THC Science

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

Please read before starting
Welcome to Wikipedia's Intelligent Design article. 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.

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: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, and NPOV: Giving "equal validity" and the contributors to the article have done their best to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the POV fork 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.

Notes to 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 ambigious. Please use words such as 'concept', 'notion', 'idea', 'assertion', ..

Some suggestions

The talk that disappeared into Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 21 included quite an interesting discussion on Peer-reviewed articles. It's rather detailed for this article, though a link or mention would be desirable, and I suggest moving the relevant bits to a new page which could be titled Peer-reviewed articles on intelligent design.

Some might object to being characterized as a peer of authors of intelligent design articles. Endomion 17:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The latest suggestions for revisions to #Origins of the term appear to be broadly acceptable, or at least not objected to, so I'll amend the article accordingly in the near future.

There's duplication between footnotes 18 and 19, so presumably the article could be slightly shortened by removing the duplicate bit from 18, and if need be linking 19 alongside links to 18 in the article. Any reason why not? ...dave souza 15:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Endo: No ponga sus comentarios en el centro de los comentarios de otros. Jim62sch 00:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Refactoring

These discussions have been going on for a while, and references to earlier posts are becoming more common, which reduces clarity and readabily. I would like to ask everyone to simply remake their points and to repost their sources. Quoting yourself is one thing, dismissing a question with the words: 'see my previous post' is quite another.

It was suggested that the ID article has too much criticism, when compared to comparable articles.
- There was some discussion as to the extent to which other articles are indeed comparable: is ID perhaps unique?
- It was argued that ID is not overly criticised: if ID wanted to present itself as science, it deserved to be held to scientific standards.
It was suggested that the current pool of editors is stagnant and conservative. A call went out for new editors.
Several new articles were discussed, and deleted as POV forks.

The discussion concerning the irreducible complexity of the designer implied by ID seems to have cooled down, although the section is still not to everyone's liking. (*)

-- Ec5618 18:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The "irreducible complexity" issue has been replaced by another argument I suspect to be original research. I requested a citation of a leading ID opponent making this new argument, and so far this request has been denied. I will take your advice in remaking my point. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

"Homo qui quaestionem eandem semper roget, stultus est; homo qui ad quem respondet, maior"

Jim62sch 23:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Jim I am having very inappropriate thoughts that amount to personally attacking you in my heart. Go to [1] and [2]. I don't want these dark thoughts anymore. I know you know many languages, I know 2, but I'm not doing this: Джим, я понимаю что ты умнее всех, но в последнее время ты пишешь всякую чепуху. --chad 05:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It was humour, Chad, humour. But the confession was nice. You're Russian is pretty good; did you learn it in the military? Однако мой друг, я не пишу ерунду. Спасибо за ваше беспокойство.

Jim62sch 13:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Naughty Jim, your English is lacking, or you're making silly grammatical errors in your haste. ...dave souza 13:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I did make an error in my haste: replace "you're" with "your". What's worse, is that that is one of the mistakes that drive me batty when I see it (along with its/it's, their/there/they're, too/to, etc.). Oh well.

Jim62sch 16:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

How ID is presented in Wikipedia (was previously Lovecoconuts)

Here be a long-time reader of Wikipedia but first-time poster on the discussion pages. (God, I hope I'm doing this the right way.) Since the Wikipedia article of Intelligent Design is currently the #3 link in Google, I can understand the ID people's wish that the article presents a more positive light about Intelligent Design.

However, since Intelligent Design is being presented by the ID community as a scientific theory, and since the majority of the scientific community currently disagrees with it even possessing the basic qualifications of a scientific theory - it's just simply more appropriate and honest for ID to be presented in a more or less negative light, for now.

Now, if Intelligent Design were being presented as a philosophical theory, that's another case entirely.

Yes, yes, I know it's difficult for one's favorite scientific theories to be treated so (I was quite disappointed that the Memory of Water wasn't as I hoped it would be), but that's just the way it's always been with scientific theories. It's only proper for a scientific theory to go through a scientific gauntlet.Lovecoconuts 16:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

There are many problems with this article, and yes, inexperienced or philosophically slighted editors are a major problem. In theory though, the spotlight should help this article achieve Featured article status, by calling attention to every inconsistent or unreferenced detail. -- Ec5618 19:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Lovecoconuts, your prayers have been answered, you've done it exactly the right way. Well said. ...dave souza 19:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Lovecoconuts, make no mistake about it: I'm not asking for ID to be presented in a more positive light. I don't want to see a more positive light or a less positive light; I just want it to be factually and impassionately presented, in a reasonable structural order. I fully expect the article to note that the mainstream scientific community does not accept ID, and show sourced references to their criticisms.

But, my objection was in the overwhelming structural bias. Simply put, there's no reason, cause or comparison for it. Having already covered this, I am considering a variety of proposals to directly address this.Trilemma 22:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Trilemma, please excuse me, but I'm not sure what you mean by "overwhelming structural bias". By this OSBias, are you referring to the extremely rigorous process by which modern scientific theories are tested?

Or are you referring to the current presentation style/manner utilized by the (I am presuming) majority of Wikipedia editors working on the Intelligent Design article?

Dave Souza, Thank you. Very glad to hear I did it correctly. Ec5618, yes - I also have noticed the tendency of ID people to take a more philosophical than scientific stance when explaining ID. Understandable since science, in a matter of speaking, grew out from natural philosophy. However, in modern times, there is definite line between modern science and philosophy (natural and otherwise).

I will now go out of topic at this point. Though I appreciate the flattery of it, I cannot help but feel a little embarrassed that whoever archived or edited the thread I previously posted in used my nick as the title of this new thread. With all respect due, I will just edit the title of this thread since I rather not have people to think that I have a big ego.Lovecoconuts 14:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Lovecoconuts, I was referring to the actual literal presentation of the article itself, not the points contained. I'll leave the latter to others. My objection lays in the literal structure of the article, the skeleton of it. I think some vertebrae need moved around, metaphorically. Basically, the current structure of the article overwhelms it with criticisms and attempts to stifle ID arguments with criticism.

I have no problem with having the criticisms of ID up; in fact, they should be up. But, what I'm saying is that the structure they're contained in should be altered. Does that clear up my 'structural bias' statement? Trilemma 22:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but I must truthfully say I do not share it. Considering how hostile the majority of the scientific community is towards ID at this time, I actually think it would be remiss and inobjective of Wikipedia editors not to present that prevailing negativity clearly.

Of course, when said negativity turns positive, I expect the change to be reflected in Wikipedia as well. One of the reasons Wikipedia is perhaps my most preferred encyclopedia is that it stays current to the times. I still have (printed) encyclopedias with very outdated articles.

However, despite all its trouble - I'm still keeping an open mind about ID. Perhaps ID people will come up with a Louis Pasteur.Lovecoconuts 06:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The odds of the "negativity" becoming "positive" are somewhere between slim to nil, and Slim just left town riding a silver steed named Reason.

Louis Pasteur?

Jim62sch 02:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes - it would be quite difficult for the scientific community if ID turned out to be correct. But I faith in them scientists.

On Louis Pasteur - Years ago, I saw an old black & white movie about Louis Pasteur. Not certain if the movie was accurate or just dramatizing his work/life. In the movie, Pasteur's vaccination work was ridiculed by his peers at first. Also, during Pasteur's time, surgeons don't seem to wash up before operating on a patient. Pasteur it seems was the first or one of the first to come up with the idea of germs and bacteria, etc. Again, in the movie, the doctors didn't believe him.Lovecoconuts 03:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Jim, I don't see any reason why the criticism of ID should not be presented clearly. I do, however, also think that the ID arguments should likewise be presented clearly, and I think that is impossible to accomplish when the structure of the article is overwhelmed with criticism, when every possible paragraph ends with an anti ID point, when the ID points section is dilluted by criticisms. I think the article should accurately and dispassionately cover ID, and I don't think that it can in this current format.

Observe the Holocaust denial article. There's no more reprehensible, inaccurate belief in the contemporary world than Holocaust denail, and yet the arguments those confused people make are given clear, uninterrupted enumeration. If we can be that objective and dispassionate about something as vile as Holocaust denial, can we not for ID?? Trilemma 03:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know. At this point in time, ID is more harmful than Holocaust denial. In any case, I don't think anyone here is to blame for the fact that ID looks really bad when explained honestly. Blame the people who came up with ID as a scheme for replacing science with religion in our schools. Alienus 04:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Trilemma, the post above Jim's is mine. By the way, I don't think it's proper to compare how the ID article is edited with how the Holocaust denial article is edited. I think it may make readers think you are comparing ID with Holocaust denial. Just an observation I cannot help but make upon reading Alienus' post.Lovecoconuts 06:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Correcting my post above. It's Holocaust denial, not the Holocaust. I suppose in a matter of speaking ID can be seen as Evolution denial.Lovecoconuts 11:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Not so much Evolution denial as a denial that cosmic regularities of succession which seem to be ideal for life can exist as a brute-fact feature of the universe, as unexplainable as the distribution of prime numbers among the set of natural numbers. It's an appeal to cracker-barrel folksy common horse sense. Endomion 00:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I feel as though I'm just repeating myself. Maybe I need to dumb down my sentence structures.Lovecoconuts 06:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Alienus, that's a blatant POV. First, it is not wikipedia's place to gauge harmfulness of a topic, and set structural bias based on that harmfulness. Second, ID is not being explained honestly, it's being criticized. Whether or not that criticism is fair or not, I'll leave to others. What my concern is, though, is the copious amounts of it. Explain ID, list the criticisms. Don't overwhelm the article with criticism in a personal quest to debunk the blief.

Lovecoconuts, I don't mean to compare ID to Holocaust denial in the sense of comparison of ideas, and hopefully everyone understands that. I am merely pointing out that on wikipedia, even something like Holocaust denial can have its points clearly stated, without saturated criticism and structural bias. If they can, certainly ID can. Trilemma 16:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply below. May I request that we just stick new replies to the bottom of the thread? Very confusing this way.Lovecoconuts 23:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

(LC: the process of vaccination began with the smallpox vaccine developed from cowpox by Edward Jenner in 1798. Yes, Pasteur was involved with vaccination, but the concept predated him by a good bit.)

In any case, what distresses me is that in this centennial year of Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity we are having a discussion of a pseudo-scientific concept spawned from a teleological argument. Have we regressed that far in 100 years? Jim62sch 14:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. Einstein derived his equations from principles of relativity worked out previously by others, in a sense special relativity was inevitable, as tidy as the Pythagorean Theorum. The equivalent would be a narrow field of physics, such as Quantum electrodynamics. But QED is the bedrock of chemistry, and chemistry is the bedrock of biology, and biology is one of the two big messy fields that ID is concerned with (along with geology). Attempts to impose order on such a complex branch of study by demonstrating it results from the choices of a conscious entity is, if anything, a progression, if those attempts can overcome the institutional bias against it. Endomion 14:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Jim, just acknowledging your post about Pasteur. I guess I was right. That movie did dramatize his life/work a bit too much.

Endomion, a institutional bias? Is this about the scientific community at large giving ID a hard time? I'm hoping it's not about that again. I'll just end up repeating my first post. Perhaps I should start bolding.

There is a very rigorous process for modern scientific theories. All scientific theories go through it.

If ID is sound, it should be able to pass the process. Perhaps it will ease your impatience by keeping in mind that it's challenging the modern theory of evolution which many scientists have been working on and improving for 150 years.Lovecoconuts 05:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

(Einstein offered a refinement of Newton's law of gravitation that came into play under extremes of gravity such as near a neutron star, without "challenging" Newton's theory. Not all new ideas seek to entirely overthrow old ones. Intelligent Design may very well operate as a directed refinement to a generally undirected process) Endomion 17:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply below. May I request that we just stick new replies to the bottom of the thread? Very confusing this way.Lovecoconuts 23:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, I think accusing the scientific community in one go of an institutional bias is a considerable accusation and honestly - I find it extremely hard to take seriously. My reaction is divided between "Oh no... not that again." and telling myself to be patient, patient. After all, it doesn't seem to be common knowledge that scientific theories are improved all the time. I'll just let myself think again that perhaps scientists should take a leaf from the computer programmers' handbook and start attaching Version numbers to their theories.Lovecoconuts 15:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Endo, you missed my point (not surprising really) -- my point was that a pseudo-science masquerading as a science has generated far more attention than the centennial of SR. As for Special Relativity being inevitable, one thinks you do not know what you are talking about. In fact, as of the 1920's there were only a few people who fully understood the theory, and even today, while that number has grown significantly, as a percentage of the population (even among physicists) it is still low.

For the rest, I think LC has admirably stated the feelings of many of us. Unless lobotomies are practiced on every scientist or science enthusiast, IUD will never gain acceptance as a science: because it isn't one.

Finally, how are you making out with that homework assignment? Jim62sch 15:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Jim62sch, if you do a little reading, you will discover that special relativity is understood by many but general relativity is understood by few, mainly because the geometry of special relativity's inertial frames is Euclidian (flat) but that of general relativity involves curving geometries and hairy math. Endomion 17:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Endo: however, I was discussing Special Relativity as it is SR's 100th anniversary. If it were 2015, I'd have been discussing General Relativity, and I'd have noted that even fewer people understand that. (BTW: the non-Euclidian geometry required for GR is actually one of the easier pieces of the puzzle to understand.) Moreover, just for the record, (and not to brag but to put an end to yet another silly discussion having nothing to do with ID), I aced physics, so save the lectures and advice.

Jim62sch 20:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so you are saying from your expertise as an ace physics student that special relativity, which only requires elementary calculus to grok, is understood by relatively few physicisists, but the complex tensor algebra and Riemannian geometry of general relativity are the easy parts of general relativity to grok and and it is some deeper mystery about it that makes it so difficult. Endomion 23:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Confusion City - Requesting new replies to be at the bottom of the thread please. I scroll to the bottom of the thread for new replies.

Tri, again - I understand your concern; I currently just don't share it. Now, if the scientific community becomes positive about ID and the Wikipedia page on ID is still negative - then I'll share your concern.

Endo - your post about Einstein and Newton counters your own post about "institutional bias." See? Scientific communities ARE open to new scientific theories that significantly counter long-existing scientific theories.Lovecoconuts 05:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, but the kicking and screaming that takes place in the interregum. Even Einstein had to draw the line when the probabilistic world described by quantum mechanics started to take shape (his famous "God does not throw dice" statement comes to mind). Endomion 00:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Endo, again - bottom of the thread please. Answering in between my paragraphs makes it looks like you wrote the paragraph above your answer. I had to add another sig to my paragraph, otherwise it looks like you're arguing with yourself again.

Now, I think I'm going to sound a bit confuddled. Your latest post to me is a wee bit ridiculous since it basically challenges your previous post. It's rather like you're just arguing with yourself in public.

By the way, since you mentioned that ID is just refining? May I ask exactly which scientific theory/theories it seeks to refine? And please post at the thread below about the ID Intro. I'm looking forward to your answer.Lovecoconuts 23:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

My specific statement was, Intelligent Design may very well operate as a directed refinement to a generally undirected process. If ID was a monolithic block of thought that tried to flat out revolutionize naturalism I don't think it would even be controversial. In fact think the whole flapdoodle is over ID's apparent success in subtly triangulating between the older Creation science which was unashamedly theology straight from Genesis, and science, by appropriating certain buzz words. Endomion 00:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Lovecoconuts, that sounds dirty, is it dirty? Cause it could be dirty. Um, no... I wasn't drinking wine tonight. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you weren't, but I'm beginning to think that Endo has been.

Besides, I'm trying to figure out the deep meaning of the alias (mine has no deep meaning). Endomion (from classical Greek) is the present active participle of endomeo, which means, "to build in". Now, it's not a legitimate synonym for design (at least not according to Liddel and Scott), so it must have some other meaning. Maybe someday we'll find out.

In any case, let's get back to the task at hand which is to discuss this article. I mean, I'm not going to digress into an explanation of why Newton's laws don't work as well as Einstein's equations in predicting the movement of celestial bodies, so let's not digress into a physics argument.

Jim62sch 00:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Endo, if you type between my paragraphs again, that's going to be the third time. In this case, the "third" time is going to be OUT and not the least bit charming to me. Comprende?

I'm new at posting in the discussion pages, but even I know better than to post in between another person's paragraphs.

By the way, I think Endo needs to do a research about how Einstein regards Newton. Einstein is "crazy" about Newton. Einstein had great regard for Newton and he was very respectful when he improved on the work on gravitation that Newton started.

Endo, on the other hand, don't seem to be respectful or mindful of the significance of Darwin's work nor of the work of the many scientists that have contributed their own theories to Evolution. Not to mention all that fossil work. It's very hard to find a fossil, then there's the very very tedious cleaning.

How about taking a leaf from Einstein's page? Show a little more respect of the work of many that have done before? Cut down a bit on "institutional bias" accusations? A little respect goes a long way and really - accusations rarely promote goodwill. Your "institutional bias" post got me feeling testy, for example.

Remember - bottom of the thread. PLEASE no posting in between another person's paragraphs.Lovecoconuts 05:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

LC, if the scientific community would change its opinion on ID, I would expect the article to change qualitatively, in terms of the factual content, to reflect the change. However, quantitatively, in terms of the structure, the article desperately needs changed. It needs brought into line. Regardless of its standing in the scientific community, it deserves a straightforward presentation free of saturated criticism and structural bias. Trilemma 05:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

(hands Trilemma a cute little puppy dog) Trilemma, I already said I understand your concern. That means Yes - I do think you're in the right to have such concerns, meaning - I respect your opinion. You're entitled to it.

Now - the second more tricky part. I currently do not share your worries because my feeling/opinion is that the Wikipedia editors are following the lead from the scientific community. Now - this is my opinion (which is subject to change depending on the scientific community and whether or not the Wikipedia editors can keep the article current).

(takes back cute little puppy dog and goes away for puppy rub therapy) I'm okay if you wish to continue attempting to change my opinion, but I hope you won't be disappointed if I don't answer. I usually stop after repeating the same sentiment 3 times.Lovecoconuts 05:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

LC, yes I too get tired of chewing my cud for the third time.

Trilemma: As to Intelligent design's acceptance by the scientific community, fuggedaboutit, it's just not going to happen because Intelligent design is a philosophy, not a science. Also, the article does not "desperately needs changed", although I think I know exactly how you would like it to read, despite your protestations that you merely want it to be fair. Articles on Intelligent design that you might find more suitable are to be found on the DI website. Jim62sch 14:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent Design is indeed a philosophy, it is Natural philosophy and a critique of science. Endomion 15:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

So then you concede Intelligent design is not a science? Jim62sch 15:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't even get you and LoveCoconuts to concede that scientific inquiries are always provisional and can never be proven in the manner of assertions from number theory (as acknowledged by User:FeloniousMonk at the end of the Talk:Intelligent_design#Re-read the Intro and just now realized... thread). Since my definition of what is scientific is not the same as yours, I can concede nothing. Endomion 18:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Jim, your statement suggests that you either A) did not read my statements or B) did not opt to examine and understand them. Since you have for whatever reason missed my proposal, let me put it in bold text: I propose to change the structure of the article, while maintaining the presence of the criticisms of ID, in a format more in line with most every other article of minority view points on ID, including Holocaust denial. The ID viewpoints deserve to be clearly made, and, so do the criticisms. The article should note that ID is rejected by the mainstream scientific community.

So, Jim, can you please elaborate on precisely how I am attempting to change the ID article into something from the Discovery Institute?

LC, I understand what you're saying now, though it seems like you're apathetic to the structural element so long as the actual material included remains the same. Keep in mind, I'm not saying change the ingredients, just change the order (and yes, I don't need or expect a response to this one, though I won't fault you if you do). (I'd responded to this once before, but it seems to have been lost along the way. So, if this is double posted, I apologize). Trilemma 15:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

TL -- The statement to which you refer is not in this section.

In any case, I understand your point, I just don't happen to agree with it at present. Holocaust Denial is not a matter of science, but of political science, sociology, history and philosophy. If ID dropped its pretence to science and admitted that it was just a philosophy, I'm sure that the article would change in the way you've suggested.

The DI comment was TIC -- I should have used a wink emoticon. Sorry about that omission.

Jim62sch 17:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Jim, I hope you don't mind moving our comments to the correct section--an original gaffe on my part. Anyway, Holocaust denial can empiracally be proven to be complete and utter BS. It is a ridiculous, incredulous and insulting position. But, even though the evidence is there to show it to be BS, we still allow for the clear, uninterupted list of Holocaust denial 'arguments'. One of your central objections to ID is its inability to be empiracally proven. But, while ID has yet to be empiracally proven or disproven, Holocaust denial can be conclusively shown to be BS. We still give it space on wikipedia because it's wikipedia's place to simply and dispassionately archive beliefs and theories. Whether it's science or history is really inconsequential; empiracism is a fundamental element of both.

It seems though, that you're largely apathetic to the format issue and care more about the material contained within. So, if I would provide a structure which contains the current contents but in a different format, would there be objection? While you don't agree about the necessity of the switch, it seems you also are not vehemently opposed to such a switch.Trilemma 19:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Endo, you've hit the nail on the head with your link to Natural philosophy which, if you follow it, explains that it predated the terms science and scientist, and differs significantly from modern science which redirects to science. The aim of ID is to return "science" to the early 19th century before the term became current, and have a philosophical basis that accepts supernatural explanations of natural events. The strange thing is that if they found scientifically valid proof, the effect would be to bring their "designer" into the natural realm explored by science, and undermine religious faith. This is likely to underlie the Roman Catholic church's refusal to go down the ID route. ....dave souza 19:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Dave is exactly right on all points here. FeloniousMonk 19:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

<blush> minor correction: the word "science" was around, but it didn't have the current meaning. ...dave souza 21:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Endo, sobre esto, I can't even get you and LoveCoconuts to concede that scientific inquiries are always provisional and can never be proven in the manner of assertions from number theory (as acknowledged by User:FeloniousMonk...Felonious said that the answers were conditional, not the inquiries. You may think there's no difference, but there is. Jim62sch 00:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

TL, moving our comments was fine, a good idea actually. :)

Regarding my apathy to the format, I'm just into substance over style and function over form. If you are going to provide a new format, it might be best to use your user page and link to it rather than posting it here (space limitations). The real problem still remains though: if ID would just present itself as the philosophy it is, rather than as a science, the article would likely change to a format more in keeping with what you'd like to see. The reason for this is simple: there is a large gulf between science and philosophy -- philosophy is the ultimate Gedanke experiment, one with no real bounds other than avoiding fallacies and presenting arguments in the proper syllogistic forms; and science has much stricter guidelines.

Jim62sch 01:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Endo thinks modern science is like natural philosophy? Something tells me I not only have to dumb down my sentence structure but also dumb down my thinking so that I can understand and have more patience as to why he keeps contradicting himself.

Though related, Modern Science is different from Natural Philosophy. You see, before Isaac Newton (you know this guy, don't you?) published his book on the Three Laws of Physics and stuff, the philosophical-types in his time tended to make observable theories usually without mathematical proofs to back them up.

But then Isaac Newton came and WOW! Did he knock them philosophical-types' socks off with his book. He had a method of making and cataloging observations that most of them could not help but admire and wanted to emulate - this method eventually became the basic of the Modern Scientific Method.

Henceforth, practically the only way a natural philosopher (or budding scientist) could make his theories up to standard (or have them taken seriously) was to make use of the Scientific Method. So important and standard-making was this Scientific Method of Newton's, that he was sometimes gifted with the title of "Father of Modern Science."

Newton regarded himself as a natural philosopher, but he is generally regarded as the first of the modern scientists. Some would argue that he was also the last of the magicians.

Trilemma, if I sound apathetic, that's probably because my post probably sounds tired. (Apathy is often related with Tiredness). I had only intended to post one (1) post (on another person's thread), just wanted to express my opinion. I think everyone is entitled to that. I don't mind people wanting to change my opinion. (That's a normal human trait, I think, to want other people to share the same opinion as you.) However, I cannot help but feel tired at having to defend my opinion.

Imagine my surprise upon coming back here and discovered that that (1) post of mine had became the first post of a new thread. Suddenly, I felt I had to defend my opinion and that I had to keep track of every post on this thread. When Endo did that institutional bias post, I found myself having regrets about making that first post.

To whoever made my first post into a new thread, I'm not really angry or upset. Just tired and feeling a little foolish as to why I have allowed myself to get into this thing.

By the way, that reminds me. I think Newton had something similar to Intelligent Design. I think he wanted to find scientific proof that God existed. (ambles off to look for a kitty cat to rub)Lovecoconuts 01:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Endomion said, "I can't even get you and LoveCoconuts to concede that scientific inquiries are always provisional and can never be proven in the manner of assertions from number theory (as acknowledged by User:FeloniousMonk...)

Jim62sch replied, Felonious said that the answers were conditional, not the inquiries. You may think there's no difference, but there is.

My reply: By "inquiries" I mean a cyclic and endless process of refining hypotheses with observations and peer-review. To use the word "answers" takes us back to the unscientific proof mindset. Endomion 03:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I am currently a confused coconut. Endo, I don't remember you trying to make me & ?Felonious? concede what? What exactly did I say that makes you want me to "concede" on the aforementioned what? I don't even understand what you mean by that what.

Please do me a favor and dumb down your sentence structure so that I can understand you better. Perhaps I've been going about this the wrong way. Maybe it's you who have to dumb down your statements so that I and others can follow your line of reasoning better.Lovecoconuts 03:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

LoveCoconuts said, "Endo thinks modern science is like natural philosophy? Something tells me I not only have to dumb down my sentence structure but also dumb down my thinking so that I can understand and have more patience as to why he keeps contradicting himself."

My reply: A careful review of this thread reveals that I actually said, "Intelligent Design is indeed a philosophy, it is Natural philosophy and a critique of science. (As a side-note, I am a member of that half of the human species that develops eggs. Pink background for emphasis) Endomion 04:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Jim (and LC, etc.), I'll work on a model over the next few days (actually, maybe week--finals this week) and put it in my personal page; then I'll post the link here. This discussion page grows incredibely fast; by the time I get to linking it, we'll probably have two more archives in the books. Trilemma 05:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No kidding. Yeah, lots of activity here.

Endo, there you go! See? ID is currently a lot more like a philosophical thing than a scientific thing. That's why many scientists not happy with it because ID people wants it to be taught in science classes immediately.

Philosophy and Science are similar in some ways but quite distinct from each other. Like boys and girls. I can even compare Natural Philosophy and Modern Science to Adam and Eve.

ID (as it is now) being taught in science classes is like a guy going into the girls' bathroom. Maybe someday, bathrooms will be coed (like how the Ancient Romans did it), but for now - it's fair to expect odd looks and the occasional shriek.Lovecoconuts 05:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

LC, the exact quote from Endo, which she forgot to put in one of her little boxes, was, "Intelligent Design is indeed a philosophy, it is Natural philosophy and a critique of science. Endomion 15:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)". Ok, go run with it. :)

And yes, ID is a "philosophical thing" and will never be a "science thing" so long as it requires a supernatural entity to explain the existence of life. Of course, if ID dropped that requirement it would become a "none-thing" Jim62sch 10:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

TL, good luck on your finals, and let us know when you're done with your proposal. Jim62sch 10:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

and so to natural philosophy..

Since the Wikipedia article sees natural philosophy as a predecessor to modern science, it struck me that saying it was a critique of science was like saying that astrology is a critique of astronomy. However, I tried googling, and while most of the links were pretty much as the Wiki definition, there were a couple of societies aiming to integrate maths and physics or something. Then all was revealed: a book review with a glowing outline of the idea including this

Some educators will find it surprising that many fairly advanced topics of philosophy and Christian theology are included in this course. Is this appropriate for high school or college students? Absolutely. Why should students be experts in machinery and equations and unlearned in related philosophical and theological questions? Historically, physics and philosophy have interacted strongly, under the name Natural Philosophy, hence the title of this book. ... The interaction of the Bible and science has been a central ingredient of the development of natural philosophy in the Western world, and this interaction still affects the politics of science and education in the United States today. Knowing what the Bible says, and does not say, is essential for understanding this debate.

The book[3] is by a chap called David W. Snoke. Is the name somehow familiar? It must be said he appears to have good physics credentials, but introducing bible study into physics classes might prove tricky in some countries. ... dave souza 17:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice catch. Historically, many of the topics now covered by the sciences were under the umbrella of philosophy, only escaping once they became scientific enough. As far as I remember, the last one to escape was psychology, though it's not entirely free yet. I don't think that science is independent of philosophy or should be, but it's generally more rigorous, and we don't want to abandon the empricism of a science just to go back to the hand-waving of philosophy. Uhm, we don't unless we want to wave our hands towards God, that is. Alienus 18:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Suspected Original Research (again)

The "who designed the designer" objection is a popular one for anti-ID adherents and should be mentioned. But I do not believe original research should be mixed in here. Previously I raised questions and criticisms regarding this statement:

the postulation of the existence of even a single uncaused causer in the Universe contradicts the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that every complex object requires a designer

I pointed out that this was false; this was not a fundamental assumption of ID (and gave citations to support my claim), encountered stiff resistance, but eventually it was removed. Next (21 November 2005) there was this

the postulation of the existence of even a single uncaused causer in the Universe contradicts the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that every irreducibly complex object requires a designer

I pointed out this was false; this was not a fundamental assumption of ID (and again gave citations to support my claim), met stiff resistance, but eventually it was removed. It was replaced with this (2 December 2005):

the postulation of the existence of even a single uncaused causer in the Universe contradicts a fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that a designer is needed for every specifically complex object

It has not escaped my attention that the format of the argument is very similar. Have there been prominent ID opponents who have actually made these arguments? Or are they, as I suspect, original research? In particular, let's focus on the most recent one (the one regarding specified complexity). Is this argument original research? Or can someone provide a citation of a prominent ID opponent who makes this argument?

I will admit my bias here: I do believe the argument is non sequitur. For instance, how would an uncaused designer of complex specified information (CSI) contradict the assumption that a designer is needed for CSI? We are not told, and the article gives no references of anyone making this argument. Can anyone give a citation of a prominent ID opponent making this argument? Or is the argument what I suspect it to be, original research? To the very least, can someone explain the reasoning behind this argument?

I suspect there are more cases of original research in the Wikipedia article, but for now this will do.

NOTE: Let’s put personal feelings and opinions regarding past issues aside for now and focus on the matter at hand. Is this argument original research? If not, can someone provide a citation of a leading ID opponent making this argument? --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

We've been through this before. NPOV is to represent all points of view. All means all. NPOV is non-negociable. We have provided a reference to Dawkins and Coyne making that argument. I have even given you ID creationists responses to that argument. What more do you want? — Dunc|☺ 22:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

He want's it out altogether. Wade Tisthammer has been hammering away at this subsection of the article with his objections now for about a month, and all he's accomplished has been to make it the most heavily cited and supported content in the article. By my count he's raised specific objections to 4 different sentences being original research. And each time, they were shown not to be original research and remain in the article, now just with supporting cites. Just because content was slightly rewritten is not proof that his objections have any merit; he shouldn't assume it is. In the course of responding to his objections, more revelant and recent arguments were found. This particular subsection now sports 9 supporting cites. That's 9 cites for 3 paragraphs. The sentence now in question is already supported by two cites.

His repeated droning on about the article's verfiability is disruptive. His objections have not brought quality to this article or to Wikipedia, but mayhem. He's already filled two archived page with specious reasonings based on his own original research, we needn't sit by while he disrupts this page as well. If other reasonable editors find the these supporting cites to be insufficient, they are welcome to add additional cites. But it is not a valid a justification for removing credible, relevant content, which has always been Wade Tisthammer's central demand and why we are yet once again having to respond to him. FeloniousMonk 22:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

If trying to make the section conform to Wikipedia policy is disruptive, then I am being disruptive. I do not want the "who designed the designer" section removed altogether, I'd just like it to conform to Wikipedia policy; and that means no original research in the section. I must admit however, that people replacing one piece of original research for another is getting tiresome. I've created a version that I would find acceptable below (the addendum). It is essentially the same, with all statements I suspect to be original research removed, and one sentence describing the minority view (while still giving anti-ID the last word).

Regarding the "9 supporting cites"; none of them consist of a leading ID opponent (or anybody else) making the argument under discussion. As for my previous objections (e.g. here), I will say two things. One, I asked for a citation of a leading ID opponent making argument X to show that argument X is not original research. Such requests were repeatedly denied, despite FeloniousMonk's insinuations. Two, let’s put personal feelings and opinions regarding past issues aside for now and focus on the matter at hand. Is this argument original research? Can the requested citations be provided? So far, apparently they cannot. --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins isn't a leading critic of ID? Either you're deceiving yourself, hoping to deceive us, or woefully obtuse. FeloniousMonk 23:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course Richard Dawkins is a leading critic of ID. If you can provide a citation with him saying, "the postulation of the existence of even a single uncaused causer in the Universe contradicts a fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that a designer is needed for every specifically complex object" please do so. So far you have done no such thing. --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Duncharris, where is this citation of Dawkins and Coyne making the argument, "the postulation of the existence of even a single uncaused causer in the Universe contradicts a fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that a designer is needed for every specifically complex object"? If it exists, please provide it. Such a citation would certainly meet my request. Otherwise I don't think you or anyone else has even attempted to provide citations regarding this argument (yet). Also, please don't remove my replies from this section again. That is rude and disruptive. (For those who missed it, my replies to FeloniousMonk and Duncharris were deleted by Duncharris 12/8/2005)--Wade A. Tisthammer 23:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV is to represent all points of view. Is this correct? I doubt every single idea should be presented, not in the least equally. If it should, I would propose a "theory" conspicuously absent: the Flying Spaghetti Monster, to name a possible designer. --Nomen Nescio 23:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

True, Wikipedia policy states that majority and significant minority views be represented, but not extremely limited views (yet another reason why original research should not be in here). --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Its true, Dawkins and Coyne make the argument. They claim that, following ID logic, ID states that the designer requires a designer. The problem is that the wording, or perhaps even the inclusion of the argument, suggests that they have a point, and that they are right about ID logic. Shouldn't we clarify that either ID does make the argument (with a cite) or that ID makes no such argument? -- Ec5618 23:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

See my addendum below. We can include both majority and minority viewpoints and that (I think) will be enough. Dawkins does claim that the complex designer requires an explanation, but I do not (correct me if I'm wrong) think he claims that ID states the designer requires a designer. (If I am wrong, please give me a quote.) --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Addendum

In looking at the section, the "who designed the designer" seems so rife with original research that it might be best to just completely rewrite it. Here's what I propose:

In claiming that life was intelligent design, critics have asked the question of who designed the designer. Dawkins and Coyne have argued that "If complex organisms demand an explanation, so does a complex designer. And it's no solution to raise the theologian's plea that God (or the Intelligent Designer) is simply immune to the normal demands of scientific explanation." They further argue that Intelligent Design simply takes the complexity required for life to have evolved and moves it to the "designer" instead. Intelligent Design does not explain how the complexity happened in the first place; it just moves it. In this view, explaining the origin of life on Earth by reference to a designer explains nothing, for it does not explain the origin of the designer. And if the designer is itself designed, there is the possibility of falling into an infinite regression of designers. A design inference is thus vacuous and illegitimate.

ID adherents have claimed that one can still rationally infer design (e.g. a radio message sent by extraterrestrials) without knowing the identity or origins of the designer. Nonetheless, the vast majority of scientists claim there is insufficient reason to make a design inference for life on Earth in the first place.

I thought it fair to include one sentence (count: only one) to describe the minority view. A citation for that minority view can easily be given. Why did I cut out the rest? I'm not convinced that the rest of the material in the Wikipedia article isn't original research. If a citation of a prominent ID opponent can be given making those claims, the claims should be included. Otherwise they are not legitimate. --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I have not digested the proposed text, but I agree with your point that anything that is uncited is suspect. -- Ec5618 23:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels that way. :) --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Wade,

Just any quote or the exact quote you demanded first?

Jim62sch 23:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Any citation of any leading ID opponent who makes the argument (whether verbatim or paraphrased) will do. --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

You do of course realize that "argumentum ad verecundiam" is one of the great fallacies, yes?

Jim62sch 00:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The "appeal to authority"? I've heard of it, but keep in mind in this case we are dealing with whether an argument is original research. Among other things, one is not allowed to make up an argument against a theory one doesn't like and insert it into the Wikipedia entry. However, if a prominent opponent of a theory makes the argument, the argument is not original research (even if the argument his horribly flawed). That's why I've been making my request for a suitable citation. --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

You've "heard of it"? 'Nuff said.

Jim62sch 00:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been watching this talk for a while now, and this won't go away. The reason it won't go away seems to be because everyone is a bit pissed off with everyone else, although it is cooling down a little. Jim, Wade is not appealing to authority. He is asking for a citation of a leading representative of a view expressing a particular point so that we can be sure people with this view can be considered to believe this point. It is the same as asking to see a green leaf before writing 'some leaves are green'. Or looking for a citation of a duck saying 'leaves are blue' before writing 'some ducks consider leaves to be blue'.

Wade's submitted text seems concise and relatively fair. But what do I know? :-) 16:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC) (Skittle)

If you've been watching, you'll have realized that we've been through this 800 times. Citations are provided, Wade rejects them. And yes, Wade is appealing to authority, but I'm going to get into a silly argument over that right now.

Jim62sch 16:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Part II of my response: There is a large difference between concision and bowdlerism. The other references in the "Who (what) Designed the Designer" section are valid, do not indicate OR and are necessary, thus, they need to stay.

Jim62sch 22:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Supporting cites for Wade

Wade should take the time to become familiar with the historical arguments which arise in positing an uncaused causer to avoid falling into long-identified logic traps then burdening us with his objections. That leaves the "fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design..." part of the passage from his objection. But reading the article, it is already supported by two cites: "the postulation of the existence of even a single uncaused causer in the Universe contradicts a fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that a designer is needed for every specifically complex object.^[70][71]"

70. "Intelligent design, on the other hand, involves two basic assumptions: 1) Intelligent causes exist. 2) These causes can be empirically detected (by looking for specified complexity)." Access Research Network. Frequently Asked Questions about Intelligent Design. [4]

71. "According to contemporary design theory, the presence of highly specified complexity is an indicator of an intelligent cause." Access Research Network. Frequently Asked Questions about Intelligent Design. [5]

These two cites have been sufficient support for most here except Wade and Ant. Since he'll quickly dismiss them, here are two additional cites supporting the statement that every specifically complex object is the product of a designer according to ID's tenets, ready for use as footnotes, numbers 72 and 73, if needed:

"In The Design Inference I show how inferring design is equivalent to identifying specified complexity." --Dembski [6]

"As I’ve argued in The Design Inference, specified complexity (or specified improbability as I call it there--the concepts are the same) is a reliable empirical marker of actual design." --Dembski [7]

As for his claim that the argument itself is original research, there's no shortage of proof that it is a common criticism of ID:

"All that said, I don't see any reason to concede the premise that leads to the regress in the first place. We infer design on the basis of certain features of objects and events. Similarly, if we talk about specified complexity or fine-tuning, it's not clear what it even means to say that an agent "contains" more of these properties than an object the agent designs. That sounds like a category mistake. Agents have properties and capacities, like self-consciousness, freedom, intentions, and so forth. Agents also can cause certain things to come into existence, including complex things. But as a causal explanation, agency/intelligent design is simple. It’s not a metaphysically exotic or arcane concept." [8], and [9]
"Suppose that the argument for Intelligent Design is correct--that the complexity of life on this planet is proof that there must be a designer intelligent enough to have created the (apparently purposefully designed) complexity. (For proponents of Intelligent Design, the designer is none other than God, though they deny that in public forums.) Clearly, this designer must, Himself, be quite complex. How was He created? If He exists (or existed) in the natural world, the only tool that the ID folks have for explaining such complexity is Intelligent Design. Clearly, the Designer could not have arisen by chance and therefore He must have been designed. But the Designer's Designer must be even more complex. Invoking Intelligent Design again, we must conclude that there must have been an even more complex Designer's Designer's Designer. Continue invoking Intelligent Design over and over again and you are left with an infinite series of ever-more-complex Designers going back infinitely in time. Intelligent Design admits no beginning to this infinite series. This infinite series is: 1) completely at odds with a universe that appears finite in both space and time; 2) at odds with the fact that we have zero direct evidence of these infinite number of ever-more-complex creators; and 3) is contrary to the increase in complexity in life we have seen on this planet." [10]
"Rather, the hinge of this argument is that the "designer" either is or is not irreducibly complex. The choice of a non-complex designer is not open to ID proponents, because it fundamentally contradicts ID. This is so because a non-complex designer would mean that supposedly “irreducible” complexity could arise from less complex origins – picture a sequence going back to the amoeba – and thus cannot fairly be said to be “irreducible.” The payoff of this logical – not theological – argument is simply that ID requires a designer that could not naturally occur." [11]
"It [natural selection] doesn't pretend to solve one mystery (the origin of complex life) by slipping in another (the origin of a complex designer) [as does ID]." --Steven Pinker, Psychology professor, Harvard University [12]. And Dembski is aware of argument, citing Pinker: [13]

I would say once again that this puts to rest Wade's objections, but given his willful refusal to accept any evidence over the last month, and his tendentious and combative nature here, I'm sure Wade will dismiss this evidence under some specious pretense. FeloniousMonk 23:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

So, the argument is made, quite unequivocally, that it is said that ID requires an intelligent cause. But does ID specifically state that it does? Could you explain how the above quotes mean that 'the designer' must be irreducibly complex?

'specified improbability' equals 'specified complexity' which implies 'intelligent cause'. But why should that cause be irreducibly complex? -- Ec5618 23:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The article doesn't say "irreducibly complex" anymore. It says "a fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that a designer is needed for every specifically complex object" which is indeed what Dembski and ARN both say: "Intelligent design, on the other hand, involves two basic assumptions: 1) Intelligent causes exist. 2) These causes can be empirically detected (by looking for specified complexity)." [14], "According to contemporary design theory, the presence of highly specified complexity is an indicator of an intelligent cause." [15], "In The Design Inference I show how inferring design is equivalent to identifying specified complexity." [16], "As I’ve argued in The Design Inference, specified complexity (or specified improbability as I call it there--the concepts are the same) is a reliable empirical marker of actual design." [17]. FeloniousMonk 00:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Felonious, I could just as easily claim you have refused to accept any evidence in the past month (e.g. when I cited Behe who flatly contradicted the alleged fundamental assumption of ID regarding irreducible complexity).

Let's look at what the cites establish. Do they establish that specified complexity is a property used to infer design? Absolutely. But we must not take Dembski out of context. All instances of inferring design from objects of specified complexity apply to objects that have begun to exist (see for instance Dembski's explanatory filter). Does Dembski mean to apply this principle to uncaused entities? That seems unlikely.

The argument also seems to depend on the designer having specified complexity. And while the quote says the designer must be complex, it doesn't say that the designer must have the kind of complexity Dembski describes. Saying that the designer must be complex and saying that the designer must have Dembski’s “specified complexity” are two different things. And none of the citations provided so far grant my request: a leading ID opponent making the argument, "the postulation of the existence of even a single uncaused causer in the Universe contradicts a fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that a designer is needed for every specifically complex object". None of the citations have that. If you want to put forth the "infinite regression" claim, I would have no objection. But original research is not appropriate. And it should be noted that the quote misrepresents ID's position. ID doesn't claim that intelligent design is needed for all forms of complexity (as I have demonstrated earlier with multiple citations) just some of them. --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Now the hair splitting begins. I disagree and I'm not going to argue the fine points with you because you've a long history of denying the obvious and engaging in shabby semantics. The cites are credible and valid. They support the content, you're repeated objections not withstanding. Case closed. FeloniousMonk 00:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Saying that the designer must be "quite complex" and saying that the designer must have Dembski’s “specified complexity” are two different things. You disagree with this? --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that with your interpretation of it, and I'm not going to be drawn into a debate with someone who mischaracterizes the material issues from front to back and refuses to play by Wikipedia's rules. FeloniousMonk 00:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Citation #3 comes from an anonymous poster responding to blog entry; hardly a prominent ID opponent. --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

So what? It's not being used in the article. I provided it here to establish that it is a commonly-made criticism. FeloniousMonk 00:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Citing one anonymous reply to a blog on the internet does not demonstrate that it is a commonly-made criticism. Now, if perhaps you can abide by Wikipedia policy by e.g. citing a prominent ID opponent making the argument...--Wade A. Tisthammer 00:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, once again hairsplitting. Wade ignores the other three points and focusses on on the one he feels is "not up to standard". Now there's a technique we know well - take the body ok knowledge, make an irrelevant attack on one point, and claim that as proof that the whole pointis valid. FM didn't cite one example - he cited four. And "common usage" is just that - common usage. It doesn't matter whether it's a comment made anonymously, pseudonymously (since TPMCafe has a log-in that requires an attached email address) or with one's own name attached to it. The claim is that it is a commonly made argument. That claim has been more than adequately supported. Wikipedia policy allows "common knowledge" to actually be uncited, so claiming that policy requires a prominent opponent is simply incorrect. Guettarda 00:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Guettarda nails it here, and we've all made this point to Wade many times in the past, including Guettarda. How much tendentious and fruitless debate are we required to tolerate? How many credible cites off-handedly dismissed are enough? After 1+ months and 2+ very large talk pages (now archived), we're far, far beyond AGF here with Wade. He's been warned many times by many, many editors and admins about this, but insists on continuing his disruption. FeloniousMonk 00:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I request a citation of a leading ID opponent who makes argument X to show that the argument is not original research, in accordance with Wikipedia policy. These requests are repeatedly denied, despite my insistence that either the citations be provided or the original research argument be removed. If this is disruption, then I'm guilty. If this is not disruption, then you and anyone else (if there is anyone else) accusing me of disruption have little basis for that allegation. If anyone, I think it is you FeloniousMonk who are disruptive by pretending to give valid cites even though the citations do not satisfy my request. (And if you think my request is unreasonable, I'd be happy to cite Wikipedia policy again.) --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Guettarda, on what grounds do you claim I have ignored the other points? The first part was from Dembski, and I said "Let's look at what the cites establish. Do they establish that specified complexity is a property used to infer design? Absolutely." That this was referring to the first cite (Dembski's comments on specified complexity) I thought was obvious from what I said, but perhaps this was a mistake. The second citation is what I was chiefly talking about, I suspect you noticed that. I mentioned the third citation (see above) quite explicitly, and apparently you missed that. What about the fourth? That one I didn't respond to, but notice that the fourth citation doesn't mention the argument under discussion. It says that the designer must be complex (an argument I agree is not original research), but again it doesn't say that the designer must have Dembski's specified complexity, nor does it say that an uncaused causer contradicts “a fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that a designer is needed for every specifically complex object.” (Which happens to be the argument I suspect is original research) Do you disagree with this? --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Good thing I provided three other examples then. FeloniousMonk 00:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Bad Wade, bad. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

RoyBoy, that is a personal attack :-) --chad 09:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh, yeah I went to town on him. :"D - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Supporting cites for Wade, Subheading

Agree Wade's version is excellent and present's the critic's arguments very clearly and accurately. I see no reason not to prefer it.

Dealing with each item raised by FM, in italics below:

"Wade should take the time to become familiar with the historical arguments which arise in positing an uncaused causer to avoid falling into long-identified logic traps then burdening us with his objections."

This is a distraction introduced by Wade from his own point, presumably in an attempt to clarify. Let's rather tackle Wade's main point of original research.

"... the "fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design..." part of the passage ... is already supported by two cites: ..."

You left out the first part of the critic's argument under discussion. The full text being contested as original research is:

"the postulation of the existence of even a single uncaused causer in the Universe contradicts a fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design ...etc"

This particular topic is not about the fundamental assumption or whether it is correct or not, but about the critic's application of the assumption to contradict the existence of an uncaused causer. It is necessary to cite the critic's argument because it is the critic's argument - and not ID - which logically presumes that any causer or designer must be a specifically complex object. Otherwise there is no contradiction.

However as far as I'm concerned if it can be shown that ID does assume that the designer must be specifically complex, then clearly we do not need a cite for the critical argument under contention because it would then be logically obvious.

Therefore obections to the suitability of the cites need to show both (1) that the cite is not the above argument OR has not been made by a leading critic and (2) that the cite is not an ID statement that a designer must be specifically complex.

Note. When I state below that something is 'Not the argument by a leading critic' what I mean is that the person is not a leading opponent of ID AND/OR that the argument presented cannot be interpreted as saying that an uncaused causer contradicts the fundamental assumption of ID as claimed (that every specifically complex object must be designed)

70. "Intelligent design, on the other hand, involves two basic assumptions: 1) Intelligent causes exist. 2) These causes can be empirically detected (by looking for specified complexity)." Access Research Network. Frequently Asked Questions about Intelligent Design. [18]

(1)Not the argument by a leading critic