Archives

Archive 1

Philosophy: Metaphysics / Logic / Religion Start‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Metaphysics Logic Philosophy of religion

Creationism Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Some content copied from User talk:ItsZippy#Teleological argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsZippy (talk • contribs) 19:10, 15 November 2011

I'm just getting back to this and I wanted to drop you a note to say I thought your edits were great for clarity and you brought up some good points. I'd welcome more help with any of the obscure bits I've brought back.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 20:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I was just about to post on your talk page! Thanks for your support & encouragement, I really appreciate this. I would really love to improve this article as much as possible, potentially to Good Article status - I was wondering if you'd be willing to work on this with me? I think, for the most part, the content & sources are fine - for me, clarity & style seem to be the main problems. I'll continue to work on the article, copyediting & expanding where appropriate; anything you can also contribute would be great. I'm going to archive the current talk page (which hasn't seen a post in over a year) - I'd suggest we use that to continue improving the article. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it weren't for the ID controversy (which I avoid as much as possible), teleology is a difficult topic. It's much more subtle than one would think given the taboo in modern science. I imagine there might be more to Thomas' argument than what's in the article now… not that it seems to have much to do with Aristotle's teleology. I'll keep an eye out for sources.

Let me know if anything's too opaque. Like adding "parts" back in v. the animal as a whole. Aristotle does treat essence in a similar way for species, but there's much more hand waving—circle of life and all that—so the claims are weaker. However, an infinite amount of time having determined the final outcome of the survival of the fittest is key to his naturalistic teleology. One quirk is that the adult form is copied verbatim from the father (in species with two sexes) so all humans have exactly the same "soul", like perfected genetic info (a ratio of the four elements). People sometimes think teleology has something to do with the future influencing past events (teleological attractor) but he always makes sure the form is available to be copied and a hypothetical chain of efficient cause takes it from there. TMI for an article talk page, no doubt… or an edit summary :) —Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 00:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can probably cover intelligent design in an unbiased way. We just need to present the arguments and the criticisms levelled at them. I agree that Aquinas' arguments could probably be expanded and Aristotle's influence certainly needs a mention. Everything else you've said sounds fine - I'll let you know if there's anything that I feel needs urgent attention. I think we need to strike the right balance between clarity and accuracy - we need to capture all the nuances of the arguments; however, we also need to make sure that people can understand it (and, as the teleological argument is an important part of philosophy, it needs to be clear to those not well-versed in philosophy. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scholastic natural philosophy/science were heavily influenced by Aristotle and St.Thomas in particular, but Fresonke, being literary rather than philosophical, is quite confused and wrong about Aristotle:

As with his other arguments, Aquinas' teleological argument was based on Aristotle's ideas, though Aquinas moved away from Aristotle's assumptions about teleology and based his argument on experience of objects in the world.<ref>{{cite book | title=West of Emerson: the design of manifest destiny | publisher=University of California Press | author=Fresonke, Kris | year=2003 | pages=3-4 | isbn=9780520231856 | url=http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1ar_OqzDUJAC&lpg=PA3&dq=aquinas%20teleological%20argument%20aristotle&pg=PA3#v=onepage&q=aquinas%20teleological%20argument%20aristotle&f=false}}</ref>

Teleology isn't a priori so it's not really in contrast to an a posteriori argument. What's supposedly based on Aristotle if not “teleology”? (I didn't suggest that Aristotle's influence needs a mention, btw).

Maybe Fresonke's thinking of the Cosmological argument but it's not from Aristotle's Metaphysics. (It's from St.Thomas). There's at least half a dozen references in the article saying that Aristotle did not believe in a designer and that his teleology implies no such thing. He didn't even believe nature could be designed, rather manufactured artifacts always imitate natural forms (his gods certainly weren't capable of intelligent design).

Like Dawkins' said: “The observed fact is that every species, and every organ that has ever been looked at within every species, is good at what it does. The wings of birds, bees and bats are good at flying. Eyes are good at seeing. Leaves are good at photosynthesizing. We live on a planet where we are surrounded by perhaps ten million species, each one of which independently displays a powerfull illusion of apparent design.” So powerful Aristotle thought it might briefly fool a caveman.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 01:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Aristotle's influence on Aquinas should be in the article, though, as I mentioned in the edit summary, I'm not completely happy with what I put in. It'd be good to make that more accurate, though. I'm not quite sure of the relevance of your Dawkins' quote, though. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been looking at the fine-tuning argument and there are some problems I've noticed. The second paragraph, refencing Polkinghorne and Wald, seems is unreferenced and I cannot find any sources which support the article's claims of their views. I have found some self-published sources on Polkinghorne's view on the fine-tuned Universe argument in general (the specific example of expansive & contractive forces are not mentioned), but not much else. It seems to me that, unless reliable third-party sources exist, these views should not be included, according to WP:DUE. I expect that the actual argument itself, regarding the fine balancing of forces, will be easy to find references for; I'm not confident that reliable sources which related the specific people to the arguments will be as easy to come by. Thus, if we can find no reliable sources for the people proposing the arguments, I suggest that the attributions to the people are removed. Then, we determine what else can remain in the article according to the sources. If you have any sources, either for the argument in general or which attribute the argument to the relevant people, please post them here. All I could find was [1] and [2], which is self-published. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the whole section needs a massive improvement. I've gone through it to improve it from an editorial point of view, removing puffery and unencylopedic writing. However, for the most part, I've kept all of the content the same. I think we need to go through everything and determine what should stay in the article and what should not, according to WP:DUE. Unless we can find sources for each claim/argument presented and for the scientist/philosopher/theologian they are attributed to, I suggest they are removed. I've done a bit of searching and have come across the following sources: The naked emperor:Darwinism exposed, Chance or Die: An Evaluation of Design, IEP Teleological Argument, section on fine-tuning. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on a response but my computer crashed and I lost it, so apologies for the abridged version: I think you're right.

Instead, I did some offline work on that section, using the source you added. It didn't cover the anthropic principle, but I'll try to get what I have on the arguments added as soon as I can (fine-tuned it's not an argument, but there are proper arguments that formalize the “intuition”).

As most of the section wasn't sourced, there's no problem removing OR. I'd have to imagine Polkinghorne remarked about something off-hand, for example, not that it's a celebrated theory of his. I hope you don't mind if I demote the examples you added to footnotes. The numbers are meaningless without context and explanation—I have a nice folksy example from Rev. Polkinghorne with small integers and familiar physics.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 04:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. Here's a brief reply (I should be doing something else at the moment). Essentially, I agree with everything you say. I'll remove most of the unsourced content in that section and see what addition sources I can find the support arguments presented there. Also, I think Antony Flew needs a mention here, as he developed the anthropic principle as part of his conversion to deism. I'll see what sources I can find. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you would as I said I was working on it. Regarding your edits prior to those, notably replacing the following in the “Complexity does not imply design” section:

with this:

This is one example of consistently editorializing by reference to “proponents” and “critics”, even when there's no call for such polemics. In this case, the author you've added was simply drawing a distinction between the terms “order” and “design”, the latter being meant to imply a kind of order that dropping 10 coins on the floor cannot produce. It's disingenuous to characterize it as the counter argument. The remaining text includes examples of non-living order, but you've removed the important one, life. Thus, farther along, having replaced “It is argued, however,” with “In rebuttal, proponents of the teleological argument have argued”, you've actually done a disservice to those proponents, (presumably of ID, rather than the teleological argument per se). Basically, you're saying that in response to a flimsy counter-argument, if it even qualifies as that, “proponents” have no counter-counter-argument, they inexplicably assert that the kind of order 10 coins make when dropped on the floor, (i.e., none, or at best, order that unequivocally lacks any sign of intelligence) is also considered evidence of a designer. By repetitive/non-repetitive presumably symmetrical/asymmetrical was meant, given the example of a snowflake, but with no prior mention of life, how these qualities might be found in (or missing from) whatever a “system like DNA” is, (or ungrammatically “system, such DNA”) is not only completely unexplained: there's now no reason it could even effluence such a plainly irrational assertion, much less be compelling evidence for a rational design inference.

In the last paragraph of the section, you tagged “As most professional biologists” with Template:Who (the whole list? It doesn't say “As some professional biologists”…) Later, you moved the paragraph farther down in the “criticism” sections, inserting it at the beginning of the (non-criticism) section based entirely on William A. Dembski's The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design, and changed the section's name from “Intelligent design arguments in biology” to “Challenge from biology”. Biology isn't concerned with “challenging” philosophical arguments.

At some point in that move,^[1] you've replaced “evolution is not only an alternative explanation for the complexity of life but a better explanation with more supporting evidence” to the following text that claims biologists explain why organisms “function according to their purpose”, albeit without the need for a designer of the “supernatural” variety:

Additional sourcing would be required as the claims are both unbelievable and merely seem intended to contradict or unnecessarily paraphrase statements attributed to Dawkins in the next paragraph. (The last few sentences are simply no better off than they were in context).

Generally I think you're fairly NPOV so maybe you're just rushing or getting careless. Qualifying mentions of natural selection as Charles Darwin's theory are also not among your best efforts… do they need to be replaced with modern evolutionary synthesis? Here, you say in your edit summary “Removing duplication of Hume…”, but you didn't removed a duplicate, you removed:

and then later with the edit summary “Adding information.” you paraphrase:

Auerbach said Hume went beyond those suggestions, not that he continued along in the same vein to “question the unity of God”, which is hardly irreverent. His explanation of Philo's counter-arguments, in addition to restoring the cited quote from the primary source would have been better. More recently, I think you've over-used Template:Quotation which doesn't look good and may encourage their removal. I think that should be reverted as there's no reason why the other quotation options can't be used as well.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 00:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found it.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 02:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits & comments, MachineElf. Your comments on my recent edits seem fair & accurate; I won't dispute anything you've done. I am less well informed about intelligent design and the more scientific issues with the argument, which is where I seem to become most careless with sourcing and writing. I had slightly expanded the lead's section on criticisms, which you reverted. I agree that my wording was less than perfect; however, I do think a slightly extended look at the criticisms is needed, specifically at least some mention of Hume. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Zippy, that's very kind of you to say. I meant to go back over the Dawkins this morning, there were copy edits in there I definitely mean to keep. I've been a bit pressed for time myself lately. And I'm certainly no expert… I never paid any attention to the topic really. I'm probably quite naïve about the “controversy”, but I find all aspects of it equally obnoxious. The politics just ruin anything touched by it. It's an interesting topic though and there's just so much left unsaid for fine-tuning and the anthropic principle… we must have something from Stephen Hawking gushing over it… then there's the seemingly much more complicated stuff from Hume or maybe Paley… mundane design inferences and all that (tl;dr) That's only what I happened to run across in the last few weeks, so please don't be discouraged.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 22:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - I find the politics of intelligent design frustrating and distracting from the actual issue. I think you're right regarding the actual content in the fine-tuning argument; additional scientific information would be helpful. I'm never so good with the scientific side of things, and I find sourcing that kind of information more difficult. Nevertheless, I think a something from Stephen Hawking should be reasonably easy to come by. I'll see if I can improve on Hume, too. I have a few resources at home, which I'll delve deeper into. Oppy's Arguing About Gods looks quite helpful. I'm also quite busy at the moment (preparing for an interview at Oxford next week), so I'll edit as and when I can. I'm thinking we might be able to nominate this as a Good Article soonish - what would your opinion on that be? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The new edit about SK needs a secondary citation saying the quote is actually about the Teleological argument. It looks like it says that any argument may be disproved in the future. Myrvin (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I planned to look through the criticisms soon, so I'll have a look at Kierkegaard when I get there and see what references I can find. If you know of any references, feel free to add them. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded and sourced some of what Kierkegaard said; however, this remains unsourced:

"He proposed that the argument from design does not take into consideration future events which may serve to undermine the proof of God's existence: the argument would never finish proving God's existence."

I've spent a while looking for sources and cannot find anything which suggests that Kierkegaard posited this argument; I shall removed that bit from the article. If anyone manages to find a source for it, please re-add the content, with the source. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On further examination, it seems that the quotation provided (which is adequately sourced) supports such a view. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It makes it sound like ANY kind of argument for the existence of God falls under this category. Shouldn't it specify that a teleological argument is merely a type of such argument? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.88.114.204 (talk) 04:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well noted - I'll make a slight change to the wording. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think it's worse than that. Is this article about the teleological argument for the existence of God, or the teleological problem in science in general? If the latter, the article seems to go way off-topic by addressing the entire teleological issue as specifically an argument for the existence of God. There are a few references in the article that point out that this is not the case, but the article in general seems to diverge seriously into a lot of argument over "intelligent design" as the epitome of teleological argument. This is misleading and overly emphasized, including the introduction, which does not need to invoke God at all to explain the concept. Teleology is better defined as the science of ends, or as the counter-example of the more common science of causality. It deals with what Terence McKenna referred to as the taboo of the eschaton. I realize this is a complex topic, and that there are many that attempt to evoke teleological arguments to support the idea of an "intelligent" designer. I think a better approach would be to cover these as examples of teleological arguments, rather than attempt to associate conflate teleological arguments with arguments for the existence of an intelligent designer. Squ1rr3l (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it's also famously used as a proper name for certain arguments for the existence of God. It's unclear what, in general, a teleological argument would otherwise be, unless it were to refer to just any of the vast array of arguments/sciences that touch on teleology... That dirty little secret being a great big taboo; one won't hear it used like that too much (but teleology isn't really a counter example or alternative to causality).

Intelligent Design referring specifically to God is a different kind of a weird issue; one with which we just need to cope as best we can. The teleological argument proper, (take your pick), does explicitly refer to God, and in a way, genuinely scientific ID would examine the merits of such an argument; although it could neither prove nor disprove it. So, as tired and far flung as the whole controversy is, this article really does seem to be an appropriate venue in some respects. That may be somewhat surprising, but I'm not sure the ID saturation is really all that misleading in this case. Still, other notable teleological arguments could certainly be included.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 03:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviously you can't define a term by referring to a different form of the same term. But there doesn't seem to be an article describing the teleological problem in science, only this article which describes (almost exclusively) the teleological arguments used for advocating a God or intelligent designer, etc. It is, of course, titled "Teleological Argument", and although it would make for an unwieldy title it would be clarified as to the topic with a title such as "Teleological Arguments for God".

It's perhaps too simplistic to call teleological theories as "counter examples or alternatives" to causality, but then that's the point of having an entire article to describe the topic. It still has to do with goals and perhaps "destiny" of natural systems, which can be discovered through historical descriptions but often can, in fact, turn causality on it's head. I would point out here recent experiments in quantum mechanics that seem to indicate that present states can be effected by future events. The teleological argument would be that the future is pre-determined, or destined, and that evolution of the universe and various natural systems are occurring for a knowable purpose or destination. This does not require a designer or even a design.

As far as this the article being a proper "venue", I think the venue to argue against ID as scientific would be on the Article on Intelligent Design, that is assuming Wikipedia is really a place to be used as a "venue" for any agenda, other than describing topics in as neutral a point of view as possible. - Squ1rr3l (talk) 04:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The teleological argument is shown by cited sources to be specifically the design argument for the existence of God or gods. The section on ID isn't large but it is poor, will try to improve it in the fullness of time. ID has been shown by reliable sources to be a rebranding of the teleological argument as used by creationists, the question of it not being science is dealt with in the ID article and doesn't have to be reexamined here. If you think there is another kind of teleological argument, please present reliable sources explicitly discussing that. . . dave souza, talk 07:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Squ1rr31, the retrocausality article might be better for that.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 02:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sub-section "Complexity does not imply design" is more of a biased argument against Teleological argument, and is not a proper neutral description of a criticism. Moreover it does not contain any citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.12.17 (talk) 02:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The criticisms section is incredibly under-referenced and contains a significant amount of original research. If anyone can provide sources detailing criticisms of the argument, that would be incredibly helpful. Also, I'm wondering if the section could be better organised... I'm not sure at the moment - it depends what the sources throw up. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is, perhaps, organised slightly better than vomit.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 01:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My changes were correct but reversed. A judge can't make a ruling "against" ID any more than they can rule against the theory of gravity or liberalism or the quadratic equation or a religious tenet. They don't have the authority to rule "against" such things. In the case involved the judged ruled against teaching it in science class because it was promoting a religious concept and served no secular purpose for being taught. Nobody can go to court and get a judge to decide whether or not a scientific theory is acceptable. In this case they went to court to get the judge to stop religious teaching in a public school. The judge can rule "against" teaching religion in public schools. It can't rule "against" religion or science, period. Next issue. Scientists don't reject the teleological argument because of natural selection. They rejected it before they came to accept natural selection. Natural selection didn't really come to be "accepted" until the modern synthesis. The claim there now is also unsourced but if you insist on a source to improve it, fine. Won't be hard. Lastly, the intelligent design term might pass in that sentence but not with the hyperlink which is to a very specific, Intelligent Design, capitalized. Capital Intelligent Design is a newcomer, a specific proposition/movement whichever that started only about 20 yrs ago. So it's a badly placed wikilink there but should be linked somewhere later where talking about this specific type that's described in the wikilink. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, Professor marginalia. The source we have on the judge's ruling says that the judge ruled intelligent design to be unscientific; that is now what the article says. I think there may be cased of court rulings against the teaching of ID; if this is the case, we need to find a reliable source saying so. The lead does need something on biological problems faced by the teleological argument, and natural selection has been used in the past to criticise the argument. I believe that the current sentence sums up what is presented later in the article. You are certainly correct that additional criticisms exist - these are also mentioned in the article. There is probably scope to pay additional attention to these other criticisms in the lead - if you want to improve the lead by discussing the other criticisms present in the article, feel free to do so. Please remember, though, that what you add need to be supported by reliable sources. The sources do not need to be present in the lead, but you'll need to only write what is explained elsewhere in the article. If you feel that a certain area of criticism is completely missing, please do add that the the criticisms section of the article (with sources) first. Finally, I believe that the wikilink may be inappropriate in the lead; however, the term "intelligent design" is correct (it uncapitalised so refers to the idea of intelligent design, rather than the movement). It might need further explanation - please add that if you think you can. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

e/c Pardon the repeats, Zippy covered much of this.

It's not correct to just delete the whole thing, when obviously, you could have just fixed it. You'll notice I removed the "against", it reads: “In 2005, a U.S. Federal Court ruled that intelligent design offers flawed, illogical, pseudoscientific support for creationism, the religious belief in a god-like designer.”

I don't understand what you mean about the capitalization. It's not capitalized and it doesn't link to a capitalized “Intelligent Design”. It links to the conceptual article.

It doesn't say scientists “reject” the teleological argument because of natural selection.

It says: “Scientists have criticized the argument, because natural selection provides an adequate explanation for biological complexity.” Rejecting philosophical arguments or theological doctrine isn't in their job description…

Without reading anything into it, the lede is pretty much just trying to summarize what you'll find in the body of the article. It's sourced, see Dawkins in the Intelligent design arguments in biology section (also Argument from improbability). Ideally, if a contribution were incorporated into the body, then cites wouldn't necessarily need to be repeated in the lede.

Please, I did not insist you source claims you never made: modern synthesis and when natural selection became "accepted".

What you actually said was that (scientists have criticized the argument, because): “time after time new discoveries in science have shown that purely natural processes were behind so many of the enigmas that were once touted as proof of design.”

You seem to be alluding to natural selection, (the source's term) but the reader shouldn't be made to guess, should they? What enigmas? What proof(s) of design were touted and toppled? Why? Purely or presumptively natural processes? Obviously the supernatural isn't central to the argument, and natural selection isn't incompatible with theism; it certainly doesn't preclude the possibility that God or anyone else might tamper with it. So scientists make lousy critics? Believe nothing pending an adequate modern synthesis? Not a history question, why not go with the clear, concise example from Dawkins? Scientists prefer a scientific explanation… all things being equal, who doesn't?—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 19:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not really concerned about whether more criticisms belong there. My original edit removed the "against ID" business because it was wrong, and that the decision hinged mostly on the finding that ID was religion, and secondarily that it had no secular purpose because it not really science. (It was an Establishment and Endorsement of religion case, not a pseudoscience case.) But I couldn't see an uncomplicated way of addressing it better there because Kitzmiller didn't put the teleological argument on trial anyway, it put a 21th century version of it, ID, on trial. Paley's teleological argument was completely transparent-it was used as a proof of God, while ID denied that was what it was up to. It felt kind of synthish shoehorning all this here the lead because, if you'll note, ID (capital ID) hasn't even been introduced yet!

But the passage has been restored but reworded to say, "In 2005, a U.S. Federal Court ruled that intelligent design offers flawed, illogical, pseudoscientific support for creationism, the religious belief in a god-like designer." And that's not how Pigliucci puts this together either. The Kitzmiller case had a lot of elements to it - it wasn't about the teleological argument per se. If we're using Pigliucci to put the two together, it gets kind of tricky because even here it wasn't the telelogical argument mentioned but "Paley's watchmaker analogy" and it wasn't "ID" but "ID's central argument", "irreducible complexity". And "irreducible complexity" isn't the teleological argument's "central argument". It's an innovation Michael Behe made up just a few years ago to help ID pass muster as science rather than religious apologetics. This starts on page 180, not 176. From Pigliucci, "Let us now consider the second major conclusion reached by Jones: that ID's central argument, known as "irreducible complexity", is simply an example of the same "contrived dualism" that the courts found in the 1980s was a fatal flaw of standard creationism". Pigliucci's recitation of the judge's opinion on this is enough to show that "contrived dualism" is illogical, yes, but he follows it by showing in example after example of how "contrived dualism" would be equally illogical comparing legitimate scientific theories. So where does Pigliucci draw a special case here and tell us that the judge labels "irreducible complexity" a pseudoscience? Technically speaking, he doesn't. Instead he says that there are better explanations in evolutionary theory.(p183) Anyway, it's pretty tenuous and synthish to rely on Pigliucci to form this bridge from 2005 court case to the lead of teleological argument as written. It might be easier with another source, because the court decision does talk more about Paley, although Pigliucci doesn't make any mention of it.

And further, I'm not leaving out natural selection to make anyone "guess". Criminy. Astronomy and geology abandoned the teleological argument long before natural selection came into existence. Naturalists after Darwin abandoned it because they were then convinced of evolution by natural means even though they had yet to agree that natural selection was its main mechanism. As I said, that didn't happen until the 1930s or so even though almost no credible scientist was still hanging on to notions of special creation by then. I may be particular getting the facts straight but it's because I'm a stickler for accuracy, not because I value obfuscation. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to John Ray and Paley, the argument is particularly associated with explanations of adaptation of organisms. I've added a paragraph to clarify the point that even in the heyday of natural theology in science, natural philosophers such as Herschel were looking for natural laws rather than miraculous intervention. As for intelligent design, that's a rebranding of creation science which commonly used the design argument: the distinction is the claim that by not identifying the designer, ID qualifies as science and so can be taught in science classrooms. The Kitzmiller ruling was that ID was a religious argument and not science, hence came under the constitutional law on establishment of religion. The judge specifically did not rule on whether it was true, but was clear that if so, it was a religious truth and not science.[3] . . dave souza, talk 21:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's much better. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you can find any other sources relating to the case, but they might be helpful. As reliable as Pigliucci is, I think that a report specifically on the case (or something of that ilk) would better reference the case. Perhaps someone can find something like that? And, as has been said, natural selection has been used by some philosophers and biologists to reject the teleological argument. It is not the only criticism, and people have contended the use of the criticism, but is has been used. Therefore, it should remain in the article (and in the lead). As I said, there is probably more to be said on the criticisms of the article, and more to be said regarding the biological implications - you are very welcome to add these to the article yourself. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dispute between two of us and Machine Elf 1735 as to whether the term "sound" in the phrase "sound argument" in Fine-tuned Universe is not NPOV. I say "'sound argument' is a value judgement", while ME says "no it's not a "value judgement" there's no argument, that's an objective fact of elementary logic." This is the sentence:

Kenneth Himma offers the following sound argument in regard to fine-tuning, however, he advises: “The mere fact that it is enormously improbable that an event occurred by chance, by itself, gives us no reason to think that it occurred by design… As intuitively tempting as it may be to conclude from just the apparent improbability of a fine-tuned universe that it is the result of divine agency, the inference is unsound”.

I also say that the reference shouldn't both advise and offer the argument, which has also been put back by ME.

Views please. Myrvin (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Myrvin, unfortunately, I have to reiterate that it's simply wrong to characterize the soundness of an argument as a "value judgment," however, even if that were true, WP:NPOV prohibits rather than condones the removal of attributed material with which we disagree. Fine-tuned universe is quite simply not an argument. As the source clearly explains, it does however invoke an intuition of implausibility: one that's been captured rather well in the form of a logical argument, which the article goes on to convey in some detail. By your objection "that the reference shouldn't both advise and offer the argument", I take it you don't have a valid reason (one grounded in policy and guidelines) for the removal of either.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 22:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence as it stands is just bad. You shouldn't say 'X offers the following argument, however he advises "..." ' - it is confusing. He can offer an argument, or he can advise something, but you shouldn't have both with 'however' in between. On the 'sound' question: I don't see how anyone can think that it is not passing an opinion on the argument. But we'll see what others think.

I did not remove any attributed material, I removed the word 'sound' that purported to be in the voice of Wikipedia. As for WP:NPOV, it says:

Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject)

Myrvin (talk) 08:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's not clear what supposed to be the argument, and he can't very well do do both simultaneously... But please, it merely introduced the quote that followed. I have no problem with just saying "Himma writes..."

It's clearly attributed and you won't find me amenable to stating facts as if they were opinions. That being said, I'll try to elaborate a bit on which parts I actually think are important and the problems I see with it.

Fine-tuning is scientific observation/analysis, it's never presented as an exercise in formal logic. As no one's really questioning it's truth, if one makes a sound inference, the truth of what follows is guaranteed if one accepts the "premise". Arguably, it's all nothing short of miraculous... but an elaborate confluence of extremely improbable preconditions doesn't beg the big question... Unfortunately, Himma offers the conclusion of the teleological argument, while neglecting an implicit premise from which it would actually follow, (all apparent improbability of a fine-tuned universe is caused by some divine agency). Rhetorically, it's a weak argument because anyone willing to accept that premise is already convinced. I do think it's uncharitable to stipulate "by chance" and I do think the logical jargon needlessly detracts from the point: that fine-tuning should not be confused with the teleological argument.

Frankly, the teleological argument is much stronger: the position is unassailable, as one can't prove a negative... it's no less tenable now than its ever been... after all, even a little revelation would go a long long way and in the meantime, both circumstantial evidence and independent arguments can lend credence to a design inference. On the other hand, Fine-tuning is much more precarious, maybe even falsifiable, but longshot or favorite, we just can't lose. The odds of winning at games of chance make for a better intuition pump than unlikely cosmogony. The lottery analogy really brings home the point that it's the series of improbable events that seem fishy, much more so than any one event, even if it's just as improbable.

So, how about this:

In regard to fine-tuning, Kenneth Himma writes: "The mere fact that it is enormously improbable that an event occurred... by itself, gives us no reason to think that it occurred by design… As intuitively tempting as it may be...”

—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 13:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was trying to do. I think you thought I was agreeing or disagreeing with Himma. I am blithly ignorant of whether he is right or wrong. I was only correcting what I thought was a POV error and a confusing statement. What you have suggested seems to fix it. Go for it, and Good Luck! Myrvin (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Q: Why is shit tapered? A: God didn't want our assholes to slam shut.

The figure given, 1 in 1060, should be 1 in 10^60, but since the source has the same typo I hesitated to correct this, lest I have to change the reference too, and I'm new to this.

The original source would be: Collins, Robin, 1999. “A Scientific Argument for the Existence of God,” in Murray 1999, pp. 47–75..

which is quoted in the source given in the wikipedia article (Himma, which has the typo), and a suitable substitute is "Teleological Arguments for God's Existence (Stanford Encyclopedia ..." at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments which also gives the analogy for 1 in 10^60 precision being the same as hitting a 2.5 cm target from across the visible universe, or from one side to the other, as they also say 20 billion light years, its unclear.

In the introduction, the following paragraph is not neutral

Although the teleological argument clearly belongs, by its very nature, to the domain of philosophy and not to that of science, beginning in the 1990s, neo-creationism and intelligent design authors have tried to disguise it as science, avoiding naming the designer to get it taught in public school science classes. But, in 2005, a U.S. Federal Court ruled that intelligent design is a religious argument and is not science, and was being used to give pseudoscientific support for creationism, the religious belief in a designer.

Why: - Terms like 'clearly', 'by its very nature','disguise it as science' - No sources mentioned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.36.102.177 (talk) 00:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree both points. Also, whether or not one calls it science depends very much on exactly how you use that oft-times weasel word. Teleological arguments are often/usually/always are based on naturally observable and testible phenomena (e.g. in a teleological argument, one might say something like (and this is simplistic) "Intelligence (of humans) is known to be able to produce large amounts of specified complexity. There are massive amounts of specified complexity in the material world around us. It is appropropriate and consistent to attribute this natural specified complexity to intelligence, just as one would attribute artificial specified complexity to intelligence."; The argument is based on testible, materialistic phenomena - whether or not you think it is a sound argument.)

In addition, very little at all in the opening section has any reference; and certain positions are attributed to nobody in particular. Gott wisst (talk) 11:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, well spotted; is this better? I'm willing to make further improvements if necessary. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Using this source, I've rewritten the paragraph. As the source shows, ID is a negative argument that has failed as science. . . dave souza, talk 19:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, by the same criterion (negative arguments not allowed), any theory of non-design (including unguided evolution) must also fail at science since it must argue that life, etc., could not have arisen/did not arise by intelligence - a negative argument. Actually, I can argue for intelligent design using a stand-alone positive argument. I only need introduce a negative argument when one says "But what about (mindless) evolution..." Just as one can argue for (mindless) evolution using a standalone positive argument, until someone else says "What about intelligent design..." Then it too must use a negative argument. Gottistgut (talk) 11:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the source points out, the judge in McLean also noted a characteristic of creation science he termed a “contrived dualism” wherein evidence against evolution was considered to be evidence supporting special creation. This was inadequate for a proper scientific explanation and “has no scientific factual basis or legitimate educational purpose.” You don't need to introduce any arguments of your own, what you have to do is show reliable published sources relating specifically to the topic. See WP:NOTAFORUM. . dave souza, talk 11:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I certainly did not intend for that argument to be included in the article. Nor can I provide an external source which makes the observation that (generally worded): "x idea affirming the negative regarding contradictory ideas does not mean x idea is based on a negative argument", sadly. To clarify, my intention was to show that the source failed to make the point that: "It was based on negative arguments that complex systems with a supposed appearance of design could not have evolved..." (and so the article should be modified to reflect that.) The teleological argument by itself says no such thing (but if it does say such a thing, maybe we should find a reliable source for that, and include it in the opening paragraph in the opening paragraph under along with the rest of the outline for the argument). And of course, if that assertion was not intended to say something about the teleological argument specifically, but rather ID in general (as the wording in the paragraph suggests to me), then I suggest that the paragraph in question be placed on the immediately relevant article on intelligent design.

Also, if there is WP policy which says that I should give sources for the arguments I use on talk pages to not include certain content in an article, please point me to it. Gott wisst (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with ID is that it's a restatement of the teleological argument presented with the claims that it's science. As found at Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, "ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community." [for "contrived dualism" see False dilemma.]

WP:TALK opens "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." Sources are needed to show that these are not your personal views. The guideline includes "Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. They are a forum to discuss how the points of view of reliable sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral. The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material." The statements in the article are well supported by properly referenced material. . dave souza, talk 14:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into the matters. May take a while. Gott wisst (talk) 11:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so confident that the teleological argument can be said to be "central to creationism" - ( Biblical literalism seems more often mentioned in the sources I'm familiar with) but it is far more accurate to characterize it as a philosophical argument rather than a scientific one. I'd also tweak the "negative argument" claim some because it seems to conflate irreducible complexity too much with the design inference. And this is a significant distinction, seems to me, because Behe's irreducibly complex examples were reportedly roundly falsified empirically and presumably any new ones proposed would similarly satisfy the Popperian def of "falsifiability".

The lead veers sharply into the whole "science" debate - (and all the post 50's school challenges and court decisions were about separating religion from science--not over "philosophy"). The ID debate today that says "the universe is unexplainable by natural means-it must have been created and improved by supernatural miracle" is our contemporary twist. In Paley's day the debate was "the universe is so fascinatingly and intricately calibrated - that tells us what God is all about". The Aristotle contribution was not, "gods will show us how nature works" or "nature will show us how gods work" but "nature and reason are guides how nature works". We need to be careful not to shade the entirety of "teleological argument" as "wannabe science" via UNDUE. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point that it's a central feature of creation science and intelligent design rather than broader creationism, have reworded that accordingly. On the distinctive form of ID, I've provided a source showing that it requires repeated miraculous interventions, unlike Paley's design which could be implemented through laws in a form of deism. This can be expanded from the cited sources, but for now it resolves all the issues raised so I've removed the tag. . . dave souza, talk 10:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions the watchmaker idea in the early or mid 1800s, but then seems to jump to the fined tuned universe of the late 20th century. What is missing is teleological in biology and the natural sciences from the period 1880-1940 before the modern evolutionary synthesis.

Peter J. Bowler has written an entire book on this period entitled Reconciling Science and Religion: The Debate in Early-Twentieth-Century Britain in this book he documents hundreds of scientists and writers who were supporting teleology in their evolutionary theories such as "directed evolution", orthogenesis or vitalism from that period. Some of the names that come to mind are Hans Driesch and his "Entelechy", Henri Bergson and his ideas about "Élan vital" or the evolutionary teleological ideas of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin etc. One other interesting source is the book The Strategy of Life: Teleology and Mechanics in Nineteenth Century German Biology by Timothy Lenoir which discusses the teleology of scientists like Karl Ernst von Baer. Do you think a small section on this should be added to the article? If so I could try and work on it next week some time. Thanks. Doubter12 (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with Bowler's book but it sounds as if it offers rich detail. Likewise the Lenoir book-though if its focus on "German biology" delineates the content as somehow unique to Germany at a particular time or place then any claims attributed to the book should accurately reflect said influence. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eventually we need to develop a better body of sources, but the Sedley source already gives me some new doubts. WP editors are currently treating concepts of a teleological argument or an argument from [intelligent] design as exactly the same. Are they? Because of discussions at intelligent design I have been reading Sedley, David (2007), Creationism and Its Critics in Antiquity, University of California Press. I see that Sedley seems to make a distinction between the teleological arguments of Plato and Aristotle and the argument from design of Xenophon and the Stoics.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a general type of argument, I think it's probably best treated in teleology. Here, I think of it more as a common name for an argument for the existence of God (like ontological argument, cosmological argument, etc). But so far as I know, winking and nudging aside, ID would make a point of not limiting the designer to God... Anyway, I'd welcome more development in the ancient/classical contexts.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 16:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elf. I probably posted too early. I am going to read Sedley and try to work out what he means. The google books version misses the critical chapter. It seems clear that teleological argument is a simple translation of argumentum ad finem which seems to be the shorthand for Aquinas' 5th proof? And there seems no doubt that this is the same thing as the argument from [inteligent] design. But I do intend to spend some time on this article, and I share your interest.

• Question to editors here: has the name of this article been debated? I am wondering if "argument from design" is not the more common name. (Actually to be honest I am half expecting someone to say that this was deliberately avoided in order to keep a separation between the articles about the "intelligent design movement" and philosophers. That is creating a dilemma at the intelligent design article. (As you remark, the movement makes it difficult on purpose because of "don't mention the lord".)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a clarification of the comment that "WP editors are currently treating concepts of a teleological argument or an argument from [intelligent] design as exactly the same", the intelligent design article has a disambiguation header This article is about the form of creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute. For the philosophical "argument from design", see Teleological argument. If the philosophical "argument from design" differs significantly from teleological argument, presumably argument from design should be a ssparate article rather than a redirect as at present. . dave souza, talk 07:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, it is just something I wanted to double check, but it seems no problem. Sedley makes some kind of special point of about the teleological physics of Plato and Aristotle but I do not believe it affects the definition of the core of the argument and the concept of what ID is.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think argument from design should definitely continue to redirect here, but because it's something of a pleonasm, "argument from intelligent design" would be a bit confusing if DI ID weren't intended... The SEP article might be a good general guide:Teleological Arguments for God's Existence...

Cosmological arguments begin with the bare fact that there are contingently existing things and end with conclusions concerning the existence of a maker with the power to account for the existence of those contingent things. Teleological arguments (or arguments from design) by contrast begin with a much more specialized catalogue of properties and end with a conclusion concerning the existence of a designer with the intellectual properties (knowledge, purpose, understanding, foresight, wisdom, intention) necessary to design the things exhibiting the special properties in question. In broad outline, then, teleological arguments focus upon finding and identifying various traces of the operation of a mind in nature's temporal and physical structures, behaviors and paths. Order of some significant type is usually the starting point of design arguments...

Design-type arguments are largely unproblematic when based upon things nature clearly could not or would not produce (e.g., most human artifacts), or when the intelligent agency is itself ‘natural’ (human, alien, etc.). Identifying designed traces of ‘lost’ human civilizations or even non-human civilizations (Alpha Centaurian, say, via SETI) could in principle be uncontroversial or even nearly trivial. If we are confronted with something which nature unaided by an intelligence truly could not or would not produce (e.g., a DVD player), a design conclusion of some sort is very nearly inescapable. The unproblematic nature of such arguments has often been appropriated as a foundation for analogous inferences concerning (things in) nature. But in cases involving design in (or of) nature itself inferences are more problematic... the intelligence in question would typically presumably not be within nature, and our everyday types of design inferences would appear to be wide of the mark...

But despite the variety of spirited critical attacks they have elicited, design arguments have historically had and continue to have widespread intuitive appeal—indeed, it is sometimes claimed that design arguments are the most persuasive of all purely philosophical theistic arguments.

—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 03:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes repeatedly use the phrase "intelligent design" to refer to the classical concept. This appears to be one translation of νοητικός, but Noetics : The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church Oxford Reference eISBN: 9780199566716 shows (from Gk. νοητικός, ‘pertaining to the mind or intellect’).A term applied to an early 19th-cent. group of thinkers, ... and pay up for more detail. Wikt:noetic gives the English adjective as Of or pertaining to the mind or intellect or Originating in or apprehended by reason. Other online sources vary. [I've placed a similar post at talk:intelligent design, the issue is perhaps more significant to this article which should give readers an accurate understanding of classical thought]. . dave souza, talk 07:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, I am not sure why you introduce this new source for discussion or why you do not look at the several new sources given in the body (but not all repeated in the lead). I based my changes upon work you are aware of over on the User page of Atethnekos. As you also know, I also discussed those sources on the talk page of the current intelligent design article. You made some replies there about doubts, but I also replied to you.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, my reason was that this broader and more nuanced translation could be more useful for explaining Plato's thought to modern readers. The term intelligence carries a lot of newer meanings which could confuse rather than clarify. To repeat a point from talk:ID, words can be notoriously difficult to translate into a modern definition, even in the same language. For example, in the early 19th century, materialism could refer to deism. I am willing to accept that in philosophy, intelligent design is often taken as a synonym for argument-from-design, but this is not obvious to the general readership, and is rejected by some philosophers: examples include Ayala, Pennock and Haught. dave souza, talk 10:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think nearly all sources on this subject (the "argument from") use the term intelligence, not intellect or nous, especially since the IDM started using it. (It would be quite artificial to try to put a wall between them and this subject by forcing a Greek word into the discussion. And especially if this was done on the grounds of clarity.) You could also say that the term "argument from" are confusing to modern readers, being a Latin calque for argumentum ex, and the word "design" is not being used the way most people would expect. (It means "by design" or on purpose, not "with blueprints", although Plato's Timaeus does discuss something like blueprints using the Greek word paradeigma.) But I see no big concern with the word intelligence because in modern English it is one of those words you always know can mean many things, and so you look for context. (Andrew Lancaster)

It is this specialised or old meaning of the word 'design' that makes me think that it is not always possible to put the word 'intelligent' in front of it. Aquinas talks about how things "act for an end (operantur propter finem), and this is evident from their acting ... so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly (confusing translation?? - the Latin is "sed ex intentione perveniunt ad finem" - again to do with an end). Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow (remember the intelligent arrow Andrew?) is directed by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God." He is saying that things look as if they are acting intelligently - as if they have a personal design or purpose. However, they are not intelligent, and therefore some intelligent being must be directing them - God. Now, can we put the word 'intelligent' in front of 'end'? Would Aquinas be happy writing "things act for an intelligent end"? Myrvin (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any initial answer has to in my opinion focus on what Aristotle and his followers (such as Aquinas) would say, because basically this was their terminology and even if we have lost that, their language still affects us and confuses us. So we have to at least start there. Aristotle and it seems Plato and the Socratics generally were not satisfied with people like Anaxagoras who proposed a cosmic intelligence (nous) and the reason is that this nous did not care about people or events involving people. (See Plato's Phaedo in the bit where Socrates talks about Anaxagoras.) They wanted what we now call teleology or in other words they wanted an account of nature wherein this intelligence had "ends" or goals which would be meaningful to humans. So the cosmic creator is caring and has ends, but what has that to do with intelligence? This is where things get tricky and interesting. The Socratics wanted to explain how you could be a scientist while still a teleologist and they were not stupid about the problems this raised. You can imagine their opponents demanding them to choose: does your deity-like cause intervene in nature or not, you can not have your cake and eat it too. They came up with the idea that there might be several types of causation. So not just bits of matter bumping into each other but also another kind of cause. (See formal cause, and final cause for the Aristotelian version.) And this they could dovetail with the older idea that their is some parallel between the natural order, controlled by a cosmic human-like intelligence, and the human ability to see this natural order which is the human intelligence. I have to tell you this becomes a big subject.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be a section (Etymology?) defining 'teleology' and explaining what a Teleological argument is - an argument about / from / concerning final causes. This could lead to other teleological arguments - not to do with the existence of God. Also, it should go into what the word design means in "argument from design". Myrvin (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm on this hobby horse, what does the word "intelligent" contribute to the phrase "intelligent design(er)"? Is there some idea of the unintelligent design(er)? I think I can see why the ID people use the full phrase, they are presumably keen to have an intelligence in there, but do we need it here?'Myrvin (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect most ID debaters on both sides have no idea about this apparently strange word use but this word is coming straight out of an classical philosophy. See nous. First there were theories of a cosmic intelligence, but the big jump came when Socrates argued that this was not enough. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the new sources added:

• A History of Greek Philosophy, Volume 5, The Later Plato and the Academy {{citation}}: |first= missing |last= (help); Missing pipe in: |first= (help). If dispute (unfortunately) cause any need to load this article with footnotes we can add that Guthrie calls the argument of Plato "intelligent design" on page 363. I will not add cites to other uses of the words intelligent and design, but as you know, the two words are consistently used together in MOST sources about arguments from design, irrespective of period.
• Sedley, David (2007), Creationism and Its Critics in Antiquity, University of California Press. As discussed already, the whole book, which is only about classical writers, is categorized by the library of congress as being about "intelligent design" (which it equates with teleology, as a secondary term in parentheses). Sedley uses the exact term on pages 60 and 122. On neither of these occasions is he talking about the modern movement. Once again he uses the two terms apart on other occasions.
• Ahbel-Rappe, Sara, Socrates: A Guide for the Perplexed, p. 27. Nice direct quote: "In one passage, Socrates appears to give the very first argument from intelligent design to demonstrate the existence of an intelligent creator god". Note also here the use of the term "argument from intelligent design".
• McPherran, Mark (1996), The Religion of Socrates, The Pennsylvania State University Press. "Intelligent design" is used 5 times on pages 273-274. In this case several of the mentions are being said by this expert to be actually in the Greek text. In other words he says he is translating from Xenophon. This is referred to as a "teleological argument" on both those pages, and also pages 278, and 294. On 288 it is a "design argument". And so on.

If there is something inadequate about this selection of sources, then please define what is needed and why. We should not over-footnote for the sake of it though.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe also of interest here:

• Gordon, Jill, Plato's Erotic World: From Cosmic Origins to Human Death, p. 8. It says that Plato's Timaeus, "indicates that eros is an original part of the disembodied soul as created by the demiurge and, as such, is part of the noetic or intelligent design of the cosmos". --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd mentioned seeing a journal article version of this before, but the book is easier to cite:

• Runia, David, Philo of Alexandria and The "Timaeus" of Plato, Brill. This gives many terms in a discussion once again purely about details of classical design arguments: "noetic design" is on page 161. We should keep this one handy for discussion of Hellenistic philosophy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, am worried about what appears to be becoming the conflation of the Teleological Argument with Intelligent Design. I see such doubts are also expressed on the ID pages. I can't see that the cited sources actually use the quoted phrase "argument from intelligent design". I don't think the addition of square brackets clears the editor of finding a source that says that exactly. Myrvin (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Myrvin please look again, because in the above examples I have even given some of the exact text. Maybe use your browser's find button?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above examples are not put against the words "argument from intelligent design" in the text are they? I think I would prefer: argument from design[1][2][3}, argument from intelligent design [ref for this phrase], argumentum ad finem,. There should also be a ref for "argumentum ad finem". I think that the argument has been commonly known as the 'argument from design', and the interpolation of the '[intelligent]' could be confusing to people.

The meaning of "argument from design" is to do with purposes and ends, and may not mean that there is a designer, while "intelligent design" does seem to imply an intelligent designer. Which of course is the point of the sneaky ID argument.

Is there also a ref to justify: "Since the 1980s, the concept has become most strongly associated in the popular media with the Intelligent Design Movement, a creationist activist group based in the United States"? The Scott ref later on doesn't use "telological argument" Myrvin (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Myrvin:

• I do not know what you mean by "put against the words" exactly but from that small selection of sources above, one of them definitely uses the exact term "argument from intelligent design", as I explained. This term is used quite often to mean the same thing as "argument from design" and "the teleological argument" and so on, both when the ID movement is involved in the discussion and also when not. You can try searching this on google books.
• I think you are incorrect to say that the term "argument from design" does not imply a designer. I presume you do not realize that the term "argument" is a short form representing the fact that it is an argument for the proof of the existence of an "intelligent creator"? But it is.
• Concerning the "Since the 1980s" sentence I am not sure what your concern is but basically my intention was to recognize early and clear that in recent decades the term has come to be very strongly associated with a particular movement. (We have to help readers who will have come by internet search, to find what they are looking for.) Do you have a concrete suggestion?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't patronise me please - I have been English for 62 years, and I am capable of understanding the words. If you have some source that says 'the term "argument" is a short form representing the fact that it is an argument for the proof of the existence of an "intelligent creator"', then put it in the text. Otherwise it is OR.

You probably meant that "argument from design" is short for "the argument for the existence of God from design", or something. Myrvin (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources above have to appear in the article against the words "argument from intelligent design". Like the sources that were set against "argument from design".

I should have written that the word "design" in the original versions of the argument does not directly imply a designer. The design of a fired arrow is to hit its target, but it could be that the arrow has a mind and doesn't need the purpose to be provided by the archer. The people arguing from design have to 'infer' that the arrow's design has been provided by the archer, or the bow maker or someone. As I understand it, the ID movement are at pains not to infer a godlike designer, otherwise the US schools could reject the idea as religion. But I don't pretend to understand the ways of the ID people.

Some written source must say that the association has been made "since the 1980s". Otherwise it is opinion or OR. Myrvin (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Myrvin:

• I see nothing in my post which is patronizing I seriously do not understand what you mean by "against" (and I am an English speaker), and I still don't so please try to explain it with a different word?
• Concerning your demand for a source that the term "argument" is always understood as being an argument for the existence of an intelligent creator (or sometimes you see "god", "deity" or "God", but I deliberately chose a broader term; good Aristotelians would find fault with me for not yet being broad enough, and might suggest something like "ultimate cause") this is already something our article says quite clearly, and I think it is sourced. I am not really inserting a new claim. (ADDED: before hitting "Save Page" I deleted my first idea of trying to give examples of sourcing, thinking it looked patronizing and silly. I am not running away from that request, but I felt it wise to first clarify.)
• Concerning your example of an arrow shooting itself intelligently towards a target, by extension I suppose what are saying is that Nature as a whole might be its own intelligent ultimate cause meaning we are part of god, I think there are philosophers who have thoughts something like this (Spinoza?). I've never heard this referred to as an argument from design. But if it were then I guess that in this special case the arrow is its own "god". If you find any sources in this direction I would be genuinely interested. But we do have sources available which tell us that all arguments from design imply a god (or something like a god, ie an intelligent ultimate cause, who by the way, according to most sources, also needs to be interested in humanity's ends).
• Concerning the 1980s, please just make a suggestion. My original idea was "in recent decades" or something like that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By 'against the words' I mean 'next to the words' - a citation.

I have made changes to reflect what I think it should look like.

I can find no English reference for argumentum ad finem. Myrvin (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your change seems fine by me, although I still have no idea what you mean. I should mention that I made a mistake. It should be "ex fine" not "ad finum" I believe.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the phrase (I can't find the new one either) should be removed until we can find someone who has used it. Myrvin (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can say: "the concept of intelligent design, meaning a creating intelligence which has human-like purposes". The parts of speech don't agree. I think it coud be "the concept of an intelligent designer, meaning a creating intelligence which has human-like purposes". I don't see why we have to put 'intelligent' everywhere. It seems you are trying to labour some point about ID all the time. Just 'design' and 'designer' wil do. Myrvin (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's an improvement.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Above User:Myrvin wrote: I think there should be a section (Etymology?) defining 'teleology' and explaining what a Teleological argument is - an argument about / from / concerning final causes. This could lead to other teleological arguments - not to do with the existence of God. Also, it should go into what the word design means in "argument from design". I see that a first such effort has now been made, so I thought it wise to open a new section here. I think I am right in seeing this as a first draft that may be changed? Some initial concerns, which may simply be stating the obvious:

• A big part is a direct quote from Encyclopedia Britannica. I would like to try to write something short and more to the point we are discussing. Perhaps the source would move to the footnote as a source, rather than us using direct quote. Make sense?

I have reduced the EB quote, but I do think that whatever we use it has to be cited. I don't want to see some editor's OR idea of what teleological means. Myrvin (talk) 09:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The OED citation of Paley as first user of the term "argument from design". I saw that too but if we doubt a single source we do not need to use it and certainly do not need to hang our hat on it. First problem is that it does not seem to appear in Paley, but rather in the literature after him? So while he may be a major reason for the use of the term in a way, I think we might need to change our wording to be a bit less definite about it, both concerning whether he was the first user of the term, which I think he was not, and also even whether we can put the term all down to his work, which was surely In other words while his text certainly implies such a term, speaking of "the argument" and intelligence and design, and the debates that ensued used this term, those debates were equally looking at other works such as Hume's Dialogues, which used similar terminology.
• I think generally the flow of the discussion is a bit clunky. The connections between the concepts and the article title need to be pointed out in a brief way perhaps. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Small tweak I must make. Paley does use the exact words once, when referring to the way we look at a watch and argue that it resulted from design (human design). "Though it be now no longer probable, that the individual watch, which our observer had found, was made immediately by the hand of an artificer, yet doth not this alteration in anywise affect the inference, that an artificer had been originally employed and concerned in the production. The argument from design remains as it was. Marks of design and contrivance are no more accounted for now, than they were before."--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it's there. I was interested to note that this is the first written use of the phrase. Aquinas and Hume didn't use it. Myrvin (talk) 09:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that if I correctly see the design of the creator of this section, we should also add something about the word "intelligence"? Anyway, I intend to propose a draft. I accept that not everyone likes history of concept sections, so I will try to keep it short, and dovetail it with the lead and detailed sections in the body.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, beat me to it again! Paley, W. 1809. Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity. 12th edition London: Printed for J. Faulder. includes the phrase on p. 11 – it should be possible to link directly to the page, but the search does the job and could be used in a citation. Also, p. 414 he writes "In like manner, and upon the same foundation (which in truth is that of experience), we conclude that the works of nature proceed from intelligence and design, because, in the properties of relation to a purpose, subserviency to a use, they resemble what intelligence and design are constantly producing, and what nothing except intelligence and design ever produce at all." The paragraph continues on to p. 415, where his next para opens with "The force however of the reasoning is sometimes sunk by our taking up with mere names." That caught my eye after our discussion on names of ID! Anyway, at some stage before that Paley had considerably revised his text, so it may or may not appear in the first edition. . dave souza, talk 09:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew: We know you are always keen to get ID in here, but I and Dave(?) are worried about it. If you want a definition of the word "intelligence", that could maybe be done by a Wikilink. I don't think this is a "History of the Concept" section - that is in "History". It is more an explanation of the meaning of the words in the lead, because they are not very clear in themselves.Myrvin (talk) 09:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before you pile in with a new version, maybe we should ask Dave Souza what he thinks about the current section. Myrvin (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick look, the section appears to be ok, giving reasonable mention of intelligence without overdoing it. In the lead, "While the concept of an intelligence in the natural order goes back at least to the beginnings of philosophy and science, the concept of a designer of the natural world, or a creating intelligence which has human-like purposes" rather overdoes it, and omits the issue of purpose: suggest "While the concept of purpose in the natural order goes back at least to the beginnings of philosophy and science, the concept of a designer of the natural world, or a creating intelligence which has human-like purposes". . dave souza, talk 10:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that you have removed the words "more recently" from the lead. I think the phrase with ID in it has only been used since the ID movement - perhaps you have examples of earlier uses of the exact phrase, "argument from intelligent design". If not, I think it is important that readers know that it is not the original phrase. Myrvin (talk) 09:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My recollection is that Andrew has shown an instance of "argument from intelligent design" used for the design argument, ` it wouldn't be used in ID which is purported to be a "scientific theory" and not a theological argument. The long history of the phrase "intelligent design" is briefly outlined at intelligent design#Origin of the term, sources there might be useful here. . dave souza, talk 10:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, did a google book search and all instances so far seem to follow after ID, many if not all specifically discussing creationism and ID, sometimes as argument from "intelligent design". This discusses these as "religious reductionism" in their uneasy attempt to find scientific justification for religious belief. . dave souza, talk 11:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my next edits folks. Both my sources say it's contemporary. Myrvin (talk) 11:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely "intelligent design" is pre-Paley, and not just pre-ID. Even the sources used in the past on our ID article to claim otherwise do not actually say otherwise, so while I am concerned if people are concerned, concerns are not enough. Just to name one case, Francis Hutcheson, right in the thick of the Scottish Englightenment which leads to Hume's Dialogues, thence to Paley. There are many similar terms such as "intelligent creator", "intelligent agent", "intelligent agent", which are all pre-Paley. Less hits is not surprise, because there were less books, but there are many hits. Hence, quite unsurprisingly, the term "argument from intelligent design" starts after Paley and is always clearly seen as meaning the same thing. What I am finding harder to track is the "teleological argument". Just my OR, but it seems to have been Charles Hodge. He also uses the term Argument from Design. Of course this way of writing and breaking the subject up clearly goes back to Aquinas, who however wrote in Latin. (I guess there will have been translations starting at some point, but when?) So in other words the Latin-seeming "argument from" type of terminology, despite its obvious classicism, was maybe a 19th century thing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No-one would be surprised if someone way-back put the word intelligent before the word design. The question is when did the phrase "argument from intelligent design" get used to mean the same as the teleological argument for the existence of God? We are looking for the exact phrase! I - like Dave(?), think it was well after Paley. and probably after 1960 or even 80. Myrvin (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you see my draft below I am willing to accept that this EXACT PHRASE (argument from design) maybe was first put together by Paley, but this article is not only about a phrase? The extreme way of interpreting your post, and similar ones which I saw on the intellectual design talkpage, is that you claim that when people discussed the "argument from design" before Paley it was not really the argument from design, and before perhaps Hodge (or whoever was first), I suppose it was not really the "teleological argument". If that is not what you claim, then it is hard to imagine what you are claiming. Of course we have good sources telling us there were arguments from design before Paley, and therefore apparently before the term. We have good sources saying that the IDM is just the latest manifestations (with its differences of course). We can look at the older ones that our sources name, and we can see they used the exact same terminology in the exact same contexts. Apart from recent secondary sources, we have older sources referring to the term "intelligent design" in the 19th century and in the 1950s and 1960s etc as if it were a well-known name for a theory or argument. And so on. This is not just some miraculous coincidence. (Or else the IDM should be claiming this reincarnation of a term as itself as proof of God?) So if there is a sourcing demand what is it? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be going round in circles here. We are not talking about the phrase "argument from design". You want the words "argument from INTELLIGENT design" to be used in the lead and elswhere as meaning the same as the teleological argument (for the exostence of God). I am saying that they have been used like that, but not since the ID movement began or much later. It is not a question of when "intelligent design" was made up, but when the whole phrase was used with this meaning. I fail to see the problem. Find us a use of the phrase "argument from INTELLIGENT design", referring to the TA, from around or before Paley, and we can use it without saying it is recent. Can you explain it better Dave? Myrvin (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me understand. Why should we find a source from a particular period as opposed to finding sources which are recent academic secondary sources? You say we are not talking about the exact phrase as such, but your demand seems specifically to be about the first use of the phrase as such, which is not relevant to my edit which inserted this phrase as one of the common ones used in the best sources. (I could add more questions such as why from the time of Paley and not the time before the IDM, and what if I find minor variations such as "intelligent design argument" or people who simply refer to something like the idea of intelligent design or the theory of intelligent or the arguments for an intelligent designer or an intelligent agent? But actually these secondary questions are just going to get us all bogged down surely?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I DO say we need the exact phrase. I said at the top of this: "perhaps you have examples of earlier uses of the exact phrase, "argument from intelligent design"." We can find lots of examples of "argument from design" since Paley. In the lead, we are saying that TA is also known as ... If there were absolutely NO written examples of "argument from INTELLIGENT design" in the record, we would not include it at all. There are recent examples, but it would be short-changing people if we didn't say it was a contemporary phrase for TA. I would accept an early use of "intelligent design argument" if you can find it. By the way, did you actually give us examples of the noun phrase "intelligent design" before 1960? Myrvin (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we mention the exact phrase in the opening paragraph of the lead, it's misleading to suggest that this phrasing goes back before 1988. Either produce sources, show that it's recent, or leave it out altogether from the first para. . dave souza, talk 15:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Dave. I've just checked the ID section you pointed to. Looks like only Darwin used the phrase ID earlyish. There must be others. Myrvin (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind everyone, I've found some. I may have a solution to the other problems too. Myrvin (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If our sources are not calling this a new term, and not calling the exact combination of words some major watershed, why should we worry about it? It is a term commonly applied to new and old "arguments" now, and we are writing now. Do we need to talk about the first published mention of every combination of words? Isn't this starting to come close to a demand for original research? I make a distinction between "original research" just to back-up talkpage discussion about weighting of sources, and original research which leads to adding information not published anywhere yet. (WP:OR does not apply to talk page discussions about NOT using sources, or what weight to give sources.) Concerning Paley being the first to write "argument from design" I accept this because the OED seems to be saying that. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that there's been perennial original research on the ID talk pages, with Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 70#Earliest use of "Intelligent Design" and "Intelligent Designer" finding that in 1738 (or at leaft 1740) Joseph Butler (bp. of Durham) wrote “The appearances of design and of final causes in the constitution of nature as really prove this acting agent to be an intelligent designer”[4] [not my tranfcription, fee the original Caufes]. Following discussion, we trimmed out original research, since then one editor has been complaining about removal of "historic ID material" which provides a few more recent examples. Note that Darwin is quoting Herschel (original not found so far) and the capitalisation is "intelligent Design".[5] . . dave souza, talk 17:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC) Update: Francis Darwin quotes Hershel's footnote in Life and Letters pp 190–191, the nearest phrase is "intelligent direction" but perhaps Herschel used the phrase "intelligent Design" in the text of the book. . dave souza, talk 17:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point please? I am finding it hard to follow.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Basically a response to "Looks like only Darwin used the phrase ID earlyish." Others seem to have beaten him to using similar phrases which proponents still use, and his reference to intelligent Design [note the capitalisation] summarised what he thought Herschel had written. We don't have the full text of Herschel's review, but we do have a transcript of the footnotes which only refer to "intelligent direction" and don't use the phrase intelligent design. . dave souza, talk 17:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I still question whether we need to be researching earliest use except to guide our editing judgements about weight we should give to sources, how about "the good of the whole could not possibly be designed, nor a power put into things to tend towards it, but by an Intelligent Being" from a Grotius translation published 1709. (Here it is in Latin.) It is just an example, but an interesting one, peppered with this terminology, and for example citing Aristotle concerning Anaxagoras. It is clear that the terminology goes back to the time when such English was only just starting to be used for such publications, and then to go further we need to look at translations. But concerning WP policy, we already have really good sourcing translating Xenophon (and dozens of authors between then and now) as writing about "intelligent design".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A draft discussion

I'll be "bold" (but writing a DRAFT is not all that bold?) . --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We should clarify which versions of the OED. Myrvin you seem to have a newer and/or more complete version than I have access to.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Myrvin' response

I don't know what you did there, but I couldn't add anything to it. I don't see what improvement you have made except remove the EB for some reason. Anyway, things have moved on since then. Please see the latest version that includes ID !!!

We don't want to visit watches and suchlike when all that is in the body of the article. I can see a reason for an example of a T argument, but I am doubtful that your's works. I think a T argument would say that the ends or final cause of killing Socrates was to get him off the Athenians' backs. I shall look for a cited example - I've lost count of editors' "examples" that get it all wrong.

I'll have another go using some of your suggestions.

I use the latest online OED. Myrvin (talk) 12:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, I think that having a section dominated by a clunky Encyclopedia Britannica quotation is not good practice, and I tried to write something shorter, and more adapted to what our article is discussing, so that it flows out of our lead, and it flows into the rest of our article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the Socrates example is from Plato's Phaedo which is frequently cited as an explanation of why Socrates wanted an explanation involving teleological cosmic intelligence, rather than just any intelligence, hence (according to our sources, and discussed in the next section as it currently stands in our articles) inventing the need for the first argument from design. (Our 4 or so expert sources refer to what he came up with in just about every set of relevant terms, not just argument from design. W. K. C. Guthrie, writing well before the IDM referred to it simple as "intelligent design".)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my latest. I think the large quotes can also be put into footnotes. Give me time, I'm looking for general examples of teleology. Myrvin (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK for now I'll stick to posting notes here. One suggestion: be careful not to repeat things already stated in the lead or the following sections. We should make this a discussion of key terms only I think? In any case we should not have to explain the IDM's recent notability in EVERY section?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the OED, maybe you can replace the words I inserted if you have a better version. Theoretically the footnote should name the version we are citing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if this might be of some use, Ghiselin, Michael T. 2009. Darwin: A reader's guide. Occasional Papers of the California Academy of Sciences (155 [12 February]), 185 pp, 3 figs. discusses the "argument for design" in relation to Darwin's book on Fertilisation of Orchids, and also mentions some difficulties with [biologists] using terms such as "design" and "teleology". . . dave souza, talk 09:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These have completely destroyed my carefully cited entries in the new section, which we have been discussing quite amicably, and replaced them with something of your own, which has not been agreed by those involved. This is not on! I am reverting your edits. I suggest strongly that we ask for a 3rd opinion or go to a dispute. Myrvin (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"My"? This is not your article and in the end the "important" thing is whether my edits made the article worse or better. Please try to explain in terms of what is good or bad for the article. Amicable is a nice word, and I do indeed think I have been, but please keep in mind that telling me not to edit (not even to post drafts) is not amicable from your side, and you are certainly not being amicable. I did attempt to explain concerns here and in my edit summaries but you have not been very interested. Also it is not considered good form to start threads named after an editor. It is what is called ad hominem, as I am sure you must know.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know that I have altered a good deal of my original stab at this section in order to incorporate your ideas. So to say I have not been interested in them is just not true. I never said you could not post drafts. Where does that come from?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Myrvin (talk • contribs)

Here are the troubling edits of Myrvin's article, with the explanations given, so that Myrvin can give his counter-explanations:

• [6] and [7]. Both these have been discussed at length with evidence. As the edit summaries stated, I am removing material which clearly goes far beyond the sources named, or any sources I am aware of. Myrvin clearly has no other sources, because he has added this material after quite some discussion on the talkpage.
• [8]. Removal of a "this article concerns" paragraph from the new terminology section which comes just after the lead. The edit summary says it all: "this is just repeating the lead". I had attempted to express concern about such repetition on the talkpage first.
• [9] Switching the Aquinas example for a Socrates example. Also I tried to discuss this on the talkpage above. This is also a case where Myrvin's own edit summary when he added this mentioned "Not too happy about this example". So why can't anyone try to improve it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You changed "exact phrase" to "words" and said "This is clearly going beyond the source". How? The exact phrase is in the quotes. Changing it to "words" produces a weaker sentence. "Exact phrase" signals that, although that phrase is only found recently, the concept may go back further - a point you kept making in the Talk pages, but without evidence, which I eventually found. This is why the last part has a "However" at the front of it.

You then removed three quotations and citations saying "this is all OR and going beyond the sources". Two sources quite clearly say that "argument from intelligent design" is a contemporary concept. How is this OR? How many sources would you want? Isn't two enough? As I said in the Talk pages, I was considering reducing these quotes somewhat, and perhaps including part of them as notes.

Also, the third citation and quotation actually balanced this view by saying the concept may go back much further - taking your views into account once more. Again, how is this OR? The only reason for removing that was because you disagreed with what my first 2 sources said (as is obvious from the Talk pages), and the third source had to go because it was meaningless on its own. I cannot see what objection you have to saying that some concept appears to be more recent than the original "argument from design".

• It was a clarification piece after defining some terms. It linked the phrase "teleological argument" with "argument from design", which needs to be done for other readers. It is not an obvious link.
• I wouldn't mind a good example of a teleological argument to replace mine. But (as I said) it should have a source saying that it IS such an example. Otherwise it is OR. I said this in the Talk pages. My example was a place-keeping one, as I signalled with my edit note. The new example is not sourced either. At least my Aquinas example has quotes, for which I could add citations, and uses the word "end", which is the point of the explanation.

I wonder if the other interested editor, Dave Souza, has any comments?

I have requested a Third opinion. Myrvin (talk) 06:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Myrvin I've reformatted your response above to meet the normal guidelines and to repair my own post which you wrote into the middle of without signatures. I think we can more easily stick to the bullet points.

• Just to get it out of the way, obviously you should take the two edits mentioned in the first bullet as having one justification. First please provide a citation from Ariew which says that the "exact phrase" or "words" refer exclusively to a distinct new type of teleological argument. That is what you are making him say, and that is not clear in our sources. Even if we would find one source which says that, we may not cherry pick from one source which we know disagrees with all the rest (WP:NPOV). (And general discussion of differences between different teleological arguments, as opposed to terminology, is not for this terminology section. We have other sections for that and we should not repeat everything in every section.) And BTW adding in a final paragraph which says the preceding ones were wrong is not a neat solution either.
• I stick to what I said. My judgement as an editor is that this sentence was repetitive and clunky and not helping readers at all. I think my draft above gave better flow between the lead and the first historical section. You have no right to insist that other editors accept your work as un-improvable.
• We do not need sourcing for every editing decision we make, but if you contest my example then your own is not sourced at all. Just because you took some words from Aquinas does not mean Aquinas wrote that he was giving an example of a "teleological description", which is what you would need to call this example sourced in the way you now argue. More to the point, the example is, as you said yourself not a good one! And I already explained on this talkpage that my example is a frequently discussed one from Plato's Phaedo. We would just need to insert some footnotes using the same sources in the following section of the article? It is pretty clear that your revert was not due to a sudden concern with the niceties of policy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note on this requesting a third opinion, specifically Dave's. Please Dave and Myrvin give a clear note about whether there is a request from either of you that I avoid editing or not, and if you are, on what real basis. This is starting to be remarkably circular, and in effect I am being blocked from editing. I've been careful to work in small steps, explaining reasoning on the talkpage before editing, making drafts etc, and I've promptly been able to answer every point of reasoning or sourcing. But I am not getting the same back, so why should I be blocked from improving the article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• How can you read "The contemporary concept of the argument from intelligent design varies little from William Paley’s argument written in 1802. ... But there are differences between Paley’s argument and the modern argument from ID [(Intelligent Design)]", and "The contemporary argument from intelligent design ... is a critique of natural selection", and ask for more? Your request for "a distinct new type of teleological argument" is a No true Scotsman argument. Whatever I or Ariew say, you'll say "That's not really a new argument". Interestingly, YOU are now asking for the EXACT phrase, which you were arguing against before.
• Anyone's work can be improved. I disagree with your reason for the change.
• I have agreed that my example isn't sourced. But at least it has a real quote or two that people could look up. Your's has the appearance of OR. As I said we do need a quote from a citable source here. We can't just have any editor's view of what a teleological argument looks like. I'd be happy to accept the Socrates idea if someone somewhere has said it's a teleological argument. I'm sure there must be one somewhere - I shall look.

I don't think Dave can be the third party, he is already involved. I would still be interested in what he thinks. I have requested it on the Wikipedia:Third opinion page Myrvin (talk) 10:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you simply refuse to give reasons not to ignore your desires, then obviously that is what I will eventually do. You do not own this article and stop me from editing it without giving reasons. Going through your replies:

• I think you know very well, because we have already discussed it, what I am referring to. The first sentence of the deleted section states that "The words "argument from intelligent design" refer to a more contemporary version of the teleological argument." This means it does not apply to other things, although our sources say the opposite. The rest of what is deleted is all over the place and disagreeing with itself as if that makes it better.
• Give a reason, like I did before making that edit. Don't just revert.
• So without checking any facts, you are going to assume I am telling a lie with my explanation on the talkpage? I have given 3 or 4 references which mention the Phaedo discussion already. I have not used any of them exactly, but anyone who has read any of these sources will immediately recognize it. This is a standard, like the watch and watchmaker, but we should not use the watch-maker in every section. This particular example is useful here because it is I think the most common one used to explain the distinction that separates believing in a cosmic mind, like Anaxagoras, and believing in a cosmic design or end (same thing by the way, but your text does not show that like my draft tried to). And why is your un-sourced example supposed to be better for WP than another editor's anyway? That really is a hopeless response. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I await the third opinion. Myrvin (talk) 12:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if you are looking for a third opinion actively or just hoping someone will turn up, but in any case I believe there is no reason for me to stop editing and I do intend to start editing again. I am quite confident that any reasonable third opinion is going to start by pointing out to you that you should try responding to reasonable questions and proposals in a rational way on the talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another insult. I have contacted 2 possible 3O people - I don't know who they are. If nothing happens in a day or two, I'll raise a Dispute - or you can do it if you like. Myrvin (talk) 08:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am just going to edit. I see no dispute as such, and neither will any third party. There is just one editor who wants to try to stop another one from editing, without having to bother trying to understand the other editor's positions, or read the sources he cites. By the way, I doubt making obvious false accusations is going to help you. (There is no insult in the above post, or in any other where you claimed to see them.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

Okay, in [10], both the old and new versions look fine to me. I don't think there is any difference between them, or that one is weaker than the other. At least some of [11] is directly quoting the source, so it can't all be OR, and at least some of it should be on the page. In [12], it seems redundant and awkwardly worded (it's bad style to say "this article" in an article). In [13], I think the old example is worded better than the new one, so it should stay, at least for now. If I missed anything either of you wanted an opinion on, let me know and I'll comment on it as well. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of Third Opinion

Thank you Jackmcbarn for your thoughts. If you check the latest version you will see that things have moved on somewhat since I asked for a 3O. Although he provided all those comparisons you looked at, the other editor decided there wasn't a dispute and carried on editing - see above. I became quite upset at the discussion and have left the article alone until now. However, I have noted that the ongoing dispute in Intelligent design (ID) seems to have some bearing on what is going on here.

• The part which was supposed to give an example of a general (ie non-God) Teleological argument (TA) was changed from my Aquinas reference to the words about Socrates. I objected that it wasn't a cited example of a TA (ie it didn't have a source saying it was such an example), and that at least it had Aquinas as a source; but the other editor put it in anyway saying that it was a "classic example".(I think he later accused me of calling him a liar when I questioned that). In case it was, and could therefore be cited, I did a long set of searches to try to find it, all to no avail. Of course, Socrates is said to have 'begun' to use TAs, maybe in the Phaedo (see the 'Classical and early Christian writers' section), but his talk wasn't about him being poisoned, but about the way another philosopher didn't use TAs and he should. However, later, the Socrates stuff was replaced, by the same editor, for some words I prefer. These include my "arrow" example from Aquinas, but without a citation. I'll try adding a citation.
• The words "exact phrase" were added to discriminate "argument from design", which goes back to 1802, and "argument from intelligent design", which seems to go back only to 1980 or so. However, if you see no point in this it can stay as it is now. See below the note about the ID article.
• I bow to your view of the "this article" part. It does seem to me that somewhere the article should discriminate between TAs for the existence of God and TAs not about God, eg "what directs the arrow?" A third editor and I wonder if there should be two articles.
• As you can see in the discussion, I (and another editor) couldn't see the objection to the quotations being used, and why it was all deleted as OR. I think there may be something going on in the ID dispute to do with saying that the "argument from INTELLIGENT design" isn't a recent concept, to which I am not privvy. Because of the other editor's view, I even took some trouble to find an early 1766 example of a source who used the words: "necessary existence of an intelligent being", to balance the two sources that said that the idea was contemporary. The other editor was not impressed with that either, deleting it and saying there was no point in including something at the end to say that the other two were wrong. I always liked the idea of balance in an article, to improve its neutrality. I'll try to put these back - mostly as notes.
• I have also seen that the words "more recently" in front of "argument from intelligent design" have been removed from the lead. The lead was changed (by the other editor) to say "argument from (intelligent) design, which I thought was confusing. I thought it was worth seperating out the two phrases and pointing out the contemporary use of the 'intelligent' phrase, and had the Sweetman citation to back it up. I wonder if you have a view on that.

Myrvin I am sure you have good intentions but a big part of your concerns is coming from not looking carefully. Concerning the Socrates example I gave 4 secondary sources. I believe every one goes through the Phaedo case? And of course your remark implying that you looked in the Phaedo and only found mention of his criticism of another philosopher basically tells me that instead of looking at the Phaedo you looked at what I'd cited previously about the Phaedo, because that is exactly a bit I had extracted. Here is what he says about that other philosopher (Anaxagoras):-

98a [Socrates:] I never imagined that, when [Anaxagoras] said they were ordered by intelligence, he would introduce any other cause for these things than that it it is best for them to be as they are.

98b So I thought when he assigned the cause of each thing and of all things in common he would go on and explain what is best for each and what is good for all in common. I prized my hopes very highly, and I seized the books very eagerly and read them as fast as I could, that I might know as fast as I could about the best and the worst.

“My glorious hope, my friend, was quickly snatched away from me. As I went on with my reading I saw that the man made no use of intelligence,

98c and did not assign any real causes for the ordering of things, but mentioned as causes air and ether and water and many other absurdities. And it seemed to me it was very much as if one should say that Socrates does with intelligence whatever he does, and then, in trying to give the causes of the particular thing I do, should say first that I am now sitting here because my body is composed of bones and sinews, and the bones are hard and have joints which divide them and the sinews

98d can be contracted and relaxed and, with the flesh and the skin which contains them all, are laid about the bones; and so, as the bones are hung loose in their ligaments, the sinews, by relaxing and contracting, make me able to bend my limbs now, and that is the cause of my sitting here with my legs bent. Or as if in the same way he should give voice and air and hearing and countless other things of the sort as causes for our talking with each other,

98e and should fail to mention the real causes, which are, that the Athenians decided that it was best to condemn me, and therefore I have decided that it was best for me to sit here and that it is right for me to stay and undergo whatever penalty they order.

Of course the above classic text does not comment on itself, certainly not in English so he does not call it "teleological" for us. To source that you need to look at modern secondary sources like the ones I gave (Sedley, McPherran, Guthrie etc). Many sources quote the bolded bit as a critical moment in the history of teleology. There are enormous amounts written about that. What you may accuse me of is as tweaking this classic example to make it shorter and simpler (as doing many secondary sources). Instead you just ignored my explanations and claim to have done another search which, for some reason, avoids looking at either the dialogue, or the sources I named. Sorry, but put yourself in my position: You are quite demanding to me, but your own efforts seem not to be very diligent.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I am "not very diligent" and "I haven't looked at" the book, and only "claim" to have done a search. Please stop attacking me. I see nothing about poison there. It says "causes for our talking with each other" are not "voice and air", rather "the real causes, which are, that the Athenians decided that it was best to condemn me". "Causes for our talking" not causes for me being poisoned. However, I await the response of the Third opinion. Myrvin (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They condemned him to take poison Myrvin, so as I said, I made the example shorter. But to really get the point you need to look at secondary sources. And anyway does the exact wording of this example need sources? Your approach is impractical. It can not be that every time I post something and give a source, that you can delete it and call in a third party, instead of just checking the sources or making a real concern clear? This way of working is not really allowed according to my understanding of WP norms, and if you are calling for third party opinions maybe you should ask whether I am right about that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a nice quote for what is a teleological explanation:

The characteristics of a teleological explanation are, first, that it refers to some result or end achieved (or normally or possibly achieved) by what is to be explained, secondly, that the result or end can be recognized as being in some way advantageous, and, thirdly, that what is to be explained is said to happen because of or for the sake of the result or end, rather than producing it by coincidence or accident.

It's from The Greek Cosmologosts. In a footnote perhaps? Myrvin (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were waiting for a third opinion? I find this very clunky and not well written, and it clearly comes from a context which does not meld with this wikipedia article. Our aim is to explain, and the reason for putting in an example was only to illustrate this article, not to talk about all possible meanings of teleological. I have made a proposal above, and you have not explained what was wrong with it. (You said you were not sure about the sourcing and the correctness, but that is not really a constructive opinion.) Why do you think this proposal is good? Why do you think my proposal is bad (apart from the fact that it was not from you)?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dont panic! I'm not making any changes yet. And please stop insulting me. Myrvin (talk) 06:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What panic and what insult? Please respond to questions with real answers.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The quote seems good for 'Teleological argument', the English meaning of the term. Doubtful that saying what 'kind of argument' will get included, seems like only the dominent usage is being allowed. Existence of teleological arguments in psycholigy or biology or espionage are ignored, or that one could form a teleological argument against the existence of God. Markbassett (talk) 00:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this article is focused upon the use in arguments about the existence of God, but I would suggest that this article and also the intelligent design article need to much better explain how this fits in a more general context which is not just historical but continuing. I have tried to use the term "teleological explanation" in order to explain the more general concept without confusing it with arguments for the existence of God. Did you see my Socrates example which Myrvin deleted? Is that the direction of your point or are you thinking of more types of teleological argument like maybe that of JS Mill?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark: I think you should read the discussion above about Socrates. Myrvin (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. We are over-sourcing, especially for a lead. There is no real controversy for most of what is being said, and so we can use less footnotes. And certainly we do not need more than one source point per issue. Where there is real controversy for now, let's discuss to make sure it is real.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ADDED: of course what is normally done is to ensure that discussion about details is moved to the body and most sourcing also.

2. We should move footnotes out of the middle of sentences. I can see the argument for it when there are SO MANY footnotes. But there should be less footnotes.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3. The last sentence of our first paragraph:

• equates "creation science" and "intelligent design". This disagrees with what our articles for those two topics say and I understand there is a reasoning for this maybe. More to the point we do not really need to be making this statement here in a lead about the teleological argument.
• makes a statement in the voice of Wikipedia that the teleological argument is only called "the argument from intelligent design" in the context of creation science and/or intelligent design. However the source does not make any such observation. The source is just an example of one author using this term in such a context. So that is obviously WP:OR. For the sake of this talk page I can present counter-OR:

• Here it is used to discuss Giambattista Vico (18th century). (It is an interesting case!)
• Here it is used to refer to Socrates (quite some time back). BTW this one is already used in our article.
• [14] Ayala talking about William Paley (1802), saying "the argument from intelligent design" has never been made so forcefully and extensively.
• [15] Apeiron: A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science, Volume 28, Issue 2, talking about Plato

4. Concrete proposal:

• Argument from intelligent design should be reinserted amoungst the known variants.
• Last sentence should become simpler: The argument is central to the position of creation science, most notably in the form of the intelligent design movement.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone have any reasonable concerns with the above suggestions?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some initial thoughts:

1. I don't see that citations should be reduced. I say, the more the merrier. There are far too few citations in WP and I think there has been a lot of controversy.
2. If there is a need or a point to an in-sentence citation (and there often is) then it should be put there.
3. I'm thinking about and working on all this. However, using sources published after 1988 (say) doesn't work. I suspect contemporary authors use the ID phrase because it was, by the time they wrote, a well-known term. You need sources from before (say) 1966. You might have been better off with my 1766 quote. But but: How about this everybody "argument from the proofs of intelligent design" (1855) [16]?
4. Don't know yet. ADDED Instead of "1988, and in this context it has been called", how about "1988, and after this date it has often been called"?

Myrvin (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The wording accurately reflected the source, as Sweetman specifically placed the phrase in relation to ID: it's unlikely that Paley ever commented on microbiology. Provide a new source, and adjust the wording accordingly, though note that the phrase "argument from intelligent design" still seems to only appear after 1990. As for 1988, a slight adjustment is in order. Scott and Matzke, as cited, state it was published in 1989 as Of Pandas and People, later described by Buell as “the first place where the phrase ‘intelligent design' appeared in its present use” Early manuscripts freely used cognates of “creation” (creationism, creationist), but these terms were replaced by the phrase “intelligent design” after the mid-1987 Edwards v. Aguillard Supreme Court decision outlawing the teaching of creationism. So, the change was made in 1987, and published in 1989 introducing the term as a replacement for creation science, while presenting the same argument from design. The phrase does seem to have continued in use in its earlier meaning as a description or synonym for the teleological argument, though less commonly than argument-from-design and teleological argument. . dave souza, talk 20:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]