Talk:Intelligent design

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Intelligent design article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89Auto-archiving period: 6 months

	Intelligent design is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 12, 2007.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 2, 2005 Peer review Reviewed January 21, 2006 Good article nominee Listed October 16, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 9, 2007 Peer review Reviewed February 23, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted July 24, 2007 Featured article review Kept December 14, 2008 Featured article review Kept Current status: Featured article

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to pseudoscience and fringe science, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

Arbitration ruling on the treatment of pseudoscience In December 2006, the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision included the following: Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

This  level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Alternative views High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Creationism: Intelligent design Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Intelligent design task force (assessed as Top-importance). Christianity Mid‑importance Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism Mid‑importance Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Mid‑importance Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Science / Religion Mid‑importance Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophy of science Philosophy of religion Skepticism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion Top‑importance Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning Intelligent design (ID). To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question. Q1: Should ID be equated with creationism? A1: ID is a form of creationism, and many sources argue that it is identical. U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and Phillip E. Johnson, one of the founders of the ID movement, stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast creationism as a scientific concept.[1][2] Not everyone agrees with this. For example, philosopher Thomas Nagel argues that intelligent design is very different from creation science (see "Public Education and Intelligent Design", Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 36, no. 2, 2008). However, this perspective is not representative of most reliable sources on the subject. Although intelligent design proponents do not name the designer, they make it clear that the designer is the Abrahamic god.[1][3][4][5] In drafts of the 1989 high-school level textbook Of Pandas and People, almost all derivations of the word "creation", such as "creationism", were replaced with the words "intelligent design".[6] Taken together, the Kitzmiller ruling, statements of ID's main proponents, the nature of ID itself, and the history of the movement, make it clear—the Discovery Institute's protestations to the contrary notwithstanding—that ID is a form of creationism, modified to appear more secular than it really is. This is in line with the Discovery Institute's stated strategy in the Wedge Document. Q2: Should ID be characterized as science? A2: The majority of scientists state that ID should not be characterized as science. This was the finding of Judge Jones during the Kitzmiller hearing, and is a position supported by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.[7] Scientists say that ID cannot be regarded as scientific theory because it is untestable even in principle. A scientific theory predicts the outcome of experiments. If the predicted outcome is not observed, the theory is false. There is no experiment which can be constructed which can disprove intelligent design. Unlike a true scientific theory, it has absolutely no predictive capability. It doesn't run the risk of being disproved by objective experiment. Q3: Should the article cite any papers about ID? A3: According to Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, papers that support ID should be used as primary sources to explain the nature of the concept. The article as it stands does not cite papers that support ID because no such papers have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Behe himself admitted this under cross examination, during the Kitzmiller hearings, and this has been the finding of scientists and critics who have investigated this claim.[7][8][9][10] In fact, the only article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that made a case for intelligent design was quickly withdrawn by the publisher for having circumvented the journal's peer-review standards.[11][12] Broadly speaking, the articles on the Discovery Institute list all fail for any of four reasons: The journal has no credible editorial and peer-review process, or the process was not followed The journal is not competent for the subject matter of the article The article is not genuinely supportive of ID The article is published in a partisan ID journal such as PCID If you wish to dispute the claim that ID has no support in peer-reviewed publications, then you will need to produce a reliable source that attests to the publication of at least one paper clearly supportive of ID that underwent rigorous peer-review in a journal on a relevant field. Q4: Is this article unfairly biased against ID? A4: There have been arguments over the years about the article's neutrality and concerns that it violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. The NPOV policy does not require all points of view to be represented as equally valid, but it does require us to represent them. The policy requires that we present ID from the point of view of disinterested philosophers, biologists and other scientists, and that we also include the views of ID proponents and opponents. We should not present minority views as though they are majority ones, but we should also make sure the minority views are correctly described and not only criticized, particularly in an article devoted to those views, such as this one. Q5: Is the Discovery Institute a reliable source? A5: The Discovery Institute is a reliable primary source about its views on ID, though it should not be used as an independent secondary source. One of the core missions of the Discovery Institute is to promote intelligent design. The end purpose is to duck court rulings that eliminated religion from the science classroom, by confusing people into conflating science and religion. In light of this, the Discovery Institute cannot be used as a reference for anything but their beliefs, membership and statements. Questionable sources, according to the sourcing policy, WP:V, are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight, and should only be used in articles about themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources. See also: WP:RS and WP:V Q6: Are all formulations of intelligent design pseudoscience? Was William Paley doing pseudoscience when he argued that natural features should be attributed to "an intelligent and designing Creator"? A6: While the use of the phrase intelligent design in teleological arguments dates back to at least the 1700s,[13] Intelligent Design (ID) as a term of art begins with the 1989 publication of Of Pandas and People.[14] Intelligent design is classified as pseudoscience because its hypotheses are effectively unfalsifiable. Unlike Thomas Aquinas and Paley, modern ID denies its religious roots and the supernatural nature of its explanations.[15] For an extended discussion about definitions of pseudoscience, including Intelligent Design, see Pigliucci, Massimo; Boudry, Maarten, eds. (2013), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem, University of Chicago, ISBN 978-0-226-05179-6. Notes and references Phillip Johnson: "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." Johnson 2004. Christianity.ca. Let's Be Intelligent About Darwin. "This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy." Johnson 1996. World Magazine. Witnesses For The Prosecution. "So the question is: "How to win?" That's when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing"—the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do." Johnson 2000. Touchstone magazine. Berkeley's Radical An Interview with Phillip E. Johnson "I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science."…"Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth?"…"I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves." Johnson 1999. Reclaiming America for Christ Conference. How the Evolution Debate Can Be Won Dembski: "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory," Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999 Wedge Document Discovery Institute, 1999. "[M]embers of the national ID movement insist that their attacks on evolution aren't religiously motivated, but, rather, scientific in nature." … "Yet the express strategic objectives of the Discovery Institute; the writings, careers, and affiliations of ID's leading proponents; and the movement’s funding sources all betray a clear moral and religious agenda." Inferior Design Chris Mooney. The American Prospect, August 10, 2005. "ID's rejection of naturalism in any form logically entails its appeal to the only alternative, supernaturalism, as a putatively scientific explanation for natural phenomena. This makes ID a religious belief." Expert Witness Report Barbara Forrest Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, April 2005. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., pp. 31 – 33. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., 4. Whether ID is Science, p. 87 "Science and Policy: Intelligent Design and Peer Review". American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2007. Retrieved 2007-07-19. Brauer, Matthew J.; Forrest, Barbara; Gey, Steven G. (2005). "Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution" (PDF). Washington University Law Quarterly. 83 (1). Retrieved 2007-07-18. ID leaders know the benefits of submitting their work to independent review and have established at least two purportedly "peer-reviewed" journals for ID articles. However, one has languished for want of material and quietly ceased publication, while the other has a more overtly philosophical orientation. Both journals employ a weak standard of "peer review" that amounts to no more than vetting by the editorial board or society fellows. Isaak, Mark (2006). "Index to Creationist Claims". The TalkOrigins Archive. With some of the claims for peer review, notably Campbell and Meyer (2003) and the e-journal PCID, the reviewers are themselves ardent supporters of intelligent design. The purpose of peer review is to expose errors, weaknesses, and significant omissions in fact and argument. That purpose is not served if the reviewers are uncritical "Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington". Biological Society of Washington. Retrieved 2007-07-19. See also Sternberg peer review controversy. Wilkins, John (9 November 2013), "The origin of "intelligent design" in the 18th and 19th centuries", Evolving Thoughts (blog) Matzke, Nick (2006), "Design on Trial: How NCSE Helped Win the Kitzmiller Case", Reports of the National Center for Science Education, 26 (1–2): 37–44 "Report of John F. Haught, Ph. D" (PDF). Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (NCSE). 2005-04-01. Retrieved 29 August 2013.

Archives

Philosophy sources

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

Shorten the SD

The definition of Intelligent Design should be as follows: is a philosophical/theological movement and subsequent teleologically scientific movement which seeks to reinvigorate and expand scientific language concerning the Aristotelian category of telos and thus expand the parameters of modern science and its tendency towards positivistic emphasis in the natural sciences.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountbrocken (talk • contribs)

I'll bite: what has ID to do with Aristotle? I followed many arguments, by proponents and opponents of ID, and Aristotle wasn't mentioned even once. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Time wasted with claptrap

The WP:Short description should be improved. One, the overall article is about the creationist argument. With this in mind we can describe ID as an "argument" and thereby give the potential reader the essence of the topic. But two, more importantly, "pseudoscientific" adds unnecessary POV. Would we be happy with an article title of Pseudoscientific arguments about the creation of the universe? No. But we do have various articles in Category:Cosmogony and Category:Physical cosmology. Would any of the articles benefit from SDs that said "Scientific argument about such & such"? Again, no. Let's just say that Intelligent design is an argument and leave out the unnecessary "pseudoscientific" adjective. – S. Rich (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] "'pseudoscientific' adds unnecessary POV". Can't see it myself. 'pseudoscientific' is used in the first sentence of the lede, so is clearly considered an integral NPOV element of the topic. As such, it merits inclusion in the SD; as WP:Short description says "These descriptions ... help users identify the desired article", so including 'pseudoscientific' functions to aid in identifying 'Intelligent design' as the article about the pseudoscientific argument. -- Jmc (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] I observe that the simple:Intelligent Design article on the simple English Wikipedia treats the subject drastically differently than this one and doesn't even mention pseudoscience. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia is not a reliable source. But maybe someone should change the simple:Intelligent Design article. I have experience there. Does one replace "pseudoscientific" by "stupid" or "wrong" to change it from English to Simple English? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] This is not a question of RS for either WP or Simple WP. (No matter what, the Simple ID article must be NPOV. And changes to the Simple article are best discussed there.) I "simply" ask that we remove the POV-laden "pseudoscientific" from the short description in this regular WP article. – S. Rich (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] This is not a question of RS Yes it is. You were trying to change this Wikipedia article based on what another Wikipedia article says, so you were trying to use the other article as a source for this one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] If something is science and looks like science, one does not need to mention that it is science. That is the reason why the "scientific" adjective is not used. Pseudoscience is something that pretends to be science, so it looks like science but it is not science. That is the reason why the "pseudoscientific" adjective is used. --Hob Gadling (talk) My concern is about the POV vs. NPOV tone of the SD. We can describe the article as "an argument about ...." and avoid saying it is "arcane", "former", "inaccurate", "irrelevant", "dismissed in scientific circles", "hogwash", etc. The WP:SDAVOID guidance says "avoid 'former', 'retired', 'late', 'defunct', 'closed', etc.." Removing "pseudo" helps us comply with this guidance. – S. Rich (talk) 04:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] No, it does not. Calling a pseudoscience "pseudoscience" is perfectly NPOV when reliable sources consistently call it pseudoscience. I think you need to actually read WP:NPOV instead of just saying it. Also WP:FRINGE, WP:PSCI and WP:FALSEBALANCE. Also, the logic "the rules say we should avoid X, therefore we should avoid Y" leaves something to be desired. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] If the words "pseudoscience" or "pseudoscientific" are to be replaced, I do appreciate Hob's suggestion to use the words "stupid" or "wrong" instead. - Roxy the dog 06:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] @S. Rich You've failed to address the point I made in immediate response: 'pseudoscientific' is used in the first sentence of the lede, so is clearly considered an integral NPOV element of the topic. As such, 'pseudoscientific' merits inclusion in the SD; as WP:Short description says "These descriptions ... help users identify the desired article", so including 'pseudoscientific' functions to aid in identifying 'Intelligent design' as the article about the pseudoscientific argument. You don't seem to have any issue with 'pseudoscientific' being used in the article itself, so your objection to it in the SD seems perverse. --Jmc (talk) 07:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] User:Srich32977 Can you put the existing SD alongside something proposed ? I am doubtful you will make headway for WP:SDLENGTH, but a definite comparison might at least get a focus back to about being shorter. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply] I agree. The inclusion of the qualifier "pseudoscientific" is superfluous to the point that it reeks of bias. I don't think it's a battle worth fighting. Yes, the short description is… not short. Especially when you compare it to the length of the rest of the article. Further, some of its content is redundant with the body content. But it's not just the first sentence that has a POV problem. The entire short description—nay, the whole article—is marred with bias to the point that it to me looks not salvageable. And even if it were, it seems that it's guarded by a group of ideologues: fanatics who will pile on their fallacious rhetoric until the hope is sucked dry from you by the tyranny of their majority. Emilimo (talk) 10:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply] Yup, the tyranny of WP:BESTSOURCES. <sarcasm warning>How sad!</sarcasm warning> tgeorgescu (talk) 11:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply] Straw Man. I am not criticizing WP:BESTSOURCES. When I say tyranny of the majority (which I definitely feel is happening on a large scale around discussion of this topic) I'm criticizing use of specific rhetorical devices and fallacious reasoning such as (but not limited to) argumentum ad populum and secondary implications such as groupthink, overconfidence in conventional wisdom and secular orthodoxy, false sense of inerrancy, and myriad intellectual vices such as appeal to ridicule which you just used on me with your sarcasm. I'm not without hypocrisy; I admit my previous comment used blatant ad hominem attack. But just because I indulged in intellectual vice for a moment doesn't invalidate my sentiment. A new article need to be written about what ID really is at a fundamental level—a theory of the origin of life—outside of and disconnected from its social contexts. Emilimo (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply] It isn't a scientific theory. Not even a scientific hypothesis. Because nobody took care to formulate it as a cogent scientific hypothesis. Phillip E. Johnson died without knowing the hypothesis of intelligent design. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply] That sounds like an appeal to ignorance. The theory is not valid because there hasn't been a person who has put it in a form that acceptable to you and the consensus/majority? Who is the authority on what constistutes a "cogent scientific hypothesis"? Why would we need Phillip E. Johnson to come back to life and do it for us? How do you know one is not already out there? Emilimo (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply] Wait you got me on another red herring there; I never claimed it to be a scientific theory. Which is why I think there needs to be a page presenting it without any claims of it being a scientific theory, similar to the page on the Big Bang. Just because I am suggesting the theory—in and of itself—as not scientific does not mean that it is pseudoscience. On the contrary it would arguably call for it to be, by definition of pseudoscience, no longer labeled as pseudoscience. You don't see the Big Bang theory labeled as pseudoscience. As should be the case with ID. Emilimo (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply] Big Bang, despite your protestations, is a widely-accepted scientific theory. For the metaphysical correspondent of ID, see Teleological argument. That, my friend, is a bona fide philosophical argument, but alas it has nothing to do with science. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply] That sounds like an appeal to ignorance Oh, the irony. ID itself is one huge heap of appeal to ignorance ("I tried to find a way how evolution can make things like X, and I failed"; insert every biological feature for X); it does not have any actual content beyond that. And that is the very reason why ID is no scientific hypothesis. You are talking to people with lots of experience debating "Cdesign proponentsists", and every time one asks one of them for the theory of ID, one gets crickets. How do you know one is not already out there? The burden of proof is on the person who claims that it exists. Bring it here, and everybody will be baffled, stunned, and surprised. Independent of that, this is not a forum. Your claim of bias is commonplace for every article about any pseudoscience - see WP:YWAB - and does not impress anybody. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply] Sources are sometimes bias as well. Given that it is a controversial topic we should add further in the article that "it is considered by most scientists a pseudoscientific argument" given the right sources, but not in the opening paragraph. Is like if someone made the opening paragraph of Gender pay gap to be "The gender pay gap or gender wage gap is the ALLEGEDLY difference between the remuneration for men and women who are working." - Barumbarumba (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply] The thing is, all pro-Intelligent Design sources are notoriously unreliable, and "unbiased sources" are invariably accused and denounced as being negatively biased due to accurately describing Intelligent Design as religiously-inspired, anti-science flimflam. Mr Fink (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply] I fully agree with you. Since the professional editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica didn't consider it appropriate to apply the label "pseudoscientific" to ID theory, it seems reasonable to avoid that in order to preserve neutrality. The better approach would be to neutrally include the statement by the US National Academy of Science saying that it isn't a legitimate scientific theory. I would argue that the term 'pseudoscience' is appropriately applied to theories like Flat Earth. Because ID has support from a number of scientists with relevant educational backgrounds, I believe it is more accurately categorized as 'fringe science' or 'questionable science' prominent supporters of ID include: award winning chemist Dr. Henry F. Schaefer III, professor of biochemistry Dr. Michael Behe, and Microbiology professor Dr. Scott Minnich. Further, a 2018 Pew Poll of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science found that 2% of members believed humans had always existed in their present form, and another 8% believed that human evolution was guided by a supreme being. [Elaborating on the Views of AAAS Scientists, Issue by Issue | Pew Research Center] BeLikeBritannica (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Read the FAQ. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] I created an account just to agree and complain about the rampant and abhorrent bias and POV narration in the article. While I do not subscribe to the belief myself, the rampant author judgments within is disgustingly transparent and, if I can be crass, immature and embarrassing to read to someone looking for information on the subject. When you have editors like Hob Gadling or Roxy the Dog using charged language like "stupid" to describe belief systems, it worsens the content of the site and makes this article read like the tangents of a lonely Redditor upset that they had to go to Sunday school when they were eight, rather than a source of information. For comparison's sake, the article on Scientology reserves such personal judgments, attributing labels of ingenuity and falsehood to third parties, not from the author's own original judgments. Similar belief systems are treated with more respect, but this one is marred entirely because of its prevalence in western culture. Such impartial author viewpoints are rampant throughout the article. A few keypoints of contention I noticed from a cursory search include the tangent of the Discovery Institution (cited from someone saying they're "a leader" because several members of the movement are "associated," as if there's any other article out there that pulls such vague weasel wording. To air out dirty laundry, it's very apparent that this is for the purpose of associating the article with conservative think tanks as a prelude, rather than as a detail later on in the history of the article, where such information should be placed). The line "Detailed scientific examination has rebutted several examples for which evolutionary explanations are claimed to be impossible." strikes me too (the preceding claims should be included in a summary, with these examinations placed in a proceeding criticism section. Such is the norm for most articles, but this one gets an exception because the editors REALLY want everyone to know their takes on it). "The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court ruling held the latter to be the case." line is out of place and only contextualized by scouring the references and notes before when this should have its own section, the line itself following what reads like original research on the dilemma of what the belief states. The article itself is littered with details that add very little ("A Discovery Institute report says that Charles B. Thaxton, editor of Pandas, had picked the phrase up from a NASA scientist, and thought, "That's just what I need, it's a good engineering term."") There is a separate article for that book; include the information there! In the section on concepts of the belief system, while generally more well-constructed, it still has its fair share of issues. The paragraph of "Critics point out that the irreducible complexity" is vague in referring to whom these critics are, which is embarrassing when the section on Specified complexity does this tactic of citing a vague "scientific community" correctly. The "Fine-tuned universe" paragraph has only one citation, and it doesn't even link to anything! The distinction of the ideology from the movement is made too little too late for how the article presents the relevance of the Discovery Institution... I could go on, but I have a feeling the people responsible for the poor state of the article have their heels dug in so deeply that they will refuse to acknowledge the myriad of problems within the article, so I'll abridge my grievances: the article is absolutely filled with author judgments more concerned with refuting the subject rather than presenting a clean, readable text, and as a result the article is filled with poor citations, clunky and out-of-place details, and an astonishing amount of frontloaded bloat. It has been an absolute chore to read this thing. I know this is going to be taken in bad faith to be misconstrued as "remove all criticism from the article," which is absolutely not backed up by anything I just said, so let me repeat that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking that the few people with self-restraint here actually structure the article to read like something trying to give an overview of the subject foremost, criticisms debunkings and all, in a clean, readable manner, and not like it was written foremost as a sloppy blog entry wearing the skin of an encyclopedia. OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] ID is a paragon of pseudoscience, according to WP:BESTSOURCES, and we have the website policy WP:PSCI. About Scientology: we don't say that because that is a matter of judging intentions rather than judging facts. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] I would implore you to actually read the post you're replying to. I do not care about validity of the subject matter (though I do think the "pseudoscience" label could benefit from a citation and end a lot of talk on this page if added, since one thing I keep seeing while reading posts here is that there's apparently a lot of sources calling it one). I'm discussing the poor state in which this article is written because it's entirely from people foremost interested in taking the ideology down a peg thinking they have article ownership and loading it with original research, to a point that it reads worse than other infamous pseudoscience topics. Similar articles have clear and lengthy sections for criticisms and debunkings that serve just fine. This one opts to make a massive mess of the subject. It's a badly written article. You can agree or disagree with the subject, but from an objective point of view the article is a mess. If I find the energy/time, I'll clean up a lot of my grievances myself. OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] The tone can get copy/edited. But the fact that it is patent pseudoscience should remain inside the article, very clearly and unambiguously expressed. In that respect we have no choice, since website policy is binding. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] The tone can get copy/edited. But the fact that it is patent pseudoscience should remain inside the article For probably the third time now, I don't give a crap about that label. I would even agree that it should be there if it was sourced. My problem is the article is poorly written. I have given several examples demonstrating this, please actually read those instead of arguing against a point nobody is making. OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] Okay, to the point: criticism sections are dissuaded. Criticism should be spread inside the article, refuting each point being made by the pseudoscientists. In other words: the fact that this article does not have a criticism section is a net positive, and the articles which do aren't good examples to imitate. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] Criticism should be spread inside the article, refuting each point being made by the pseudoscientists. Do you have a policy you can point to that illustrates that to be the case? This is one of the only articles I have seen on the site whose reading goes out of its way to meticulously try to debunk everything stated within it. This type of writing isn't employed in many other religious articles if at all, and reads choppy and unfocused. OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 01:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia:Criticism#Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] While I do honestly appreciate the attempt at giving a policy, the subject of this page should fall under an exception mentioned: "For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (Idealism, Naturalism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religion (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) – it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle. Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets." In the case of this article, there are several instances where this kind of information is haphazardly placed about because of the lack of refrain. I listed one in the article trying to link the subject to a conservative think tank, but there are more. OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] ID is propagated by a Christian conservative think-tank. It's not some accidental detail of it, it is so by design. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] The section as worded reads like a clear violation of WP:AWW. A stronger relationship than "The leading proponents of ID are associated with" should be provided, and this information should be listed in the section regarding the movement. While the information is important to include, in its current state it's not important enough to include in the opening section, much less before the early history of the ideology before YECs. OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 03:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] Let me tell you something: the people who hate mainstream science already got the message that Wikipedia is against them. So, we're writing for a certain audience, not for everybody. Our bias is not concealed. People who love Wikipedia, love it for such bias. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] This is an open encyclopedia, not your personal blog. I don't give a crap what windmill-tilting you seem to think is being waged against a couple hundred creationist nutjobs, the article is written like crap and I've given several clear examples and policies that showcase very specific examples. OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] @OldManYellsAtClouds Rather than yell at clouds, it'd be better to positively address issues. Here's a small example with a big issue behind it: you say, "The "Fine-tuned universe" paragraph has only one citation, and it doesn't even link to anything!". The reason it (and many pseudo-links like it) doesn't link to anything is the big issue and it needs someone with your energy to address it. -- Jmc (talk) 03:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] While I do appreciate the invitation, and will probably take it up when I have more time on my hands, un Judging byIsome of the rather... let's say "brash adamancy" of some of the regulars on this talk page i. I worry that such radical changes such as removing that problematic paragraph and rearranging the criticisms into a cleaner format would be misconstrued as trying to hide or mitigate criticisms against the subject matter. Rather than risk a one-sided edit war, it would be better for the people adding these text to just provide a proper citation and not make the article a complete mess.both carrying the article's current style, I suspect I may need to take your advice regardless. OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 03:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] As the article is protected, I'm working at a proposed rewrite that cleans up some of the grievances I have with the page on my userpage. As of writing I have the introductory paragraph glanced at. If you're not being coy, I'd like honest feedback on my proposed changes. OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] The introduction of an article contains the summary of the body of that article. So, unless the version you are proposing is very closed from the current version, any new introduction not properly summarizing the current version of the article is likely to be a non starter. --McSly (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] So, unless the version you are proposing is very closed from the current version It is, just a tad more streamlined, cleaned, and worded more impartially. I left commentary, including two explicit requests for citations. OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] You are requesting a citation for "pseudoscience". But no citation is given, according to WP:CITELEAD. So, yes, there is a reason why no citation is given. I saw the changes you advocate for: the changes are minor, and often not compliant with WP:PAGs. About impartiality, see WP:FALSEBALANCE. Also, I don't see why WP:RS should be provided for a hidden comment. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] You are requesting a citation for "pseudoscience". But no citation is given, according to WP:CITELEAD. So, yes, there is a reason why no citation is given. I believe the exceptions listed in MOS:CITELEAD are applicable here, given how contentious the label has been in these talk pages, and from the opening sentence of the article itself having five citations within it. Moving the fifth reference to specifically address the pseudoscience label adds no new citations to the lead and satisfies my complaint with that particular point. I ask in my suggestions for someone to provide a source since (1) I believe there may be a more readily-available source that could be used in its place, and (2) I typed it on mobile and don't like using the article editor for more than basic formatting. I saw the changes you advocate for: the changes are minor, and often not compliant with WP:PAGs. About impartiality, see WP:FALSEBALANCE. I'm tempted to evoke WP:SARC here, as "and often not compliant with WP:PAGs" is possibly one of the most vague and thus irrelevant complaints that could be levied. I ask for forgiveness in being heated for a moment; the idea that a simple cleanup to the article, a cleanup in which I've not added anything to even hint at the validity of ID and attempted to avoid WP:POVDELETION by retaining criticisms except in cases where it would be better to move information, is even remotely the same thing as trying to make a false balance is overly simplistic and a tad insulting. Wikipedia is not obliged to validate pseudoscience, I can agree and don't think either of us said otherwise, but it's also not a place for authors to engage against the subject (much less focus on discrediting fringe theories) to make it a messy read or use the notion of bias existing to go on tangents about the subject in ways that harm the objective tone and pacing of the article. The thing that really gets me scratching my head about all of this is that the sources and facts are against ID, so making a clearer article helps ID proponents none. OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 06:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] WP:FALSEBALANCE was a reply to more impartially. You proposed minor edits, so I don't see those as either cleanup of the article or making the article more impartial. This all debate seems therefore as much ado about nothing. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] WP:FALSEBALANCE was a reply to more impartially I never asked for more impartiality, I described this as a perk of the cleanup. Please follow the conversation. You proposed minor edits, so I don't see those as either cleanup of the article or making the article more impartial. I'll ignore the non-sequitur in that and reassert the context of what's happening: I am pulling teeth against a user who thinks WP:NOOBJECTIVITY means an author should argue against the subject of an article, and am being met with resistance for miniscule cleanups in the opening paragraphs. I would go through cleaning up the entire thing for its other myriad issues, but lack any trust that such exhaustive efforts would be met with anything besides someone violating WP:OWNER. This debate being "for nothing" can be amswered with one question: what is going to happen if I try to get even those simple cleanups in the lead put in? I hope, in that front, I'd have made a stink for nothing. OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] Well, friend, I'm only one editor, so I never decide myself the WP:CONSENSUS. WP:NOOBJECTIVITY is an essay, meaning it is neither policy, nor guideline. WP:PSCI on the other hand is website policy. So, obviously, website policy trumps an essay. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] Well, friend, I'm only one editor, so I never decide myself the WP:CONSENSUS. I'm really interested in what conversation you're having in which you're debating if ID is pseudoscience. It seriously is grating to read so many replies from you that fail to address even one point being brought up and instead go after some paranoia. WP:NOOBJECTIVITY is an essay, meaning it is neither policy, nor guideline. That argument is on-par with the "evolution is just a theory" sound bite creationists love. [WP:NOOBJECTIVITY] summarizes a policy which reads "which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Emphasis mine. Meanwhile you're on here justifying an article littered with WP:OR with "Our bias is not concealed. People who love Wikipedia, love it for such bias." I WP:PSCI on the other hand is website policy Is anyone here arguing that ID isn't pseudoscience? OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] WP:PSCI requires a certain tone of the article. While you admit that ID is pseudoscience, you seek to soften the tone of the article. E.g. downplaying that it is essentially a movement propagated by a conservative Christian think tank. And that it caters to fundamentalist Christians and evangelicals, since Catholics and mainline Protestants made peace with the theory of evolution. And that instead of seeking to discover new objective facts in biology, it is essentially a ploy to introduce God in sciences, i.e. despite the boundaries established by Immanuel Kant, who said he had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] WP:PSCI requires a certain tone of the article I do not believe you are meeting that tone. You are going beyond meeting explaining that the content of the article is wrong and are more focused on a personal mission to debate everything within it with Original Research. There's several instances where you're barely citing scientific experts or explaining that the counterarguments come from these experts. "A sufficiently succinct summary of the argument from design shows its unscientific, circular, and thereby illogical reasoning" <-- This is your conclusion presented without a source "Whether this lack of specificity about the designer's identity in public discussions is a genuine feature of the concept – or just a posture taken to avoid alienating those who would separate religion from the teaching of science – has been a matter of great debate between supporters and critics of intelligent design. The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court ruling held the latter to be the case." <-- Debated by whom? This is the closing paragraph of a section, not the beginning summary. Don't just reference the court ruling in-sentence either, put its verdict at the end and cite the case. "Variations on the phrase appeared in Young Earth creationist publications (...) there in the first place."" <-- Move source 34 earlier, since there's a clear split in the paragraph where it stops referencing material from it and starts referencing material from 33. "Critics point out that the irreducible complexity argument assumes that the necessary parts of a system have always been necessary and therefore could not have been added sequentially." <-- I don't have anything suggesting needing fixed here, I want to point out that this paragraph is mostly good. The vague "critics" is part of the introduction, but even it's cited, and later on it starts giving names with specific arguments. This is good. This is how the article should read. There's a lot of sections that read like this, and I feel as if it would be unfair to leave them unrecognized. "Irreducible complexity has remained a popular argument among advocates of intelligent design;" <--- I say the paragraph is "mostly" good because of this line. This should be reworded or removed. It doesn't help the proceeding explicitly cited debunking, and it is redundant. You are presenting this idea first in the argument list. Narratively, this weight assumes that it's a popular argument (avoid weasel words too). There are more examples, but I wish to move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldManYellsAtClouds (talk • contribs) 14:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] While you admit that ID is pseudoscience This statement reads as if you're proposing that everyone who agrees with the scientific community should be okay with the sloppy article, which is ridiculous. It's entirely possible to be objective about a topic known to be false, and to criticize an article on the subject for its shortcomings. you seek to soften the tone of the article (...) It is apparent you are not reading my posts, and came in here with a preconceived notion that everyone critical of the article's writing and structure must be a proponent of ID, and no amount of reasoning or given examples of the article's shortcomings will convince you otherwise. Get this through your head. Sit down and read this slowly, multiple times if needed: I am not arguing about the validity of ID. I am addressing the writing of a poorly-constructed Wikipedia article. It's as if you think not including the sources of these statement would make anyone susceptible to believing ID. When a lot of people see articles like this one, argumentized takedowns that use your own wording more than the scientific community's, they see someone with a personal grudge about the ideology and want to know why it made them so mad, and end up looking into it. Having names behind the statements make the content stronger and more reliable, which hurts ID more. Instead of squabbling with you further, I'm going to begin making some minor edits to the article to fix some of these myriad issues. OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] @Srich32977, I agree! Wikipedia should be neutral. I changed/removed "pseudoscientific" Leonardo da vin :D (talk|contrib.) 04:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] Typical creationist attitude: From a huge body of text, pick the part you agree with, ignoring all the refutations, and conclude that you must be right. You were reverted because Wikipedia does not work like that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] Uhh, yeah, but wikipedia should be neutral to everybody, and Christians are people, right, @Hob Gadling? Leonardo da vin :D (talk|contrib.) 16:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] Being "neutral" does not include having to treat pseudoscience as science. See also WP:YESBIAS and more controversially WP:YWAB. Black Kite (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] creationists think that its not pseudoscience. Leonardo da vin :D (talk|contrib.) 16:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] Creationists are objectively, demonstrably wrong about that. We don't include objectively, demonstrably wrong claims in an encyclopedia, that's exactly contrary to our purpose here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] Well, @MjolnirPants, you are wrong because evolution is demonstratably wrong. WRONG! What are the chances of something like life on earth randomly evolving out of pond scum? Amd besides, life can't come out of non-life. Also, natural selection can't gain information, it loses it. Amd those galapagos finches adapted, not evolved. This is why intelligent design by God is rigt! Leonardo da vin :D (talk|contrib.) 21:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] Exactly why this article isnt neutral!!! Leonardo da vin :D (talk|contrib.) 16:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] You need to read WP:NPOV to find out that "neutral" on Wikipedia does not mean "science and bullshit need to be treated equally". --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] Well, unfortunately for them, ID is actually the poster child for pseudoscience, it exactly fits the definition of something that is clearly not science being presented as such. I have no doubt that creationists disagree with that definition, but we follow the reliable sources. And doing that is what makes editing neutral (WP:FALSEBALANCE also applies here). Black Kite (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] I don't know why you insist: the position of Wikipedia about ID is publicly known for at least a decade. And no, it won't change just because you ask nicely. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] This is not about "Christians". This is about liars who pretend to do science while actually doing badly camouflaged religion, in order to circumvent the American constitution. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The definition of Intelligent Design should EXCLUDE the term pseudoscience and the definition should be this: is a philosophical/theological movement and subsequent teleologically scientific movement which seeks to reinvigorate and expand scientific language concerning the Aristotelian category of telos and thus expand the parameters of modern science and its tendency towards positivistic emphasis in the natural sciences. Mountbrocken (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replied above: it is not clear what Aristotle has to do with ID.

The only mention of telistic science was Thomas Nagel's paper on ID. For the rest, neither proponents, nor opponents made a connection between ID and Aristotle. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aristotlelian philosophy held that truth was established by quality of rhetoric and appeal to authority. For Aristoteleans, heavy objects fall faster than light ones, and both fall at constant speed. This was replaced in the 17th Century by the concept of fact, a loanword from law. Where truth was established by authority, fact was established by weight of empirical evidence.

Anybody who has been paying attention will realise that there has been a concerted effort over more than half a century to roll back the scientific revolution and go back to Truth as the arbiter of reality. This has been led by two particularly powerful lobbies: cdesign proponentsists and climate change deniers.

Wikipedia still runs on facts. Try Conservapedia. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forum posts about philosophy
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The definition of a scientific theory is not that has been proven (verified), but that the theory can be falsified. This must be the case, since an absolute verification is impossible for any theory (even mathematics and logic rely on assumptions which need not be true). And it is easy to falsify Intelligent Design. Just do a biological experiment to let any kind of organism evolve a flagellum where it did not have one at first. You may use any kind of environment to speed up the process. Then if ID can be falsified, and it is easy to imagine a falsification (spontaneous generation of life was pretty popular before it was discovered to be false), why call it pseudoscience? 77.164.151.163 (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] I think you should ask real Aristotelico-Thomists how they feel about ID. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] How is truth not the arbiter of the reality? If X is real, then we can say that the statement "X is real" is true. Empirical evidence is important precisely because it points us in the direction of the truth. And that's not to mention that "fact" is often defined in reference to truth. For example, Wikipedia defines fact as "a true datum about one or more aspects of a circumstance". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on "facts" mentions the word "truth" 103 times. If "facts" don't correspond to any truths (and are consequently false statements), then we should, in the words of Hume, commit them to the flames. Brent Silby (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] How is truth not the arbiter of the reality? Guy literally explained it in his comment. Why are you asking questions that have already been answered? If "facts" don't correspond to any truths (and are consequently false statements) This statement betrays a serious misunderstanding of what a fact is. If the truth and the facts disagree, then the facts win. Every time. Welcome to methodological naturalism. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] "If the truth and the facts disagree, then the facts win" There is no such thing as truth and facts disagreeing. Funnily enough, I don't even have to go past Wikipedia to demonstrate this. Wikipedia page for truth defines "truth" as "the property of being in accord with fact or reality". Wikipedia page for fact defines "fact" as a true datum about one or more aspects of a circumstance. Brent Silby (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] Two people can have diametrically opposite views, one according with reality and one not, and yet both can believe that they are speaking the "truth". Only one, however, will be speaking facts. Indeed, WP:V used to say that Wikipedia is based on "verifiability, not truth" and was removed for exactly the reason that some people found it confusing. Black Kite (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] What you just wrote would still be true if you substituted facts for truth: two people can have diametrically opposite views, one according with reality and one not, and yet both can believe that they are speaking the "truth". Only one, however, will be actually making true statements (assuming that their views are actually diametrically opposed). Brent Silby (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] If everyone only believed facts that aligned with reality were their "truth", you would be correct. In the real world, however, people believe many things, a lot of which are either non-factual or cannot ever be proved to be facts. Black Kite (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] I don't understand how that makes me wrong, though. The fact that people often hold false beliefs to be true and to correspond with reality only tells us about the less-than-perfect cognitive faculties of the aforementioned humans. Not to mention that there are lots of people who think that they hold factual beliefs, while they actually don't, so truth and factuality are in the same boat here. Brent Silby (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] I didn't say you were wrong, but in a Wikipedia environment the two words are not quite congruent, especially where we are talking about beliefs, such as in this article. Black Kite (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] Oh, I don't dispute the Wikipedia ruling and I understand why it was made. Basically, as far as I can tell, what Wikipedia means is that everyone has their personal beliefs/opinions, but Wikipedia only cares the academic consensus (as it should). My problem is that due to poor phrasing ("verifiability not truth"), it got many people to have confused takes about what Wikipedia actually cares about. That's why one of my favorite essays is WP:Truth, not verifiability. Brent Silby (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The connection with creationism should be removed

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.

---

Although ID points to a designer, it has little connection with creationism. Creationism wants to prove Genesis 1 fully, while ID only says there was a designer (like the Big Bang theory says there was a beginning) regardless of whether that was an alien, a supercreature or whatever. Of course speculation about the designer is common, but it does not necessarily have anything to do with the bible (how many other religions have a story about how life began?)

There are creationists who try to make use of the success of Intelligent Design, of course. But their opinions are not central or influential in the movement. It's like atheïsts making use of the success of pychoanalysis, and then considering the entire field of psychoanalysis to be motivated by atheïsm. Maarten Havinga (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read and understood the article? N.B. the hatnote and the second paragraph of the lead section. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Judging what is science or not is not something to be left to judges and courts. It should be the task of philosophy of science. Making it judged by a judge or court will not change the opinion of the scientists. Maarten Havinga (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

unless a motivation from philosophy of science is given by the judge or court, of course. Maarten Havinga (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice deflection. The Kitzmiller case came after the Discovery Institute's framing of creationism in "intelligent design" terms. The core thesis of the article may be found in the second paragraph's first sentence:

Although the phrase intelligent design had featured previously in theological discussions of the argument from design, its first publication in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 creationist textbook intended for high school biology classes.

N.B. the first sentence of the hatnote:

This article is about a specific pseudoscientific form of creationism.

I am finished with this thread. regards, Just plain Bill (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ID and creationism are thoroughly linked together through the proponents at the Discovery Institute. Other, similar, propositions are covered at Teleological argument. Black Kite (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From their website:

The two most prominent creationist groups, Answers in Genesis Ministries (AIG) and Institute for Creation Research (ICR) have criticized the intelligent design movement (IDM) because design theory, unlike creationism, does not seek to defend the Biblical account of creation. AIG specifically complained about IDM's “refusal to identify the Designer with the Biblical God” and noted that “philosophically and theologically the leading lights of the ID movement form an eclectic group.” Indeed, according to AIG, “many prominent figures in the IDM reject or are hostile to Biblical creation, especially the notion of recent creation'.” Likewise, ICR has criticized ID for not employing “the Biblical method,” concluding that “Design is not enough!” Creationist groups like AIG and ICR clearly understand that intelligent design is not the same thing as creationism. Maarten Havinga (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Yep, exactly. Maarten Havinga, you should read the article more carefully. I specifically direct you to the section mentioning "cdesign proponentsists", showing how they screwed up doing a basic search and replace while simply rebranding creationist books to ID books. --McSly (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't advise reading the article with anything but extreme caution indeed! Maarten Havinga (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

after all, my advisors at the UvA when I completed my master thesis did not consider wikipedia to be a reliable source. I'm pretty sure they back me up to read cautiously and check all the references. Maarten Havinga (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia agrees with your advisors at the UvA, so that's good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:29, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is also covered by the FAQ at the top of this page. So we should probably stop wasting too much time here. --McSly (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite you forgot to mention Isaac Newton in Teleological argument. See [1] bottom of page 35:

Moreover, the second edition contains the theologically charged and methodologically significant General Scholium, in which Newton, amongst other things, urged that the system of the world is dependent on “the design and dominion of an intel ligent and powerful being,” Maarten Havinga (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't intended as a forum to discuss ID, it's only for making changes to the article. To do that, you'd need to show that you read and *understood* the FAQ and not claim that it's just 'a judge'.

Furthermore, the science vs pseudoscience question is separate from whether ID is linked with creationism.

If you have specific changes you'd like to make, you can suggest them. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest to link the term to Isaac Newton as one of the first people using it as the underlying belief under his scientific works, and note that the opinions on ID being creationism or serious science differ among scientists. Maarten Havinga (talk) 10:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so what specific wording are you proposing? and what are the sources you want to use to back up those changes? With that, we will be able to discuss. --McSly (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that my opinion is not really liked here, therefore I'd rather not grind you on specific wordings and position. As source the pdf I gave is fine. For the rest, I leave it up to you guys, if or what you'll do with this talk - if you have questions for clarification, in case I wasn't clear earlier, I'll happily answer those. My wish is only the suggestion just above this comment. Maarten Havinga (talk) 16:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.

Should be mentioned as Creationism

in the lede, preferably even in the first 10 words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.72.161 (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Such impatience! It's in the third sentence of the lede, as well as in the hatnore. . . dave souza, talk 23:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]