Talk:Intelligent design

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

This is not informative, it is highly biased

the number one problem with this article is that it is highly liberal and is simply an attack on ID, for one thing the author goes off saying that its just trying to get creation into the textbooks when this is very much not the case, the theory of ID is saying that many things in the universe are best explained by saying there is an intelligent designer and that someone or something had to have put certain things in place, because none of us can explain how certain things happened and a lot of science's explanations were (excuse me) downright pathetic, the theory of ID is just a better way of explaining such things as where the first cell on earth came from, how the conditions of the planet earth are so unbelievably perfect that earth can sustain life, why water is the only compound in the universe that acts exactly the way it does (mind you without that life on earth would never happen in a million years) etc. stop putting your opinion into your articles and start putting some real solid facts into them, if science would do that more maybe humans could actually move on and discover stuff instead of avoiding all new ideas regarding the origin of man — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtimoose (talk • contribs) 07:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You may think a lot of what you said is scientific, but that's because you don't know what science is. ID is not science. There is nothing wrong with calling ID creationism-in-disguise. No scientist adopts ID without being a believer first. ID does not present itself as a scientific theory. If you think it does, find out what a scientific theory is (as opposed to a regular theory).

There is PLENTY wrong with tagging all questions about current "consensus science" evolutionism as unscientific. There are valid questions, e.g. about the combinatorics of current hypotheses in evolutionary theory and e.g. how many times the current age of the universe it would plausibly have taken for certain structures to pop up "spontaneously". The numbers are staggering, and deserve to be considered before mindlessly accepting "consensus" answers which, on their face, do not seem plausible.

Real science does not progress by being satisfied with the current consensus. As astrophysicist Bernard Haisch likes to say, progress is made more by questioning answers than by merely answering questions. As for the current consensus view of how life originated, it should remind anyone who actually has a brain engaged of the popular cartoon showing an Einstein-like figure contemplating a blackboard full of equations, interrupted by the line "and then a miracle occurs". (Maybe there's a message there.) A fair and unbiased Wikipedia article on this subject should at least acknowledge that there ARE some scientific questions and arguments remaining to be answered about how life originated. Also, it is not sufficient, and not even accurate, to claim that the "intelligent designer hypothesis" cannot be tested. Insightful combinatorial calculations can shed light on how plausible it is that life originated randomly and not with some kind of purposeful direction or invention. And oh by the way, the combinatorial calculations could start with the substantial amount of "Species Design Engineer's Toolkit" genes that are now known to have been ALWAYS PRESENT in the genome.

In summary, it is highly biased to omit the legitimate scientific questions and conflate ALL opposition to current DOGMA with "Creationism" based on religious views. That is tantamount to making science itself into just another religion... perhaps we should dub this approach "Cretinism". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.183.212 (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

ID actually defeats itself. If looking at the universe prompts you to say there must be a creator, I can look at a creator and say "he created the universe, designed the atom and the Platypus, he must have been created." Christian Space-God is omnipresent, omnipotent. That kind of greatness doesn't happen for nothing. Some proto-Xian Space God must have created him.

Chicken and egg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.160.54.155 (talk) 07:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Kurtimoose, if you care to read back through the extensive archives of this talk page (top right corner) you will see that pretty much every word of the article has been argued over in lenghthy discussions to arrive at a balance. A balance does not mean giving equal weight to arguments that do not have supporting evidence per WP:DUE.--Charles (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Kurtimoose, the information in this article is obtained from many different sources corroborating the view that ID is not scientific, as its proponents claim, but religious in nature. Also, there is much deliberation when changes are proposed so as to prevent editors from expressing their opinions in the article. In light of Wikipedia's policies on due weight and pseudoscience though, we cannot present ID in any manner which would make it appear more accepted than it actually is. That said, I do think ID can qualify as a scientific theory; however, its proponents are clearly not interested in doing the necessary scientific work (research, experimentation, etc.) and instead continue to push an obvious, religious agenda. Perhaps, in the future, ID proponents will cease this trend and reshape ID into an acceptable scientific theory (by omitting the false dichotomy of designer vs evolution, for example), but we must present ID as it is, not as it could be. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 21:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Surely that would be a hypothesis, not a theory which requires extensive and unequivocal evidence.--Charles (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I use the term theory as Dr. Neil Tyson does: as a scientifically testable explanation of natural phenomena. The amount of evidence serves to distinguish between better theories and worse ones. Of course, ID isn't even scientifically testable as it is currently defined. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 02:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

A reading of this article's talk page history shows that allegations of POV and bias are legion and recurring. In fact, when anyone asks me for an example of a long, biased Wikipedia article, I usually point to this one. Anyway, anyone reading this who agrees with me, please simply list specific concerns and make a suggestion, using a reliable source, on how to fix your concern. Cla68 (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Cla68, I think these allegations are going to continue only because the topic is controversial. Sources which would make the article more NPOV are more than welcome, but we must take into account the fact that ID is regarded as pseudoscience because it is defined by its proponents as conflicting with an already well-established and incredibly well-supported scientific theory, though no evidence of its own can withstand scientific scrutiny. Additionally, ID proponents have attempted to circumvent the traditional, scientific methods for gaining acceptance by flexing their political might, which further illustrates their disregard for science as an evidence-based endeavor. In short, presenting ID as anything more than a failed hypothesis at best, and religiously motivated pseudoscience at worst, is itself very POV. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 18:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

To anyone who believes this page is biased, I would like to redirect you to http://www.conservapedia.com/Intelligent_design. They have an encyclopedia that matches your world view better than wikipedia which supports facts. O76923 (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Regardless of you suggestion to visit another site because of MY world view (which demonstrates your arrogance), I consider this article biased also. And not because I am an advocate of ID, Evolution, or Creationism. This page does not reflect the Socratic method of the dialectic. This page is basically a blatant refutation of I.D. Ya might as well call this page "Attack I.D." Now if any of you are going to tell me that I don't understand science you'd better be pretty sure of yourself as I can compare brainpans and advanced degrees with any of you.

• It may seem biased to you and a "refutation of ID" because wikipedia is concerned with verifiability from credible scientific sources (for science articles) and Intelligent Design does not have any since it does not stand up to the evidence, and which is why the article is fine the way it is SuperAtheist (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Whoa, let's keep this civil you guys. No need to broadly insult the intelligence or education of other editors, it doesn't help your point, and asserting baldly that the article is fine as it is discounts that anonymous here might have a point. More relevantly, if you can't point to particular ways in which the article engages in blatant refutaiton instead of informing more robustly, it's hard to make improvements or disagree in a sane, civil way. On the point of socratic method, you're making an argument, but the form of it is general, broad, and essentially impossible to debate. The whole article being wrong isn't even an invalid thing to argue either, but you'll have to do a lot better about identifying structuring that you disagree with. i kan reed (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Look . . . IMO, Creationists could very well be hijacking ID as a way to sneak Creation into the schools. I don't particularly have a beef with some Creationism being discussed in Schools, BUT . . . the Supreme Court of America does! So it ain't going to happen.

And ya know . . . so what if most or all of the scholars at the Discovery Institute are Christians (which they're not). Some Christians think Evolution is just wonderful. TDurden1937 (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)TDurden1937

Except that the modern concept of "intelligent design" is largely a creationist creation -- so cannot reasonably be considered to be "hijacking". You might be able to argue that they hijacked the teleological argument in order to create ID -- but then the TA was largely moribund when they came along, so there's not really anybody to complain. On the 'balance' question, I'd suggest you first read WP:DUE and then List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Why do people keep using the low probability of life showing up "spontaneously" as an argument for intelligent design? Even if the argument weren't faulty since it's not "spontaneous" or "random", it's still wrong. If I throw 6 million die, the chances that they'll land in the configuration it did would have been astronomically low if calculated beforehand. However, it happened, didn't it? Intelligent design offers nothing and therefore the article isn't incorrect by treating it as pseudoscience and it's not POV. SuperAtheist (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Centre for Intelligent Design

Someone just today created the article Centre for Intelligent Design and subsequently proceeded to make major modifications (now reverted) to the lead here, to give that organization prominence. It seems this is a new org, set up in 2010 in the UK. In casual googling, I find a lot of sites taking notice of this Centre, but I can't find any real evidence that it meets the WP:GNG or WP:CORP notability threshold. I have prodded it for deletion. If you disagree, feel free to remove the prod notice. The author has since added more references. Maybe OK now? Still no mainstream news coverage. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

There's been at least a couple of articles on it in the British press, so its notability is at least minimally established. Anupam seems to be doing their best to eliminate any WP:DUE criticism in the article. Apparently C4ID is a topic to be discussed without any reference to science or religion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Misinformation

I was recently reverted by User:Amatulic, who removed information on the religious views of members of the Discovery Institute in favor of a version which is completely false. The information I added on the fact that members of the Discovery Institute are also Jewish and agnostic was removed, despite the fact that it was supported by credible references. The current version now states that all members of the Discovery Institute are Christians, which is simply not true. I would ask respectfully, that this information is readded. Cheers, Anupam^Talk 20:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This would seem to be better argued on the Discovery Institute article than here. Even if there is a single (or a few) Jewish intelligent design believers associated with the public movement, it's widely independently described as Christian, and I am not aware of independent third-party coverage that describes the Jewish contributions to it. Our verifiable information policy favors using third party reliable descriptions rather than synthesizing our own. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

(Following myself up) If you have reliable independent third-party descriptions which cover this aspect, presenting hte references here would be an appropriate next step. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

<ec> @ Anupam, your error is in asserting that the lead sentence concerned discusses all members of the DI, no matter how insignificant. That's not the case. The carefully sourced lead, based on reliable third party sources as required by verifiability policy, states "Its leading proponents—all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank—believe the designer to be the Christian God." Some of the led have other faiths, though of course its arguable that Christians, Jews and Muslims share the same G_d. However, as shown by reliable sources, those who have developed and published the arguments have consistently referred to Christianity. Klinghoffer has only had a peripheral role, and Judaism & Intelligent Design - My Jewish Learning written by a rabbinical student (with a B.A. in history of science) looks more like a blog than a reliable source. Similarly, the recent and as yet unreviewed book cited regarding Berlinski notes his role as an iconoclast and debater, but effectively confirms that he hasn't produced any influential work. You seem to be trying to synthesise these brief descriptions to contradict better founded statements. . . dave souza, talk 21:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

As Dave has stated, the current version states two things in one sentence: the leading proponents of ID are Christians and the leading proponents are all associated with the Discovery Institute. It does not say that everyone associated with the DI is a Christian. I have previously mentioned changing the line in question to the Talk page (specifically due to David Berlinski, an agnostic Jew), but was told that the statement should remain as it is because he and others are merely proponents, not leading proponents. Unless you have information that a leading proponent belongs to a faith other than Christianity, the statement remains true. But perhaps we could alter the text to remove the ambiguity of leading proponent? The source in question uses this exact term though: "[i]n that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." Perhaps even a qualifier would work? Something like, "Judge John E. Jones III found that its leading proponents--all of whom..."? -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 21:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I would indeed classify Berlinkski as a leading proponent of ID by the way. He appears in the movie Expelled, in which he is often the center of discussion on Intelligent Design. Moreover, he has produced work on the topic, notably his recent book titled The Deniable Darwin. Stating that all of the proponents of Intelligent Design believe the Christian God to be the Intelligent Designer is simply not true. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 22:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Please note that "all proponents of Intelligent Design" is not the same thing as "leading proponents of intelligent design". In order to include Berlinski into the group of "leading proponents" you will need to provide reliable third party sources. Neither the movie nor the book referred to in your last post come anywhere near this requirement. How you or I or any other editor for that matter would personally classify him is entirely irrelevent. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

He is a vocal critic of evolution, but not a leading ID proponent (e.g. "Berlinski shares the movement's disbelief in the evidence for evolution, but does not openly avow intelligent design..." from Berlinski's Wiki page). I think as far as leading proponents go, we're talking about Behe and Dembski as crafters of the "theory," rather than anyone merely presenting it as a viable alternative to evolution. This is why I think the term leading proponent could use some work. I'm fairly certain that Berlinski isn't even a proponent of ID per se, as he has criticized ID as well as evolution. -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 22:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I tend to view Christianity, Islam, and Judaism as being branches of the same faith, with the distinctions being fairly trivial when viewed from the outside. Perhaps replace "Christian God" with "God of Abraham", if that doesn't push anyone's WP:OR buttons.—Kww(talk) 22:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Kww, that is a good idea; thank you for your comments. How do you feel about David Berlinski being an ID proponent and an agnostic? With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

We've considered that in the past, but the sources specifically refer to Christianity. Once again, Berlinski is prominent but seems to have had little significance in leading and directing the development of ID. . . dave souza, talk 22:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW, LOL at the list of Berlinski's arguments cited in that book – similar if not identical to the recycled creationist claims used by Johnson in Darwin on Trial. . . dave souza, talk 22:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Once more with feeling: It does not matter what Kww thinks, what you think or what I think, what matters is what the sources say. Provide reliable sources and you have an argument, otherwise just drop the stick. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the sources specifically refer to Christianity, but I don't think that "Christian God" == "God of Abraham" falls afoul of WP:OR. There's certainly no shortage of sources equating the two, and I don't see much of a reason to be specific. As for Berlinski's "agnosticism", I'd have to see a less self-serving source use that description. It smacks of "We have an agnostic on our side! That means it must be real science!" I just don't find the assertion credible, nor do I find the source disinterested.—Kww(talk) 22:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Kww, according to The Best of the Public Square, "Berlinski is embraced by proponents of Intelligent Design for the persuasiveness and vigor of his arguments but also because he is an agnostic." Furthermore, I am not arguing whether Intelligent Design is science or not. I am simply questioning the misleading statement in the introduction that states that all of the proponents of ID believe in the Christian God, which is simply false in light of David Berlinski's agnosticism and the Judaism of David Klinghoffer, who is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute]. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, this basically states that the he is being marketed by the DI as an agnostic, and his self-description is quoted as being an "agnostic Jew", which smacks of oxymoronicism. I'm on your side with respect to expanding the lead beyond Christianity to include Judaism. I won't go further than that to state that there are people that don't believe in Abrahamic religions that endorse ID.—Kww(talk) 23:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Kww, I support your assertion if that's the farthest you're willing to go. However, there are a multitude of other sources that testify to Berlinski's agnosticism (source). Moreover, it is not an oxymoron to be an agnostic Jew, as the latter designation refers to an ethnic group of people. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You both need to provide reliable sources per the Wikipedia WP:RS policy, and enough information to justify that the particular fact is noteable enough. See also our policy on giving minor facts or viewpoints undue weight.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure precisely what sources you require to support the substitution of "God of Abraham" for "Christian God", George. Is there any reason to doubt the terms are synonymous? If the statement was that all the ID supporters were Christian, that would be one thing, and it would be easily refuted by sources looking at David Klinghoffer. It's not. It's that the supporters identify the designer as the "Christian God". If they identify the designer as the "Christian God", they are simultaneously identifying him as the "God of Abraham".—Kww(talk) 01:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Before taking time to parse the details of anyone's religious leanings, it makes sense to find multiple credible cognizant sources, free from conflict of interest and without self-serving bias, that say that person is a "leading proponent" of ID. As the lead is now worded, that is a central issue in need of support. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Georgewilliamherbert, you are acting as if all Christians are unified in their viewpoints. I assure you that an Episcopalian will have much different views than a Southern Baptist. According to Perspectives on science and Christian faith: Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, Volumes 59-60, "David Berlinski is an agnostic, secular Jew; William Dembski is an evangelical; Michael Behe is Catholic; Jonathan Wells belongs to the Unification Church; and Phillip Johnson is a Presbyterian." Stating that all proponents of Intelligent Design believe in the Christian God is not only an oversimplification but is also totally infactual. With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

As previously pointed out, the lead does not say "all proponents of Intelligent Design believe in the Christian God." It says intelligent design's "leading proponents... believe the designer to be the Christian God." __ Just plain Bill (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Anupam, please see WP:UNDUE. Let's not give undue weight to minority viewpoints. Oh wait, that's been said before. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what does changing "Christian God" to "God of Abraham" give undue weight to? I'm as big of a policy wonk as anyone, and I can't figure out what that gives undue credence to.—Kww(talk) 03:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It isn't about YHWH or Ahura Mazda or any other god. The undue weight is what would be given to the claim that anyone other than Behe and Dembski, for example, is a "leading proponent" of ID. Until that is well sourced, whatever beliefs Berlinski and Klinghoffer may hold are beside the point. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read the references, notes 2 and 3. The judge in Kitzmiller v. Dover explicitly said in his written decision that: "the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity". William Dembski, Philip Johnson and other DI affiliates have explicitly said this, which is how the court arrived at this particular finding of fact. IIRC, for awhile this article said "the Abrahamic God", obviously inclusive of "the God of Christianity", but somewhere along the way participating editors decided to use the exact language set forth in the Kitzmiller decision, which is the way that passage has read in this article for most of its history. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that Klinghoffer is not a particularly prominent advocate of ID (I'd rate him around third tier), and that Berlsinski, although more prominent, explicitly disavows advocacy of ID itself (i.e. the idea that God the intelligent designer did it) in favour of simply promoting ID's anti-evolution arguments from within the IDM. But then, we've had this argument before. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

This discussion goes round and round and round. Bring reliable sources that don't give undue weight to extreme minority view, maybe we can talk about it. But right now, none have been shown to any of us. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree -- third party sources confirming prominence of viewpoints should be a must for not-blatantly-prominent views to be included in the lead. In a recent version we had the Centre for Intelligent Design ("nothing more than a website and an office") cited in the lead. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Natural selection guided by natural processes

It should be noted that there is a major error; natural selection _is_ a guided processes and follows on from the laws of thermodynamics and a amalgamation of other implications and ramifications in many areas of chemistry and biology as well. Thus, natural selection is not purely random, more pseudo random. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.129.21 (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point, the error is made by ID proponents who use "guided" as code for "supernaturally guided" or "guided by God". To include that point in the article, we need verifiability from a reliable published source – the point sounds familiar, but we can't include our own original research. . . dave souza, talk 16:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Guided is not only used by ID proponents to justify a supernatural agent, but it usually implies that there is a set path and/or goal to evolution; even physicalists can believe evolution is directed by natural processes to toward certain adaptations or species. -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 17:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Are we talking here about something that needs to be corrected on this page? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can ascertain, the only time NS is described as undirected/unguided/etc in this article, it is part of a direct quote. So this is probably not an issue "that needs to be corrected on this page". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

"Thus, natural selection is not purely random, more pseudo random..." No, it is random. it is not teleological. Thermodynamics "directs" the change in entropy of the system, which is in fact the differential change in its "directedness". In acting on the degree of directedness it does not itself act on the direction. And it is in an open system, that has a constant influx of disorder. An ecosystem much more resembles turbulence -- which is a scale-free pure noise-generating process -- than a pseudo-random number generator. In fact many statistics suggest that the ecosystem exhibits Self-organized_criticality. Kevin Baas^talk 16:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Natural selection is NOT "random", using the simplistic definition of "random" pervasively taken by creationist apologists (generally some form of independent uniform distribution or similar). Natural selection pretty much guarantees (i.e. ≈ 100% probability) that the results will be an improvement in adaptation, but generally does not make strong predictions as to what exact form these adaptations will take. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If you are seriously going to argue that evolution is not a random, probabilistic process, but a deterministic, teleological one, then I'm not going to bother wasting my time with such nonsense. Kevin Baas^talk 20:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Reminder: this is not a forum. Talk about improving the article with verifiable sources, or don't at all. Cheers. GManNickG (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Just so. For example, "I would say evolution talks about random chance and intelligent design expresses an order." Reiterating the creationist misconception that "The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance." though proponentsists tend to misleadingly talk of "the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection and random variation" which isn't quite so wrong. But then they try to slide off into randomness.. as in But once someone accepts the fact that random evolution couldn't produce life on earth, it has to have developed some other way quoting from this rather interesting source. . . dave souza, talk 20:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Seamless integration of Enlightenment and Christianity

@ Charlesdrakew: Please revert your reversion of my reversion. (This is a bit humorous, no?) It was not in the lead.
12:47, 10 May 2011 Charlesdrakew (talk | contribs) (182,268 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Yopienso (talk); Too detailed for the lead. (TW)) (undo)
Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Yopienso, in turn you were reverting K's change as being rather detailed for WP:SUMMARY. The info removed was:

Howe (2007) observes that in early 19th century America “virtually everyone believed in intelligent design” when most Americans seamlessly integrated their Enlightenment with their Christianity. ref Daniel Walker Howe, What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815–1848 (Oxford University Press, 2007) p. 464 /ref

Since the science of the day in English speaking areas was closely integrated with natural theology that's not surprising, nor is it particularly informative about the modern ID which is part of the response to evolutionary ideas which only became popular in those areas after 1844. It's a complex area, and this brief remark from a source not readily available online seems both simplistic and uninformative.

That said, this review gives a little more from the book:

"As this chapter is written in the early twenty-first century, the hypothesis that the universe reflects intelligent design has provoked a bitter debate in the United States. How very different was the intellectual world of the early nineteenth century! Then, virtually everyone believed in intelligent design."

Doesn't include the enlightenment bit, and the reviewer follows it up with the very dubious comment that in 90% of the Western intellectual world, creationism "remains almost universally accepted." So, all a bit questionable. . . dave souza, talk 17:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Dave. No, I was disagreeing with K that Rjensen's addition did not adhere to WP:SUMMARY. The book quoted was published by Oxford University Press and won a Puliter Prize; Howe is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society. The author of the review you cite is either a nobody, or a somebody hiding behind a pseudonym. (Reading his comments, I'd guess the former.) The source is as solid as they come, and if it were unavailable online that would not diminish its usefulness as a RS. It is, however, available online. This immediately follows your quote; odd you didn't notice the word "Enlightenment":

Faith in the rational design of the universe underlay the worldview of the Enlightenment, shared by Isaac Newton, John Locke, and the American Founding Fathers. Even the outspoken critics of Christianity embraced not atheism but deism, that is, belief in an impersonal, remote deity who had created the universe and designed it so perfectly that it ran along of its own accord, following natural laws without need for further divine intervention.

This is part of the pedigree of the Discovery Institute's modern ID and therefore, by my lights, is appropriate in the history section of this article. What do you think? Yopienso (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Google books isn't giving me that access, the additional words help clarify things. ID is strongly opposed to deism and particularly to belief in a universe "following natural laws without need for further divine intervention". Their premise is that God / Ye Designer makes empirically detectable interventions which are open to scientific investigation.

In contrast to ID, the theistic and deistic enlightenment thinkers believed in a first cause beyond scientific investigation, making laws in which secondary causes operated in a constant way open to empirical science.

In the 1830s, the period in question, John Herschel, "perhaps the most senior British scientific figure" praised an approach "as a way to find true causes, 'that mystery of mysteries the replacement of extinct species by others' should be due to natural causes as much as extinctions. So the origin of new species 'would be found to be a natural in contradistinction to a miraculous process'"[1]

Around 30 years later, George Frederick Wright, an ordained minister who was Asa Gray's colleague in developing theistic evolution, emphasised the need to look for secondary or known causes rather than invoking supernatural explanations. "If we cease to observe this rule there is an end to all science and all sound science." ref> Larson 2004 pp 110–111

These 19th century scientists were important figures in natural theology and believed strongly in an intelligent design as the first cause, but rejected the ID idea of supernatural science. . . . dave souza, talk 23:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see any link between Enlightenment era Deism and modern ID, either in the citation or otherwise. To claim there is one without solid sourcing would violate SYNTH. By my lights, Deism and ID draw on a common source, rather than ID being a continuation of Enlightenment thought. I doubt that many, if any, of the adherents of Modern ID are Deists, except, possibly, when cornered. They almost uniformly believe in a supernatural God that directly intervenes in the world, unconstricted by the laws of nature. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

@Dave: The ID movement is a pseudo-scientific outgrowth of 19th-century natural theology. Darwinian evolution is a scientific outgrowth of the same. Certainly in an article titled "Intelligent design" that treats specifically the modern-day ID we would want to record that divergence. (Likewise, in an article tracing scientific thought from, say, 1600-2000, we would omit modern ID altogether.) Which brings me to. . .

@DV: You wrote, "By my lights, Deism and ID draw on a common source, rather than ID being a continuation of Enlightenment thought." Precisely! Therefore Howe's statement, ". . .in early 19th century America 'virtually everyone believed in intelligent design' when most Americans seamlessly integrated their Enlightenment with their Christianity," is pertinent to paragraph 2 of Origin of the concept. It's astonishing that you miss the link Howe provides:

As this chapter is written in the early twenty-first century, the hypothesis that the universe reflects intelligent design has provoked a bitter debate in the United States. There's the modern ID. How very different was the intellectual world of the early nineteenth century! Then, virtually everyone believed in intelligent design. Faith in the rational design of the universe underlay the worldview of the Enlightenment, shared by Isaac Newton, John Locke, and the American Founding Fathers. Even the outspoken critics of Christianity embraced not atheism but deism, that is, belief in an impersonal, remote deity who had created the universe and designed it so perfectly that it ran along of its own accord, following natural laws without need for further divine intervention. There's the Enlightenment-era Deism linked to it.

I propose the second paragraph be amended thusly:

Daniel Walker Howe observes that in early 19th century America “virtually everyone believed in intelligent design,” most Americans seamlessly integrating their Enlightenment with their Christianity. [Ref] Paley's argument from design in Natural Theology used the watchmaker analogy,[25] and such arguments led to the development of natural theology, the study of nature as a way of understanding "the mind of God". This movement fueled the passion for collecting fossils and other biological specimens that ultimately led to Charles Darwin's publication of On the Origin of Species in 1859.

What does everyone think of that? Yopienso (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary of my last edit, it's not suitable for WP:Summary style. What is put forward in the proposed sentence is a vast overstatement and oversimplification of one of Howe's theses in the book, Howe observes at several points that essentially a synthesis of faith-based belief and reason-based thinking shaped 19th Century American life. See, e.g., these snips from the book. Dominus Vobisdu point is also taken, and as he observed just above, the newly placed sentence which i removed is also original synthesis. It synthesizes two separate points Howe was making in the book, adding in Howe's point on p464, a casually made and very debatable point about how "everybody" in America believed in "intelligent design" back then. Howe's two points can, I'm sure, be teased out separately here on the talk page, but my primary objection was, as I said, that it isn't suitable for WP:SS because by the time we render Howe's points faithfully we've added another virtual tome to an already excessively lengthy article. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)