Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 63

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

→

Archive 70

nice lead!

I've worked on a lot of leads, and far too many WP articles have bad leads, but this one is quite solid. Good work!

I fixed some punctuation. Periods and commas go within quotation marks, not outside them. ("This is right," but not "this".) Leadwind (talk) 04:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it's evolved under a lot of selection pressure :-)

Unfortunately you're using a common but not universal American convention for punctuation in relation to question marks, see MOS:LQ for the agreed convention used on Wikipedia. Your good faith assistance is appreciated, but in view of the MOS I've undone the change. . . dave souza, talk 06:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Add new section to the article

A section should be added to the article mentioning atheistic intelligent design and it's proponents. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

That's what I used to think, but have accepted that the scope of this article is not that broad. I understand atheistic intelligent design, if there is such a thing (Raëlism? Probably too fringe.), belongs at Teleological argument. Yopienso (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

What is atheistic intelligent design? Is it something that has its own article? If so, we probably should add it to the disambiguation page. Raëlism already has a spot on this page, so it'd have to be different from that. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 15:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

There is most probably a "tiny minority" of ID proponents that are atheists (subject to considerable ambiguity on whether their beliefs amount to 'ID' and 'atheism') but, per WP:UNDUE, we are under no obligation to mention them (even if we could find a WP:RS reporting on them). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Before passing judgement on the idea, Hrafn, why don't we see what sourcing there is on it first, if any, then decide? Wouldn't you agree that it's better to make an informed judgement, than a prejudiced one? Cla68 (talk) 06:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Cla68: I have read most of the scholarly works on ID (Numbers, Forrest&Gross, Peacock, etc), and keep myself abreast of the mainstream media reports on the topic. I am therefore already aware of what (reliable) "sourcing there is". I would suggest that you keep your unsubstantiated wild accusations to yourself in future. Wouldn't you agree that this would be better than getting blocked for your misbehaviour? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 10:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

While Cla68's rather blatant stirring and accusation of prejudice is neither collegiate nor conducive to improving the article, it's best not to rise to such bait. If Cla can find good sources, that will be helpful. However, like you, I've not seen anything significant in the reputable literature on the topic. . . . dave souza, talk 11:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't consider pointing out that a personal attack was, (i) factually incorrect & (ii) against policy, is 'rising to such bait'. My opinion is that such malicious comments should either be rebutted or removed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 12:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It does indeed look like a personal attack, and clearly lacks validity. At best, it suggests that Cla is ill informed about the topic, and I'd hope that on reflection Cla will withdraw the suggestion so that this offtopic diversion can appropriately be redacted. . . dave souza, talk 13:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

As always, we need a reliable third party source showing the significance, if any, of "atheistic intelligent design" if there is such a thing. As is fully sourced in the article, ID is a religious view. A couple of proponents may have been described as having been atheists at some time or other, but a good source would be needed examining the validity and significance of such descriptions. . . dave souza, talk 09:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as sightings of possibly-atheist, possibly-ID supporters in the wild, the field appears to be limited to this rather neglected blog, Bradley Monton (University of Colorado Philosophy Professor who recently wrote Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design) & Thomas Nagel (who recently nominated Signature in the Cell for one of the 2009 Books of the Year -- it's unclear whether he supports ID, but does seem to have a bee in his bonnet about scientific reductionism). I think that counts as a "tiny minority". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• This review indicates that Monton's defence of ID is, at best, more than a little equivocal -- "and even Monton claims that the best arguments are only 'somewhat' plausible". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Dave and Hrafn, this article has a long history of notorious POV issues. Both of you are regulars here and appear, from what I'm seeing, to take the content of this article extremely personally. When someone brings up a possible uncovered facet of the topic, and you dismiss it out of hand, then that could give the impression that you two have a certain, limited perspective of this topic that doesn't allow room for differing perspectives. Before anyone could even produce any sources to support "atheistic ID", you were already trying to dismiss the idea. Cla68 (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• No Cla68, it is unwarranted personal attacks that I take "personally". Your characterisation of Dave and my own actions is inaccurate and ludicrously WP:POT and self-serving. When this topic was raised, I offered an initial opinion, which I have since backed up with facts and citations. You on the other hand have contributed ABSOLUTELY NOTHING positive to this thread -- but have rather focused purely "on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page" to the complete exclusion of "the topic of the talk page" -- in complete violation of WP:TALK. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Raëlian ID

Raëlists claim both to be atheists and to believe in Intelligent Design. "The atheist 'Intelligent Design Theory' offers a rational solution to the age-old debate between God-believers and evolutionists."

This is covered in the Raëlism article: "Raëlianism is an atheist religion that believes, not in God, but in extraterrestrials." It should not be ignored here, imo. So we could revamp this article to cover "Intelligent Design" wherever it has a foothold, rename it so it covers only ID as espoused/endorsed by the Abrahamic religions, or add it to Teleological argument. My instinct is to intelligently redesign :) this article to include Raëlism and let the Intelligent design movement article cover the mainly, though not exclusively, Christian ID movement that actively pushes for creationism to be taught in American public schools, leaving Teleological argument free of any fringe stuff. Yopienso (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE. Since I think there's no evidence whatsoever for aliens or ID, it would show how stupid ID is. However, we would be giving undue weight to the absolute tiny number of people who follow this crazy alien thing. And one more thing. Atheism is defined by not "believing" in supernatural beings. These nutjobs may not believe in the Judeo-Christian god, but they believe in another god. Silly.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Since ID itself is considered by WP and most scientists to be fringe, we don't have to worry about introducing a fringe group that propounds it, imo. That's why I'd like to see Teleological argument left untouched: it deals with philosophy respectable in an historical sense.

The Raëlists themselves claim to be atheistic and to believe in ID. Click on my link above; I copied and pasted directly from their site. Also see their book, Intelligent Design - Message from the Designers. We certainly don't have to believe their teachings in order to give them the coverage that is their due! To avoid undue weight, all that would be necessary in this article is a link to Raëlism. But we misrepresent the facts to deliberately omit them altogether. Yopienso (talk) 04:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It's hard for me to get worked up one way or another, but you probably will get reverted unless you can point to some sort of talk page consensus. I can't even believe that these people exist. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Mere existence is insufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. The standard is third-party notice -- which Raëlian ID appears to have garnered little, if any, of. Even by comparison to the IDM, the Raëlian movement is fringe. Their WP:DUE is therefore probably bare notice -- I would however not be averse to the inclusion of a link to Raëlism#Intelligent Design in the 'See also' section. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Raëlism#Intelligent Design (and more specifically Raëlism#Creation of life on Earth by extraterrestrials) appears to be sourced almost exclusively to 'Raël'/Claude Vorilhon's book Intelligent Design (with most of the remainder being to other Raëlian publications). There appears to be little to no third-party coverage. The closest would appear to be this article -- which makes no direct mention of "intelligent design" and only mentions Raëlism in passing ("Cult Bids to Clone Hitler for War Trial" is also third-party, but appears more than a little off-topic for here). Does anybody really consider that that section provides a legitimate basis that acknowledgement of Raëlian ID is WP:DUE in this article? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

@OrangeMarlin: irrespective of your beliefs, these people exist. They are the Clonaid people. Everything I do is always subject to reversion. I will abide by the consensus.

Here's what the Panda's Thumb says:

"His Holiness Rael endorses Intelligent Design The best part is, the "mainstream" intelligent design advocates really can't logically object to the Raelian argument, even though you know they want to, deep down. After all, Intelligent Design advocates are always telling us that one cannot discover anything about the designer based on the design, and that aliens are an equally acceptable alternative."

And from the "About.com" website:

"The Raelian Movement is a new religious movement and atheistic religion. . . Intelligent Design Raelians disbelieve in evolution, believing that DNA naturally rejects mutations. They believe the Elohim planted all life on Earth 25,000 years ago through scientific processes." Yopienso (talk) 05:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Neither source is particularly prominent, nor gives Raëlian ID particularly prominence or depth of coverage. Nor do they give any indication that either 'mainstream' ID, or anti-creationists, take Raëlian ID in the least bit seriously. Therefore neither provide a rationale for anything more than a see-also link. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• I would further note that Raëlism is already covered by Intelligent design (disambiguation), dabbed at the top of the article, meaning that a separate dab to it there is superfluous. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a consensus of one. Please revert your undo and let the process work. I myself just hyperlinked to Raëlism on the disambiguation page about an hour or so ago. The dab was there, but no hyperlink on the next page. My opinion is that the word Raëlism should appear on the article page. There may or may not be support for that opinion; the process will work if allowed to.

Time magazine, CNN.The New Scientist, and the LA Times. A Republican House committee heard testimony from Rael himself. His name or that of his cult is found many times throughout the document; his statement starts on p. 136. Yopienso (talk) 06:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

NONE of these sources mention "intelligent design", therefore none of them would appear to have even the slightest relevance to whether the Raëlism should be mentioned here. What they do in fact do is discuss Raëlism in the context of cloning -- so using them to attempt to get Raëlism discussed in this article, would appear to be highly tendentious. And no, I will not undo my reversion of your contentious edit lacking consensus. Such prominent placement is WP:UNDUE, as is equating Raëlism with the entirety of atheist ID. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is this so critical? Again, ID is a fringe, unscientific theory, but it has a lot of relevance whether it's a court standing against creationism, along with the fact that creationists are trying to make it appear to be scientific. Raelism isn't even a tiny gnat in the ID world. And they do not propose an ID based on a supernatural being (the Judeo-Christian god), but on green-blooded aliens. That's not even intelligent design. One link, and let's move on. This isn't worth more than one paragraph of discussion. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Here are some {{find}} templates. If anybody can find any prominent, reliable sources giving prominent/significant treatment of the topic of Raëlian views on ID, we might have something to discuss. Otherwise, this is a non-starter.

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The crucial thing being third party sources as to the notability of this, if any. For info, Raelism is a fringe religion dating from 1974. As the Pandas link above shows, in 2004 they issued a little-noticed press release trying to jump on the ID bandwaggon. In late 2005/early 2006 their publisher Nova Distribution, contactable at publishing@rael.org, issued Intelligent Design: Message from the Designers By Rael. Its page iv information describes it as a "re-titled English Language edition in a newly combined re-translation and updated edition of Rael's three original French books", none of which mentioned ID in the title. So, they tried to cash in on some of the attention around at that time, but didn't even bother introducing anything new. Not worth a link as it's already covered in the disambiguation linked at the top of the page. . dave souza, talk 08:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Robert Pennock wrote about them, apparently in his Tower of Babel, which I have not read. As nearly as I can tell, this page, under the rubric of Stephen Jay Gould, is an excerpt from that book, published by MIT. There are over 700 words dealing with Raelian ID. Here are a few: "A large international group—the Raëlian Movement—advocates just this ET-ID view. Like creationism, this is a religiously based movement that rejects evolution. Unlike creationism, Raëlianism denies supernatural divine creation. Raëlians promote a third view—that intelligent aliens landed here millennia ago in spaceships and formed all of life on earth, including human beings, using highly advanced genetic engineering. I think that if we investigate the question of intelligent design in this context it will be easier to see why the IDC conclusion is not scientific."

Yes, my second group of RSs merely confirms that Raelians exist, which OrangeMarlin couldn't believe. Aside from their own site and many, many spurious-to-questionable sites, the only RSs I'm aware of that discuss Raelian ID are the Panda's Thumb and About.Com sites I gave above and this one from Pennock. I do hate to ignore the Sensuous Curmudgeon, though. Whether or not it's a prominent RS, you guys would get a chuckle out of its treatment of Raelian ID. Check it out. I certainly bow to a consensus of three when there are only four participants. But I do want to remind Hrafn that consensus is not required for an initial edit. Yopienso (talk) 09:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Tower of Babel has a ten page section on 'Extraterrestrial Intelligent Design' (pp233-242), devoted mainly to Raëlian views. It probably could serve the basis for a paragraph or two on the subject. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

A caution about this: Pennock discusses this in the context of "ID creationists' SETI analogy", for purposes of philosophical analysis exploring "a contrasting case that can highlight conceptual features that we might otherwise be blind to." He starts on pp. 233–234 by supposing, for the sake of argument, that we take ID proponents at their word in suggesting that we were designed and created by intelligent extraterrestrials, then intended devising a hypothetical "ET-ID view", but found the Raëlian movement advocating just such a view. So, this is something to discuss in the context of ID SETI arguments rather than suggesting that it merits attention on its own account. The first paragraph of the Intelligent designer section covers this case, with more detail in the Intelligent designer sub-article which would be the appropriate place for Hrafn's proposed paragraph discussing how Raëlism compares to ID. So, as a suggestion for this article, a new second paragraph could be introduced in that section, will add my suggestion below. . dave souza, talk 18:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed section

Extraterrestrial intelligent design

The Raëlian Movement was founded, in the early 1970s, by French journalist Claude Vorilhon (taking the name Raël), who claims to have been contacted by an alien, who conveyed to him that life on Earth was created by his race, the Elohim, as an experiment. Raëlians claim that the Bible contains a partial and corrupted version of this story (and think of their religion as being directly linked to Christianity). The name of their alien race translates from Hebrew as the plural of "God". Raëlianism teaches that evolution is a myth, and that the increasing complexity exhibited over time is due to improvements in these experiments, rather than by natural mechanisms. In the opinion of philosopher of science Robert T. Pennock, Raëlianism fulfils at least the minimal publicly-presented elements of intelligent design, simply with alien beings substituted for supernatural spirits or gods as the intelligent designers, and that Raëlians make many of the same bad arguments against evolutionary biology as creationists.<ref>{{cite book | last = R.T. | first = Pennock, | title = Tower of Babel: the evidence against the new creationism | publisher = MIT Press | location = City | year = 2000 | isbn = 0262661659 |pages=233-242}}</ref>

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Hrafn, as discussed above I think that sort of detail is appropriate for the Intelligent designer article, and a shorter paragraph would be appropriate in this article. My suggestion follows, after an abridged version of the first paragraph of the section. . . dave souza, talk 18:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Intelligent designer

Intelligent design arguments are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid identifying the intelligent agent (or agents) they posit..... Dembski, in The Design Inference, speculates that an alien culture could fulfill these requirements..... The leading proponents have made statements to their supporters that they believe the designer to be the Christian God, to the exclusion of all other religions.[n 2][n 3][32]

Various ID proponents, including the authors of Of Pandas and People, have proposed that SETI research looking for extraterrestrial intelligence illustrates an appeal to intelligent design in science. In 2000, philosopher of science Robert T. Pennock proposed that the Raëlian UFO religion fulfils at least the minimal publicly-presented elements of intelligent design, simply with alien beings substituted for supernatural spirits or gods as the intelligent designers, and t hat Raëlians make many of the same bad arguments against evolutionary biology as creationists.ref>R.T., Pennock, (2000). Tower of Babel: the evidence against the new creationism. City: MIT Press. pp. 229–229, 233–242. ISBN 0262661659.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)</ref></nowiki>

Note the additional page numbers in the reference. . . dave souza, talk 18:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Are we seriously adding a paragraph to these nutters? ID is crazy enough, but giving weight to a tiny number of believers is really a violation of WP:UNDUE. I support a link, but this is way over the top. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it doesn't seem appropriate. While I personally don't mind making ID appear even more ridiculous by setting up this association, WP:UNDUE still applies to super-fringe when compared to just normal fringe. Hans Adler 19:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I find the idea of protecting an article on a fringe subject from a paragraph about a related fringe subject amusing. One paragraph seems altogether appropriate to me. At a minimum, we should provide a link directly to Raëlism or to Category:Raëlism. We have an article on the founder, others on prominent Raelians, one on the "religion," another on its history, another on its beliefs and practices, one on the foundation, one on Clonaid. I agree a mention in Intelligent designer is also appropriate. Yopienso (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm having an amusing deja vu with regards to this conversation. A long time ago, I was editing Homeopathy with another editor. I wanted to delete something about homeopaths using a dilution of the Berlin Wall to cure something. I thought it was so ridiculous that I deleted it. The other editor, who is an admin and does a lot of work on science articles reverted me and left me a message that homeopathy is so silly, we may as well show how silly it is. I kind of agreed, but eventually we removed it (haven't read the article in awhile, so it might be there). Though a couple of individuals around here complain that I (and others) are POV about ID, that is not true. It would be POV to make ID seem even sillier by adding a fringe element of a fringe element. Without evidence, I'd have to say that 99% of ID believers understand that the intelligent designer is the Judeo-Christian god. The other 1% have a variety of beliefs about the designer, including some who think it's aliens. I'm sure we could find some that think it's Captain Kirk. So, yeah, protecting fringe beliefs from appearing on a fringe article seems all around crazy, but there must be some rule about "piling on". Again, I'm opposed to a full paragraph, but sentence that says something like "Other beliefs about the designer include aliens, Captain Kirk, etc. etc. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Orange, from what I understand of WP's NPOV policy, we shouldn't appear to care either way how "silly" any idea or topic is. If we're editorializing on article talk pages about how silly the article's topic, or an aspect of the topic is, then I don't see how we can edit in an NPOV manner. Cla68 (talk) 01:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Since I was talking about WP:UNDUE...oh wait, why bother.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

"Amusing" is so much better than "annoying"! A sentence could be a good compromise. I still don't see a paragraph as undue weight in such a long article, especially since there are so many entire, amply footnoted articles on the cult. Yopienso (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There's sense in that. From the Pennock reference, the main issue is the SETI claim, so how about adding to the Intelligent designer section a couple of lines (possibly spaced as a paragraph) as follows.... dave souza, talk 23:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Of Pandas and People includes a common claim that intelligent design is as legitimate as SETI research looking for extraterrestrial intelligence. The Raëlian UFO religion is similar to ID in presenting anti-evolution arguments and claims that life forms were created by (alien) designer[s].

Reference to Pennock, as shown above. OTOH, maybe this isn't needed. . . dave souza, talk 23:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Dave and Yopienso, I just wanted to say that your good faith efforts at collaboration, compromise, and cooperation on this topic are much appreciated and I think serve as a good example of appropriate and productive talk page demeanor and and discourse. Please keep it up. Cla68 (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Orangemarlin on this one. Pennock's a solid authority, but the claim as proposed is undue weight here. He (Pennock) seems to be using it as a rhetorical "logic" example, without trying to imply or infer there's much real world association to ID. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Dave's idea seems very satisfactory. I've revised his text for simplicity, to be inserted exactly where he suggests. Bold print indicates an addition to what currently stands in the article. Yopienso (talk) 06:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I still think it's giving too much weight to this topic, but I guess a sentence shouldn't be too bad. I just wish that these articles didn't have to be a seine net for every wacko idea. Intelligent design is almost a trademarked idea of the christian creationists, so somewhere a line has to be drawn in the sand as to what doesn't belong. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

@ Orangemarlin, agree that this is very peripheral to ID and it's questionable whether we should try to cover every ID claim in this main article. At present I don't see a consensus for adding this, but have suggested a modification to Yopienso's suggestion below, further views welcome. . . dave souza, talk 07:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Intelligent designer

Intelligent design arguments are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid identifying the intelligent agent (or agents) they posit..... Dembski, in The Design Inference, speculates that an alien culture could fulfill these requirements..... The leading proponents have made statements to their supporters that they believe the designer to be the Christian God, to the exclusion of all other religions.[n 2][n 3][32]

The authors of Of Pandas and People say the SETI search for extraterrestrial intelligence illustrates a scientific appeal to intelligent design. In 2000, philosopher of science Robert T. Pennock proposed that the Raëlian UFO religion provides a real-life example of an extraterrestrial intelligent design view that can be used to evaluate scientific support for an alien designer, concluding that Raëlians make many of the same bad arguments against evolutionary biology as creationists. ref>R.T., Pennock, (2000). Tower of Babel: the evidence against the new creationism. City: MIT Press. pp. 229–229, 233–242. ISBN 0262661659.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)</ref></nowiki>

Yopienso (talk) 06:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Yopienso, I was hoping to keep it more concise but mentioning Pennock does show the context. The bit about evaluating scientific support is rather misleading as there is none, if we do agree to include this then a better formulation might be "In 2000, philosopher of science Robert T. Pennock suggested the Raëlian UFO religion as a real-life example of an extraterrestrial intelligent design view that makes many of the same bad arguments against evolutionary biology as ID creationism." It might also work to insert this in the first paragraph of the section, just after Dembski's suggestion of extraterrestrial designers. Can we review if there's consensus for this sort of mention? . . dave souza, talk 07:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Intelligent designer

Intelligent design arguments are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid identifying the intelligent agent (or agents) they posit. Although they do not state that God is the designer, the designer is often implicitly hypothesized to have intervened in a way that only a god could intervene. Dembski, in The Design Inference, speculates that an alien culture could fulfill these requirements.[n 13] Of Pandas and People proposes that SETI research for extraterrestrial intelligence illustrates an appeal to intelligent design in science. In 2000, philosopher of science Robert T. Pennock suggested the Raëlian UFO religion as a real-life example of an extraterrestrial intelligent designer view that makes many of the same bad arguments against evolutionary biology as ID creationism.[ref Pennock]

The authoritative description of intelligent design,[n 13] however, explicitly states that the entire Universe displays features of having been designed. Acknowledging the paradox, Dembski concludes that "no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life".[75] The leading proponents have made statements to their supporters that they believe the designer to be the Christian God, to the exclusion of all other religions.[n 2][n 3][32]

Example as suggested above by me, with the first paragraph split to show the ID aliens arguments in the first paragraph, and the paradox forming a second paragraph. Additions bolded, do others think this is excessive? . . dave souza, talk 08:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't find this excessive; I think it works rather well, actually. Because extraterrestrials have been specifically mentioned by ID proponents as one possible designer and Raëlians support ID because it fits their world view, I think a brief mention of their religion is appropriate. One thing though, the statement "... SETI research for extraterrestrial intelligence..." sounds a bit redundant. I suggest striking the "for extraterrestrial intelligence" bit from the sentence entirely. Also, the second sentence doesn't seem to flow as well as I think it could. Perhaps changing the verb suggested to listed would help? Or the as soon after could be changed to is? Otherwise, I like the short, pointed mention of this possibility. -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 14:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, Dave; inserting it there is even better. Yes, "SETI research for extraterrestrial intelligence" is redundant, for the reader's sake, but if SETI is hyperlinked, may not be necessary. Yopienso (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

How about a working in a wikilink to Directed panspermia? I think you will find that this is the accepted name for extraterrestrial design ideas.--Adam in MO Talk 19:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, directed panspermia is slightly different from Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design, at least as it is currently defined by the Discovery Institute, is an argument against the unguided process of evolution. The difference between the terms then is the creator(s) in an ID scenario creates each immutable kind separately, whereas the creator(s) in the panspermia scenario merely launches a vessel containing primitive life to a planet capable of fostering it. I'm not sure this article needs to have an explanation of this difference or even an entry on the disambiguation page for panspermia, but that's just me. -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 21:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to insert the proposed section as most recently modified, but thought Dave was going to. Should I? Yopienso (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 20:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hope I got it right! Yopienso (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. Let's hope that a bunch of people don't try to add to that. Hold your breath! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Amatulic is refining, not adding to. Still, you didn't have to hold your breath long!

@Amatulic: Thanks for your contribution. The new insertion is based on "It is important to understand that Raëlianism fulfills all the elements that intelligent-design creationists set out to characterize their view, at least in the minimal version they propose for public consumption. The only difference is that Raelianism specifies that the intelligent designers were not supernatural spirits or gods, but alien beings from another planet. We thus have a real example of an ET-ID view. In all other respects, Raëlianism is very similar to standard creationism. . .they tend to follow the same negative argumentation strategy. Here it is online; it's the last paragraph. Your edit reads better and is factual, but omits the point Pennock and we were making: Here's an ID proposal that is not religious, but its arguments are as bad as the religious ones. Please note quite a bit of discussion and collaboration went into that edit. Please join us! Yopienso (talk) 00:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see you've reverted it, OM. Can we improve it? I should be doing other things right now. Yopienso (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I love my initials. LOL. Yeah, Amatulic can come here and discuss it. Lesson 1 of controversial articles...discuss it first. We did. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Here I am. I do follow discussion threads here, and participate from time to time. The problem with the text I changed was that when I read it, my first impression was that it blatantly presents a non-neutral point of view in Wikipedia's voice. The terms "bad arguments" (subjective term, not used by Pennock) and "ID creationism" (redundant, not a phrase used by Pennock) weren't appropriate as article prose, and misrepresented the source. That last sentence in the paragraph quoted above would have been fine to include instead.

Regarding Yopensio's statement Your edit reads better and is factual, but omits the point Pennock and we were making. I'm gratified by the compliment, but somewhat disturbed by the implication that "we" are here to make a point. We aren't. That isn't neutral. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It's neutral to faithfully represent what a respected scholar says. It's not neutral to misrepresent what he says. If you had not read the talk page before editing the article, I'm sure you did not realize that we were seeking to express Pennock's idea in as few words as possible. In other words, I see where you're coming from, but the reason you're coming from there is because you didn't see the fuller picture. It's no compliment to be told you've omitted the central point made by the cited reference. In any case, we can work together for the best possible article. Again, welcome! Yopienso (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You nailed the problem right there. No reader will "see the fuller picture" from having read this discussion. No reader should need to have the context of the talk page to understand the article. A reader (even me, scientifically trained and anti-ID) would see a Wikipedia article making judgmental statements in the prose. I did recognize the attempt to paraphrase Pennock, but the usage of non-neutral terms in Wikipedia's voice, that Pennock didn't use, made it seem like a direct quotation would have been better. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Wrong and wrong: (i) it was explicitly in Pennock's voice (ii) the wording was almost identical to Pennock's (such that I was able to turn it into a direct quote with almost no change, and none to the contested phraseology). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 12:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I was going by the quote Yopienso says the passage was based on, above, which used the phrase "negative arguments" (which are not the same thing as "bad arguments"). If you don't include subjective claims inside a direct quote, it gives the impression that Wikipedia, not the source, is speaking. That's a common editorial oversight. I see you made it into a quote. Excellent. I have no further problems then. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for creating confusion. Thanks for your collegial spirit. Yopienso (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

That's WP:Complete bollocks Amatulić. The original version was "In 2000, philosopher of science Robert T. Pennock suggested the Raëlian UFO religion as a real-life example of an extraterrestrial intelligent designer view that makes many of the same bad arguments against evolutionary biology as ID creationism." How on earth can something that is explicitly described as what "Robert T. Pennock suggested" be considered to be "giv[ing] the impression that Wikipedia, not the source, is speaking", regardless of whether it is presented as a direct quote or an accurate (and very close) paraphrase? The reason I moved to a direct quote was more a 'so-close-so-might-as-well-go-all-the-way' viewpoint, rather than because I had any doubt whatsoever that my original material misrepresented either that it was Pennock's opinion, or what his opinion was. Yopienso does not have access to the full version of Tower of Babel (and never claimed that he did, the online piece he referenced only overlaps the first two pages of the ten I cited), I do. I would strongly suggest that, in the future, you WP:AGF by avoiding claiming misrepresentation of a source you do not yourself have access to. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn, you're the only one here failing AGF. I had no problem including some version of this passage. The misrepresentation, as you can clearly see from this discussion, was based on Yopienso's quotation, and the passage did misrepresent that quotation. Mistakes happen. The problem is solved. Let's move on. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Of course, we discuss this for a week, come to a consensus about the language, Yopienso is bold and makes the change. Then, someone complains and makes a POV change. Sigh. I reverted. Maybe they'll actually join in the conversation. Or not. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't a POV change, if you actually look at what I changed. It was a change to remove POV. See my explanation above. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

We discussed it here. WE came to a consensus, including a buy-in from User:Cla68 who never agrees with me on anything, including the color of the sky. Anyways, you got another answer above, which is better.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It's commendable and also kind of amazing that consensus was achieved for an addition to this always-contentious article.

While consensus may trump truth, it doesn't trump policy. As a ridiculous example, if a handful of editors collectively agreed that this article should henceforth refer to ID proponents as "IDiots", then such a consensus has no value. In this case, your intent was true, your agreement that this text needed to be added was justified, but the concensus ended up with a wording that (a) misrepresents a source, (b) intrdouces a weasel-word, and (c) pushes a POV by introducing subjective or redundant phrasing. Can you honestly say you're satisfied with that, because you have consensus?

Fortunately, these problems are easily fixed with some minor tweaks (like changing "bad" to "negative"). I attempted to fix it earlier without the benefit of seeing what the source said, but you reverted it. I have made another attempt, this time being more surgical, now that I am familiar with the discussion above.

Typically my computer is off during the weekend. I'll be back Monday. ~Amatulić (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Amatulić: what on earth are you talking about? The wording was very close to word for word what Pennock said (I've now turned it into a direct quote). How can this be "consensus may trump truth"? And what "policy" is it that states that material that is verifiable to a reliable expert source cannot be used? They are not "negative arguments" they are "bad arguments" -- "bad" as in based upon false premises and/or logical fallacies. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 11:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I can confirm that the sentence "Raëlians make many of the same bad arguments against evolutionary theory as creationists." occurs literally on page 236 of the source, in the author's voice and as the first sentence of a paragraph, and that it is also an accurate summary of the material that follows in the source. Hans Adler 13:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The change Hrafn made is perfect: a direct quote in the author's voice. Hrafn, the answers to your questions should be obvious, but I'll spell them out: The text originally misrepresented the quote Yopienso said it was based on, above. And it introduced loaded/subjective terms, for which the applicable policy is obviously WP:NPOV. Since you changed it into a direct quote, problems solved. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

No Amatulić. The text NEVER "misrepresented the quote Yopienso said it was based on", because it was NEVER CITED TO THAT QUOTE! Yopienso did not originally draft that material. Yopienso did not have access to the source explicitly cited by that material. Therefore Yopienso was not in a position to say what specific quote it was based upon (so shouldn't have). Pennock is a philosopher, and therefore is an expert in the difference between a good argument and a bad one. Stating, correctly, that he suggested that Raelian arguments were bad ones, is explicitly in line with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV (whether it is done as a direct quote or a paraphrase). Moving to a direct quote did not solve any problem, as there was no problem needing solving. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Shouting now? Funny way you have of maintaining WP:AGF.

OK, my words about misrepresenting sources was based on a mistake. Mistakes happen. It's now corrected.

Any pair of fresh eyes would have seen problems. I fail to understand this after-the-fact resistance to improving the clarity and readability of the article by removing any last bit of ambiguity. There's a point when prose crosses over the line into editorializing, even when attributed. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV says nothing whatsoever about including subjective judgmental phrases in prose, which is what happened here. Without the quotation marks, the passage appeared to be editorializing. Sure, call it bollocks if you like. But someday you may try asking someone who works professionally as a copyeditor (as I have in my past). The problem did need solving, and you solved it. Thank you. Clear, concise, unambiguous, compelling. Everyone his happy except you, for some reason. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Amatulić: how can it be a problem to state that "Pennock suggested the Raëlian UFO religion as a real-life example of an extraterrestrial intelligent design view that makes many of the same bad arguments against evolutionary biology as ID creationism", when Pennock made these very suggestions? And why does it make any difference that "this doesn't appear to be a quotation"? There is nothing in WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV (or elsewhere AFAIK) that states that attributed POVs must be made as direct quotes, not paraphrases -- and paraphrases are routinely used in such situations. Your original removal was a hasty mistake -- and you simply compounded that mistake by taking the guess of somebody who did not draft the material at face value. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Amusingly, your removal actually worsened the one inaccuracy of the insertion -- neither Pennock, nor my original formulation, explicitly mentioned ID in relation to the "bad arguments", but rather "creationism" more generally -- an inaccuracy exacerbated by your reducing "ID creationism" to "ID". Which again goes to show that you should not attempt to rewrite material attributed to a source without access to that source -- doing so is a violation of WP:V. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletions from the introduction

It is ridiculous and prejudicial to say of such a widely held theory that all of its proponents come from one institute, as the introduction clearly does.

I became aware of the theory by reading "The Intelligent Universe" which is an extropian/transhumanist tome inspired by the writings of Vernor Vinge and Ray Kurzweil, not inspired by some the institute mentioned, as the article baldly states in it's introduction. Garder, the author, was interviewed at length on NPR, reviewed in Time MMagazine, Wired magazine, and the International Journal of Astrobiology.

TIn other words that book (note title!) was widely read and discussed a few years ago, and for those wwho have not read it - it does not default to or support Christianity in the slightest. I would venture that the author is better known than the entire BOD of the institute mentioned.

Therefore, unless some rational explanation is forthcoming I intend to rewrite that part of the intro.

http://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Universe-Emerging-Mind-Cosmos/dp/1564149196 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.192.81 (talk) 03:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The difference between "proponent" and "leading proponent" is important, but ignored in your response.

In any case, feel free to be bold, but avoid original research and be sure to cite multiple sources. GManNickG (talk) 04:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

As GManNickG states, there is no indication that Gardner is a "leading proponent" of ID, or that he has any stature whatsoever in the ID movement. His works appear to be more related to fringe Cosmology (the Anthropic principle, Lee Smolin and the like) than to the contents of this article. The article arguably on the intersection of the two is Fine-tuned Universe. Third party sourcing linking his work to this topic would be needed for inclusion here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The leading also characterizes Intelligent Design, a concept that dates back to Ancient Greece at least, as "neo-creationism", and as "a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God". That's a complete mischaracterization of the subject. --Damiens.rf 20:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Damiens, I think you're attributing too much to Intelligent Design. True, the general concept of life requiring a creating agent has been around a long time, but it was not coined "Intelligent Design" until recently. Instead, it lived on in religion and Philosophy as the teleological argument for a god's existence until it was dressed up as a scientific theory and labeled Intelligent Design. Reformulating creationism into secular and/or scientific terms, just as was done in this case, is the very definition of neo-creationism, so I don't quite understand how the descriptions you've mentioned aren't accurate. -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 20:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

This kind of confusion is common. I've wondered if this article shouldn't have a dab combined with the disambiguation along this line:

This article deals with Intelligent Design as construed (presented/publicized/what-have-you) by the Discovery Institute; for other uses, see Intelligent design (disambiguation).

Any thoughts? Yopienso (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Yopienso (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... not sure. We already have a link to the teleological argument (For the philosophical "argument from design", see Teleological argument.), which addresses the exact issue Damiens and others have raised. I guess we could be more blatant about it, but I'm not sure how to keep the message concise and NPOV in such a case. I mean, "This article refers to the neo-creationist proposition rejected by the scientific community, for other uses see Intelligent design (disambiguation)." doesn't sound exactly kosher. I'd prefer to stay away from naming the Discovery Institute (DI) specifically, as people may not immediately associate it with ID (for those who know of ID, but not the DI). I wouldn't mind this kind of change, but I think the copy would have to be at least as clear and concise as the current bit about the argument from design. -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 21:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

When I first came to this page, I did not imagine "intelligent design" would be limited to the DI's version of it, and I've seen other newcomers likewise perplexed. I suggested a dab because I've found retitling to be a major edit not often accepted; this article could more clearly be titled, "Creationist intelligent design," but I'm not making such a bold suggestion. (Pennock, in . . .Babel, distinguishes it as IDC.) Meanwhile, I've thought of a better idea--on the talk page, have visible (not click-to-show) on "Article-specific editing notes" (not sure anybody ever looks at 'em) a notice such as, "This article deals exclusively with creationist ID." Or maybe just keep explaining to each newcomer one by one. Yopienso (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I've mentioned this before, but I think this article was intended to be Intelligent Design™ of the Discovery Institute and xtian creationists, not intelligent design, generic version. The dab sounds like a good idea, so that this article doesn't get filled with every idea from alien seeding to the Borg. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that was the original intent, but that intent is not evident to a newcomer, who quite justifiably then concludes the article is too narrow. Eugenie Scott, as well as Pennock, calls the proposal this article covers "Intelligent Design" Creationism. That would be a useful identifier in a dab.

In response to the IP's comment, should this article provide a link in the panel at the right to the Anthropic principle? Yopienso (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

A DAB would not be appropriate. There is only one "intelligent design" that is noteworthy enough to have its own article, and that's the ID made famous by the Discovery Institute and its affiliates. But for the DI affiliates' push to supplant or supplement the teaching of evolution in high-school biology classes, the words "intelligent design" wouldn't even be widely used as a term for a type of teleological argument. Since it's been branded as a term for the DI's particular educational objectives and its related religious, socio-political advocacy in contemporary American society, the two cannot legitimately be separated.
..... I should also point out that the article on the teleological argument gets only about one-tenth the amount of traffic that this article gets, and much of that traffic is due to the link from this article to teleological argument. A DAB would inaccurately imply that "intelligent design" has some kind of "weight" standing on its own independently of both the Discovery Institute affiliates as well as somehow distinct from the argument from design, when in fact it does not possess any such self-supporting independence or weight as a philosophical term. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)