Talk:Intelligent design

Shorten the SD

The WP:Short description should be improved. One, the overall article is about the creationist argument. With this in mind we can describe ID as an "argument" and thereby give the potential reader the essence of the topic. But two, more importantly, "pseudoscientific" adds unnecessary POV. Would we be happy with an article title of Pseudoscientific arguments about the creation of the universe? No. But we do have various articles in Category:Cosmogony and Category:Physical cosmology. Would any of the articles benefit from SDs that said "Scientific argument about such & such"? Again, no. Let's just say that Intelligent design is an argument and leave out the unnecessary "pseudoscientific" adjective. – S. Rich (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

"'pseudoscientific' adds unnecessary POV". Can't see it myself. 'pseudoscientific' is used in the first sentence of the lede, so is clearly considered an integral NPOV element of the topic. As such, it merits inclusion in the SD; as WP:Short description says "These descriptions ... help users identify the desired article", so including 'pseudoscientific' functions to aid in identifying 'Intelligent design' as the article about the pseudoscientific argument. -- Jmc (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I observe that the simple:Intelligent Design article on the simple English Wikipedia treats the subject drastically differently than this one and doesn't even mention pseudoscience. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. But maybe someone should change the simple:Intelligent Design article. I have experience there. Does one replace "pseudoscientific" by "stupid" or "wrong" to change it from English to Simple English? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

This is not a question of RS for either WP or Simple WP. (No matter what, the Simple ID article must be NPOV. And changes to the Simple article are best discussed there.) I "simply" ask that we remove the POV-laden "pseudoscientific" from the short description in this regular WP article. – S. Rich (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

This is not a question of RS Yes it is. You were trying to change this Wikipedia article based on what another Wikipedia article says, so you were trying to use the other article as a source for this one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

If something is science and looks like science, one does not need to mention that it is science. That is the reason why the "scientific" adjective is not used.

Pseudoscience is something that pretends to be science, so it looks like science but it is not science. That is the reason why the "pseudoscientific" adjective is used. --Hob Gadling (talk)

My concern is about the POV vs. NPOV tone of the SD. We can describe the article as "an argument about ...." and avoid saying it is "arcane", "former", "inaccurate", "irrelevant", "dismissed in scientific circles", "hogwash", etc. The WP:SDAVOID guidance says "avoid 'former', 'retired', 'late', 'defunct', 'closed', etc.." Removing "pseudo" helps us comply with this guidance. – S. Rich (talk) 04:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

No, it does not. Calling a pseudoscience "pseudoscience" is perfectly NPOV when reliable sources consistently call it pseudoscience. I think you need to actually read WP:NPOV instead of just saying it. Also WP:FRINGE, WP:PSCI and WP:FALSEBALANCE.

Also, the logic "the rules say we should avoid X, therefore we should avoid Y" leaves something to be desired. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

If the words "pseudoscience" or "pseudoscientific" are to be replaced, I do appreciate Hob's suggestion to use the words "stupid" or "wrong" instead. - Roxy the dog 06:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@S. Rich You've failed to address the point I made in immediate response:

'pseudoscientific' is used in the first sentence of the lede, so is clearly considered an integral NPOV element of the topic. As such, 'pseudoscientific' merits inclusion in the SD; as WP:Short description says "These descriptions ... help users identify the desired article", so including 'pseudoscientific' functions to aid in identifying 'Intelligent design' as the article about the pseudoscientific argument.

You don't seem to have any issue with 'pseudoscientific' being used in the article itself, so your objection to it in the SD seems perverse. --Jmc (talk) 07:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Srich32977 Can you put the existing SD alongside something proposed ? I am doubtful you will make headway for WP:SDLENGTH, but a definite comparison might at least get a focus back to about being shorter. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The inclusion of the qualifier "pseudoscientific" is superfluous to the point that it reeks of bias.

I don't think it's a battle worth fighting.

Yes, the short description is… not short. Especially when you compare it to the length of the rest of the article. Further, some of its content is redundant with the body content.

But it's not just the first sentence that has a POV problem. The entire short description—nay, the whole article—is marred with bias to the point that it to me looks not salvageable. And even if it were, it seems that it's guarded by a group of ideologues: fanatics who will pile on their fallacious rhetoric until the hope is sucked dry from you by the tyranny of their majority. Emilimo (talk) 10:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Yup, the tyranny of WP:BESTSOURCES. <sarcasm warning>How sad!</sarcasm warning> tgeorgescu (talk) 11:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Straw Man. I am not criticizing WP:BESTSOURCES. When I say tyranny of the majority (which I definitely feel is happening on a large scale around discussion of this topic) I'm criticizing use of specific rhetorical devices and fallacious reasoning such as (but not limited to) argumentum ad populum and secondary implications such as groupthink, overconfidence in conventional wisdom and secular orthodoxy, false sense of inerrancy, and myriad intellectual vices such as appeal to ridicule which you just used on me with your sarcasm.

I'm not without hypocrisy; I admit my previous comment used blatant ad hominem attack. But just because I indulged in intellectual vice for a moment doesn't invalidate my sentiment.

A new article need to be written about what ID really is at a fundamental level—a theory of the origin of life—outside of and disconnected from its social contexts. Emilimo (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

It isn't a scientific theory. Not even a scientific hypothesis. Because nobody took care to formulate it as a cogent scientific hypothesis. Phillip E. Johnson died without knowing the hypothesis of intelligent design. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like an appeal to ignorance. The theory is not valid because there hasn't been a person who has put it in a form that acceptable to you and the consensus/majority? Who is the authority on what constistutes a "cogent scientific hypothesis"? Why would we need Phillip E. Johnson to come back to life and do it for us? How do you know one is not already out there? Emilimo (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Wait you got me on another red herring there; I never claimed it to be a scientific theory. Which is why I think there needs to be a page presenting it without any claims of it being a scientific theory, similar to the page on the Big Bang. Just because I am suggesting the theory—in and of itself—as not scientific does not mean that it is pseudoscience. On the contrary it would arguably call for it to be, by definition of pseudoscience, no longer labeled as pseudoscience. You don't see the Big Bang theory labeled as pseudoscience. As should be the case with ID. Emilimo (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Big Bang, despite your protestations, is a widely-accepted scientific theory. For the metaphysical correspondent of ID, see Teleological argument. That, my friend, is a bona fide philosophical argument, but alas it has nothing to do with science. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like an appeal to ignorance Oh, the irony. ID itself is one huge heap of appeal to ignorance ("I tried to find a way how evolution can make things like X, and I failed"; insert every biological feature for X); it does not have any actual content beyond that. And that is the very reason why ID is no scientific hypothesis. You are talking to people with lots of experience debating "Cdesign proponentsists", and every time one asks one of them for the theory of ID, one gets crickets.

How do you know one is not already out there? The burden of proof is on the person who claims that it exists. Bring it here, and everybody will be baffled, stunned, and surprised.

Independent of that, this is not a forum. Your claim of bias is commonplace for every article about any pseudoscience - see WP:YWAB - and does not impress anybody. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Sources are sometimes bias as well. Given that it is a controversial topic we should add further in the article that "it is considered by most scientists a pseudoscientific argument" given the right sources, but not in the opening paragraph. Is like if someone made the opening paragraph of Gender pay gap to be "The gender pay gap or gender wage gap is the ALLEGEDLY difference between the remuneration for men and women who are working." - Barumbarumba (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

The thing is, all pro-Intelligent Design sources are notoriously unreliable, and "unbiased sources" are invariably accused and denounced as being negatively biased due to accurately describing Intelligent Design as religiously-inspired, anti-science flimflam. Mr Fink (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. Since the professional editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica didn't consider it appropriate to apply the label "pseudoscientific" to ID theory, it seems reasonable to avoid that in order to preserve neutrality. The better approach would be to neutrally include the statement by the US National Academy of Science saying that it isn't a legitimate scientific theory. I would argue that the term 'pseudoscience' is appropriately applied to theories like Flat Earth. Because ID has support from a number of scientists with relevant educational backgrounds, I believe it is more accurately categorized as 'fringe science' or 'questionable science' prominent supporters of ID include: award winning chemist Dr. Henry F. Schaefer III, professor of biochemistry Dr. Michael Behe, and Microbiology professor Dr. Scott Minnich. Further, a 2018 Pew Poll of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science found that 2% of members believed humans had always existed in their present form, and another 8% believed that human evolution was guided by a supreme being. [Elaborating on the Views of AAAS Scientists, Issue by Issue | Pew Research Center] BeLikeBritannica (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Read the FAQ. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I created an account just to agree and complain about the rampant and abhorrent bias and POV narration in the article. While I do not subscribe to the belief myself, the rampant author judgments within is disgustingly transparent and, if I can be crass, immature and embarrassing to read to someone looking for information on the subject. When you have editors like Hob Gadling or Roxy the Dog using charged language like "stupid" to describe belief systems, it worsens the content of the site and makes this article read like the tangents of a lonely Redditor upset that they had to go to Sunday school when they were eight, rather than a source of information.

For comparison's sake, the article on Scientology reserves such personal judgments, attributing labels of ingenuity and falsehood to third parties, not from the author's own original judgments. Similar belief systems are treated with more respect, but this one is marred entirely because of its prevalence in western culture.

Such impartial author viewpoints are rampant throughout the article. A few keypoints of contention I noticed from a cursory search include the tangent of the Discovery Institution (cited from someone saying they're "a leader" because several members of the movement are "associated," as if there's any other article out there that pulls such vague weasel wording. To air out dirty laundry, it's very apparent that this is for the purpose of associating the article with conservative think tanks as a prelude, rather than as a detail later on in the history of the article, where such information should be placed). The line "Detailed scientific examination has rebutted several examples for which evolutionary explanations are claimed to be impossible." strikes me too (the preceding claims should be included in a summary, with these examinations placed in a proceeding criticism section. Such is the norm for most articles, but this one gets an exception because the editors REALLY want everyone to know their takes on it). "The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court ruling held the latter to be the case." line is out of place and only contextualized by scouring the references and notes before when this should have its own section, the line itself following what reads like original research on the dilemma of what the belief states. The article itself is littered with details that add very little ("A Discovery Institute report says that Charles B. Thaxton, editor of Pandas, had picked the phrase up from a NASA scientist, and thought, "That's just what I need, it's a good engineering term."") There is a separate article for that book; include the information there! In the section on concepts of the belief system, while generally more well-constructed, it still has its fair share of issues. The paragraph of "Critics point out that the irreducible complexity" is vague in referring to whom these critics are, which is embarrassing when the section on Specified complexity does this tactic of citing a vague "scientific community" correctly. The "Fine-tuned universe" paragraph has only one citation, and it doesn't even link to anything! The distinction of the ideology from the movement is made too little too late for how the article presents the relevance of the Discovery Institution...

I could go on, but I have a feeling the people responsible for the poor state of the article have their heels dug in so deeply that they will refuse to acknowledge the myriad of problems within the article, so I'll abridge my grievances: the article is absolutely filled with author judgments more concerned with refuting the subject rather than presenting a clean, readable text, and as a result the article is filled with poor citations, clunky and out-of-place details, and an astonishing amount of frontloaded bloat. It has been an absolute chore to read this thing.

I know this is going to be taken in bad faith to be misconstrued as "remove all criticism from the article," which is absolutely not backed up by anything I just said, so let me repeat that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking that the few people with self-restraint here actually structure the article to read like something trying to give an overview of the subject foremost, criticisms debunkings and all, in a clean, readable manner, and not like it was written foremost as a sloppy blog entry wearing the skin of an encyclopedia.

OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

ID is a paragon of pseudoscience, according to WP:BESTSOURCES, and we have the website policy WP:PSCI.

About Scientology: we don't say that because that is a matter of judging intentions rather than judging facts. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I would implore you to actually read the post you're replying to.

I do not care about validity of the subject matter (though I do think the "pseudoscience" label could benefit from a citation and end a lot of talk on this page if added, since one thing I keep seeing while reading posts here is that there's apparently a lot of sources calling it one). I'm discussing the poor state in which this article is written because it's entirely from people foremost interested in taking the ideology down a peg thinking they have article ownership and loading it with original research, to a point that it reads worse than other infamous pseudoscience topics. Similar articles have clear and lengthy sections for criticisms and debunkings that serve just fine. This one opts to make a massive mess of the subject. It's a badly written article.

You can agree or disagree with the subject, but from an objective point of view the article is a mess. If I find the energy/time, I'll clean up a lot of my grievances myself.

OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The tone can get copy/edited. But the fact that it is patent pseudoscience should remain inside the article, very clearly and unambiguously expressed. In that respect we have no choice, since website policy is binding. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The tone can get copy/edited. But the fact that it is patent pseudoscience should remain inside the article

For probably the third time now, I don't give a crap about that label. I would even agree that it should be there if it was sourced. My problem is the article is poorly written. I have given several examples demonstrating this, please actually read those instead of arguing against a point nobody is making.

OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, to the point: criticism sections are dissuaded. Criticism should be spread inside the article, refuting each point being made by the pseudoscientists.

In other words: the fact that this article does not have a criticism section is a net positive, and the articles which do aren't good examples to imitate. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Criticism should be spread inside the article, refuting each point being made by the pseudoscientists.

Do you have a policy you can point to that illustrates that to be the case? This is one of the only articles I have seen on the site whose reading goes out of its way to meticulously try to debunk everything stated within it. This type of writing isn't employed in many other religious articles if at all, and reads choppy and unfocused.

OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 01:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criticism#Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

While I do honestly appreciate the attempt at giving a policy, the subject of this page should fall under an exception mentioned:

"For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (Idealism, Naturalism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religion (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) – it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle. Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets."

In the case of this article, there are several instances where this kind of information is haphazardly placed about because of the lack of refrain. I listed one in the article trying to link the subject to a conservative think tank, but there are more.

OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

ID is propagated by a Christian conservative think-tank. It's not some accidental detail of it, it is so by design. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The section as worded reads like a clear violation of WP:AWW. A stronger relationship than "The leading proponents of ID are associated with" should be provided, and this information should be listed in the section regarding the movement. While the information is important to include, in its current state it's not important enough to include in the opening section, much less before the early history of the ideology before YECs.

OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 03:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Let me tell you something: the people who hate mainstream science already got the message that Wikipedia is against them. So, we're writing for a certain audience, not for everybody.

Our bias is not concealed. People who love Wikipedia, love it for such bias. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

This is an open encyclopedia, not your personal blog. I don't give a crap what windmill-tilting you seem to think is being waged against a couple hundred creationist nutjobs, the article is written like crap and I've given several clear examples and policies that showcase very specific examples.

OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@OldManYellsAtClouds Rather than yell at clouds, it'd be better to positively address issues. Here's a small example with a big issue behind it: you say, "The "Fine-tuned universe" paragraph has only one citation, and it doesn't even link to anything!". The reason it (and many pseudo-links like it) doesn't link to anything is the big issue and it needs someone with your energy to address it. -- Jmc (talk) 03:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

While I do appreciate the invitation, and will probably take it up when I have more time on my hands, un

Judging byIsome of the rather... let's say "brash adamancy" of some of the regulars on this talk page i. I worry that such radical changes such as removing that problematic paragraph and rearranging the criticisms into a cleaner format would be misconstrued as trying to hide or mitigate criticisms against the subject matter. Rather than risk a one-sided edit war, it would be better for the people adding these text to just provide a proper citation and not make the article a complete mess.both carrying the article's current style, I suspect I may need to take your advice regardless.

OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 03:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

As the article is protected, I'm working at a proposed rewrite that cleans up some of the grievances I have with the page on my userpage. As of writing I have the introductory paragraph glanced at. If you're not being coy, I'd like honest feedback on my proposed changes.

OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The introduction of an article contains the summary of the body of that article. So, unless the version you are proposing is very closed from the current version, any new introduction not properly summarizing the current version of the article is likely to be a non starter. --McSly (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

So, unless the version you are proposing is very closed from the current version

It is, just a tad more streamlined, cleaned, and worded more impartially. I left commentary, including two explicit requests for citations.

OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

You are requesting a citation for "pseudoscience". But no citation is given, according to WP:CITELEAD. So, yes, there is a reason why no citation is given.

I saw the changes you advocate for: the changes are minor, and often not compliant with WP:PAGs. About impartiality, see WP:FALSEBALANCE.

Also, I don't see why WP:RS should be provided for a hidden comment. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

You are requesting a citation for "pseudoscience". But no citation is given, according to WP:CITELEAD. So, yes, there is a reason why no citation is given.

I believe the exceptions listed in MOS:CITELEAD are applicable here, given how contentious the label has been in these talk pages, and from the opening sentence of the article itself having five citations within it. Moving the fifth reference to specifically address the pseudoscience label adds no new citations to the lead and satisfies my complaint with that particular point. I ask in my suggestions for someone to provide a source since (1) I believe there may be a more readily-available source that could be used in its place, and (2) I typed it on mobile and don't like using the article editor for more than basic formatting.

I saw the changes you advocate for: the changes are minor, and often not compliant with WP:PAGs. About impartiality, see WP:FALSEBALANCE.

I'm tempted to evoke WP:SARC here, as "and often not compliant with WP:PAGs" is possibly one of the most vague and thus irrelevant complaints that could be levied. I ask for forgiveness in being heated for a moment; the idea that a simple cleanup to the article, a cleanup in which I've not added anything to even hint at the validity of ID and attempted to avoid WP:POVDELETION by retaining criticisms except in cases where it would be better to move information, is even remotely the same thing as trying to make a false balance is overly simplistic and a tad insulting. Wikipedia is not obliged to validate pseudoscience, I can agree and don't think either of us said otherwise, but it's also not a place for authors to engage against the subject (much less focus on discrediting fringe theories) to make it a messy read or use the notion of bias existing to go on tangents about the subject in ways that harm the objective tone and pacing of the article.

The thing that really gets me scratching my head about all of this is that the sources and facts are against ID, so making a clearer article helps ID proponents none.

OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 06:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:FALSEBALANCE was a reply to more impartially. You proposed minor edits, so I don't see those as either cleanup of the article or making the article more impartial. This all debate seems therefore as much ado about nothing. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:FALSEBALANCE was a reply to more impartially

I never asked for more impartiality, I described this as a perk of the cleanup. Please follow the conversation.

You proposed minor edits, so I don't see those as either cleanup of the article or making the article more impartial.

I'll ignore the non-sequitur in that and reassert the context of what's happening: I am pulling teeth against a user who thinks WP:NOOBJECTIVITY means an author should argue against the subject of an article, and am being met with resistance for miniscule cleanups in the opening paragraphs. I would go through cleaning up the entire thing for its other myriad issues, but lack any trust that such exhaustive efforts would be met with anything besides someone violating WP:OWNER.

This debate being "for nothing" can be amswered with one question: what is going to happen if I try to get even those simple cleanups in the lead put in? I hope, in that front, I'd have made a stink for nothing.

OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, friend, I'm only one editor, so I never decide myself the WP:CONSENSUS.

WP:NOOBJECTIVITY is an essay, meaning it is neither policy, nor guideline. WP:PSCI on the other hand is website policy. So, obviously, website policy trumps an essay. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, friend, I'm only one editor, so I never decide myself the WP:CONSENSUS.

I'm really interested in what conversation you're having in which you're debating if ID is pseudoscience.

It seriously is grating to read so many replies from you that fail to address even one point being brought up and instead go after some paranoia.

WP:NOOBJECTIVITY is an essay, meaning it is neither policy, nor guideline.

That argument is on-par with the "evolution is just a theory" sound bite creationists love. [WP:NOOBJECTIVITY] summarizes a policy which reads "which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

Emphasis mine. Meanwhile you're on here justifying an article littered with WP:OR with "Our bias is not concealed. People who love Wikipedia, love it for such bias." I

WP:PSCI on the other hand is website policy

Is anyone here arguing that ID isn't pseudoscience?

OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:PSCI requires a certain tone of the article. While you admit that ID is pseudoscience, you seek to soften the tone of the article. E.g. downplaying that it is essentially a movement propagated by a conservative Christian think tank. And that it caters to fundamentalist Christians and evangelicals, since Catholics and mainline Protestants made peace with the theory of evolution. And that instead of seeking to discover new objective facts in biology, it is essentially a ploy to introduce God in sciences, i.e. despite the boundaries established by Immanuel Kant, who said he had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:PSCI requires a certain tone of the article

I do not believe you are meeting that tone. You are going beyond meeting explaining that the content of the article is wrong and are more focused on a personal mission to debate everything within it with Original Research. There's several instances where you're barely citing scientific experts or explaining that the counterarguments come from these experts.

• "A sufficiently succinct summary of the argument from design shows its unscientific, circular, and thereby illogical reasoning" <-- This is your conclusion presented without a source
• "Whether this lack of specificity about the designer's identity in public discussions is a genuine feature of the concept – or just a posture taken to avoid alienating those who would separate religion from the teaching of science – has been a matter of great debate between supporters and critics of intelligent design. The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court ruling held the latter to be the case." <-- Debated by whom? This is the closing paragraph of a section, not the beginning summary. Don't just reference the court ruling in-sentence either, put its verdict at the end and cite the case.
• "Variations on the phrase appeared in Young Earth creationist publications (...) there in the first place."" <-- Move source 34 earlier, since there's a clear split in the paragraph where it stops referencing material from it and starts referencing material from 33.
• "Critics point out that the irreducible complexity argument assumes that the necessary parts of a system have always been necessary and therefore could not have been added sequentially." <-- I don't have anything suggesting needing fixed here, I want to point out that this paragraph is mostly good. The vague "critics" is part of the introduction, but even it's cited, and later on it starts giving names with specific arguments. This is good. This is how the article should read. There's a lot of sections that read like this, and I feel as if it would be unfair to leave them unrecognized.
• "Irreducible complexity has remained a popular argument among advocates of intelligent design;" <--- I say the paragraph is "mostly" good because of this line. This should be reworded or removed. It doesn't help the proceeding explicitly cited debunking, and it is redundant. You are presenting this idea first in the argument list. Narratively, this weight assumes that it's a popular argument (avoid weasel words too).

There are more examples, but I wish to move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldManYellsAtClouds (talk • contribs) 14:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

While you admit that ID is pseudoscience

This statement reads as if you're proposing that everyone who agrees with the scientific community should be okay with the sloppy article, which is ridiculous. It's entirely possible to be objective about a topic known to be false, and to criticize an article on the subject for its shortcomings.

you seek to soften the tone of the article (...)

It is apparent you are not reading my posts, and came in here with a preconceived notion that everyone critical of the article's writing and structure must be a proponent of ID, and no amount of reasoning or given examples of the article's shortcomings will convince you otherwise.

Get this through your head. Sit down and read this slowly, multiple times if needed: I am not arguing about the validity of ID. I am addressing the writing of a poorly-constructed Wikipedia article.

It's as if you think not including the sources of these statement would make anyone susceptible to believing ID. When a lot of people see articles like this one, argumentized takedowns that use your own wording more than the scientific community's, they see someone with a personal grudge about the ideology and want to know why it made them so mad, and end up looking into it. Having names behind the statements make the content stronger and more reliable, which hurts ID more.

Instead of squabbling with you further, I'm going to begin making some minor edits to the article to fix some of these myriad issues.

OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Please align with reliable sources

https://www.britannica.com/topic/intelligent-design 174.62.129.125 (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100006119 174.62.129.125 (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Please read FAQ at the top of the page. --McSly (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Britannica does explain intelligent design, this is where it is explained in full detail: https://www.britannica.com/science/evolution-scientific-theory/Intelligent-design-and-its-critics tgeorgescu (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

user:tgeorgescu - that’s a good article, I particularly liked the mentions of Fisher or Hardy-Weinberg more than the focus on Paley and IC. But from the OP briefness I cannot tell what they meant by “align”. Perhaps from the brevity they didn’t get very far in the details and are just talking the lead here versus how what they pointed to starts. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

My guess is that they are referring to the much more neutral tone of other encyclopedias. E.g. The lack of the term 'pseudoscience' in the linked articles. Similarly, Intelligent design - Citizendium does not make such a definitive conclusion. Stating much more objectively that "The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has concluded that, in its present form, ID cannot be regarded as scientific because the claims made by its proponents are not testable." BeLikeBritannica (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The difference is one of tone, not of meaning. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. The meaning is different. Labeling ID as pseudoscience is a conclusion, not universally agreed, nor objectively measureable, nor even adequately supported by referenced expert opinions. Stating that the US National Academy of Sciences concluded that in it's present form ID cannot be regarded as scientific is a neutral objective statement of a fact. Nearly all statements from organizations rejecting ID don't use the perjorative term 'pseudoscience' BeLikeBritannica (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

ID pretends it is scientific AND ID cannot be regarded as scientific, therefore ID is pseudoscience. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

BeLikeBritannica, this is covered by the FAQ. The goal of the FAQ is to avoid wasting time on useless discussions, like this one. --McSly (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Pseudoscience? Creationism?

Sir Fred Hoyle, staunch lifelong atheist - "hard" atheist -in his Omni Lecture at the Royal Institution, London, January 12th, 1982, had this to say: “The difference between an intelligent ordering, whether of words, fruit boxes, amino acids, or the Rubik cube, and merely random shufflings can be fantastically large, even as large as a number that would fill the whole volume of Shakespeare’s plays with its zeros. So if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of in pondering this issue over quite a long time seems to me to have anything like as high a possibility of being true.” 2601:404:CB83:D50:44C8:EE37:6741:1F40 (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ at the top of the page. You could also take a look at Argument from incredulity. --McSly (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

See WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:SOAPBOX--Mr Fink (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Also see Hoyle's fallacy. -- Jmc (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

And WP:RS and WP:OR. Your own thinking, as any other user's, isn't worth shit here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a proposed edit in IP, but the FAQ does not include Hoyle since the article does not. Seems reasonable to discuss if Hoyle *should* be mentioned as a precursor in this article or at Specified complexity. The article does mention Paley which is far distant past and not as direct a link nor related to the ID concepts expressed in this article. I easily found reasonable cites in the history of ID that 'the term Intelligent design appears to have been coined from Hoyle and Horrigan', and a prominent criticism referring to specified complexity as a 'variant of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe's old claim' (about the probability of a tornado assembling a Concorde) -- so having a mention of the precursor and wikilink to Junkyard tornado seems reasonable. But p-value use of probability common in scientific studies (although commonly problematic) is more the see-also wikilink than Argument from incredulity since presenting details of method and calculation is not properly termed "incredulity". So -- mention Hoyle here, in SC, or not at all ???? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

It's important not to conflate the argument from design with intelligent design. The argument from design posits that only an intelligence could have created the universe. Intelligent design OTOH posits that the argument from design is a scientific one and also that it can be bolstered through scientific research.

So Hoyle did not endorse ID. TFD (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

TFD - That the article does conflate the argument from design with intelligent design is a different topic than the question of whether to mention Fred Hoyle as a precursor - perhaps in the "Origin of the concept" or the "Fine-tuned universe" sections. And to the contrary, Hoyle is listed as a supporter of ID -- though again the question was whether to note him as a precursor, either here or at Specified complexity. To be precise the 'support' means as a precursor he preceded the Intelligent design movement by a few years with his own ideas of life on Earth came from outer space, the argument of improbability and use of Information theory (similar to Specified complexity), his creating the Junkyard tornado metaphor, plus remarks about Fine-tuned universe, etcetera. His 1983 book The Intelligent Universe "Examines the origins of life on earth, analyzes the Darwinian theory of evolution, and argues that life is the result of a deliberate plan." The 'support' does not mean he was a member of Discovery institute and as far as I've googled he made no comment at all about the IDM or court case -- at least nothing as famous as his originating the above concepts. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

It's more accurate to say that ID advocates claim him as a precursor. TFD (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

TFD - so to check, are you answering the question with a yes, that the article mention Hoyle and phrase it 'ID advocates claim him as a precursor' ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

No, not unless reliable secondary sources routinely mention that ID supporters claim him as a forerunner. And even if they do, it doesn't give us licence to copy the quote above. The purpose of the article is to describe ID based on how it is reported in reliable sources, not to engage in advocating it. TFD (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

TFD - understood, although I hope you mean Third-party sources and WP:WEIGHT. The ID proponents are obviously RS for what ID proponents say, as 'ID advocates claim him as a precursor' is objective fact. Second-party would be anti-ID such as NCSE and hence not reliable for what ID claims nor for WP:WEIGHT. Third-party would be outside reporting such as USnews.com - though I only see they reporting it as fact, not ‘ID advocates claim’ e.g.

The term "intelligent design" appears to have been coined in its contemporary scientific usage by the atheist cosmologist Dr. Fred Hoyle, who in 1982 argued that "if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design." The term "intelligent design" was also used by non-scientist James E. Horigan in his 1979 book Chance or Design? where Horigan used the term "intelligent design" and framed his argument as an empirical one, "without resort to biblical or other religious references," and without investigating questions about "ultimate purpose." Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

To assert that USnews.com is reporting it as fact seems a claim too far. It appears in a guest blog by a creationist who begins his post thus: "Most Darwinists involved in the public debate today have one, and only one goal: To stifle free debate on this subject and thereby discourage you, the public, from scrutinizing the scientific evidence for yourself." -- Jmc (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Jmc well, among all the googles I had missed that header -- so the USnews.com quote is showing one example of ID advocates saying Hoyle was a precursor and their mentioning the objective fact that "intelligent design" was a term Hoyle used a few years before. Anyway -- do you have a position about the question of how or if to mention Hoyle in article ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

ID proponents are not RS for what ID proponents say, because each one is expressing his own opinion, not speaking as a spokesman for the movement.

The fact that Fred Hoyle put the words intelligent and design together in the 1960s doesn't mean he was advocating a belief system that developed decades later.

I don't know why you keep pushing this. Of course some things we cannot explain could be caused by ghosts. But that's beyond the realm of scientific enquiry. TFD (talk) 06:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

TFD Clearly what was published and that IDM mentions Hoyle of the 1980s is objective fact, the question was how or if to mention Hoyle as a precursor in article, which you have already responded to. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Mark, you seem to be trolling and/or trying to synthesise an argument using primary or unreliable sources. Don't. . . dave souza, talk 22:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

dave souza Hi Dave. I am asking a simple and obvious question — taking note of the IP (which indeed is objective fact and appears fairly commonly mentioned in IDM) to ask if Hoyle should be mentioned as a precursor in this article or at Specified complexity. I would prefer if a simple edit question could be easier with simple edit answers, but I suppose any controversial topic has this kind of difficulty of lots of off-question replies. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Per weight, Hoyle only belongs in the article if mentioned in reliable secondary sources about ID. As WP:FRINGE says, "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles."

ID proponents would obviously have us believe that Hoyle endorsed their views. If he did, it would give them respectability. We would need a reliable secondary source to comment on that. TFD (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

To summarize a conclusion to this subthread: There seems no interest and not much attention to the question, so Hoyle remarks exist and are said by IDM as coining the term "Intelligent Design" they later used, but the conclusion is to not include any mention. The thread question was not whether Hoyle endorsed ID, the question was more whether Hoyle should be mentioned as a precursor. The probability argument quoted by IP and/or Hoyle's use of the term "intelligent designer" seemed candidates for note either here or at Specified complexity. Hoyle notably had a probability argument against abiogenesis (Junkyard tornado) although that was more generally for advocating cosmic panspermia (Psuedo-panspermia), such as in the 1982 book 'Evolution in Space', rather than an intelligent designer of Directed panspermia. Anyway, thanks for what input there was and over & out. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

An article unworthy of Wikipedia.

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article, as currently conceived, exhibits a significant bias aimed at discrediting the Intelligent Design theory rather than offering a comprehensive explanation of its principles. While it's reasonable for any theory to include a section critiquing it and presenting opposing viewpoints, the article appears more focused on criticizing Intelligent Design rather than providing an impartial overview of it. It appears that any theory suggesting an alternative perspective to the established norms of scientific materialism is met with apprehension by certain Wikipedia users. There is nothing more unscientific than consensus ;-) Sergeant Batou (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC) We don't do impartial on this website per the WP:NPOV-policy. It may seem strange, but it's how it is. WP favors the mainstream scientific view, so we're partial in a lot of places. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC) See also WP:FALSEBALANCE. In every written discussion, ID proponents fail miserably against science proponents. All their reasoning is crap. They have nothing, not even a theory. This is reflected in reliable sources, and that is what we report. If you read only what IP proponents say, you will obviously have a distorted view at odds with reality, at odds with reliable sources and at odds with the Wikipedia article, and you will attribute "bias" to the article. You should read the sources linked in the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC) "Wikipedia favors the mainstream scientific view, so we're partial in a lot of places" This, my dear wikipedian, is perhaps the most unscientific thing imaginable, and history provides us with countless examples; science may establish theories as certain and gain massive support from the scientific community, only to later dismantle them. My point here is why some entries on Wikipedia seem to receive such radically different treatment in tone and form depending on their content. It doesn't seem fair to me... Sergeant Batou (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Anybody who believes that ID is science has no business telling others about what is scientific and what is not. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Reliable sources say ID is pseudoscience. End of story. Bye. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Yeah, that sets science apart from religion, science can change it's mind, annoying politicians and other people. If ID ideas get the post 1950 Alfred Wegener treatment at some point, we'll deal with that when it happens. As a Swedish comedian once said, "Oh well, I never did expect to be appreciated during my own lifetime anyway. But other times will come!" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC) "your reasoning is crap" "End of story. Bye" Please refrain from using overly sophisticated arguments that nearly persuade! If ID is as absurd and surreal as the flat earth theory, I fail to comprehend the aggression towards it. it's simply a wild notion! Who cares, then? Or perhaps, radically different ideas from our own simply evoke FEAR? :) Sergeant Batou (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Intelligent Design is as absurd and surreal as the Flat Earth theory because no Intelligent Design proponents have ever bothered to demonstrate how saying "DESIGNERDIDIT" is supposed to be science. In fact, it's thoroughly documented that its creators, the Cdesign Proponentsists at the Discovery Institute, only devised Intelligent Design as an excuse to sneak in Young Earth Creationist anti-science propaganda into science classrooms with a minimum of legal fuss. Furthermore, please remember that Wikipedia talkpages are for discussing actionable requests for improving articles, and are WP:NOTAFORUM nor WP:SOAPBOX from which to scold and whine about how Wikipedia is so evil for not kissing the ring or tuchas of your favorite Pseudoscience for Jesus. Mr Fink (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Maybe you should remember what talk pages are for. They aren't intended for you to use them to give your personal opinions on ID, insult other editor's religious beliefs or generally act condescending to someone who hasn't been discourteous to you. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Indeed, though it is a waste of everyone's time arguing that ID is not a pseudoscientific theory, because it clearly is. Black Kite (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Sergeant Batou: "... science may establish theories as certain and gain massive support from the scientific community, only to later dismantle them." Yes, that's the nature of science, and Wikipedia goes along with it, always open to recording the current state of scientific knowledge. And in the current state of scientific knowledge, intelligent design is a pseudoscience. -- Jmc (talk) 04:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC) I am quite surprised, truthfully, by all the interesting responses that my comment has sparked – some quite intriguing, and others unfortunately overly condescending and openly aggressive. But well, there have always been different ways and means of debating, and sometimes fanaticism and visceral reactions overshadow constructive exchanges of opinions. That being said, I believe there is some confusion regarding my viewpoint: I neither defend nor believe in Intelligent Design. My text refers to the fact that the way it is currently portrayed on Wikipedia seems more like a biased opinion piece than a neutral article in a supposedly serious encyclopedia. An encyclopedic article should present facts objectively, and it is up to the reader to determine through reasoning and intellectual evaluation whether it is a serious theory, pseudoscience, or utter madness. However, an article should not openly begin with terms that clearly sway the reader's opinions in one direction or another. In this case, the entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica, while equally critical of the movement, shows enough intellectual respect for the reader to define it as an "Argument" and not a "Pseudoscience" Honestly, I entered Wikipedia to look up the concept because I had read it mentioned in an article out of sheer curiosity. But seeing the belligerence, dogmatism, and lack of manners with which I have been treated, I now have a thousand times more interest in the theory :) Sergeant Batou (talk) 11:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC) @Sergeant Batou: See https://www.britannica.com/science/evolution-scientific-theory/Intelligent-design-and-its-critics#ref247559 tgeorgescu (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC) Perhaps some of the archived discussions will interest you as well:[1] Britannica, though a little shorter, does use different words: "Meanwhile, intelligent design appeared incapable of generating a scientific research program, which inevitably broadened the gap between it and the established norms of science." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC) Thank you for providing the sources; I intend to read them thoroughly and engage in the intellectual exercise of forming my own conclusions based on data, arguments, and humility. Minds are not swayed by condescension and hostility, but rather by thoughtful consideration. I believe Wikipedia entries would maintain greater intellectual honesty and fairness if they employed neutral terms such as "argument" or "theory," rather than the inherently negative term "pseudoscience," which is often chosen with bias. This marks the conclusion of my participation in this conversation, as I wish to prevent it from devolving into a forum-like exchange. I extend my gratitude to those who contributed meaningful arguments and sources, and express my deepest disdain for those who resort to digital barbarism (they know who they are). Kind regards. Sergeant Batou (talk) 11:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC) And if you wish to comment further on this talkpage, consider "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Intelligent design article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Next time, try to suggest a specific change to the article, based on on-topic WP:RS. Or be WP:BOLD and see what happens. If you want to suggest changes to WP:NPOV, that page has a talkpage too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC) You should also remember to remind WP:PA users when they use expressions as constructive as "ring or tuchas of your favorite Pseudoscience for Jesus," "All their reasoning is crap," or "End of story. Bye," if I may add my two cents :) Sergeant Batou (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC) Those are not PAs because they are not about people. They are about the quality of reasoning. Stop misusing this page as a forum. I think we can close this waste of spacetime. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC) You've consistently attempted to silence me from our very first interaction, lacking even basic courtesy and resorting to aggressive and highly unpleasant behavior. It's regrettable that expressing a calmly and politely held opinion is met with such extreme hostility from you, a tone I've noticed you directed towards anyone not aligned with your intellectual views.I also find it amusing how a common tactic on the talk page (just take a look at the history) is to engage in lengthy debates, only to quickly resort to the trump card of 'this is not a forum' when an idea doesn't sit well. Anyway, from this point on, it makes no sense to continue a conversation that you've tainted with hostility from the start. Best regards to all Wikipedians Sergeant Batou (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC) Sergeant, if you think that Hob violated the Wikipedia:Civility guideline, you may need to consider a Dispute resolution request. Dimadick (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC) Everyone should remember that Intelligent Design, in its current iteration, did not arise in a vacuum. The context here, as laid out in the article, is an attempt to shoehorn divine creation into US public school science classes, disingenuously framing ID as an alternative scientific idea while concealing its religious basis, as litigated in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District in 2005, with the judge describing the school board's action in that case as breathtakingly inane. Anyone opening a discussion on this talk page using language like "unworthy" and "significant bias" may expect vigorous pushback. Just plain Bill (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC) I just came across this page and was surprised at the incompleteness of the content as well as some of the rationale used throughout to make definitive statements which are clearly biased opinions. First and foremost, the source references used for anything related to Intelligent Design are 2008 or earlier. There has been a bit of progress in this field in 15+ years and this page should represent that if trying to be honest (otherwise some might think this lack of update is for other reasons). You can no longer call ID "pseudoscience" based on the number of books and scientific articles that have been published since 2008 by plenty of PHDs from every field of science. ID is NOT creationism since at it's core it is using scientific methods, data, and experiments to demonstrate that there is evidence in nature that points to some intelligence as a casual power as opposed to purely random gradual mutations over long periods of time (ID does NOT identify the intelligence in question). ID uses the same method of historical scientific reasoning as Darwin did, so if one is pseudoscience, they both are. Also, ID did not arise "to shoehorn creation into US public school classes" at all since the creators of the movement did not start or encourage what happen in the schools in Dover, PA (it's great that we had a Judge to tell us what qualifies as science and what does not). Science should be the search for TRUTH using competing theories and this evolves over time the more we know (it is NOT static consensus by a few). Please realize that religion and science are NOT mutually exclusive since in the end, all world views believe in something outside of space, material, and time (i.e., pre-big bang). ID makes the scientific case for a designing intelligence. Scientific materialism (i.e., atheism) tries to makes the case for the beginning of the universe, first life (abiogenesis), and Darwin's common descent, but there is plenty of room for other theories in these areas at the present time based on their blatant weaknesses. Suggest the authors of this article actually catch up on the latest in ID and revise the article from a position of knowledge versus planned ignorance (and take a look at Günter Bechly's story in the process). T NorthStar (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC) You may or may not find something that interests you at Talk:Intelligent design/FAQ. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC) Thanks for the link to that page. Actually, that FAQ essentially validates all of my points. This Wikipedia article essentially stopped doing real revisions to the page for anything on the side of ID in 2008. Using the judges ruling in Kitzmiller from 2005 based on words from the opposing sides legal brief can hardly be the final word. Stating "a majority of scientists" is consensus-based scientism, not true science. There are now over 200 peer-reviewed and mainstream scientific publications supporting Intelligent Design (see [2]) in addition to many published books from PhDs in Mathematics, Biology, Chemistry, Astrophysics, Paleontology, etc. It might be time to revise the FAQ and the Article if the objective is to be unbiased. T NorthStar (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC) From the Introduction to the cited Discovery Institute list of publications supporting ID: "Collectively, this research is converging on a consensus: many complex features of life and the universe cannot arise by unguided processes (e.g., Darwinian evolution), but indicate an intelligent cause." Consensus? Sounds like scientism, not true science, to me. -- Jmc (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC) The Discovery Center is an unreliable source notorious for its anti-science bias. Furthermore, talkpages are WP:NOTAFORUM. Mr Fink (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC) I see, so since the list of scientific publications is listed on the Discovery Center site, all of those scientific publications are now unreliable sources as well? Suggest that the authors of this page actually look at the references and progress made in this area before dismissing and clinging to blanket statements. Answer #2 on the Talk FAQ page no longer applies as there is more being tested and predicted in ID today than can be said of neo-Darwinian Evolution theory. There is only so much that can be tested and predicted in regards to historical science anyway but that applies to both theories equally and one is making continuous progress while the gaps in the other continues to widen (fossil record, complexity of simplest cell, biological information, bacteria evolution studies, etc.). Can you really hold to this article being from a Neutral Point of View if it is 15+ years out of date? T NorthStar (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC) Certainly, a list published by The Discovery Institute of what they say are "peer reviewed scientific publications in support of ID" is of absolutely no use whatsoever. Even if they are peer-reviewed (and peer-reviewed in a manner which would make them reliable), what is their link to ID? Which part of ID do they "support"? Anyway, this doesn't matter because, I can see straight away that a very large number of those "peer-reviewed scientific publications" originate from BIO-complexity, which is run by the Biologic Institute. As its article says, the BI was "created to give the organization a facade of conducting biological research with the aim of producing experimental evidence of intelligent design creationism, funded by the Discovery Institute". On this basis, I would assume that the other articles in the DI's list are equally worthless. Black Kite (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC) Ok, so the list "is of absolutely no use whatsoever" because ~ 40 of the 200+ references are from one source that you distrust? There are a lot of "assumptions" being made here without anyone actually looking at details of the work being done by PhDs from all fields of Science and Math. But people that come to this page or Wikipedia in general are supposed to believe it is neutral. Got it. T NorthStar (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC) No, let's be clear about this. If I came to you and said "here is £200 in dollar bills", and the first 40 you checked were all fakes, would you trust the provenance of the other 160? Let's face it, The Discovery Institute has a history of doing this (see talk page archives ad nauseam) so it is unsurprising that in a list of "200 peer reviewed scientific publications", one can write off 40+ of them as neither peer-reviewed nor scientific with a bare 5 minutes research. We haven't even started on the others, but per the dollar bill analogy I would be surprised if any of them were scientifically and properly peer-reviewed and were also "in support of Intelligent Design". Black Kite (talk) 14:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC) For starters, your insistence on clinging the false equivalency logical fallacy is noted, especially considering the origin of your claim, an anti-science propaganda mill, and how all of the alleged 200+ papers are either irrelevant, or misinterpreted, all ignoring the output of pro-science, pro-evolution peer-reviewed research is greater by several orders of magnitude. Mr Fink (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC) There has been a bit of progress in this field Do they have a theory of ID now? It was always sorely missed. The progress is probably just "we found more things we cannot explain." --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC) You should actually catch up on the last 15+ years for yourself and understand how it should impact the article to remain objective. There are plenty of things today that scientists "cannot explain" including the big bang, fine tuning of the universe for life, abiogenesis (first life), the human mind/consciousness, dark matter/energy, etc. ID uses all fields of science and math to prove a casual agent for some of these unknowns. Defining "science" as requiring "material" is a non-sequitur since we know there are things (mind, math, information, etc.) and times (pre-Big Bang) that are/were not material. I will end it there as I know this page is not a forum but the article should be revised and updated to be remotely considered neutral. T NorthStar (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC) If this thread is just going to be yet another forum thread for more angry whining about how this page isn't pro-Intelligent Design propaganda, can we just hat it?--Mr Fink (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)