![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 85 | ← | Archive 87 | Archive 88 | Archive 89 |
As someone who believes in theistic evolution, which technically means that God intelligently designed the world using evolution, I think that Intelligent Design has becone a loaded word to refer to a YEC-like idea (i.e. theistic evolutionists believe in intelligent design (lowercase), but not Intelligent Design (capitalized)). I think it's a good idea to capitalize Intelligent Design throughout Wikipedia to emphasize that it refers to this specific thinking, or refer to it as the "Intelligent Design Movement" or something like that to distinguish it from theistic evolution. Félix An (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
It could be that the issue of capitalization is secondary to the more fundamental point that Félix An (talk · contribs) brought up: Should the article (or the intro paragraph specifically) make clearer distinction between a generic definition of "intelligent design" (possibly synonymous with theistic evolution) and the specific theory advanced by the Discovery Institute? The article treats the more generic aspects in later sections. The introduction, however, does not. Generic usage of this phrase continues to evolve. For example, the NY Times best selling book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind uses this term in reference to genetic engineering. Zukisama (talk) 05:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
I actually think the same observation (usage as both the pseudoscience and descriptive term) makes a point in favor of acknowledging something beyond the DI branded ID.Maybe if you had some use of it in a context in which the pseudoscience was not being discussed, but the fact that it only ever seems to be used as a descriptive term when the pseudoscience is part of the context, and/or the fact that authors always seem to mention the pseudoscience whenever they want to use it as a descriptive term does the exact opposite, and both of your links do just that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
In language, it is fairly common to use adjectives to modify nouns, as in intelligent design. Sometimes the two together will describe a new concept and then becomes a compound noun. If it is sufficiently notable and becomes more than a neologism, then writers will generally avoided the adjective-noun phrase unless they are referring to the concept. For example, Irish coffee refers to a specific alcoholic drink made with Irish whiskey. But there are a number of Irish coffee companies, such as Ariosa, that produce their own brands. When we call Ariosa an Irish coffee, Irish coffee is not a compound noun, it merely means coffee blended in Ireland. And note that Irish coffee when it is a compound noun is not capitalized. TFD (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
I have not looked at this talk page in a while, but would it be a good idea to turn the page Intelligent design into a disambiguation page where the reader can choose to read about either the Discovery Institute's idea of "Intelligent Design", the telelogical argument, theistic evolution, etc.? Félix An (talk) 22:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Providing a counter-argument to the God-of-the-gaps argument with relevant citation properly fits the context irrespective of whether the counter-argument is considered correct by a fraction of the viewers. Hence, in the spirit of this platform, please uphold the latest edit:
The God-of-the-gaps argument has been countered by Christian apologists including William Lane Craig.[1] However, the argumentation is not performed for the intelligent design hypothesis but rather against the general use of the God-of-the-gaps argument. The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
References
The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Surachit (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
– Capitalizing "Intelligent Design" emphasizes that it is a specific kind of young-earth creationism and not a general argument from "intelligent design" (see my reasons above). Félix An (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
The term "intelligent design" was adopted as a replacement for "creation science," which was ruled to represent a particular religious belief...If it were a proper noun, one would think they'd capitalize it consistently. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikipedia has a policy that says no personal attacks. The article violate Wikipedia's own policy. The word "pseudoscientific" should be removed from the lead because it is a derogatory term much like we don't allow the word "nigger" to be used in Wikipedia articles. 172.58.171.229 (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Whoever wants to use the term ‘pseudoscientific’ to describe the concept of intelligent design has not done their homework. The many books written by authors in the Discovery Institute should also be cited on this WP page. Please avoid references to religion which have no bearing on the subject. Instead, read ‘Return of the God Hypothesis’ by Stephen Meyer and leave any atheistic bias out of the WP entries for intelligent design. Intelligent design is grounded in science, not pseudoscience. 2600:1003:B021:B5C8:4407:C061:2E4D:821F (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me the distinction between the references and notes sections? Is there even one? I would have guessed it was citations including vs. excluding quotes, but there are ones with quotes in the references sections, and there are also references that serve the function of footnotes, like #8. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM. Yet again, if reliable sources can be found to show that ID follows the scientific method, then bring them. Otherwise the (many) sources in the article must prevail.
| ||
---|---|---|
change "Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God" to "Intelligent design (ID) is an argument for the existence of God" and put somewhere else "Intelligent design is considered to be pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community" CrocoDIilios (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't agree with this outcome. The "all reliable sources" in the first sentence of the article are not particularly impressive...Intelligent design follows the scientific method, and thus by definition can't be pseudoscience. That a view which is supported by so much scientific discussion, including being spoken of favorably by physics Nobel laureate Charles Townes, would be pseudoscience is fantastic. Subuey (talk) 01:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Commonly considered by scientists to be" should be added before the "pseudoscientific" in the lead. 99.101.56.68 (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Intelligent design has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the ref "teachernet" (group="n"), please link "God-of-the-gaps". This footnote appears after the second-last sentence of the lead, and is therefore the first occurrence of the term in the article. 2001:BB6:4734:5658:55A6:58C1:F494:199E (talk) 11:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I can't see it even when I click on the links? — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 03:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Under the section "Status outside the United States - Europe" in the first line of the 2nd paragraph it states:
"In the United Kingdom, public education includes religious education as a compulsory subject"
This is incorrect. Religious education is not compulsory. Pupils have a right to opt out. R.E. is one of two subjects where parents have a legal right to withdraw their children from class. The other being sex education. This recent Parliamentary Briefing explains it within the first paragraph: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2022-0182/ 2A02:C7C:C030:7400:15F3:2B9A:FBF4:F659 (talk) 10:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Please do not remove! The first sentence gives an evaluation rather than simply a presentation. Name another WP article that does that! It is not WP policy.
Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God
is one pov that belongs in the article - in an evaluation section - but it does not belong in the first sentence. Articles about hypotheses which have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may note those critics' views; however such hypotheses should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific if a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists.
And there is scientific debate. Martin Reeses Just Six numbers is not about God or creationism, but it does raise the question of design - without asserting a conclusion. Even if one could conclude there is design, it would not prove God. That discussion is an application, a derivative. Tangling this up with, and defining it solely as, an argument about the existence of God precludes mention of any of any debate on the science itself. Simply present the concept being discussed without evaluation in the first sentence.
The fact the first sentence continues as presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins"
shows that the evaluation presented as universal, is not actually universal. This sentence says it is one thing, then says it is another, carefully wording it with "proponents" - although the term "opponents" was not used. Neither actually have a place here. Leave God out of the lead.
"Proponents claim" is a dead give away of bias. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying disregard for evidence. Based on the sources, "disregard for evidence" is not inappropriate framing. Today we'd call the tools they were using standard disinfo tools, and we'd dismiss several of the key publications as whataboutism. But the 1990s and 2000s were a simpler time. The DI folks were ahead of the curve when it came to misinfo.
certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selectionas an assertion. We could also label it as a statement that runs contrary to the evidence that was put forward to create doubt where none exists. What we can't do is present disinfo as if it were a simple, neutral statement. Guettarda (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Four arguments are examined in order to assess the state of the Intelligent Design debate.acknowledging that there is a debate.
First, critics continually cite the fact that ID proponents have religious motivations. When used as criticism of ID arguments, this is an obvious ad hominem. Nonetheless, philosophers and scientists alike continue to wield such arguments for their rhetorical value... [but] Placing the black hat on one’s opponent is no substitute for an argument.Yes indeed.
The first sentence gives an evaluation rather than simply a presentationIt gives a presentation of an evaluation. And that evaluation is that of the scientific community.
none of these responses address my actual complaintNot true. The link WP:GEVAL would have told you, if you had actually read it, that we
include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship.
The step of formulating ID as a cogent hypothesis has never been made, so discussing it as a scientific hypothesis is premature.Yours is the most on target comment here. The absence of a formulation of the argument is a huge part of the problem. That should probably be right up front in defining it, don't you think? This article begins with a definition of something that isn't clearly defined.
... until the article presents an accurate definition of what the ID argument is and says. Without ad hominem.Which is what it does. No further action required. -- Jmc (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
it has been claimed there is no debateDebate means that there are conflicting opinions. Within science, there are no conflicting opinions. There are only voices which all say the same thing. Which means that within science, there is no debate.
this article is solely about the religious aspect of IDThat is not what Bill said, especially not the "solely". You are wrong.
This article is about a specific pseudoscientific form of creationism. For generic arguments from "intelligent design", see Teleological argument.-- Jmc (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. I was beginning to wonder if the elephant in the room was ever going to be pointed out. The first sentence, as it now stands, should be no cause for concern regarding bias. This article is about the form of ID used in an attempt to sneak religious doctrine into public school biology classes, as opined by a US federal judge. That it was a rhetorical attempt to get around the First Amendment merits plain description early in the article. Treating ID as a lofty philosophical question in a vacuum, shorn of its social and legal context, would be a mistake. Just plain Bill (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I suggest this article needs to be retitled for better precision, less ambiguity and less confusion for our readers. Everyone agrees this article covers one aspect of a larger subject, specifically it's on the effort to push creationism into the public schools in Kentucky. Leaving this article titled as it is, with the Common name of the broad topic, implies it is a main article when this is actually a sub topic. That creates ambiguity and confusion. Per WP:Precision, this article needs retitling to represent its actual scope. Intelligent design creationism or Intelligent design in Kansas or Kansas schools fight Intelligent design or Intelligent design and pseudoscience - anything that isn't simply "Intelligent design" by itself. For that we need a main article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
this appears to be a “one against all” situation devolving into WP:BLUDGEON. The RFC below shows a strong consensus against title change. Hatting as unproductive. Dronebogus (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
|
---|
Since, as Jmc says, there is a Leaving the title simply "ID" is misleading since this is a limited topic article. As tgeorgescu says This article should, therefore, be retitled Critique of Intelligent Design creationism or just Intelligent Design creationism. Does anyone have a preference? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
The title is well sourced, and correct. As noted in the lead, "Although the phrase intelligent design had featured previously in theological discussions of the argument from design,[10] its first publication in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People,[11][12] a 1989 creationist textbook intended for high school biology classes. The term was substituted into drafts of the book, directly replacing references to creation science and creationism, ... From the mid-1990s, the intelligent design movement (IDM) .... advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula." The section intelligent design#Origin of the term goes into more detail, and makes the specific point that "Intelligent design" was the most prominent of around fifteen new terms [Pandas] introduced as a new lexicon of creationist terminology to oppose evolution without using religious language.[38] It was the first place where the phrase "intelligent design" appeared in its primary present use, as stated both by its publisher Jon A. Buell,[18][39] and by William A. Dembski in his expert witness report for Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.[40]" That's the usage covered by the ID articles, not the generic argument from design, no matter how much proponentsists try to conflate the two. . . .dave souza, talk 19:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Could someone explain to me in simple words what is being discussed here? Since I no longer get what is being discussed. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
|
I think the book The Biotic Message by Walter James ReMine probably deserves a mention somewhere. Watch this space, I'm finding it hard to search the archives of this talk page without saving this topic. It may have been discussed previously. Please reply if you can tell me of any previous relevant discussion. Andrewa (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Reference #4 in the article is to "Pigliucci 2010", but I don't see any source or cite with that.
Please add this info. Thanks.
- 189.60.49.251 (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)