner differently than the DI does. All this doesn't matter because these authors insist on equating their personal POV as "NPOV". Unlike other contentious articles (e.g. Political status of the Palestinian territories), no opposition nor moderation to this controlling POV is tolerated. If you press too hard, the editors here will label you "disruptive", and will get you Community banned, even using other false accusations to bolster their justification. They have done this before and they may do it again. This is a biased article, and the biased editors like it that way. And they own the article.71.169.180.121 (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Dave souza is quite rightly correcting me above, not any misstatement made in the article. I used the phrase DI launched above on the talk page, but it's more correct to describe that within a few years the young movement established its home at the DI. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)