Talk:Intelligent design

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

Proposed change from: "Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument"

I propose a change to the start of the first paragraph from the above to "Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute."

@MjolnirPants: "the word is an established fact. There's nothing subjective about it."

Every word is an established fact. What makes a word subjective is not its existence, but its application. In this case, one person might consider Intelligent design to be pseudoscientific, while another person might not. That is why it is subjective, i.e a matter of opinion. Wikipedia should remain non partisan. HelpfulPi (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Opinions are capable of being factual or counterfactual. People are capable of having the opinion that the earth is flat. That does not make the shape of the earth a matter of opinion.

This argument does not address the indisputable fact that countless reliable sources and even a court of law have described ID as pseudoscience (the court quite literally included "ID is not science" in it's ruling), nor the fact that ID literally meets every single criteria for what constitutes pseudoscience. Nor does it do anything to undermine the long-standing and overwhelming consensus of this site to follow our policies with respect to this subject. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Endorse comments by Mr.Pants. EDIT CONFLICT> I SHALL WITHDRAW -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The defining feature of ID is that it's a form of creationism that adopts the forms of science, but not the methods of science, to make its case. Hence "pseudoscientific". As a defining feature, this belongs in the opening sentence. Guettarda (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not a defining feature. It's an emergent property from the definition. I think we currently have the first sentence wrong, we should define it first, and then say what a bunch of pseudoscience it is. GliderMaven (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

GliderMaven, yes it really is. It was invented from whole cloth to try to get creationism taught in schools. See cdesign proponentsists.

That's why it's cited as an example of pseudoscience in pretty much every text on the subject. Creationism is religion so can't be taught in science class, so creationists invent a form of "science" that they then try to get taught in science class. It's hard to be any more on-point than this, as definitional pseudoscience goes. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

It is pseudoscience because its proponents claim that empirical evidence can be used to determine whether or not the universe was created by an intelligent being. TFD (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

HelpfulPi, it's the canonical example of pseudoscience, cited in every text on the subject I've ever read. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Right, but that's not really a good definition. The discovery institute say a lot of pseudoscientific things! ;) A good definition defines it for people who don't know what 'intelligent design' means, and are unfamiliar with the discovery institute. GliderMaven (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Don't you know what ID means? At heart, "intelligent design" evokes the design argument, but instead of being honest that it's natural theology, it's tarted up to look sciency. . . dave souza, talk 20:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, I swapped it around a bit, I think it's much better now. GliderMaven (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

That is the definition of pseudoscience. What do you think it means? Take for example the quote you added from the Discovery Institute: "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Suppose you could prove that genetic changes were not random. Scientists would then look for physical causes of the changes. They wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it was magic. And if you could prove it was random, the people at the Discovery Institute wouldn't suddenly become atheists. They would say that randomness was part of God's plan. Or that it only applies to changes within a species, not for the development of new species. The claim that empirical research can prove or disprove intelligent design is a pseudoscientific claim. TFD (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

That's completely fine, except we're not defining pseudoscience, we're defining intelligent design. We need to assume that people don't know what intelligent design or the discovery institute is, and define ID. Saying that it is or isn't pseudoscience doesn't define it. GliderMaven (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

GliderMaven, I'm struggling to understand your point. Intelligent design is defined as a pseudoscientific form of creationism, right? As in, a form of creationism deliberately designed (oh the irony) to look like science. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

GliderMaven, you're trying to present upfront a deliberately misleading pseudoscientific self-definition, segregating the mainstream view contrary to WP:STRUCTURE policy and WP:PSCI policy. If you want a simple definition, the majority view is clearly that ID is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins". . .dave souza, talk 19:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

No, WP:LEAD says you're supposed to define the topic first. It's not pseudoscientific by definition, it's pseudoscientific as a consequence of the Discovery Institute presenting the idea as scientific, and because the evidence is so heavily against it. So we'd reversed it in the first few sentences. Basically, we should and need to do it very similarly to what is done at Astrology. GliderMaven (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I've directed you to policies, you're pointing to a guideline which by definition isn't a policy, and you seem to be misinterpreting that guideline. The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is. Not present the uninformed reader with misleading waffle shown out of context. . . dave souza, talk 21:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

No. The first sentence is "Intelligent Design is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins". That's not the definition. It's supposed to be a definition. It's not about something is 'presented' it's supposed to be a definition. That's preamble. Wikipedia leads don't have preambles like that. GliderMaven (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

It's pseudoscientific by definition. Without the pseudoscience, it would be the argument from design. It's not just the argument that the supposed design in nature is proof of a creator, but the contention this can be proved using the scientific method. TFD (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

That's like saying that humans are Eukaryotes from the definition of Eukaryote. I mean it's perfectly true, but not very helpful to the reader. Just because something is entirely true, doesn't make it the definition. It's supposed to be a definition. GliderMaven (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Your argument in this edit is correct. However, your edit provided an explanation of what the argument says, not a definition of what the argument is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Totally different. Believers define ID as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life’s origins-one that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution."[1] emphasis.) One cannot define ID without a reference to scientific method, evidence, hypothesis, etc. Saying it is "a form of creationism" incidentally is not a complete definition because there could logically be other forms of creationism. I say logically because you use the article "a" instead of "the." TFD (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you responding to me or GliderMaven? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I was responding to GliderMaven. TFD (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Please note that the definitions or descriptions given by its proponents do not give a positive statement, but reference only by not being a naturalistic (materialist, ...) theory. Just pointing that out. TomS TDotO (talk)

McLean v. Arkansas found that creation science assumes only two explanations for the origins of life and existence of man, plants and animals: it was either the work of a creator or it was not. Creationists take this to mean that all scientific evidence which fails to support the theory of evolution is necessarily scientific evidence in support of creationism. In the Kitzmiller trial, Judge John E. Jones III wrote that ID "employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s" and "is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed." Same old, and pretty much the logical basis of the design argument in natural theology. Which is why IDers definitions need mainstream context from the outset. . .. dave souza, talk 15:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I support the lead statements as they were before GliderMaven's changes. (As the article was.) The definition shouldn't be provided by the proponents, but by Independent Sources; after that we can say what/how proponents phrase their argument/construct. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I support modifying the lead statement. Given GliderMaven's points, the discourse above, and the discourse in the "Should Intelligent Design be capitalized..." conversation below, I propose this: "Intelligent design (ID) is is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God promulgated by the Discovery Institute, presented by it's proponents..." The Discovery Institute is intrinsic to the term as it is being defined in this article. ID (in this article) is about a specific attempt to teach creationism as science. It should have an appropriately specific introduction. This small change could address the majority (not all) of the arguments in both this discussion and the one on capitalization below, and hopefully a compromise/synthesis of the different ideas in these discussions.Zukisama (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a much better proposal. I'm not sure whether I think it's an improvement just yet, but if you don't get more responses than mine, you may wish to propose it in a new section below. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it's wrong to bring the DI into the opening sentence like that. ID's first decade is pre-DI; Panda's and Darwinism on Trial are pre-DI, and DBB was written before Behe was associated with them. In it's second decade ID and the DI are nearly synonymous (though to be specific, it's the CRSC/CSC, not the whole of the DI). Post-Kitzmiller ID is largely a spent force. Guettarda (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Should Intelligent Design be capitalized throughout Wikipedia to emphasize that it refers to a specific, pseudoscientific idea related to YEC?

As someone who believes in theistic evolution, which technically means that God intelligently designed the world using evolution, I think that Intelligent Design has becone a loaded word to refer to a YEC-like idea (i.e. theistic evolutionists believe in intelligent design (lowercase), but not Intelligent Design (capitalized)). I think it's a good idea to capitalize Intelligent Design throughout Wikipedia to emphasize that it refers to this specific thinking, or refer to it as the "Intelligent Design Movement" or something like that to distinguish it from theistic evolution. Félix An (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I honestly thought this was how ID was being treated already, and I agree that it makes sense to do so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

No. We don't create proper nouns when they don't already exist. Guettarda (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Capitalising nouns like this is archaic in English usage, and creates an odd sense of semi-formality. It also makes it seem like this is the real thing, and other usage is lesser. Guettarda (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

It reads to me similar to the normal capitalization one would apply to a trademark (see WP:TMRULES), and gives the opposite impression; "intelligent design" seems like a phrase that could be applied as a value judgement ("the room was intelligently designed") or a description ("Artificial limbs are intelligently designed to minimize the disadvantages of missing a limb,"), whereas "Intelligent Design" immediately makes me think of cdesignproponentsists and pseudoscience. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

But it's not a trademark, it was meant to be a new branch of science. Homeopathy would be a good comparison. Guettarda (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The DI, for example, downcases it. Guettarda (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand that, which is why I said it was "similar to" trademarks. However, ID probably should be a trademark, as it's a product of the Discovery Institute that's marketed to the public and potential purchasers under that name.

I should also point out that capitalization would avoid the need for clarification about which one is being discussed in articles like theistic evolution, though that's not really a topic for this page.

As for the DI's precedent; I'm generally loathe to follow in their footsteps, given their track record for deliberate deception. They rather clearly want "ID" to be seen not as something they invented, but as a descriptive term because of course they do. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

You're oversimplifying the relationship between the DI and ID, but fundamentally NPOV comes into play here. Within limits (like Judge Jones' ruling), we need to treat the DI the same way we treat any other group when we're writing in Wikipedia's voice. That's how we're different from Conservapedia. Guettarda (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I mean, that and a lot of other ways, like how we treat science. I just meant in the context of writing in the voice of the encyclopaedia. Guettarda (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

You've misunderstood me entirely. My point was that the DI has a vested interest in spreading the term and establishing that such a thing as "intelligent design" exists, so as to better market their pet pseudoscience. Keeping it in lowercase helps that, so I wouldn't follow their example, but that of secondary sources in determining capitalization. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Homeopathy is different because there is no room for ambiguity (the word cannot mean anything else). On the other hand, Intelligent Design can mean either the cdesign proponentsists or just intelligent design in general. Here are some sources that capitalize ID: [2][3][4][5] Félix An (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

It isn't different because it's not up to us to make rules around these things. The rules about capitalisation don't take into account confusion - we capitalise things we capitalise, and we don't capitalise the things we don't according to a combination of external usage and our MOS. We don't use capitalisation to facilitate disambiguation. Guettarda (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

As far as "here are some examples" goes - Wikipedia's capitalisation rules place us at one end of a continuum. Examples of others applying different rules doesn't really impact how we apply our rules. Guettarda (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I would like to point out that if the trend in Felix's examples holds true, then it's incumbent upon us to follow the example of the sources. If the sources predominantly don't, capitalize the term, then it would be incumbent upon us to not do so, as well. And if the sources simply vary (which I expect is the case), it is up to us to decide.

I still support doing so, but I've no real attachment to doing so, so I'd like to hear what other editors have to say about it. If there's no consensus for it, then there's no consensus for it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I couldn't find any reliable sources that capitalize intelligent design, which is the basis on which Wikipedia decisions are supposed to be made. While I understand the argument that it should be capitalized, that's something best left to reliable sources.

Intelligent design refers exclusively to the theory advanced by the Discovery Institute. One wouldn't say that God intelligently designed the world, since design implies intelligence and God by definition is the supreme intelligence. The article on theistic evolution manages to explain the concept without using the expression intelligent design except when referring to the Discovery Institute.

TFD (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I concur. TFD states succinctly and conclusively the position that a WP article should take. -- Jmc (talk) 08:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we should follow what the CONSENSUS in RS say; but if they are split, I support using the proper noun as a Wikipedia standard to make it clear to which form is being referred to. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Intelligent design is not a proper noun, therefore it should not be separately capitalised other than in normal sentence case. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

It could be that the issue of capitalization is secondary to the more fundamental point that Félix An (talk · contribs) brought up: Should the article (or the intro paragraph specifically) make clearer distinction between a generic definition of "intelligent design" (possibly synonymous with theistic evolution) and the specific theory advanced by the Discovery Institute? The article treats the more generic aspects in later sections. The introduction, however, does not. Generic usage of this phrase continues to evolve. For example, the NY Times best selling book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind uses this term in reference to genetic engineering. Zukisama (talk) 05:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Second paragraph, first sentence –
Although the phrase intelligent design had featured previously in theological discussions of the argument from design,[10] its first publication in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People, ..."
That gives it more prominence than trying to merge it into the first paragraph, and explains this alternative term for the teleological argument in context. ... dave souza, talk 07:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no generic "intelligent design." If there was, then there would be books and articles about it. The Wired article is merely using the words intelligent design as a synonym for artifact, which is "an object that is made by a person." (Cambridge Dictionary)[6] The concept is discussed in the article Artificiality. TFD (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain the descriptive use of the term is the "generic definition" that Zukisama was referring to. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Zukisama links to a Wired article [seemingly] by Yuval Harari, who uses the term for ID creationism; "Religious fundamentalists believe that life is the product of intelligent design rather than natural selection", then uses the common phrase in discussing future genetic engineering. Which is much the same as intelligent design of kitchens, a usage that predates IDC. Writers commonly use well publicised phrases in a clickbaity way, doesn't make it a generic term. . . dave souza, talk 17:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

You're drawing a distinction between "generic term" and "common term", and my last comment was to say that I don't think Zukisama was drawing that same distinction. Honestly, I haven't got the faintest clue what that distinction might be.

However, we all seem to be in agreement that in the Wired article, the term is used in a descriptive way, not in reference to the DI's pet pseudoscience. That's the use that's suggested be kept lowercase, while references to the pseudoscience be uppercased.

However, the example provided shows only that the term can be used both ways, not that ID is a properly capitalized, meaning it's not useful as evidence of a distinction between the name of the pseudoscience and a descriptive term. It's also a counter-example to the earlier ones showing the capitalized use, though the balance still supports them. So while this seemed like a good suggestion on it's face, per my earlier comment, I don't think we should be the ones to draw a distinction between "intelligent design" as a common term and "Intelligent Design" the pseudoscience. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The "intelligent design of kitchens, a usage that predates IDC" I think makes the point well. The term has a diverse usage in various creationism myths and now even in other literature. Its diversity and ambiguity should just be acknowledged(DI's clearly plays a very large role in the term – that is not in dispute). The Wired article was an example of the term in non-fringe use. This article is by the Yuval Noah Harari and describes the example I referred to above (search on page for "intelligent design"). Zukisama (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that both examples you've presented also make reference to the pseudoscience. That is a serious flaw in the argument that the term is used as a descriptive one outside of the context of the pseudoscience, and is a big part of the reason why I no longer support this change. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I actually think the same observation (usage as both the pseudoscience and descriptive term) makes a point in favor of acknowledging something beyond the DI branded ID. This term is defined in several dictionaries without limiting it to the DI's agenda. Minor changes this first paragraph (such as generalizing the "argument for the existence of God") might encompass a wider array of beliefs, such as those originally expressed by Félix An (talk · contribs). We are, after all, summing (non-fringe) human knowledge. Zukisama (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I actually think the same observation (usage as both the pseudoscience and descriptive term) makes a point in favor of acknowledging something beyond the DI branded ID. Maybe if you had some use of it in a context in which the pseudoscience was not being discussed, but the fact that it only ever seems to be used as a descriptive term when the pseudoscience is part of the context, and/or the fact that authors always seem to mention the pseudoscience whenever they want to use it as a descriptive term does the exact opposite, and both of your links do just that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

In language, it is fairly common to use adjectives to modify nouns, as in intelligent design. Sometimes the two together will describe a new concept and then becomes a compound noun. If it is sufficiently notable and becomes more than a neologism, then writers will generally avoided the adjective-noun phrase unless they are referring to the concept. For example, Irish coffee refers to a specific alcoholic drink made with Irish whiskey. But there are a number of Irish coffee companies, such as Ariosa, that produce their own brands. When we call Ariosa an Irish coffee, Irish coffee is not a compound noun, it merely means coffee blended in Ireland. And note that Irish coffee when it is a compound noun is not capitalized. TFD (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that has been my read of the situation. I very strongly suspect that we are all talking past each other here, give the state of the conversation. Each exchange is moving off on a vastly different tangent, which leads me to believe each response is misinterpreting the comment it was in response to. Let me sum up some things that we all seem to be in agreement on before I re-state my thoughts, hopefully in a more clear manner:

• The term "intelligent design" can be used in a descriptive way, to refer to something which was designed in an intelligent manner. This usage is mostly synonymous with "artifact", but may also imply a positive judgement (e.g. intelligently designed versus stupidly designed).
• The term "intelligent design" also refers to a pseudoscience pushed by the Discovery Institute.
• There are some sources which use the term in a descriptive manner.
• There are far more sources which use the term mainly to refer to the pseudoscience (though they may use it in a descriptive manner to describe the pseudoscience).
• The sources are split on whether to capitalize the term when referring to the pseudoscience, but the large majority do not.

So what I have noticed is that, in both examples in which the source used the term in a descriptive manner (meaning, not in reference to the pseudoscience), they have also made reference to the pseudoscience by stating directly that they're not referring to it with their descriptive use of the term. What this suggests to me is that use of the term in a descriptive manner is not common.

In addition, my (admittedly brief) search for "intelligent design" among reliable sources found almost entirely results that were about the pseudoscience. I did not find any use of the term used prior to it's adoption as the name of the pseudoscience, and extremely limited uses of it in a descriptive manner since. I do believe that there are sources discussing the teleological argument which use the phrase in a descriptive manner, and sources discussing genetic engineering, architecture, interior decorating, etc, which use the term in a descriptive manner, but I haven't found any (beyond those already linked here). This suggests to me that they are relatively rare.

Therefore, while my initial position was that this was a good idea which we should adopt, I have changed my mind. I do not wish to see all references in article space to the pseudoscience capitalized, while all other uses put in lowercase. My preference is to use lowercase entirely, as that seems to be the preference of most reliable sources. Instead, we should be clear in the context of each usage of the term whether we are referring to the pseudoscience or using it in a descriptive manner. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Once again, I concur that all WP articles should use lowercase entirely (as well as making "clear in the context of each usage of the term whether we are referring to the pseudoscience or using it in a descriptive manner").

Surely this can be the end of the matter. -- Jmc (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants (talk · contribs) for this detailed summary. Your point about additional references is, perhaps, the most salient – both regarding upper casing and the more prominent separation of the descriptive sense. Regarding the descriptive sense, I bring various definitions of intelligent design, most of which are descriptive, and the book mentioned above which, which is (as I think you mentioned) a play on the pseudoscience, but I am out of research bandwidth. (Others can bring references at a later date if they feel it's worthwhile, at which point maybe the discussion can continue). I still contend a subtle wording change would make the definition more inclusive of other world views, but I see the consensus among the others in the discussion here, I see the value in citing additional references, and I see the point about leaving it lowercase. Zukisama (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Zukisama, I strongly suggest you go to that link and check each of those sources. Not a single one gives a descriptive definition that isn't particular to the pseudoscience.

The only one that comes close is the thefreedictionary.com definition which gives the same description as both the DI's axiom and as a theological statement. They even link to an encyclopedia entry at the same site, which discusses the DI's pseudoscience. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I think I understand the disconnect. Let me step back and define the terms as I interpreted them:

• "the pseudoscience" – The Discovery Institute's specific Judeo-Christian brand of creationism where the Abrahamic God (capital "G") is seen to have some role in evolution, trumping Natural Selection. By extension, their political and institutionalized efforts are associated with this term. It is specific, sponsored and organized. This is what I think Félix An was suggesting to capitalize.
• "descriptive definition" – A more generalized definition which permits other "creationism" beliefs which have some notion "intelligence" and "design". This includes the majority of the definitions linked to above, other belief systems and worldviews which may have their own creation story. Interestingly, the Intelligent design (disambiguation) page provides such a definition: "Intelligent design is the belief that nature shows evidence of being caused by an intelligent creator, not an undirected process such as natural selection" Note the absence of God (capital "G"), allowing for a more diverse set of world views.

Does "the pseudoscience" deserve emphasis, I think yes. Should the first sentence exclude the possibility of other beliefs? I think not. Zukisama (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, now you're drawing a distinction between the pseudoscience and the teleological argument, and the fact is that many RSes have opined that the pseudoscience is nothing but a repackaged version of the teleological argument. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is the distinction and probably the crux of the matter: "the pseudoscience" (DI's branded, institutionalized effort) is a member of the teleological argument, but not all members of teleological argument belong to "the pseudoscience". Most definitions of intelligent design permit both. Interesting to note is this paragraph from the Teleological argument article: "While the concept of an intelligence behind the natural order is ancient, a rational argument that concludes that we can know that the natural world has a designer, or a creating intelligence which has human-like purposes, appears to have begun with classical philosophy.[4] Religious thinkers in Judaism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Islam and Christianity also developed versions of the teleological argument. Later, variants on the argument from design were produced in Western philosophy and by Christian fundamentalism." Zukisama (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I should add that I am not in disagreement about leaving the term lowercase, only that a distinction should be made regarding DIintelligent design which encompasses a wider set of beliefs. Zukisama (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

We have a link to the telelogical argument already. The teleogical argument is not referred to as intelligent design because those two words have now been adopted as a compound noun used to described the DI theory. Note that the teleological argument is philosophical, not a science or pseudoscience, and therefore adherents do not conduct detailed examinations of living creatures to determine if they could have evolved without intelligent intervention. No amount of evidence can prove or disprove the argument. Similarly, in ethics and aesthetics, philosophers do not conduct experiments and change their opinions on what is right and what is beautiful. They wouldn't say "after further chemical analysis of the Mona Lisa, we have determined it is actually an ugly painting." TFD (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to add to TFD's point here the fact that there was no association between the term "intelligent design" and the teleological argument until the DI started doing pseudoscience under that name.

There's a difference between the two, yeah, but that difference is not this phrase. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Worth reading the footnotes to Intelligent design#Origin of the term where there are early instances of the phrase, but the term tends to be design – as Darwin capitalised it in a letter, "The point which you raise on intelligent Design has perplexed me beyond measure". . . dave souza, talk 19:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Dave souza, Great find, that. That's the first instance of a usage that predates 1987 that I've seen. I agree with you about how Darwin was using the term; his capitalization is rather clear. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Interesting find re the Darwin letter Dave souza. In sum, about 6 of dictionaries linked to above permit a general philosophical/teleological/creationist definition of the term (Noted, TFD that you are referring to this aspect as well). This article relies on the disambiguation pretext to make this distinction. It is clear to me that the term has be co-opted by DI for a specific agenda, and that the focus of this article is DI's specific specific usage. Given this, the introductory sentence could simply make it clear that this article is specifically about DI's co-opted use of the term: Ex: "...is a pseudoscientific argument introduced by the Discovery Institute for the existence of God...". Zukisama (talk) 06:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Since intelligent is an adjective and design is a noun, it's not significant that someone somewhere once put the two words together before the DI coined the term intelligent design. In comparison, the term modern art refers to a type of art popular from the 1860s to 1970s. But since modern means today, it is not inconceivable that someone before the 1860s put the two words together to describe the art of their time. And were it not for "modern art" becoming a term with a specific meaning, we might be calling art produced today modern art. This misunderstanding occurs with the etymological fallacy, where people confuse the meaning of a term with what it would mean if the words would otherwise mean. So while Irish coffee is a term referring to an alcoholic drink, the straightforward meaning is a coffee from Ireland. TFD (talk) 02:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• Meh, it should be lowercase. -Roxy . wooF 20:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I have not looked at this talk page in a while, but would it be a good idea to turn the page Intelligent design into a disambiguation page where the reader can choose to read about either the Discovery Institute's idea of "Intelligent Design", the telelogical argument, theistic evolution, etc.? Félix An (talk) 22:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

We already have intelligent design (disambiguation). Guettarda (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2021

In the introduction, please change "The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery..." to "In 2005, the leading proponents of ID were associated with the Discovery..." because the source is an expert's testimony in 2005. Maybe they still are associated, but a source for 2005 is not a good source for people's associations in 2021. 64.203.186.87 (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Unless you have some reason to suspect this has changed, our lede should not imply that is has. ID is nowhere near as big a subject in 2021 as it was in 2005, so there's good reason to suspect it hasn't changed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Pants If the references don't include later dates, they can't prove that fact for later dates, so surely it should be edited. Kind Regards, NotAnotherNameGuy (talk) 03:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The Discovery Institute website currently has a dedicated section on ID and articles supporting it from 2021. There is no good reason to change the lede without a reliable source that states they are no longer proponents of ID. The lack of current discussion and easily found independent sources commenting on or criticising ID and the Discovery Institute in no way allows you to conclude that what was stated in 2005 has changed. So provide a reliable source that contravenes the 2005 statements and your request will have more traction. Thanks. Robynthehode (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

American centrism

Is this article particularly necessary when it could just be subsumed within the histiography of the Teleological argument? Especially considering this article will come up on Google more often than the teleological arguement article will? Kind Regards, NotAnotherNameGuy (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The ID PR campaign is the mask creationism was wearing for two decades or so, and there is a group of pseudoscientists associated with it, so it is clearly different from "Teleological argument". --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not American centric to have an article about a notable U.S. group. Also, it would be like subsuming Ufology into the Search for extraterrestrial intelligence. Just as readers interested in scientists searching for ET life would be uninterested in what really happened at Roswell, readers interested in philosophical arguments would be uninterested in attempts by religious fundamentalists to prove the argument from design. The authors of Of Pandas and People don't have the same attention in philosophy textbooks as Thomas Aquinas. TFD (talk) 01:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Removing cited information is against the spirit of Wikipedia

Providing a counter-argument to the God-of-the-gaps argument with relevant citation properly fits the context irrespective of whether the counter-argument is considered correct by a fraction of the viewers. Hence, in the spirit of this platform, please uphold the latest edit:

The God-of-the-gaps argument has been countered by Christian apologists including William Lane Craig. However, the argumentation is not performed for the intelligent design hypothesis but rather against the general use of the God-of-the-gaps argument. The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Your edit was reverted because another editor said it's meaning was unclear.[7] Also, while you mention that Craig and Lennox countered the God-of-the-gaps argument, you don't explain how they did this. TFD (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)