Talk:Intelligent design

Template:Oldpeerreview

Contents

1 Archives

2 Theological debates

3 a priori adoption of a naturalistic metaphysics.

4 the a priori/a posteriori thing in "ID in summary" paragraph 5

5 NPOV

6 quantum physics

6.1 Quantum physics

7 24.64.223.203 & the intro

8 quoting sources, the word of god

9 Peer-reviewed stuff of ID (netcody)

10 false claims of vandalism

11 Another School Board Attack

12 String Theory?

13 What makes ID different than creationism

Theological debates

Needs major work. The 'Materialism vs. Spirituallity' section is basically 'Nature of the Designer' stuff. But there's good stuff. It could also use some of the 'Other' links from the former arguments section. And a brief overview of "deck-stacking".--ghost 17:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

a priori adoption of a naturalistic metaphysics.

What the hell does this mean??? metaphysics means "outside" physics or outside science or outside nature, i.e. super-natural. how can science be called metaphysical when it by definition is within physics? this quote is from ID as a movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#ID_as_a_movement). FuelWagon 02:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not a clue. Ask FeloniousMonk. I think it translates to, "Movement proponents charge that methodological naturalism in science requires the a priori adoption of a constant set of rules or laws of nature. ID claims to free science from the assumption that the laws of the Universe are fixed." I'm not sure if that's exactly what he means, but I think it's in English.--ghost 14:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Metaphysics simply means ontology. Graft 15:12, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Graft is partially correct. Metaphysics is the study of knowing and being [1] (http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn2.1?o2=&o0=1&o6=&o1=1&o5=&o4=&o3=&s=metaphysics). This being true, then ID movement proponents alleging that science (in relying upon methodological naturalism) demands a priori adoption of a naturalistic way of knowing (metaphysics) is also correct. The original passage was correct as it stood. I'll be restoring it or a more clear version of it. FeloniousMonk 17:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I skimmed metaphysics, the bit that stood out was that it is a study of "first principles", which I think is what should go in this sentence, rather than "metaphysics". The metaphysics article seems to spend a bit of energy saying that metaphysics is hard to define, however I think "first principles" are fairly easily defined, and much more accurate for what's being talked about in this sentence. FuelWagon 23:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First principles would be preferable because it seems this bit conflates metaphysics with epistemology. --Rikurzhen 23:43, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Someone changed it to "naturalistic philosophy" which is OK by me. FuelWagon 14:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All of the a priori/a posteriori text should be trashed. It's original research. --goethean ॐ 16:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

dude, give it a rest. Some of us can put two and two together without having to quote someone else on it. Go work on integral-wiki since you claim to have it all figured out over there. FuelWagon 17:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right here I think they are referring to the part in "ID as a movement" where design theorists claim that science is skewed because it currently operates under an a priori assumption of naturalistic philosophy. It's certainly true that design theorists think this way, I could quote several ID books to that end. David Bergan 17:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See below.--ghost 21:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

the a priori/a posteriori thing in "ID in summary" paragraph 5

As far as the a priori/a posteriori thing in the intro regarding ID's legitibility (which goethean is referring to)... do we have any notable person on record for holding this opinion? This is the first time I've ever encountered it. David Bergan 17:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

and so commences the moving target again. This time dbergan wants a notable person on record. tune in again next week when it will be a completely different target. FuelWagon 17:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry that you consider me to be such a pain in the ass. I was just wondering if we had any outside basis for that paragraph, because it was new to me and I thought one of the planks of wikipedia is no original research. David Bergan 17:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC

You and goeth are both pains in the ass. ID is attempting to redefine science from "the world rules are constant" (current scientific defintion) to "the world rules can be changed as god intervenes". ID argues that natural rules by themselves are INSUFFICIENT for life to develop on it own, and so god (or some designer) must INTERVENE, CHANGE THE RULES, and then let nature take over from there. Science will not INTUIT a god or anything else that it cannot prove through obsevability. science is a posteriori (go see the wikipedia page on natural science). id WILL intuit a god, without direct observation of a god, which is a priori. If you can't fucking figure out the difference between a priori and a posteriori, you are an idiot. I don't need to fucking quote someone to take ID's arguments and piece them together in contrast with science. This is not "independent research", this is taking the arguments of ID and piecing them together in contrast with the definition of natural science. My guess is that you DO understand the difference but your feigning ignorance and claiming a quote is required to cut out criticim of ID. FuelWagon 19:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My apologies FuelWagon. ghost pointed out the source below. Hate to tell if I'm a pain in your ass, the feeling isn't mutual. I actually like to see what you're going to say next. Sure, I'm convinced your prejudice blinds you from actually learning what ID is (you seem unwilling to separate the scientific study of ID from a supposed religious conspiracy)... and I find it humorous that you talk as an expert on the topic when you probably haven't even read one book on the subject... but I have to respect a man who says what he means and means what he says. David Bergan 17:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cool. FuelWagon 18:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure (if I read this all correctly) this is just the formal philisophical term for axom or basic assumtions or postulates. In semi-plain english, this is how I understand it; The field of science is only concerned with that which can be fallsified repeated and empirically observed. Thus nature is the focus of study, and that which is supernatural is ignored. A contention of ID is that science should not do this, the contention of mainstream of science is it can, it will, and it must. Or something like that. At any rate, if this is somewhere close to correct this assumtion is found in every single science textbook worthy of the name. The better ones will note that supernatural is not so much disproven by science, but ignored.--Tznkai 17:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've heard the falisification and repeatability arguments before (and do not object to their being presented here), but not the a priori/a posteriori one. If this just one of our own personal arguments, it should be scrapped. Who wrote it? Fess up. Show us where you got it, or else take it down. David Bergan 17:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here's some relevant quotes from ID proponents:

"I got the opportunity when I was on a sabbatical in London in 1987 or 1988 to read more about Darwinism. It was immensely interesting to discover that it’s all circular reasoning, deception, and pseudo-science. I had suspected that, but I saw that it was really true. It is a pseudo-science that simply works for confirming examples of a materialist philosophical system that’s held up by a priori grids." --Phillip Johnson [2] (http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/15.5docs/15-5pg40.html)
"With creationist explanations disqualified at the outset, it follows that the evidence will always support the naturalistic alternative. We can be absolutely certain that the Academy will not say, "The evidence on the whole supports the theory of evolution, although we concede that the apparent abrupt appearance of many fully formed animal groups in the Cambrian rocks is in itself a point in favor of the creationists." There are no scientific points in favor of creation and there never will be any as long as naturalists control the definition of science, because creationist explanations by definition violate the fundamental commitment of science to naturalism. When the fossil record does not provide the evidence that naturalism would like to see, it is the fossil record, and not the naturalistic explanation, that is judged to be inadequate..... When pressed about the unfairness of disqualifying their opponents a priori, naturalists sometimes portray themselves as merely insisting upon a proper definition of "science," and not as making any absolute claims about "truth." By this interpretation, the National Academy of Sciences did not say that it is untrue that "the creation of the universe, the earth, living things and man was accomplished through supernatural means inaccessible to human understanding," but only that this statement is unscientific. Scientific naturalists who take this line sometimes add that they do not necessarily object to the study of creationism in the public schools, provided it occurs in literature and social science classes rather than in science class." --Phillip Johnson. Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism. [3] (http://www.windowview.org/arnfiles/evolutionasdogma.html)

Hope this helps. FeloniousMonk 18:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Link to one more quote [4] (http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9811/articles/johnson.html) FeloniousMonk 18:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree with you FM, that design theorists cite science as having an 'a priori' assumption of naturalism. No argument at all there. I started this section to refer to "ID in summary" paragraph 5. Where are the quotes that the evolutionists (or anyone) think that recognizing intelligent design is based only on 'a priori' intuitions? I know it's confusing with the term 'a priori' being used in both parts. David Bergan 18:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, we're talking about different things. I was confused. FeloniousMonk 19:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Folks, the link that David requested (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/naturalism.html) was in the Anti-ID Links section. FuelWagon took the liberty of translating it into something approaching English. Let's please read the references before we start beating each other up asking for links we already have.--ghost 21:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks ghost. Sorry for not checking that before raising the issue. David Bergan 22:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It happens. I'm as guilty as anyone else. Let's move on.--ghost 22:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

I want to thank those that have been watching the page recently. It appears that we have a few people trying to insert the NPOV flag, without first discussing this here. Since I've been heavily involved recently in trying to rebalence the article, trim the fat & remove POV tone I'd like to offer this space for those that still have POV concerns. I won't pretend that the article's perfect, I still think is needs plenty of work. But I think on the whole, it's vastly improved in the last several weeks.--ghost 17:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see a need for the flag. The article is indeed much improved. FeloniousMonk 17:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree. Strongly. This article is as neutral as an Al-Qaeda recruit with IED's strapped around his waist. It is better than it was, I will give you that. It is still full of misinformation. The section on peer-review is either poorly researched or is full of lies. Here's an example of what I am talking about:

"To date, the intelligent design movement has only succeeded in publishing one article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal..."

This statement is ridiculously ignorant. What "date" might that be? Must have been back in 1992, before anyone even knew what the phrase "intelligent design" meant.--netcody 15:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

-- try any date bub. intellegent design is almost as much of a laughing stock as creationism.-uber

The article is listed in the article with a proper reference.--ghost

Did anyone bother to look in the journals? Obviously not. Are we relying on pop-news to provide fact? Yes.--netcody 15:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are incorrect. I lost count of how many I searched, all in the last month. Links to two journal search engines used at listed in the ref section. I also used Google and AltaVista--ghost

Below are a few peer-reviewed works that have been published (and not "disowned"). There are many more, ask me in this discussion section if you would like to see more.

Would anyone mind if I edited this section to report facts?--netcody 15:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome too.--ghost

Thanks for the info, I'll dig thru it this afternoon and evening. BTW, since you seem to have come here with an agenda and disrespected the work of a large number of editors with your Al-Qaeda remark, do you expect us to treat you differently than you have us? No? Good. Expect me to double check your work with a fine-tooth comb. And treat it as you have others.--ghost 16:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda recruit??? Good grief. This is the new variant of Godwin's law... FuelWagon 16:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wow... Mr. Tact and Respect is on my side? Great. Nothing like joining in on a discussion and offending everyone else. David Bergan 18:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(Moved netcody's peer-reviewed articles to it's own section below. David Bergan 17:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC))

quantum physics

what the fuck does this mean?

"In general, arguments posed against Intelligent Design assume that the universe is the result of a chain of causality. However, quantum physicists point out that possibility provides a better explanation of the nature of universe than causality, and that consciousness cannot be separated from observation. If the universe is a field of infinite possibilities which every consciousness goes about creating (according to science), then Intelligent De--Tznkai 18:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)sign cannot be defined in terms of causality unless the existance of a creator is assumed. However, since all consciousnesses are affecting the universe(s) that we share, it is not inconceivable that some kind of super-consciousness exists in the form of possibility and free will. It seems the intelligence behind the design would be need to be a creative one... but that is only one possibility which does not reach beyond the paradigm of causality."

How can something be in such mumbo-jumbo? The lead section from a while back was much better. Dunc|☺ 17:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just had an edit conflict with you about the same thing. I removed it. FuelWagon 17:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it's nonsense. Maybe Sokal wrote it as one of his jokes again ;-) FeloniousMonk 17:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure I understand Tznkai's reversion of Dunc's addition of the position of the scientific community to ID to the intro (which I have no objection to; it was brief and factual). He seems to be invoking discussion on the talk page as justification for the revert, but I see nothing here that supports that. If no one else objects, I'll be reverting to Dunc's version. FeloniousMonk 17:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That portion of it wasn't the main problem, it was the removal of the redirect tag. I considered the entire edit suspcicious since it seemed that Dunc has not been paying attention to whats been going on.--Tznkai 18:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I understand now. Thanks. I'll just re-add the scientific pov then. FeloniousMonk 18:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fine by me. I think we need to clarify that ID propose "directed" evolution while scientific community at large simply feels evolution happens, directed or otherwise. No evidence of direction, so we don't think about it.--Tznkai 18:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, that's wrong. ID specifically rejects evolution of certain physical structures. They could ONLY exist, according to ID, by special creation. That is, God (or something else) came down and wrote DNA sequence (or whatever) from scratch, NOT that God merely encouraged evolution to move in specific directions through His divine influence (which is more like evolutionary creationism). Graft 18:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I get the diffrence. God stacks the deck so dna has to show up, or God waves his hands and dna appears. Seems pretty similar to me if you accept God as a supreme being...--Tznkai 19:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From what I've read, ID only rejects the plausibility of evolution of some structures (i.e., natural evolution of them has a low probability) -- not that they are logically or physically impossible. --Rikurzhen 19:08, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

As I understnad it, it goes a little like this Science: Random mutation! ID: not-so-random mutation! Science: well, maybe, but you can't prove that, its a matter of faith. ID: yes we can! See? Science: No you didn't! Thats crack!. Logic being on science's side by quite a bit--Tznkai 19:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ID proponents generally reject "deck stacking" because it means that god wound up the universe like a clock at the beginning of time and hasn't touched it since. ID proponents want an interactive god. A stacked deck means that the rules of nature are fixed and unchanging, and therefore science, which has fixed world rules as its only assumption, is sufficient to explain life. ID isn't really needed if the rules are fixed but the deck is stacked. ID is arguing that god changed the rules and THAT is specifically outside of what science can detect. FuelWagon 19:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quantum physics

In general, arguments posed against Intelligent Design assume that the universe is the result of a chain of causality. However, quantum physicists point out that possibility provides a better explanation of the nature of universe than causality, and that consciousness cannot be separated from observation. If the universe is a field of infinite possibilities, then Intelligent Design cannot be defined in terms of causality unless the existence of a creator is assumed. However, since every consciousness is capable of affecting the universe(s), it is not inconceivable that some kind of super-consciousness exists in the form of possibility and free will. It seems the intelligence behind the design would be need to be a creative one, but only if the ontology used to define Intelligent Design is congruent with the paradigm of causality.

The above is the current version as of 6/16. I moved it here because:

It's not in English. Yes, I understand it, but our goal is to make the article accessable to the average reader, and encourage them to learn. Not make their head hurt.
It smacks of Original Material. I've been thru the links, and this is new to me.
It needs major Wikifing.
It fits more logically in other sections, such as 'Fine-Tuned Universe'.

I'm all for reinserting after a major rework, but let's make sure it makes sense.--ghost 21:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

24.64.223.203 & the intro

24.64.223.203 has violated 3rr already with his repeated insertions in the intro, in case nobody noticed. I say give him one more chance to play ball, and if not, then report it. FeloniousMonk 19:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

quoting sources, the word of god

Since some editors hold the position that we can't put subject and verb together unless we quote it from someone, I thought this might be a good quote for the article [5] (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html):

Scientific creationism is 100% crap. So-called "scientific" creationists do not base their objections on scientific reasoning or data. Their ideas are based on religious dogma, and their approach is simply to attack evolution. The types of arguments they use fall into several categories: distortions of scientific principles ( the second law of thermodynamics argument), straw man versions of evolution (the "too improbable to evolve by chance" argument), dishonest selective use of data (the declining speed of light argument) appeals to emotion or wishful thinking ("I don't want to be related to an ape"), appeals to personal incredulity ("I don't see how this could have evolved"), dishonestly quoting scientists out of context (Darwin's comments on the evolution of the eye) and simply fabricating data to suit their arguments (Gish's "bullfrog proteins").

Most importantly, scientific creationists do not have a testable, scientific theory to replace evolution with. Even if evolution turned out to be wrong, it would simply be replaced by another scientific theory. Creationists do not conduct scientific experiments, nor do they seek publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Much of their output is "preaching to the choir."

The most persuasive creationist argument is a non-scientific one -- the appeal to fair play. "Shouldn't we present both sides of the argument?," they ask. The answer is no

Anyway, since a quote is the priority around here, I thought it was cool that we can quote someoen as saying ID is "crap". FuelWagon 19:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hm, actually, this guy says right there that "creationists do not base their objections on scientific reasoning or data", which means we can quote that and then expand on the definition of "scientific reasoning", which I'm pretty sure is a posteriori. But I might be thinking for myself a bit too much...FuelWagon 19:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Uh. Who are you quoting, again? Graft 20:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

LOL. Although I find this quote funny as hell, it's not appropriate for the body of the article. If you wanted to provide a link to it to support some other "ID is not science" statement, I'm good with that. The article's here to present the concept, and let the reader conclude whether or not it's crap. (I think you told me that once. ;-] )--ghost 20:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention that the quotation is referring to Scientific Creationism, which is different from ID. --goethean ॐ 21:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Graft, I'm quoting from talkorigins.org, a paper written by Chris Colby. the page didn't have his resume/background, but his email address is bio-bu.bu.edu (or .org, cant remember now). FuelWagon 23:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Goeth, since most critics would say that ID actually IS "scientific creationism" in sheeps clothing, I think it's still on topic. Not that I'm saying we quote the "crap" part. I was having a little fun and you're still a pain in my ass. I'm curious, if ID, changes its name tomorrow to "SmartEngineering", would the SE article only get to quote SE critics? Or can we connect some fucking dots and figure out that scientists consider SE and ID and ScientificCreationism to be cut from the same cord of bullshit? The article was last updated in 1996. Does every critic have to go back and update their articles every time the bible thumpers come up with a new name for their game? FuelWagon 23:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Uh. See above where you explained to me how ID and scientific creationism are not the same. you can't have it both ways--Tznkai 23:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"you explained to me how ID and scientific creationism are not the same" uhm..... what? I just searched for "creation" and couldn't find anything by me with that assertion. Not that I didn't say that, but I sure don't remember saying that. Unless it wound up in an archive, which I didn't search. Could you point me to the subsection at least? FuelWagon 23:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it wasn't you, but it was explained to me in the quantum physics subsection of this talk page

Damn it, man. was it me or not? You're the one making the accusation. Are you just gonna leave it hanging out there? FuelWagon 00:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind I got confused. It wasn't an accusation, it was confusion.--Tznkai 00:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed stuff of ID (netcody)

• W.A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres, 1998). This book was published by Cambridge University Press and peer-reviewed as part of a distinguished monograph series, Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory. The editorial board of that series includes members of the National Academy of Sciences as well as one Nobel laureate, John Harsanyi, who shared the prize in 1994 with John Nash, the protagonist in the film A Beautiful Mind. Commenting on the ideas in this book, Paul Davies remarks: “Dembski’s attempt to quantify design, or provide mathematical criteria for design, is extremely useful. I’m concerned that the suspicion of a hidden agenda is going to prevent that sort of work from receiving the recognition it deserves. Strictly speaking, you see, science should be judged purely on the science and not on the scientist.” Quoted in L. Witham, By Design (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2003), p. 149. --netcody 15:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is a book, not a journal. It was not subject to scientific peer review.--ghost

Actually, this book was more rigorously peer-reviewed than most journal articles. Click here (http://www.designinference.com/documents/05.02.resp_to_wein.htm) and scroll down to "2. Peer Review". David Bergan 17:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wait, citing Dembski's own site? Not compelling. Other more reputable sources (like the National Academies) have emphatically stated that no ID research has survived peer review to be published in any credible, significant scientific publications. I can provide many neutral, credible cites on this if required. Further, that ID lacks formal, credible peer review is a fact easily verified-- a search of PubMed [6] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) for the term "intelligent design" returns no hits for peer reviewed primary writings in support of ID. Netcody's cites are inconclusive. He alludes to each as supporting ID, I recognize several here as well-known examples of actual research that is often misquoted/misinterpreted by ID supporters, to the chagrin of the research authors. FeloniousMonk 18:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying Dembski made up the info about TDI's review process? Do you have any neutral sources that tell you it was reviewed in a different manner? This is a simple question of fact that should be easy to find out if he's wrong. David Bergan 18:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm saying that as a matter of policy the Discovery Institute and it's officers consistantly misrepresent their work and that of others, and so we need to be circumspect here. FeloniousMonk 20:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This illustrates a common thread that I've suspected since getting involved in this article. That the term peer review, and the requirements needed to reach acceptance by the larger scientific community are subjective. In the case of The Desgin Inference the peer-review conducted was done by Philosophers. The peer review conducted was based more on copy and content from a philosophical context; thus it might be called a soft-scientific peer review at best. The hard-scientific peer review that many of our more skeptical editors refer to is the type conducted by, say medical doctors, mathematicians and analytical chemists. Dembski himself admits that this is a different standard. Felonious, gathering those sources discounting IDs peer reviews, and how these other articles were or weren't misquoted/misinterpereted, would be be best. Netcody, TDI doesn't make the cut as scientific peer reviewed at this time. The Discovery Institute wants us to buy into it as scientific fact comparable to evolution, not philosophy.--ghost 18:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Part of the aforementioned site says: "TDI appeared in Cambridge University Press's monograph series known as Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory. This series is the equivalent of a journal. It has a general editor, Brian Skyrms (who, by the way, is a member of the National Academy of Sciences). It also has an editorial board, which at the time of publication consisted of the following: Ernest Adams, Ken Binmore, Jeremy Buttterfield, Persi Diaconis, William Harper, John Harsanyi, Richard Jeffrey, Wolfgang Spohn, Patrick Suppes, Amos Tversky, and Sandy Zabell. This editorial board is a literal who's who in the statistics and inductive reasoning world. Persi Diaconis (Stanford) and Sandy Zabell (Northwestern) are personal acquaintances and are housed in the statistics departments of their respective schools" Math/statistics certainly qualifies as scientific... and the editor is a member of the National Academy of Sciences. The reviewers weren't all from philosophy and humanities. David Bergan 18:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

David, you're assuming that the entire board reviewed the book. They did not. Dembski states clearly the 5 philosophers reviewed the manuscript prior to publication. No Math or statisics profs. Sorry, move on.--ghost 19:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Huh? I think you misread it. He says 5 philosophy profs reviewed it for his PhD. Afterwards, this math board reviewed it so as to include it in their Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory series. We're talking about two separate reviews, one by the philosophers and the other by the mathematicians. If anyone on the math board for this second review read the book, that consititutes a peer-review. However, there is the possibility that Dembski's site is all lies... but then we should easily find someone who said that there was no review process for its inclusion in the Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory series. If not, TDI should be mentioned in the peer-review section of our article. David Bergan 19:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't misread. And I think you're missing my point. The philoposphers read & peer reviewed the manuscript prior to publication. Everyone else read it after. This, according to Dembski. He admits it not going thru the same type of critical review process that his mathematics dissertation did (which was not ID related). Further, he states reasons for avoiding just such a review of his later works. Unfortunately, this commercial decision left him and ID open to this type of critic. In hindsight, it was a severe stategic blunder. But we've all gotta put food on the table. As to Dembski's comments about the eariler standards of peer review, although they might be technically correct, no one as accepted those standards on over a generation. And the theories he quotes as being published without review have withstood the most intense of scrutiny, while lots more fell by the wayside. ID has not (yet).--ghost 20:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see your point... it was "published" (if you can call a PhD approval "publication") before the mathematicians reviewed it. But are you arguing that the mathematicians didn't review it and give it a pass before "publishing" it in their prestigious series? Or are you saying that their review doesn't count for some reason? David Bergan 21:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're making me repeat myself, but I'll give it a final try. Dembski 'feels' that TDI received a peer review greater than that of a normal scientific article. This because, it went past 5 philosophers and the review process for the Cambrige University Press(CUP) prior to publication. The more critical reviews that it received followed publication, so Dembski seems to write them off as sour grapes.

The arguement that undermines TDI's peer review is that same that underlies the ID debate as a whole. First, that the peer review of a PhD dissertation by Philosophers qualified TDI as a valid philospohical subject. Nothing less, but nothing more. Second, that Brian Skyrms is that only board member of the CUP that Dembski mentions being involved in the secondary review, thus we cannot assume that rest of this multi-disciplinary board was involved. Third, that the CUP published this as a book on philosophy, not hard-science. In this way, one could view the Discovery Institute's attempts to present it as hard-science as being disingenuous. Finally, that Dembski's use of sales figures as a way to measure credibility is about as ridiculous as saying that magic exists because Harry Potter says so.

In this way, the debate over ID as a hard-science resembles the debate surrounding cold fusion. Even the scientists that might like the idea aren't about to back it up until they see some hard evidence. They have no interest in putting their career's on the line for what could be a mirage. A lot of people are more than happy to approach ID as a philosophical debate. They draw the line where others attempt to cross it over to a hard-science. So, if we want to characterize TDI as a peer reviewed book on philosophy, I'm all for it. It's has failed subsequent peer review as a book on hard-science, so we cannot allow it to be construed it any other way.--ghost 22:29, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• D.D. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, 301 (2000): 585–595. This work shows that certain enzymes are extremely sensitive to perturbation. Perturbation in this case does not simply diminish existing function or alter function, but removes all possibility of function. This implies that neo-Darwinian theory has no purchase on these systems. Moreover, the probabilities implicit in such extreme-functional-sensitivity analyses are precisely those needed for a design inference. --netcody 15:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is wrong. The work does NOT show that. It shows that simultaneous conservative substitutions of several groups of amino acids can eliminate a specific function. It does NOT claim that neutral substitutions are impossible; in fact, it shows exactly the opposite. Graft 17:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My version of Acrobat's on the fritz, I'll have to confirm this tomorrow. But reading the abstract (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10966772) leads me to think that this is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle applied to amino acids. The only thing that appears to link this paper to ID is the accusation that the author is a closet-creationist. I frown on guilt-by-association, even if it's true. But no gold on this one. Next.--ghost 23:22, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• W.-E. Loennig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389–410. This article examines the role of transposons in the abrupt origin of new species and the possibility of an partly predetermined generation of biodiversity and new species. The authors’ approach in non-Darwinian, and they cite favorably on the work of Michael Behe and William Dembski. --netcody 15:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is a rather long review about McClintock's theories of transposons and control of gene expression/influence on evolution. It contains a very BRIEF aside mentioning irreducible complexity, and ONLY mentions it to say that the given transposon mechanisms are a possible way that apparently "irreducible" systems could have developed. Graft 19:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. And, since the full text is availible by subsciption only, we're forced to work from the abstract. (http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.genet.36.040202.092802?journalCode=genet) If someone would be so kind as to make the full-text availible, it would be much appreciated. One of the items I'm curious about is if any correlation was investigated between the TE "hotspots" and any known mathematical phenomenon. Prime numbers and fractals in particular. Both are seen in nature everyday, with little understanding of their causation. If there's a solid link between the TE "hotspots" and mathematical phenomenon, large chunks of Irreducible Complexity go BOOM.--ghost 23:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK, papers in Annual Review of Genetics are not peer-reviewed. --Rikurzhen 00:55, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766–775. The opening paragraph of this article reads: “Detection of complex specified information is introduced to infer unknown underlying causes for observed patterns [10]. By complex information, it refers to information obtained from observed pattern or patterns that are highly improbable by random chance alone. We evaluate here the complex pattern corresponding to multiple observations of statistical interdependency such that they all deviate significantly from the prior or null hypothesis [8]. Such multiple interdependent patterns when consistently observed can be a powerful indication of common underlying causes. That is, detection of significant multiple interdependent patterns in a consistent way can lead to the discovery of possible new or hidden knowledge.” Reference number [10] here is to William Dembski’s The Design Inference. --netcody 15:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No gold here either. First, I can't access the full-text of this. In fact, the only references that can be found are on websites that take an extreme position on one side or another. We can't address what we can't access. Also, I have some concerns that I'll address below.--ghost 00:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• M.J. Denton & J.C. Marshall, “The Laws of Form Revisited,” Nature, 410 (22 March 2001): 417; M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325–342. This research is thoroughly non-Darwinian and looks to laws of form embedded in nature to bring about biological structures. The intelligent design research program is broad, and design like this that’s programmed into nature falls within its ambit. --netcody 15:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is a pretty silly review, NOT research. Okay, yes, there's a limited number of protein folds. So what? First of all, it's not even clear that, say, TIM barrels are not monophyletic. Even if they aren't, this doesn't mean much of anything other than "convergence occurs". That's like saying "Mountains are all pointy - why don't they take on any of the OTHER bazillion possible shapes?!? OMG!!!" Dumb.

Anyway, these are NOT ID proponents' writings, and as far as I can tell, none of them are actually writing in support of the idea of intelligent design, even obliquely or unintentionally. Graft 19:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You got me all excited for a minute. I thought, OMG a link! (http://www.estovest.net/ecosofia/lawsofform.html) Little did I know that it was two paragraphs that concluded with:

"...If it does turn out that a substantial amount of higher biological form is natural, then the implications will be radical and far-reaching. It will mean that physical laws must have had a far greater role in the evolution of biological form than is generally assumed. And it will mean a return to the pre-darwinian conception that underlying all the diversity of the life is a finite set of natural forms that will recur over and over again anywhere in the cosmos where there is carbon-based life."--Denton & Marshall, Laws of form

And then your follow-up article destroyed the ID of the articles supporting ID with the statement:

"We speculate that it is unlikely that the folds will prove to be the only case in nature where a set of complex organic forms is determined by natural law, and suggest that natural law may have played a far greater role in the origin and evolution of life than is currently assumed."-- Denton, et. al., The protein folds as platonic forms: new support for the pre-Darwinian conception of evolution by natural law.

Duh. Symmetry in nature. Darwin does not discount symmetry in nature anymore than anyone else does. In fact, symmetrical forms have been shown to be advantageous, therefore Darwinian theory reinforces the likelihood of symmetry. If you doubt this, ask yourself why the model with the symmetrical face is more attractive than the Elephant Man. No gold.--ghost 00:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Come on DB, citing Dembski's own site as proof of peer review? Not compelling. Other more reputable sources (like the National Academies) have emphatically stated that no ID research has survived peer review to be published in any credible, significant scientific publications. I can provide many neutral, credible cites on this if required. Further, that ID lacks formal, credible peer review is a fact easily verified-- a search of PubMed [7] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) for the term "intelligent design" returns no hits for peer reviewed primary writings in support of ID. Netcody's cites are inconclusive. He alludes to each as supporting ID, I recognize several here as well-known examples of actual research that is often misquoted/misinterpreted by ID supporters, to the chagrin of the research authors. FeloniousMonk 18:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, I recognize from past months here most of the research cited on netcody's list allegedly supporting ID as being comprised of research commonly misquoted and misinterpreted by ID supporters. It was shown to be gratuitous then, read Archive 3. Nothing's changed in the interim, so no, there's no justification for claiming ID benefits from this or any peer reviewed works. FeloniousMonk 18:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW, Netcody, if you're going to put this number of people thru this much work again, please have the decency to provide links.--ghost 20:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And RTFA... FeloniousMonk 22:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Many apologies for my statement about the Al-Qaeda recruit, I did not direct the statement at any person(s) in particular; it was a rhetorical device to make a point. I understand that I have lost all respect in the eyes of everyone involved in this discussion, I had no idea this is taken so seriously. I apologize for my intrusion into this community.

On ID as the “antithesis” of evolution as “natural law”: ID supporters do not (or should not) claim that evolution is completely and entirely false. Nor will ID definitively disprove every shred of evidence that has been collected by biologist for the 100+ years. ID is seeking to understand how natural forces, random events, and intelligent activity each function individually and synergistically: INdependently and INTERdependently. Evolution and ID are not antitheses of each other, unless one forces them into opposition by making them say something they do not.

As to whether or not ID has credibility in peer review: of course, you are not going to find the phrase "intelligent design" in the “establishment.” There are, however, many quasi-design theoretic works being reviewed and printed. It was the same for Darwin: the establishment in his day rejected him outright. What began to happen was evolution-theoretic research accumulated, and eventually evolution gained a foothold. I see a similar pattern happening for ID. To speak directly to statements by the establishment (like the National Academies) about ID having no basis for research, ID scientists are building a basis, an intellectual foundation. Whether ID will directly benefit from the accumulation of design-theoretic peer reviewed articles is yet to be seen.

As for my future involvement with this discussion, I will submit any articles in this discussion to the community and do with it as you will, and certainly you will. --netcody 21:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

None of the references I read (I haven't got access to the last) provide any arguments in favor of intelligent design. How can you pretend they do? The pretense that ID is somehow slowly gaining traction within the scientific community is absurd. Graft 21:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Apology accepted (I can't speak for anyone but myself on that). In the future, if you come to a page such as this and use rhethorical speech, it's like shoving a stick into a hornet's nest. Expect to get stung. The references provided above are interesting, but either we can't examine them, or they don't back ID as you might hope. Further, I'm deeply troubled by the fact that: a)all of these references are several years old; b)they are all used (abused?) repeatedly by the Discovery Institute in their rhetorical publications. I challenge you to find something fresh that supports ID directly (not by insinuation), that isn't spewed from the lips of the pundits. Might I suggest looking into string theory? It's not there yet, but it's teetering on the brink.

For my part, I have no issues with ID being presented as a philosophical theory. The problem is that a vocal minority want to hold it up as scientific fact. That is unacceptable. We have a responsibility to the children who will read this reference we're writing to get it right. I ask all the editors to review the article with the idea that your kid will read it, as mine already are. Let's clean it up, it's too important not too.--ghost 00:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

false claims of vandalism

how does pointing out that everyone but kooks and religous nuts get called vandalism? all that guy did was clarify that no one with an education takes ID seriously and you folks jumped all over him. he did his best, and you nutcases insist on biasing this article into looking like people actually believe this drivel. wikipedia is about spreading knowledge, NOT lies and disinformation.

I'm glad you're talking to us. Thank you. There are people, however misguided you and I might view it, that do believe in ID. Wholeheartedly. And they are as entitled to their views as you and I are. Therefore, in the spirit of NPOV, we have to try presenting those views in as fair and straight-forward a manner as possible. Please note, that as you dig deeper into the article, there is plenty of the criticism that you gave voice too. But, as a dictionary starts with the definition, not the antonym, we must first open with what they believe.--ghost 21:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

maybe the article should be more modeled after flat earth's article then. They come right out an say that the belief is old and people moved on. people also beliew tha hallocaust never happened, that doesnt mean that an article about the hallocuast even needs to discuss it. infact, since ID is creationism plus an additional alien factor, shouldnt this entire article be covered by creationism?

The belief isn't old, or nearly as invalid as you suggest it is. Whether or not we disagree (which the majority of the editors here do actually), we have an obligation to report the facts and opinions presented to us, not what we personally think it boils down to. and I believe the hollocaust article does mention holocaust denalists, but I'm not sure. Mentioning them doesn't make it valid, its just noting they exist--Tznkai 21:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--um.. invalid is invalid..... it is not like intellegent design is half right... in the explanation of ID you are obligated to be honest ond forthright about its bogus claims. Allowing them to appear valid isa misuse of power and a failure to educate. You are right you asre obligated to report facts. then do so, dont let ID even appear valid, since there is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL!--uber

Invalidity is actually a term used in formal logic to refer to the structure of an argument, as a side note. Do you want me to go onto love and say that it is invalid and an outmoded thing of the past? With strict application of your criterion, that'd be technically correct. Our obligation is to make a useful encylopedia. We're reporting what people say, what other people say, without making our own ontological, epistimological or ethical judgements.--Tznkai 21:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Which is why the {{creationism2}} table is at the beginning. (Note, this table doesn't work as well in FireFox) In the table you'll see the flat-earth link. You efforts show that a overly brief intro maybe misleading. We tried repositioning the Table of Contents and the creationism table to move the more thorough explanation up. I'll give that a whirl now.--ghost 21:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

good deal. thanks for being honest, and open to reality. The flat earth example was simply that in the intro to that article, they come right out and say that it is a misguided beliefe from the past. --uber

I didn't mean to revert ghost's edit. I meant to revert the anonymous edit previous to his. I'm going to leave it alone now... --goethean ॐ 21:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Goethean. Uber, we will do what we can to address your concerns. Alot of us agree with you more than you might think.--ghost 21:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Another School Board Attack

[8] (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050621/ap_on_go_co/evolution_debate_1) HARRISBURG, Pa. - Experts on both sides of the debate over whether public schools should teach "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution — a question already before a federal court — sparred in front of a state legislative panel. FuelWagon 05:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oy. BTW, we never did get good stuff on the Kansas Board of Ed. controversy a couple months ago. Takers?--ghost 05:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

String Theory?

The paragraph on string theory seems out of place. The theory is in such an early stage of development that it would be hard to say what it even requires. Thus, it is pretty shakey as a criticism of ID. Objections to dropping the paragraph? S.N. Hillbrand 11:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, but recent developments in Cosmology may be appropriate. Particularly since many may deal with Irreducible Complexity, etc. Perhaps relocating it, or a rewrite is better? What would be great would be to have a template like {{creationism2}}. It would reduce the appearence of the creationism template 'labeling' the article, and provide links for the reader to explore. Thoughts?--ghost 15:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Would the template be about ID, or about recent developments in cosmology? (Assuming the former, I just inserted the {{creationism2}} code at Template:ID) --goethean ॐ 16:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nice, thx. Let's use this too. I was actually thinking of cosmology; is there one, or is it a hassle? (I really need to teach myself templates)--ghost 17:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's extremely easily. I'll set up a cosmology one if you'll insert the links. --goethean ॐ 17:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Cosmology --goethean ॐ 18:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wonderful, thx.--ghost 18:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I made slight mods to the multiverse part but I am still of the opinion that it should go. Reasons: 1-multiverse provides the possibility for other physical laws, doesn't change the potential that powerful aliens in this universe designed us, 2-gravity leaks deal with extra dimensions, not extra universes, 3-It is hard to critique a non-falsifiable claim with another non-falsifiable claim. Any thoughts? Nice Template, BTW S.N. Hillbrand 18:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What makes ID different than creationism

Arn't they the same with "god" replaced by "higher being"(which includes a "god")?

Replace "god" with "unknown agent(s)". P.S. sign your discussion with ~~~~. --Yath 20:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

so why have 2 complete entries in the 'pedia for what ammounts to basically one thing? IreverentReverend 20:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because the politics and strategy of the two groups differs. Joe D (t) 20:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

would it be a good idea to include a section highlighting that they are similar and pointing out said differences? the name "intelligent design" hides the closeness, as was it's intention, i bet... IreverentReverend 20:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and no. History of creationism explains why ID came about. The big problem with the ID movement is that they're good politicians, it's all smoke and mirrors. You accuse them of being creationists and they'll deny it, whilst at the same time refusing to criticise YECists, writing articles packed full of the age old lies in "Christian Monthly". So to be NPOV you have to write that they deny it, and so on. ID is a particularly clever type of creationism because whereas YECism is based on shaky foundations, ID consists of air. Dunc|☺ 20:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

it seems to me that one could stay npov 'ed but point out that they use the same arguments, ignore the same arguments, ect? " rose by any other name" and all... IreverentReverend 20:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"ID was born out of opposition to the theory of evolution" would be a perfect place to include that it was formed out of creationism.... IreverentReverend 20:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And that attempt is made (although doing so in the intro tends to infuriate partisans). The legitimate concern with doing that, is that you walk a fine line between presenting the topic and creating a straw man article. Thus the tone of the article becomes very important (and is not perfect now). Also, ID is modeled on many of the beliefs of non-Christians, forcing us to temper their point of view in the topics. This is why I've argued that the article should focus on ID as a philosophical concept, while presenting the scientific criticisms of those who view it as anything more. It's not perfect, but Wikipedia can't create an article only to turn around and call it crap.--ghost 21:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Holocaust denial does a pretty good job of presenting the evidence and stating that no one really takes it seriously. we could do more like them. I think you are taking impartiallity a bit far... wikipedia tries to be an encyclopia, and as such, should deal in facts, not emotions. so what if the 3 people that believe in ID get upset, as long as we stick to facts. I agree that impartiallity is important, but not to the point of allowing this entry to be misleading. If you avoid stepping on everyones toes, you end up off the true path and bogged down...--IreverentReverend

And if you go to Talk:Holocaust denial, you see something completely different. Such as one of the main editors stating, "...offending holocaust deniers is a GOOD thing." While I happen to agree with the guy, this is not how the NPOV policy instructs us to handle minority ideas we do not agree with. Particularlly minority ideas that are the main topic of an article. One of the Mediators chided me to "love" the other POV, and that's exactly what we're trying to do. If you think that ID is a minority opinion, not worthy of the time, fine. But be aware that there are more than 3 editors who give ID the benefit of the doubt. You're more the welcome to pickup the torch and run with it, but you'll need to answer to them.--ghost 08:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Intelligent_design"