Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Article Size

The article is getting a bit long, maybe we put "Intelligent Design Movement" into a seperate article? Also, this discussion page is pretty long too, does anyone know how to archive the older comments and trim it down? --Brendanfox 01:25, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think it's a bad idea to separate the movement from ID--I wrote something about this, above. (Basically, they aren't separate, at least not at this point in their history.) I agree the article is too long; it seems to me that the answer is to focus on offering a concise outline of the main figures, claims, and counterclaims here (plus links to outside sources), and move all of the more detailed descriptions and secondary arguments to the linked articles, like irreducible complexity. Some parts, like the "broader view" should just be cut, in my opinion. --BTfromLA 05:30, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I tend to agree that the "Broader View" is unnecesary. Also, I think moving the more detailed content from Irreducible and Specified Complexity into their seperate articles would be a good solution. As it is, I really can't see many people reading the whole article through from beginning to end, it's just too long. So - proposing to cut "Broader View" from the article, and significantly reduce the detail under the Irreducible and Specified Complexity headings - does anyone have any objections? --Brendanfox 09:11, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Go for it. I'd think about combing the IC and SC pro-and-con arguments into one heading, to avoid duplication. I think the pro- IC description is actually fairly concise now, and as the main argument, it's worth spending some space on that. Specified Complexity seems too long, and I think there could be fewer of the "additional" arguments that happen lower in the article. I've cut the "broader view" already. --BTfromLA 18:11, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hypotheses about the intelligent designer

There's a part of this section that, when I read it, ends up still be confusing. I'm hoping someone can clarify. The section I'm wondering about is this:

Different variants of ID, while careful not to make claims about the identity of the designer or the mechanism of the design process, they do make claims about the moment or moments in history at which the designer’s intervention occurred, usually assuming the designer to be conveniently available and capable at every place and time it is needed.So far, no ID theory claims to have found any evidence, trace or otherwise, other than the otherwise allegedly inexplicable implementation of a design.

This section raises the question, "what sort of claims do some make about the moment or moments in history at which the designer's intervention occurred?" Do they claim that the designer had to be present at a specific time (no later, no earlier) for things to work, or are they saying that the designer had to be there for the change to occur?

Obviously, there are some events in life that occur "conveniently" when the actor necessary for the event is present. The dam breaks "conveniently" in the midst of a huge flood. It's saying something entirely different if we say that the dam breaks when the flood occurs conveniently at the one instant in time (no sooner, no later) that would cause the dam to break. Which sort of time dependency are we talking about in the article? Can we clarify it some way?

Rholton, either the ID theorist hypothesizes that the Intelligent Designer was there at the time the irreducibly complex design appears, such as the first animals with certain aspects to their immune or clotting systems, or the first of their class to have eyes, or they have to hypothesize even further without any evidence, that a mechanism existed whereby the irreducibly complex design was hidden and transmitted in the genome without previous expression, until the time it appeared. Of course, other ID theories at the galactic and universe scales have other implications for the designer. For religious believers, looking for evidence of a role for their deity in intelligent design, they have to consider whether the intelligent designer postulated by these theories has qualities supportive of their beliefs. Some religions believe in a deity or deities that have personal relationships with the believers and give a special status to humans over say, other animals, plants or rocks. Some, strongly believe that their deity must have the qualities of omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc. Given the variety of ID theories, their implications for points of intervention, their claims to be evidence and science based, it is simply wrong to overgeneralize that no claims are being made about the designer, beyond mere intelligence. Possibly qualities the designer might have for instance, are longevity, secretiveness, uncommunicativeness, a tendency to leave many things to chance, no particular interest in humans or any particular species, etc. How much intelligence is also an interesting question, humans are capable of understanding most of the designs currently and have already modified some and are probably within a century of being able to make and distribute their own designs. A less intelligent species might also be candidate for the designer, perhaps requiring longer than a few thousand years of culture to accumuate the required technology. Perhaps the designer has a computer augmented intelligence, so the intelligence is not necessarily native to the designer.--Silverback 18:33, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not intending to be overly critical, Silverback, but I am having difficulty understanding what you are saying, or perhaps why you are saying it. My question regarded the type of time dependence and the use of the phrase "conveniently available". For now, at least, I'd just like to get this one point clarified.

If ID proponents claim that the designer was present when the irreducibly complex design occurs (or the information somehow hidden for later use), then it hardly seems NPOV to use the phrase "conveniently available". As I understand things, proponents of ID claim that the designer was necessarily present/involved when the design occurs or was hidden. In other words, that these things only took place because of the presence/involvement of the creator.

It is fine to include critiques of ID in parts of the article, but this sounds like a disparaging misrepresentation of the claims of ID.

If I have completely missed the point that you're trying to make, that might be good evidence that you need to clarify your point. -Rholton 03:46, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If I understand your point, I think I agree with it. "Conveniently" can be construed as POV, but no more so than the original text which claimed that ID made no assertions about the designer, whereas, it is clear that if the designer was available at all the times "necessary", that this is no ordinary designer of the type we are familiar with. I am open to "necessarily" as a more NPOV and less argumentative phrasing.--Silverback 04:59, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok. Now I see. I wasn't aware of what wes there previously. That helps me understand what you're saying. Perhaps we could say something like "although ID proponents make no explicit assertions about the designer, there are some implict assertions. -Rholton 06:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I thought about using the term "implicit", but people often refuse to acknowledge what is implicit, and a term stronger than implicit, whatever that is, might be needed, since when a designer is explicitly invoked many times, ID proponents don't want to acknowledge any designer characteristics (other than intelligent), even though the explicit involvements they have invoked are an additional characteristic, distinguishing this designer from perhaps others that were not active or in existance at the places and times involved. Some of the invocations, rule out me and possibly others as the designer for instance. --Silverback 06:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

While this section is nicely written, I'm not sure if it's appropriate. ID advocates claim that the identity of the designer is outside the scope of ID. Also, the vast majority of ID advocates believe that the designer is the Christian God, so bringing up other hypotheses might lead people to wrongly believe that ID advocates spend a lot of time debating this sort of thing. By and large they don't. Those who believe that the designer is something other than God are a tiny minority and have no influence within the ID movement. Also, hypothesizing about the timing of design, its extent, etc. is something that ID advocates usually don't do either. They claim that the point of ID is simply to "detect design" and nothing else. In fact, this is something that they're often criticized for -- not coming up with hypotheses that could (possibly) be tested and weighed against each other. --Theyeti 21:37, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Avoiding discussing the implications of ID for the designer is an expedient which allows ID proponents such as Behe to speak at the same "conferences" as young earth creationists and to be equally whole heartedly embraced by the audiences. The conferences I've been to, Behe not only was never challenged on his old earth "stance", neither he, nor the audience, nor the young earth proponents made a point of any disagreements or conflicts with each other. It was more like sessions where they could practice their rhetoric and recieve applause for the points they could make which might be troublesome for the naive and uninformed acceptors of evolution.--Silverback 21:57, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Origin of the term "Intelligent Design"?

The current draft of the article says the term "intelligent design" was "popularized" by Phillip Johnson, but appeared earlier (than 1991) in "creationist literature." Is there a citation for this? Does the Discovery Institute make a claim about where the term, in its current meaning, was coined?

The term "intelligent design" can be found widely used in the 1989 creationist textbook Of Pandas and People. That's probably the first place in which the term was used as a replacement for "creation". But earlier creationist books use the term (and derivations of it) as well, Examples I know of include R.B. Bliss (1988), Origins: Creation or Evolution; and Lester & Bohlin (1984), The Natural Limits to Biological Change. --Theyeti 21:12, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Last Paragraph

Should the "Hypotheses about the intelligent designer" include the hypothetical God as benevolent? A God might be all-knowing and all-powerful, but does this mean His designs must be PERFECT? Perfection might be achievable to this God, but that doesn't mean He would want to design in such a way, our own idea of perfection could be completely wrong. I think it's a bit misleading to state that ID proponents "must find not only evidence of design, but the designs themselves must be flawless", and then state a few examples of flaws. I'm really not sure how you can justify that assertion (that the designs must be flawless). I also think that there are too many dot point examples there, if we are trying to keep this article concise and to the point. The articles looking really good, but the last paragraph is a bit rough. --Brendanfox 12:42, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sometimes wikipedia compromises are rough, the best result is when that roughness mirrors the reality of the arguments and status of the field. You make valid points and are welcome to add them if you think they can balance out the last paragraph, but the last paragraph, itself, balances out these attempts by ID proponents to claim they make no assertions about the intelligent designer, which obviously isn't true, because they would at least argue that they can eliminate you or I as the designer.

Your idea that the designer might not be benevolent or have other reasons for such lousy designs and still be omniscient and omnipotent, is a legitimate apologia, although one that conveniently makes the omniscient, omnipotent design hypothesis less testable, with the ever ready excuses, "he may like stupid designs", or "he wanted to be contrarian and make things more difficult", or "he wanted to be able to kill undetectably without apparently violating physical laws, so he needed a lot of chance things that could go wrong, like transpecific virus transmission", or "if the body repaired itself too well, he would have too hard a time imposing punishment, suffering and handicaps while remaining incommunicado", etc.

Perhaps I should also note that despite the possible apologias, conservative christians who hold out hope for ID as something that would throw a wrench into evolutionary dominence of the culture, if not as something they could whole heartedly embrace, might not be receptive to your proposed apologia. Many are quite fond of using terms such as "perfect" for the provisions God has made for them here on earth, whether it be climate, soil, food organisms, etc. --Silverback 21:44, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I meant to say, that the article should specify the hypothetical designer as benevolent, if it is to draw such conclusions vis-a-vis flawless design. I think ID proponents would respond that our own ideas of perfection aren't comparable to the hypothetical creator, if that creator is indeed all-knowing, than our knowledge would likely be meaningless in comparison, and so the fact that we have different ideas about how things should be designed is hardly suprising. Any objections to cutting back on the dot points, adding benevolent (to omnipotent and omniscient) and putting that response into the paragraph? --Brendanfox 07:46, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I do object to cutting back on the dot points, they are food for thought at least and are not excessive in number, although the who designed the designer one does not quite fit in this context, although it is the obvious next question. It is a different line of argument. I would not object to a response, but I would note that your response is not the ID response, which presumably would be scientific, something testable, rather than an appeal to the unfathomable mystery of omniscience. I would not object to the benevolence being mentioned in the response, but in the original, one should be able to criticise the designs even if the omniscient, omnipotent one was not benevolent. The design can be criticized relative to its function, not the intent (perhaps malevolent) of the designer. An immune system that screws up or a repair system that is inadequate.

One strange thing about Christianity (and perhaps other monotheistic createor religions) is that they feel some attachment to the omniscient, omnipotent categories, yet behave in ways that obviously show they don't believe it. I've witnessed attempts at healing prayer, that are careful to just focus on back pain or deviated septums, and avoid attempts to restore missing limbs. Most prayer to restore the twin towers and its occupants and those of the airplanes has already stopped, even though for an omniscient, omnipotent God it is obviously not too late. Even once new buildings are built on the site, they could be restored to unoccupied land someplace. There is a distinct lack of faith.--Silverback 00:46, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When the article mentions proponents who favour omniscience it inevitably leads into the pseudo-scentific realm because this concept is by definition above our level of understanding, unless we claim to know all. So the response can't be scientific, because the whole proposition involves a concept outside of the realm of science, as science is currently, and perhaps will eternally be imcomplete. The designs can be criticised based on there inability to perform certain functions, but the theory itself can't be criticised on this level, unless we specify the intent of the creator and then question whether there is evidence of this intent. If there were proponents of an omniscient, omnipotent designer who wasn't benevolent, then the inability to repair limbs would not need demonstration, they would simply say that their hypothetical creator didn't want us to have that luxury. I.D. is fairly vague, and even when the designer is described, it still becomes hard to back its proponents into a corner and demand some evidence, because with such absolute characteristics like omniscience and omnipotence we can't really predict how this creator would/should behave. I would still like a few less dot points, does any one else have an opinion on them?--Brendanfox 10:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

P.S. The Omniscient, Omnipotent God might realise that if the twin towers were restored, then everyone would believe in His existence, because it would give them proof, rather than having people rely on faith. Then again, if God was omniscient, he should be able to predict who would have faith and who wouldn't, without putting us through all this. Maybe He wanted a laugh. But I think you can still have faith in something's ability to happen if someone else wants it to, without actually expecting it to.

It is not clear that omniscience is qualitatitively different that our own understanding, it might just be quantitative, if it is at all possible. Now perhaps one can define it to be qualitatively different, but one can't define things into existance. Mentioning proponents who favor omniscience does not lead into the pseudo-scientific realm, because such proponents exist. The proponents may be forced into the non-scientific or non-testable realm to try to respond, which, of course, reveals their lack of sincere participation in a scientific theory. I suspect that those who are religious and believe in a creator, yet find this compatible with the physical world, processes (including evolution) and laws as we see them, believe in a less capable creator, one that can set things in motion within certain parameters, but cannot micromanage things everywhere at once.--Silverback 12:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So, in order for the proponents to sincerly participate in a scientific theory, they would have to restrict the knowledge of the hypothetical creator to being qualitatively equivalent to our own? If the knowledge was qualitatively distinct, then in being above our level of understanding it would be unscientific. I'm not so sure that the religious believe their creator to have the limitations you suspect, I think for many (myself included) the physical world that we know, is considered only a subset of a complete set: the spiritual/religious world.--Brendanfox 12:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Being "above our level of understanding", posits something beyond reason, and we've no reason to think such exists. Our comprehension of our universe is progressing just fine. If there is nothing beyond reason, then what omniscience offers if just more knowledge and perhaps more calculating power, which, don't get me wrong, are not to be underestimated. I doubt most religious have thought about what limitations God might have, and probably just repeat the omniscient, omnipotent mantra. But their behavior would seem to indicate they believe he is less than omnipotent, and their affection would seem to indicate that they believe he has provided and done pretty much as much as he can, rather than merely playing, what to Him, is patti-cake with an insignificant world. The people I see simultaneously embracing young earth creationism, ID and standard theological apologia, just are not thinking critically, because these are not compatible with each other, or with their common sense image of God. Do these religious folks really want a critical examination of the designs in the public schools? If we can spot flaws in the designs and can forsee a time with just a little more progression in our technology, when we can improve upon the designs, than we can also conclude that we are either more intelligent than the designer, or that its goals are not compatible with ours or that it is severely limited in some other way, perhaps just seeding microbial life, with its cellular machinery from afar, and perhaps was even so powerless as to be unable to prevent its own demise sometime in the long distant past. Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of the ID design movements efforts, but that is because I see it as a wedge issue that may separate government from schools, a dangerous (for us) and self serving (for the state) combination.--Silverback 21:24, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We're speaking fairly generally here, but in the case of Christianity the belief that Jesus Christ died on the cross to bring salvation, would be one reason to love God. We can't expect God to fix everything though, that would prevent an individual's free will, and life would just be monotonous. There might be other reasons that we can't comprehend, but because we can't understand our God, that doesn't mean questioning his abilities. For most Christians, the qualities that describe God come from reading the Bible, and going to Church, or more broadly, their own beliefs. It's where faith takes over from critical thinking, and we have trust in our God and his plan, without knowing what that plan is. I personally think ID is inherently useless in informing religion, as any scientific theory would be, to me they are two entirely seperate subjects, with science describing what life is, and religion: why do we have life. It is like trying to find hard evidence of Existentialism, to let one influence the other is to misunderstand the context in which they were formed.--Brendanfox 07:58, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have always been more inspired by the life, teachings and humanity of Christ than his divinity and death, made all the more remarkable because of the context in which he lived, although his philosophy is not completely unprecedently in the Jewish strains of thought at the time. Omniscience and omnipotence, always subtracted from his life and his "sacrifice", because it turns his death into play acting. Of course, for an omniscient God, no sacrifice or atonement is necessary, and certainly a simpler mechanism than human or blood sacrifice can be substituted as a mechanism for forgiveness of sins, a snap of the fingers or a slap on the wrist for instance, or pulling the wings off a fly. Frankly, I don't think the Biblical proof texts used to propose omniscience or omnipotence as characteristics of God, are important or determinate enough to make a central tenant of the religion.--Silverback 07:33, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

idle wonderings ...

what would happen if we removed all name-calling from this page? would we have a more encyclopedic article ... or would we find something horrible and vile ... like ... the FACTS!? no matter ... just a passing thought:). Ungtss 02:46, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Am I correct in assuming you're referring to the article, not the talk page? If so, what name-calling do you mean? I would like to think that you could get a consensus agreement to remove any unfair or personal attacks, but you need to be specific about proposed edits before people can react. FWIW, I think the recent changes to the opening are for the worse, and if you mean that saying the ID movement is connected to a politically conservative institute is "name calling", I would have to disagree; that is an important aspect of this subject (it is possible that there would be no entry on this topic without the Discovery Institute). But I'm not really sure what whether that is what you mean. --BTfromLA 04:44, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the article is pretty clean, and I haven't read the whole talk page, but I have a tendency to ignore any infantile name calling, unless it vandalizes the article, so I may not be sensitive to it. I just focus on the substance of the disputes. If it is on the talk page, just ignore it and judge the posts on their merits, if it appears on the article page, check again because it will probably be reverted by one of the active contributers before long.--Silverback 05:27, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i guess i just mean the references to pseudoscience, insisting it's "an organized political movement with a definite agenda aimed at the public," "just another guise for creationism," "strongly associated with conservative christians," a "conservative political thinktank," all that kinda stuff. not that they're demonstrably false (although they'd certainly be disputed -- especially since there are FAR more muslim creationists than conservative christian ones) -- it's just that they are one particularly critical pov that is irrelevent to the CONTENT or MERIT of what ID has to say.

If these were quotes in isolation, I would agree. However, the pseudoscience and "guise for creationism" are explained and justified, by pointing to the lack of falsifiability, etc. I wondered about the "conservative think tank" quote myself, if the group itself doesn't characterize itself in political terms then this would be just name calling, perhaps the author of the passage can justify this, why "conservative" and not "Republican" or "religious" or "fundamentalist" or "anti-evolutionist"? The political agenda, almost religious ignoring of the facts of environmentalists has been similarly exposed, so it isn't just conservatives that have been targeted. There is some doubt that ID is not being proposed in good faith as a search for the truth. Imagine the excitement that would really exist if we had found evidence of an alien intelligence or some convincing argument for God other than the only personally convincing "religious experience" or "gift of faith".--Silverback 07:41, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i think what we've got is equivalent to filling the "evolution" page with, "92% of professional scientists doubt or disbelieve in the existence of God. evolution is therefore strongly associated with atheism or agnosticism, and is promoted by many liberal and atheistic thinktanks, including the National Academy of Sciences. also, eugenics was driven by evolution in the past, and critics of evolution think it's pseudoscience." i don't think that's appropriate. evolution is an IDEA, just as ID is an IDEA, and i think the IDEAS should be left to stand for themselves. if the ideas are in fact pseudoscience, won't the facts speak for themselves?

Possibly, but we provide a service, if we point out the facts that make them pseudoscience for instance, and contradict their claims or show that their claims contradict themselves when we can. It will save new readers time.--Silverback 07:41, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

in the end, tho, i'm not actually arguing that we remove them. i know that won't fly with the critics of id, and they have a right to have their perspective on the page, just like everybody else. i just wish we lived in a world where ideas were permitted to stand for themselves instead of being bogged down in the ad hominem:). Ungtss 07:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hopefully, the truth can also survive the ad hominem. --Silverback 07:41, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Politically Conservative" is descriptive; "stupid fool" is ad hominum. The latter has no place in these articles. But there is a question of whether the descriptions are accurate and germaine to the topic. I agree that is it possible to load the article with so many qualifications and criticisms that it would become difficult to consider the ID arguments on their own terms. But most of the things you mention really do belong there, I think, as the history of the ID movement, far as I can tell, is the history of an organized campaign to create a widespread perception that ideas which the scientific community in large part considers to be pseudoscience are a scientifically legitimate alternative to the theory of evolution. (If "pseudoscience" seems like name calling, what synonym would you propose?) And if you look just a little more deeply at the principal actors in this organized campaign (Philip Johnson and the Discovery Institute folks), it is clear that the ID movement is largely motivated by politics, accompanied by an interest in promoting a monothestic religious belief (this is all pretty explicit in the "wedge" document, and in some of the other materials on the Discovery websites). So politics, religion, and the question of whether the scientific claims are legitimate are critical parts of any attempt at a disintersted description of the ID movement, I think. If we were to simply lay out the scientific arguments as they are presented by ID advocates without making it clear that the scientific establishment considers them nonsense, would that be allowing the ideas to stand for themselves? Isn't the encyclopedia supposed to place ideas in context? In my view, it isn't our place to declare something a scientific theory when scientific orthodoxy says it is not a scientific theory. --BTfromLA 08:52, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

all a valid pov, and that's why i'm not objecting to having it all in there ... i was just dreaming of a better day:). i believe in ID. i'm not a conservative christian. i'm not interested in politics. i have no desire to brainwash anybody else into my religious beliefs. i don't believe it is pseudoscientific -- i believe it is the most scientific interpretation available. but for some reason, the page representing my views is loaded with all the political and critical baggage ... while the evolution page remains almost entirely free of it. yes there are creationists who want to force their ideas on others -- and the wedge document shows some of those crazies. but the Humanist manifesto did a similar thing for evolution -- the first HM placed evolution as a doctrine in the "new religion" of atheistic humanism -- and evolutionists have continued to be very evangelistic about their beliefs. is there any mention of that on the evolution page? no. and i won't put it there, because i don't think it BELONGS THERE. evolution is an idea, regardless of the flaws of some of its proponents. as to "scientific orthodoxy," it was karl popper who said, "i don't believe success proves anything." but again ... i'm not gonna try and change it:). i just wish it didn't have to be that way. i wish the evolutionists would just substantively address the claims instead of systematically appealing to authority and labeling the adherents as religious kooks:). Ungtss 10:10, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Based on your comments, I think one point that should be made clear in the article, if it isn't already, is that there are believers in ID who do not subscribe to the whole Discovery Institute program. I, too, wish for a world where ideas are treated fairly and criticism is substantive. But I don't think the parallel between Discovery/ID and the Humanist movement and evolutionary theory is apt--so far as I know (and I'm neither a scientist nor historian of science, so I may be ignorant about some of these details), Darwinian evolution did not win acceptance because of the campaign of a "Humanist" organization. The organized Humanist attempt to promote an atheistic philosophy as a more "scientific" alternative to religion seized upon the sucesses of the theory of evolution to legitimate itself, not the other way around.

While "success" is not an indicator of truth, I think it inevitably does have a bearing on how ideas and institutions are portrayed in an encyclopedia. For better or worse, ID is a concept and a movement that is fraught with controversy about its origins in creationism, its associated political agenda and whether it is even relevant to science (by contrast, the theory of evolution is clearly established as a scientific theory); the closest thing to NPOV in an encyclopedia, in my view, is to present these controversies, even though there is no doubt that doing so casts ID in a less advantageous light than if the questions about its motives and legitimacy were overlooked. --BTfromLA 19:19, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

<<Darwinian evolution did not win acceptance because of the campaign of a "Humanist" organization. The organized Humanist attempt to promote an atheistic philosophy as a more "scientific" alternative to religion seized upon the sucesses of the theory of evolution to legitimate itself, not the other way around.>>

that's how i see ID. i believed in ID long before i'd ever heard of the discovery institute. i believed it the first time i looked at the stars. and the discovery institute is just one in a LOOOONG series of creationists ... including proponents like king david, saint paul, and paley, who made the same arguments in less scientifically-sophisticated cultures. the issue is, "does ID's science inform its religion, or does its religion inform its science?" the other issue is, "does the mainstream scientific community's non-religion inform its science, or does its science inform its non-religion?" i happen to think that true science informs ID, and that atheism informs evolution. others think that ID is just a vehicle for religion, while evolution is true science and belief in God is unreasonable under occam's razor. that's okay:). i just wish the speculation about why people believe what they believe could be left out and the ideas discussed for themselves:). Ungtss 22:06, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This article isn't looking too good

I'm about to place it on Peer Review. Really, we need to look at the structure of this article. It's all over the place at the moment. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:15, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It has just recently undergone a major rewrite, you should give the community time to sort things out. Do you have a constructive criticism?--Silverback 00:50, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Two suggestions: stop accusing people of bad faith, stop being nasty in edit summaries. Stirling Newberry 17:34, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

eliminating the broader view would not save much space. The size of the article should not be a problem, many articles are larger. Conciseness is the way to go, but that often takes more time and work.--Silverback 12:46, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I cut the following, on grounds that it really isn't needed. Agreed?: "==Diversity within ID==

Since the ID viewpoint does not prescribe the identity of the designer nor the mechanism by which the design was instantiated, ID is potentially compatible with a large number of different philosophies. The following views are all supportable within the narrow meaning of ID as an identifier of a past design action:

• ID only applies to life as investigated to date, on Earth, and is not an indication that life cannot originate through abiogenesis. This allows ID as a component of hypotheses that life on Earth was introduced by aliens, or as a result of panspermia.
• ID states that there has not been sufficient time for evolution to produce the complexity of life as observed even within the timespan available since the Big Bang, and thus the only available mechanism for the creation of life is one that is supernatural.
• ID states that the present knowledge of physics at the quantum level still allows that there are realms outside the well investigated space/time dimensions such that all natural explanations are not excluded.

Similarly, the observation of signs of design does not restrict the point of intervention, and the following possibilities exist:

• de novo creation of life
• intervention in existing organisms to introduce observed complexity
• on-going or intermittent intervention.

Further, there is no restriction on the number of designers responsible for observed life, so the number and character of intelligent design scenarios is potentially large."

(Statement of interest: I wrote the original text on which this segment is based.) I created this section to point out that Creationists are only one of the groups of adherents to ID, and that the conclusions from the key arguments in support of ID are so broad that they can be/have been adopted by any number of communities that seek to oppose evolutionary thought. That seems to have been lost in the - otherwise good - rewrite.

In particular, there doesn't seem to be any discussion of the fact that no conclusions can be drawn about the who, how, what, where and why of the origin of life from the ID principles, nor of the fact that the 'broad church' gathered under the IDM may be discarded when/if the primary objective of the 'Wedge' is achieved. Noisy | Talk 18:05, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Noisy, please take a look at "ID in relation to Bible-based creationism,' further down this page, and let me know whether the proposed paragraph there sufficiently covers the key points that were lost in my edits. --BTfromLA 16:06, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Disputed Article

At what point do we drop the "disputed flag for this article? --BTfromLA 18:11, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

this point sounds good to me:). Ungtss 18:17, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I only reverted to 18:23 dec 12

perhaps more needs to be reverted, if others believe that information and hard work are being thrown away or destroy much as a bull in a china shop. Any such major reorganization, should be done in a way which shows respect for the work of the community. I will support reversions deeper into the past, if that will provide more material significant to preserving this community's synthesis as the starting point for a more respectful reorganization.--Silverback 09:04, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Guess that makes me the bull. Consistent with recent talk, I attempted to cut the article down to manageable size, to organize the info more clearly, to eliminate redundant and digressive sections, and to offload sections of some long descriptions (such as specified complexity) into their own entries. Certainly no intention to disrespect the collective work here--rather, an attempt to address what I thought was generally percieved as an unwealdy article. While that job required making cuts, I did my best to retain everything that seemed relevant to the topic, in the interest of clarifying the main arguments. I'd really appreciate it if folks here would read through my most recent version, then add anything important that is missing or make other changes on an as-needed basis, rather than reverting whole-hog. I believe this will result in a better article. --BTfromLA 15:53, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It appears that Silverback didn't revert as far back as the title above indicates (thank you). So, is the crux of your problem with the edit my cut of the "ID and Biblically literal creationism" section? --BTfromLA 16:15, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think the omnipotent, ominiscient point is important. Many who support ID for religious purposes have not considered the implications.--Silverback 18:55, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My thought was--still is--that this point about the evidentiary burdens imposed on various strands of creationist belief is much better suited to entries like creationism and scientific creationism. Including a line somewhere that states that the ID proponents do not cite or necessarily accept Biblical accounts (or even the existence of a creator god) seems to me enough to describe the difference between ID and fundamentalist creationists. Anybody else care to weigh in? --BTfromLA 19:20, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ID in relation to Bible-based creationism

In response to comments from Noisy and Silverback, I propose the following as a replacement for the present "ID and Biblical Literalism" and "Other ID criticisms of evolutionary theory" sections:

"ID in relation to Bible-based creationism

Although the Intelligent Design movement is often portrayed as a variant of Bible-based Creationism, ID arguments are formed in secular terms; they do not cite Biblical evidence of creation, nor do they require that their adherents accept the Bible’s accounts or even the existence of a creator god. ID makes no claims about the identity of the designer, the mechanism of the design process, or the moment in history at which the designer’s intervention occurred. Thus, the conclusions from the key arguments in favor of ID are so broad that they can be adopted by any number of communities that seek an alternative to evolutionary thought, including those that support non-theistic models of creation. For example, the notion of an “intelligent designer” is fully compatible with the materialistic hypotheses that life on Earth was introduced by an alien species, or that it emerged as a result of panspermia."

How's that? --BTfromLA 20:51, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Each instance or piece of evidence that is pointed to as evidence of intelligent design, presumes a designer intelligent enough and capable enough to account for the circumstances, and the way ID is currently conducted, it is as if they assume they have a blank check for designer availability and capability at whatever the place and time it was needed. If they ignore the required characteristics and possible methods of the designer, then ID is not an independent theory it is just an disingenuous criticism of evolution. The one key defensible ID result, barring evidence of the actual designer or designers, is likely to be, that whatever remarkable characteristics the designer(s) must have to account for the evidence, it is certain the designer was not ominipotent and omniscient. This result would be arrived at outside of any reference to creationism, although it would be probably most disturbing to those creationists that have hopes of some kind for ID. Can you suggest some other place in the framework you have put forward that is more appropriate than this one you want to eliminate?--Silverback 22:50, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand your point, Silverback. Are you saying that the article is granting too much credibility to ID if it doesn't include your analysis of ID's troublesome relation to the concept of designer omnipotence? Again, it seems to me that questions about the powers of a supernatural creator are probably better handled within an article about theology, or perhaps in one that is devoted to comparison of various creation hypotheses. If you can find a credible source for this line of criticism of ID, perhaps it could be summarized among the criticisms of ID. But if I understand you correctly, you are arguing with those who are looking for a flawless, omnipotent creator--since ID arguments make no such claims, I have a hard time underatanding why that discussion belongs in an article that describing the ID movement and its arguments (although I'll grant that you many of its supporters probably do hold that view of the creator). --BTfromLA 23:39, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We are talking about cause and effect here. ID theorists see effects, such as apparently irreducable complexity, they posit a cause, "intelligent designer". There should be sections on the theories about that designer, are there some theories that the designer is local to this solar system? If not, the designer must be capable of interstellar travel or interstellar "seeding". When would the designer have had to be here or when would his design have arrived? One time or many times? Guided evolution for instance might require omnipresence. If you don't ask questions, and elicit theories about the designer, then you fall into a disinformation trap, of "explaining" effects blindly without seeing if the arey confirmed by other evidence of the cause.--Silverback 11:15, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It isn't appropriate for us to declare what the ID movement should address--unless the ID proponents propose theories about the nature of the designer (far as I know, they don't) or unless there are substantial printed resources that critique ID based on its failure to address designer omnipotence, I can't see a justification for including stuff about the characteristics of the designer in the encyclopedia entry. If the fact that ID doesn't address the designer leads you to conclude "ID is not an independent theory it is just an disingenuous criticism of evolution," well, yeah--many, including most scientists, conclude exactly that. But this isn't the place for our personal conclusions or spelling out the reasoning behind them. At least that's my view--I'd be pleased if someone else would weigh in here... --BTfromLA 16:24, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Scientific criticism often comes from outside the field being criticised. Electrochemists heard from the physicists when the thought they had discovered cold fusion, and physicists immediately found flaws in their calourimetry, even though the electrochemists were suppose to be the experts in it and had been publishing peer reviewed results based on the techniques for decades. Great scientists often contribute to many fields and infant fields are often the easiest for even mediocre scientists to make contributions to, because there is a lot of low hanging fruit and basic organization to be done. Biology often has to yield to chemistry and chemistry to physics. So ID proponents don't have to be the ones to propose the theories. They posit a designer and it is natural to ask who? where? when? And ID theories do address the nature of the designer, recall the designer is characterized as "intelligent". Physicists can definitely help, even if they are unfamiliar with biology, for instance, if an ID theory points to the designer being active on earth say 4000 years ago, then even if the designer left right away, it couldn't be more than 4000 light years away, and probably is much closer.--Silverback 21:14, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It may be appropriate to ask these questions of ID, if you consider it a theory worthy of refining. But the place for that is your own essay, not an enyclopedia entry. At least, not as I understand it. (Again, I invite others to jump in to this discussion). An encylopedia confines itself to describing established knowledge; it isn't the place for original arguments. So unless your arguments have become part of the printed record of debates surrounding ID, and are equivalently widespread as the criticisms listed in the summary, I don't think they belong here, no matter how legitimate. You have to make your voice heard within the primary discussions of ID before your point gets to be recorded here, in this secondary review of the topic. --BTfromLA 23:12, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have heard the arguments raised at an ID conference where Behe was presenting. I don't think the examples were the same, it is easy enough to think of those yourself.--Silverback 02:02, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Irreducibly complex intelligent designer

After reading the above comments (a very interesting discussion), I started wondering: The intelligent designer, as a supreme being, is irreducibly complex (or indeed even infinitely complex) by definition, therefore, if irreducible complexity must lead to the conclusion of intelligent design, does it mean that the intelligent designer must have been designed by another one? I assume that it doesn't, because otherwise it would lead to nonsense. But if it doesn't, and the designer herself didn't have to be designed, why the apparent irreducible complexity, even if true, must lead to the conclusion of the existance of a designer in the first place? Isn't it a question-begging reasoning, petitio principii, and a particularly fallacious at that? I would really appreciate if someone smarter than me could kindly explain this question. Thanks!! 83.31.15.11 13:29, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I would not claim to be "smarter" than you, but I think I can identify a flaw in your reasoning, which lies in your initial assertion, or perhaps in a shifting definition of the word complex. What definition are you using for complex? In Irreducible complexity, Behe's definition of irreducible complexity is:

a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.

Thus, complexity is defined in terms of "a system composed of several interacting parts". By that way of defining complexity, God is not infinitely complex, but rather infinitely simple. God is not a system, and is certainly not "composed of several interacting parts", even in Trinitarian theology, properly understood. By this definition, our conceiving of God is complex. God's own self, however, is not complex. I hope this helps. -Rholton 16:03, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Some of the "who created the creator" questions were discussed recently--look in the archive for something like "recursive design flaw." --BTfromLA 16:14, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Latest version (Dec 14)

I've restored some of my (non-controversial, thusfar) earlier changes that had been reverted, plus I added my proposed new paragraph in response to Noisy's concerns, and I left in Silverback's paragraph, though I remain dubious that the stuff about the omnisience of the designer belongs here for reasons noted above. It still needs work--I hope you agree that this version is a good basis for that further revision. --BTfromLA 20:49, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)