Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 8

Methodology

Advocates of ID propose a methodology of addressing this dispute. They say to start with the observed facts, and then try to make sense of them. If you see giant statues, think "sculptor". If you see orderly rows of scratches on the Rosetta Stone, think "dead language". Faced with what they call "Irreducible complexity", they hypothesize a designer.

(I think we all agree that the above is a fair statement of ID's purpose and methods. If not, the following is premature.)

ID is such a big deal for its opponents for several reasons:

• it looks like a patently underhanded way of sneaking Creationism into the public school curriculum
• it does not qualify as a bona fide "hypothesis" (a) because there's no way to falsify it; (b) because supernatural causes are "off limits", i.e., science should only study the natural world
• it undermines advocacy for atheism

I have yet to be convinced that Wikipedia covers the latter three bullet points adequately in ANY article. So like it or not, I think we'll have to re-hash here a lot of the stuff that was supposedly "covered in much greater detail, accuracy, and npov style on the Creation and evolution in public education page."

ID is just different enough from mainstream creationism that it demands (or at least hopes for!) different treatment. It wants to be a "third player" in the game.

Formerly, the battle was a "one thing or another" issue. Shall we teach our children that God created us 6,000 years ago? Or that we and apes descended from a common ancestor (without God's help)? Recall that still around half of Americans accept the Biblical account given in Genesis as fact. (And I'm not sure how many are willing to accept the fossil record.)

So, it's not as simple as "we already did this for Creationism vs. Evolution". I'm afraid we're going to have to do it all over again for ID. --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 18:12, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

As noted in your explanation of the ID method for addressing the debate and evidence, the methods both sides use to address evidence are markedly different:

The Scientific Method:

Evidence and phenomena found in reality comprise the facts. What conclusions can we draw from them?

The Intelligent Design Method:

The evidence leads to only one conclusion. What facts can we find to support it?

Because of this, for the Intelligent Design argument the conclusion will always precede the premise, making it a logical fallacy. This too needs to addressed in the article.

I've read most of the canon for both sides of the ID debate, and this is the first I've heard of your point "ID is such a big deal for its opponents...(because)it undermines advocacy for atheism." With one or two exceptions, I've yet to see many scientists engaging in the advocacy of atheism or atheism used as justification for denying ID proponents their claims. I'm not saying it doesn't or hasn't happened, but I am saying that it's a) unlikely in that is a non sequitur to their goals, and b) ID proponents are predisposed to make such claims, which means we need to be very skeptical, even more so than usual in such cases. If you can provide sufficient evidence, then we are obligated to include the assertion, of course. But given everything I've read, evidence for claiming an atheist advocacy conspiracy against Intelligent Design pervading science or even mainstream society is pretty weak.--FeloniousMonk 19:41, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Monk,

1. I think you may be confusing "scientific creationism" with "intelligent design". When I started studying so-called "creation science" in 1988 I immediately dismissed it as an attempt to do just what you say ID does: it has picked its preconceived conclusion and is interested only in finding supporting evidence. This is even worse than pseudoscience: it's dogmatism. The little I've learned in the last 5 years about ID appears different to me: an attempt to state creationism's premise as a genuine hypothesis - to be accepted or rejected on an equal basis with evolution by natural selection, i.e., judged by the same rules of evidence.
2. There is considerable evidence that atheistic beliefs inform (or motivate) at least some advocates of naturalistic evolution. I'll dig this up in due course and we can discuss its relevence to the ID article then. Surely we know already that belief in God and Creation is a significant motive for ID proponents. That is, it's a big deal for THEM at least. --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 19:58, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't confusing "scientific creationism" with "intelligent design". My original point was that intelligent design, as does any other supernatural intervention that attempts to account for the origin of life or species, weights it's assumptions. Intelligent design's conclusion --that life did not arise randomly and is the result of intervention-- is implicit in it's premise --that life's complexity is evidence of design-- and so is just begging the question. Intelligent design settles on this conclusion without ever accounting for origin of the designer, which it hints may be of natural origin while at the same time excluding at least our life arising by natural random means. This is a contradiction; one cannot rule out complex life arising by natural means while asserting the deus ex machina that brought forth life may indeed by naturalistic.

I agree that there's no doubt many evolutionist's influenced by their atheism. But I'm very skeptical of any claims that atheism informs or motivates actual science. Deism/theism or absence of either is a non sequitur in science.--FeloniousMonk 20:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with either of you. Starting from a conclusion and trying to find evidence for it (called "dogmatism" above, but I'd rather call it narrowmindedness) doesn't do much harm as long as there are others who start from another conclusion. Narrowmindedness causes you to concentrate on evidence in favor of your opinion and neglecting evidence against it. As long as there are scientists who start from another opinion, they will find the evidence against yours, and no harm is done. To the contrary - since you concentrate on evidence in favor of your opinion, you will find evidence you wouldn't find if you spread your attention farther apart. So, narrowmindedness actually furthers science.

Dogmatism, in my opinion, is something more: claiming that your brand of narrowmindedness should be compulsory. This is a mark of pseudoscience. If the dogmatic rule is widely accepted, it hurts science and truth, since everybody will look in the same direction. But: this only regards conclusions, not methods. Not using invalid methods and arguments should be compulsory. --Hob Gadling 10:53, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the distinction Hob has made between what we might call "constructive narrow-mindedness" and the "pseudo-scientific" compulsory sort. If I understand him correctly, he and I agree that there is no harm in trying to prove one's point; looking for proof is actually good. And I think we also agree that the mark of pseudoscience is the refusal to consider contrary evidence.

I personally consider "creation science" to be pseudoscientific -- not because they are trying to prove God made man, but because they deliberately refuse to consider any evidence to the contrary.

I'd like to see an even-handed evaluation of (1) the theory of evolution, (2) intelligent design and (3) creationism, which explains the methodology of each theory's supporters and critics in terms of their willingness to consider contrary evidence. --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 15:50, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

this is all excellent thinking -- thanks for articulating such a great idea, Hob. I like the idea of drawing the distinction out on the page too, with the proviso that we maintain npov with respect to creationists -- certainly some of them are dogmatic and just out to prove their religion ... but i'd like to think some of us are persuaded by the evidence (however skewed our view of the evidence may be). also, we could point out that while evolutionists think ID is "stealth creationism," most dogmatic creationists criticize ID for not being dogmatic enough:). quotes or summaries of all the appropriate povs would make for an excellent subsection, i think. Ungtss 16:28, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

By explicitly outlining the various methodological distinctions of the participants in the debate, then we will also be bringing up their logic and reasoning for adhering to their respective methodologies, and hence that logic's validity. Considering the shaky ground some the logic stands on, I'm concerned that this may be become an area and source of constant contention for some.

As for Hob's point that starting from a conclusion and accepting only evidence that supports it doing no harm, that may be true for some things, but not for science. And since science is what intelligent design is trying to be part of, the distinction between those who adhere to valid scientific method and those who start from preconceived, rigid conclusions and then cherry pick the evidence is a valid point to make in the article. --FeloniousMonk 20:19, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Straw Man! I didn't say that "starting from a conclusion and accepting only evidence that supports it" does no harm, but "starting from a conclusion and trying to find evidence that supports it" does no harm. --Hob Gadling 14:39, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Well, neither one is harmless. There's a reason that "starting from a conclusion and trying to find evidence that supports it" is not part of the scientific method. Further reading as to why can be found at confirmation bias.--FeloniousMonk 21:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

the scientific method starts with a conclusion by definition. "Hypothesis: this is true." "Test: if the hypothesis were true, and i did this, then this would happen." "Conclusion: hypothesis confirmed or rejected." there's nothing unscientific looking for a bunch of different ways to test your hypothesis, or evidence to support it. if there were, then the search for the "missing links" would be unscientific, too. the only problem appears, as hob said, when you ignore all contrary evidence, or lie about your own. Piltdown man, for instance. Ungtss 23:16, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also, it's very naïve to assume that confirmation bias can be avoided by trying to be neutral. It's a weakness inherent in all humans, and it can be avoided by using the scientific method, e.g. double blind studies. Science is always a community thing: one person alone can't do science. Others are needed to look over his work and point out the mistakes. Creationists make lots of mistakes, some of them very basic, and they keep making them after being corrected (with exceptions). That's why creationism isn't science. The preconceived notions of the creationists involved may be the deeper reason for the mistakes as well as the clinging to them, but since one can't look inside people, this can't be used as an argument. --Hob Gadling 13:12, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Recent Changes

The articles has really improved over the last few days. I've just made a range of changes to the first half of the article, which I think make the article more readable, and a little more balanced. I plan on making some similar changes to the second half later on. If there's any problems, please leave specific criticisms here, and I'll be happy to discuss them. --Brendanfox 06:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

conjecture.

npov requires that articles describe ideas without implying either that they are valid or invalid. the word "conjecture" is defined as a conclusion based on "incomplete evidence and guesswork." [1]. ID asserts that there is positive evidence FOR ID. The word "conjecture" therefore minimizes ID to "guesswork." Using the word "Idea" (as i did before Stirling reverted commenting only that 'Conjecture is better') avoids this problem without losing any information. Stirling, why is 'conjecture' more npov? Ungtss 18:55, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"hypotheses", "beliefs","theories". Whichever is picked it should be plural since ID is not monolithic, especially since fine-tuned universe is discussed here and it is completely orthogonal to any evolution issues.--Silverback 19:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Since the status of ID as being scientific at all is an issue, NPOV requires that we not assert language which prejudices the matter. Stirling Newberry 19:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

that's why i think "Idea" (or "Ideas" as Mr. Silverback prefers) is a happy middle ground between "theory" and "conjecture." eh? Ungtss 19:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The biggest stumbling block for Wikipedia describing ID is the dispute in the non-Wikipedia "outside world" over whether ID is really a legitimate scientific hypothesis, or not. Since this dispute is significant (and is even causing friction at Wikipedia), I suggest we take a step back and describe the dispute fairly.

Let the article label ID as an "idea". All Wikipedia editors agree that it is an idea; we're just not agreed on what sort of idea it is.

May I suggest this wording?

• Intelligent Design is an idea about how life came into being on the earth, particularly human beings.

I would further suggest that we describe in the article much of the external wrangling over whether ID is:

• a valid hypothesis, but unproven (i.e, still MIGHT be true)
• a valid hypothesis, but clearly NOT true
• not a valid hypothesis
  • because conjectures about non-physical (i.e., supernatural) causes are off-limits
  • because there's no way to disprove it (see falsifiability)

Note that some of these positions may be in conflict. For example, it can't both be (a) a valid hypothesis which is clearly not true and (b) not a valid hypothesis because there's no way to disprove it.

I would prefer for the article to avoid taking sides in this dispute. Let's just summarize the views of the main proponents and opponents of ID, as expressed in books, articles, public speeches, etc. Okay? --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 16:02, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Except that it's not "an idea". It's a collection of diverse -- indeed, opposing -- viewpoints, attitudes, stances, and arguments, all united only in their opposition to purely naturalistic evolution. However, it is not untrue to call it a cultural movement. I agree with Silverback here -- if you are including "The fine-tuned universe" argument in with ID -- an idea that is held by such ardent Darwinists as Robert Wright, it is inaccurate to call it a single idea. --Goethean 17:32, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

seems we've got a semantic issue here. "Intelligent Design" is simply the idea (singular) that there is evidence that natural things were intelligently designed. Under this umbrella, we've got a NUMBER of ideas, including IC, SC, fine-tuned universe, etc ... ID is like an umbrella, no? Ungtss 18:44, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Article splits

As G. describes it, ID sounds more like a movement. I'm comfortable with that. I myself belong to a "movement", and its name can be either a theology or a church as well:

• Unification movement - the movement, which includes:
  • Unificationism - its teachings, and
  • Unification Church - the official organization of believers

If we're still agreed that ID theories and the ID movement should be described in a single article, then how can we incorporate the Goethean insight?

1. Move the article to intelligent design movement and begin it with The intelligent design movement is a collection of diverse -- indeed, opposing -- viewpoints, attitudes, stances, and arguments, all united in their opposition to purely naturalistic evolution.

This raises a closely related question:

• How is ID related to creationism?
  • ID is a branch of creationism
  • ID in utterly unrelated to creationism
  • ID is "stealth creationism": theology dressed up in a cheap polyester suit, trying to look scientific and all...

Let's keep working on this, we're making progress! --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 18:46, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

I vote for moving the article to "ID movement". There are so many varieties of ID that all three of your prongs are true. Some versions of ID, like the thought of Neo-Hegelians which is accurately characterized by the phrase "a universe fine-tuned for evolution", are not related to scientific creationism. But Behe and Johnson are accurately characterized as making room for "stealth creationism". And most or many of the people who call themselves IDers are actually creationists. Additionally, this would nullify the cntroversy of whether it is a conjecture, idea, hypothesis, theory, umbrella, raincoat, etc. --Goethean 19:40, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i vote we split the page ID and ID movement -- ideas in the first, political / social stuff in the second. Ungtss 20:32, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We could spin off "intelligent design movement" as a separate article, but one linked to at the top of the main one. I submit it be referenced something like this: "This article concerns the idea of intelligent design, a variant of the Argument from Design often referred to by supporters of the Intelligent Design Movement. --RBeschizza 01:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how one separate ID from the ID movement, it is difficult to understand the former without the latter. A more natural divide would be between fine tuned universe and the rest of ID, since the former is orthogonal to evolution.--Silverback 06:15, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

None of this requires us to KEEP the two article forever separate. Often it facilitates the writing process if one or two parts are split off TEMPORARILY as sidebare articles. A few weeks later, it then becomes obvious that either:

1. They can and should be integrated; or,
2. They can and should remain as separate articles

In the case of Augusto Pinochet, the stumbling block was how to describe America's involvement in the 1973 coup. After the sidebar came into being, several writers who had been watching (timidly?) from the sidelines came in and quickly completed the Chile series. --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 20:45, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

excellent thinking. shall we give it a shot? Ungtss 21:02, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If we do, let's mention that the intelligent design movement:

• has been promoting the view that "Intelligent Design" is a viable scientific hypothesis
  • and thus worthy of consideration in U.S. public school biology textbooks as an "alternative theory" to naturalistic conceptions of evolution
• has been in conflict (political and legal) with its opponents
• consists chiefly (?) of Creationists
• attempts to portray itself as distinct from "creation science", and yet
• is considered a form of "stealth creationism" by many opponents

Does that sum it up well enough? Note that I'm asking both sides, fan and foe. --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 15:49, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

• has been promoting the view that "Intelligent Design" is a viable scientific hypothesis, yet to date has offered no alternative to natural selection or divine fiat as a mechanism for the origin of species --Goethean 16:24, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• all sounds good to me, ed:). Ungtss 16:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To Ungtss: thanks. To Goethean, I think that is essentially correct. Alhough ID wimps out on characterizing the designer as supernatural, it certainly doesn't rule that out (wink, wink, nudge, nudge). Perhaps that's why the "stealth creationism" label sticks so well.

The ID movement apparently want divine fiat (as you put it) taken off the sidelines and put back into the game, insisting that sources of causation other than automatic functioning of natural law be considered. They want to use (or highjack?) the argument used by ancient historians: the Easter Island statues, the monoliths at Stonehenge, and the Rosetta Stone could not credibly have been caused by anything other than an intelligent being having a purpose. Why not "mechanisms" such as flagella? (Note that I'm not saying Wikipedia should endorse this argment! Only that we should provide a fair summary of what their argument is - along with any significant rejoinders from opponents.) --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 17:49, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not endorse anything, that's what NPOV is about. -sconzey

removed NPOV banner

69.134.50.153 did not follow-up here on the talk page.--Silverback 10:48, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I suggest that the NPOV banner on the "ID as 'Stealth Creationism'" section should be removed as well. The section does not make any assertions as to whether this type of criticism is accurate, simply that it exists. Given that it's an established fact tht many ID opponents do view ID as "stealth creationism", I see nothing non-neutral about the section. On the contrary, my opinion is that for an article on this subject to be both neutral and comprehensive, the arguments of both sides must be clearly stated. Redxiv 06:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree, despite being a staunch creationist and ID supporter. I see nothing wrong with Wikipedia reporting that opponents portray ID as stealth creationism. It's the same as US Senate Democrats portraying President Bush as "attacking" Sen. Reid via proxy. Wikipedia is not endorsing the POV, merely reporting that its advocates hold it. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:55, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

absolutely. facts are facts. Ungtss 20:38, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Improability as impossibility

Contrary to Ungtss's reversion assertion - Dembski argues explicitly that improbability below a certain threshold represents proof of design:

" Confronted with this second scenario we are obligated to infer that here is a world-class archer, one whose shots cannot legitimately be explained by luck, but rather must be explained by the archer’s skill and mastery. Skill and mastery are of course instances of design." Stirling Newberry 14:53, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Let me repeat that since Ungtss does not seem to be reading the POV he is pushing:

cannot legitimately be explained by luck

I will again protest Ungtss' participation on this page, since he is here solely to push a POV, and he cannot be relied upon to even be a knowledgeable about that POV. Stirling Newberry 14:53, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

so speaketh the source of all light and reason on the page, the one who has been acknowledged by all, evolutionist and creationist alike, as truly objective in all things intelligent design.

i don't believe that what dembski's saying and what you are saying are the same thing. he says "cannot legitimately be explained by luck" -- again -- technically possible by luck, but so unlikely that it is unreasonable to believe it happened that way. this contrasts with your revision, which sets a strawman -- extremely unlikely, therefore impossible. so let's say what dembski's saying, shall we? i will edit the page to reflect dembski's views, rather than your views or my views of dembski's views. (so speaketh "the mad hound of creationism", dedicated only to spreading his lies and forcing people to believe things so he can drag them into the pits of the demon religion!!! YAAAARGH!) Ungtss 16:57, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

guys, this isn't the place for a flame war. Try private emails. Ungtss, I can understand your frustration. For random passers-by, Ungtss's assertions re: himself & Stirling are correct. Stirling earlier called for outside adjudication of what was (is?) growing into a flame+revert war on the talk pages and edit summaries. Community sentiment decided against Stirling. (Check the history and look over the edit summaries.) Ungtss has until now been relatively restrained.

As for the issue of what Dembski does or does not say, I must admit that I'm ignorant of the particular passage in question, but the section quoted by Stirling and Ungtss's interpretation of it are typical ID arguments. The "cannot legitimately by explained by luck" rationale is often used in science, and is in itself reasonable. Indeed, the threshold probabilities ID supporters typically toss around are many orders of magnitude below the typical physics thresholds for "something weird's going on." (That is, ID uses numbers which are tighter on the face of things.) My problem is not with that aspect of their argument, but rather how they estimate the probabilities for abiogenesis, macroevolution, etc. I think their statistical calculations of physical / chemical processes are specious. I haven't seen the arguments in detail, but the little I have seen makes me intensely skeptical... That being said, the "cannot legitimately be explained by luck" should go with Dembski's / Ungtss's interpretation. (If anyone takes my rambling on statistics \& physics out of context, I'll be most upset.) SMesser 18:36, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i apologize for my lack of restraint. i'm intrigued by your concerns over the statistical methodologies -- would you be willing to clarify them further in the article? Ungtss 19:15, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

okay, happy now. Briefly, my concerns are that the layman-level reports of the calculations seem to ignore initial conditions and chemical pathways, both of which are very important to most physical / chemical estimates of probability / efficiency. Amino acids and complex hydrocarbons have been observed in interstellar dust clouds, where we do not expect life to exist, and ice-cores and other records suggest that early Earth history had an atmosphere similar to modern Titan's, and the Miller-Urey experiment suggests that given time and randomized input energy can cause such a chemical mix to change into one featuring a larger variety of highly complex chemicals. The impression I get is that the calculations (quasi-)forbidding abiogenesis are supposed to be path-independent, but without seeing the actual math, I can't say for sure. (There is some question of whether or not I'll be a valid judge even with the appropriate papers in front of me - I'm a plasma physicist, not a biochemist, so modern papers on biochemistry should be over my head.) An actual path-independent approach seems like it should use quantum mechanics, Feynman diagrams, and more computing power than is currently available to the planet. But again, I haven't seen the technical arguments, so maybe I'm missing something. Perhaps you can provide a reference?SMesser 14:37, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. Just glanced back at the article, and it looks like the subject may've been the apparently fine-tuned universe, rather than abiogenesis, as I'd assumed. I have similar objections to the assertion that the universe is fine-tuned. Proving that it is would seem to require a detailed theory of everything, as well as an agreed-upon definition for what constitutes life. Both of these things are lacking in modern science, and the ToE should be worth a Nobel Prize if Dembski has found it. There are several contenders, but they're rediculously hard to test experimentally. Note in particular that the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics remains an open question. Disproving it may be necessary to show that the universe as we see it is fine-tuned, rather than just an example of the weaker forms of the anthropic principle in action. Again, I haven't seen the technical calculations, so a categorical denial of Dembski's arguments is beyond me, but I find the lay-level assertions highly suspect. Do you know of any references? SMesser 15:02, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

from what i've read, i think i can safely categorically agree with your assessment. ID has by no means reached the status of "proof." all the requirements you note for such a "proof" are indeed lacking. And certainly many ID types have gotten a little ahead of themselves, and argued that things are proven when they're not. However, I think what they DO provide is a basis for an intriguing and entirely legitimate line of research, and grounds for at least some semblance of belief in a positive designer, and disbelief in evolution.

As to the ToE (which certainly WOULD gain ID some credibility:) -- what do you think of the Spinning ring model for subatomic particles -- i.e. protons + electrons [2] -- some creationists are arguing that it's a ToE, but i don't know enough about physics to properly evaluate their claims -- is this junk science? Ungtss 15:25, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In one word, Yes. Its stuff I (as an engineering student) can expirementally disprove. Also, I'm not really sure that it is at all relevent to this article.TheAT 16:52, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

definitely not relevent to this article ... i was just wondering if someone might have some insight into WHY it's wrong? if not here, at my talkpage, if you're interested at all:). thanks:). Ungtss 16:58, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree with Ungtss on the progress of ID. I don't think they've provided sufficient evidence to merit much consideration in professional biological circles. Evolution has provided a theoretical framework for enormous advances in genetics, comparative anatomy, and paleontology. Backing away from it requires large amounts of pressing evidence and a theory which explains everything covered by evolution as well as a large chunk of the outlier points. The biological community doesn't seem to think such evidence is pressing, and ID doesn't seem to have much predictive power. (This last point is a common problem when the naturalistic / materialistic assumptions of modern science are dropped.) If you want detailed answers by a biologist, look up Graft. He's easy enough to get along with, but solidly in the evolution camp. As for my own views, I'm bothered by ID's ties to young-earth creationists, claims by some in the ID community that naturalistic abiogenesis violates the second law of thermodynamics, and the sociopolitical goals outlined in the [Strategy] leaked from the Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture. Similarly, I'm unsatisfied by urgings from the ID community to teach evolution's "weaknesses" in public schools. Most of what the ID community cites as weaknesses are not viewed as such by contemporary biologists, and the weaknesses of quantum mechanics, general realtivity, and electromagnetics are not taught, since the details are beyond what most high-school students can grasp. (There's a quip I've heard running around physics labs: "Why is it all the easy questions have been answered?")

As for the physics article you linked to, it's very bad. I'll try to be brief, but to answer their points in order: 1)There are deep questions about the mutual resolution of general relativity with quantum mechanics, but the article oversimplifies them. String theory is one proposed resolution of the conflict. It and a few competitors are being seriously considered by physicists, but the mathematics necessary for the theory are extremely complex, and experimental tests stretch modern technology. Simple tests have been done, and string theory passes these without trouble. More sophisticated tests are gradually coming within our reach, such as the search for the Higgs boson, but full-bore experiments to test predictions about the gray area between gravity (a theory about big things) and quantum mechanics (a theory about small things) is likely to be beyond our capabilities for a few decades at least. 2) The article includes the line "Our approach integrates a deformable physical model with its self-field." That's not revolutionary, or even informative. Every theory of gravity or quantum currently available does that. 3) The article says Maxwell's electromagnetic theory led to computers, among other things. Yes, but only in conjunction with quantum mechanics. Transistors use quantum effects. 4) The "Principle of Unity" section is reasonable, although there are some slight oversimplifications. 5) The article calls Einstein's description of space as a physical entity a bad idea and derides his assumption that inertial mass equals gravitational mass. The two ideas are linked, and have been tested numerous times via the Cavendish torsion bar experiment and modern analogues, observations of Mercury's orbit, deflections of starlight by solar gravity, and the operation of the GPS satellites. 6) The article says quantum theory assumes fundamental discreteness. This isn't right. Quantum particles are distributed probabilistic wave functions. 7) The article also says "In Einstein's Relativity, space is passive; but in Quantum Theory, space and Nature are actively creating and controlling" various processes. The distincition between active and passive forces / particles isn't normally made in physics. If something exists, it has effects on other objects. Moreover, Einstein's spacetime pushes objects around (that's gravity), so it seems misleading to call it passive. 8) "The Discrete and the Continuous" is misleading, oversimplified, and wrong. Resolving quantum with gravity is expected to be difficult - possibly beyond human comprehension, but not fundamentally impossible. 9) The article next uses its fallacious conflation of quantum mechanics with point particles to say quantum is incompatible with a host of observed phenomena. The actual quantum theory is compatible with all of the items listed, but a detailed accounting of the mathematics involved requires a graduate course in physics, (a course which I've taken, by the way.) 10) Halfway through the article, the author introduces a miniature wire loop as a model for an electron. The model has numerous problems, since it doesn't provide a good explanation for observed tunnelling, quantum teleportation, or the observed successes of relativity. I could go on (I only made it halway through), but... that's more than enough for rambling on talk::inteligent designSMesser 17:55, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks:). Ungtss 18:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe the claim that scientists arguing against ID "point out that Behe has backed off from examples of irreducible complexity." is true. This is inconsistent with the scientific method as science is not based on authority. The arguement would carry as much weight as arguing that Gallileo backed off his claims. While it is significant that Behe backed off some of the claims, it should be mentioned as an aside and not as real evidence cited by scientists in arguments against ID. --64.230.175.140

Wait a second. If Behe previously had examples that he claimed showed the improbability of evolution through natural forces, and now he no longer holds these examples up, and he no longer points to any counter-examples that render naturalistic evolution improbable, this seems to me to be a relevant point. --Goethean 16:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this discussion would benefit from a cited instance of Behe actually backing off a claim without providing a counterclaim. This would certainly be more persuasive and encyclopedic, as well as settling the reader's suspicion that this is just another groundless personal research assertion with no relation to reality. Ungtss 17:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Based on the No Personal Research policy, I strongly suggest that one of the proponents of this sentence find a source to back it up. There are articles in newspapers complaining about inaccurate personal research on wikipedia. Let's not condone it. Back that sentence up with some facts, please. Ungtss 12:49, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If Behe presented evidence that his examples were incorrect it is worth being mentioned, but if he simply backed off saying that he no longer believes his claims to be true then this is not evidence against the claims in scientific terms as the merits of the claims do not rest with Behe's personal beliefs.

Yes indeed:). It is mere ad hominem, and certainly of no scientific interest. However, this instance of ad hominem is in good company, as much of the rest of the article is ad hominem. Were the writers of this article interested in article QUALITY, the sentence would certainly go on that basis. However, given that article quality is not of interest to many editors, I suggest simply that the sentence is unadulterated personal research, therefore in direct violation of articulated wikipedia policy, and should be backed up with facts, or deleted. Ungtss 17:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not aware of Behe explicitly rejecting the "ICness" of any of his previous examples. There are some that he doesn't mention very much anymore, but this doesn't mean he's changed his mind about them. However, if he did explicitly reject some previous examples, then I do think it would be relevant. Not because Behe is an authority, but because the IC argument requires that IC, once identified, be an absolute barrier to evolution. If new discoveries can render previously idenfied examples of IC no longer opperative, then this puts the argument on very shaky grounds. There's no reason to believe then that all examples of IC will not suffer the same fate. (Personally, this is how I see things, but for now I think the statement should be removed, since I know of no evidence for it.) --Theyeti 21:12, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Other comments

How come this talk page is almost entirely reduplicated? — B.Bryant 14:35, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

At any rate, what brought me here was the article's assertion that the Center is funded at the rate of $1.5 per year, which is surely an error. — B.Bryant 14:35, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to remove these three comments when the relevant problems are fixed. — B.Bryant 14:35, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have tried to deal with the duplication on this page. Please restore any lost material -- ciphergoth 16:49, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

Reversion of revision by 66.91.89.127

I've reverted four revisions by User:66.91.89.127. These changes don't seem to be an effort to make the article more informative, but simply to replace neutral language with inflammatory. It's disingenuous to say that ID "seeks to answer": ID is precisely the position that the answer to that question is "yes". -- ciphergoth 13:42, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

No, ID seeks to answer these questions, and provides some evidence that what it proposes is true. It no more prejudges the issue than anti-creationist scientists do when they say "the answer to the creation of life must exclude any supernatural entity". DJ Clayworth 14:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that the whole section "Intelligent Design as Stealth Creationism" is just some guy's idea of why he doesn't like ID. It's just listing reasons why he thinks it's wrong, without any idea if these are generally agreed or whether the arguments are rebuttable. It needs serious work or prefereably removal, since it is really someone trying to carry out the debate under the pretence of writing an encyclopedia article. DJ Clayworth 14:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I removed this section because it is clearly untrue.

As with religious creationism. ID is open to the criticism "what designed the designer?", since a designer capable of creating irrducible complexity must also, by ID's own arguments, be irreducibly complex. Unlike with religious creationism, where the question "what created God?" can be answered with theological arguments, this appears to create a logical paradox whics is fatal to the ID argument unless an uncaused causer, that is to say, God, is invoked, in which case ID reduces to religious creationism. Once this is done, ID ceases to be a falsifiable theory, and therefore loses its ability claim to be a scientific theory.

It is clearly untrue because there is no a priori reason why an irreducibly complex system cannot have been designed by a non-irreducibly complex entity. In fact evolution proponents cliam this all the time. Computers (obviously irreducibly complex) have been designed by humans (which they claim are not). I re-iterate my point. Just because you think you have a good argument as to why ID is wrong does not give you the right to put it in the article. This is an encyclopedia, not a debating society. DJ Clayworth 14:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is valid criticism of ID. You don't have the right to remove valid criticism just because it could reveal a fundamental fallacy in ID.

Regarding "there is no a priori reason why an irreducibly complex system cannot have been designed by a non-irreducibly complex entity": -- Your position, that irreducible complexity can arise from something that is not itself irreducibly complex, is suicidal. That is why ID advocates tend to view the Designer as irreducibly complex: it is easier to defend the "first cause" arguments criticised in the passage you removed than it is to defend a non-irreducibly complex Designer.

Obviously you have not the slightest idea of what 'irreducably complex' means. Hint: Computers are not. The statement is correct; that is a serious flaw (one of many) with 'intelligent design.' Re-added.The Rev of Bru

New article

Please see the following article:

[3]

I would add it to the references, but I'm not sure that it belongs. There is a great deal of information in the article that is not well-included in this article. Joshuaschroeder 21:11, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

huge pile of nothing

What the hell is up with this article? It is way too long. It's a lot of fluff to give verbal substance to something that has no substance of its own. Intelligent Design can be described in a couple of paragraphs. The scientific community's point of view against ID can be presented in a couple of paragraphs. This article has exploded into a pile of nothing in order to dance around any and all hard facts. Time to scrap it and start over. FuelWagon 22:15, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of which, the following was inserted by anon:

- (full text was inserted below following it's move here) - 68.206.248.140

We need to trim this article. Not write a book.--ghost 18:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)